A CBS News voting record analysis found that California Republicans in Congress voted against most (92%) environmental bills in the last session, even though surveys show that most of the people they represent think lawmakers should do more to prevent climate change.
The oil and gas industry donated nearly three times more to Republicans than congressional Democrats in D.C., who, in contrast to Republicans, rarely voted against environmental legislation (1%).
But that’s in the nation’s capitol where many of the environmental policies they’ve been debating — such as the Cap-and-Trade program, in which companies purchase permits for greenhouse gas emissions — are already state law in California.
A related CBS News California investigation found a different story in California, which has long been a leader in environmental policies and is among the nation’s top oil producers and refiners.
Among state lawmakers in California, we found Democrats are receiving more money from the oil industry, and Democrats in the statehouse vote with the oil industry and against environmental legislation more than a quarter of the time.
That is according to a CBS News California analysis of data compiled by the CalMatters Digital Democracy Database, which includes an analysis of legislative testimony and written opposition to bills.
When California lawmakers, especially Democrats, accept oil money or vote against seemingly climate-friendly bills, they are often criticized or accused of being beholden to the oil industry.
But are they?
We followed the oil money, analyzed the votes, and tracked down some of the lawmakers accused of “prioritizing the interests of the oil and gas industry.”
The story behind the votes
You might say Southern California’s Asm. Blanca Rubio (D) is living the American dream.
She and her little sister, Sen.Susan Rubio (D), “(are) the only sisters in the state of California that have ever, not concurrently, just ever been in the legislature,” Rubio explains. Both sisters represent districts in eastern Los Angeles County.
She stresses that it is an accomplishment, not just for the Rubio sisters but for their parents. Her dad was a migrant worker from Mexico who later worked at a carpet mill. Her mom was a housekeeper for 30 years.
“Those two people are the only people that have two daughters in the legislature,” Rubio said. “Not bad for, you know, being undocumented and deported.”
The family was deported when the Rubio sisters were kids. They later returned to the U.S. where Rubio remained undocumented until she was 13 years old.
Now, more than 40 years later, Rubio says her votes as a moderate Democrat in California’s Capitol are guided by those humble beginnings – and by her parents’ values.
“Very pragmatic. Very practical,” Rubio said.
But inside the walls of the State Capitol, some of those moderate votes have earned Rubio a nickname from some of her critics – “Big Oil Blanca.”
“For me, I always look at the unintended consequence,” Rubio said. “Not every community can afford whatever policy we pass out here, not because they don’t want it. Are they climate deniers? No. It’s because they just can’t afford it.”
Rubio was one of several Democrats targeted by a billboard campaign from the “Working Families Party,” criticizing Rubio – along with state Sen. Melissa Hurtado of Bakersfield and Bay Area Assemblyman Tim Grayson – for being among the Democrats who accept oil money.
All three represent counties where a recent Yale climate poll found a majority of respondents think their local officials should do more to address climate change.
Grayson declined an interview but said in a statement, “I review each bill on its own merit and always consider the impacts of legislation on the communities I’m honored to represent.”
CBS News California caught up with Hurtado at the State Capitol and asked her to explain her votes.
“I’d say I’m on the same page as [my constituents]. I want to reduce carbon emissions. I am a believer of climate change,” Hurtado said.
She represents Kern County, part of the largest oil-producing region in California.
“We have to think about what’s going to keep our economy going; what’s going to keep people employed,” Hurtado said.
Following the oil money
A closer look at the donations Hurtado, Grayson, and Rubio have received during their time in the Legislature shows that oil industry money comprises just a sliver of all their donations.
Oil & Gas money makes up about 3% of all of Rubio and Grayson’s political donations and less than 1% of Hurtado’s donations.
Capitol insiders note, however, that if any Democrat accepts oil money, all of them do because all Democratic lawmakers are expected to donate money from their individual contributions back to the Democratic caucus. As one lawmaker put it during a background conversation, “It may be washed, but oil money is funding the democratic caucus in California.”
CBS News California did a deep dive into the CalMatters Digital Democracy Database, which tracks every dollar donated to, and every vote cast by, every lawmaker in California. We analyzed more than 6,000 bill positions on more than 100 bills that the oil industry trade association, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), took a position on.
A cross-reference of donations with voting records indicates that oil money alone doesn’t necessarily translate to votes.
California Democrats, as a party, got nearly 25% more money from the oil industry than Republicans did during this session ($443,000 to $356,000) – mostly because there are far more Democrats than Republicans in California’s supermajority statehouse (93 Democrats to 26 Republicans).
California Republicans voted in alignment with the oil industry on the majority of all votes (93%) regardless of whether they received industry contributions.
Meanwhile, the Democrats who accepted oil money this session voted in alignment with the oil industry less than a quarter of the time, on average (23%).
One-third (30 out of 93) California democrats accepted oil money this session, including state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was the only Democrat to vote against big oil on climate-related bills 100% of the time.
However, it is important to note these are just the bills that made it to a committee or the floor for a vote. Insiders stress that lobbyists can kill bills before they ever get to a recorded vote. If and when a special interest group or party leadership convinces a committee chair not to set a hearing for a controversial bill, it can die without any recorded vote or public opposition.
The Oil & Labor Alliance
The oil & gas industry was far more successful on bills this session when the State Building & Construction Trade Council took an aligned position.
While the democrats who accepted oil money this session voted against the oil industry the majority of the time, most of those same democrats voted with the oil industry on bills where big oil teamed up with labor.
“Construction trades carry some significant weight here,” said author, lobbyist, and law professor Chris Micheli, who is widely considered an expert on the inner workings of California’s Capitol. He does not lobby for oil or labor.
Micheli notes that the trade union represents the people who work in oil jobs. “And these are good-paying jobs with tremendous benefits,” Micheli said.
“[Lawmakers who vote in alignment with oil] don’t want to be responsible for losing those jobs,” Micheli said.
California had more than 540,000 clean energy jobs by the end of 2023 – accounting for more than half of all energy jobs in the state, according to E2’s analysis of the U.S. Energy and Employment Report.
However, fossil fuel jobs in California pay, on average, 50% more than clean energy jobs, in part because of the strength of the fossil fuel unions, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute.
If oil companies leave the state due to increased regulation – the building trades lose jobs. This year, they teamed up and, so far, have been successful three-quarters of the time.
Analyzing bill positions dating back to 2015, it appears this session was the first in which State Building & Construction Trade Council took an aligned position with the Western States Petroleum Association on a significant number of bills.
Notably, their positions were 100% aligned on each of bills that both took a position on. So far (pending the governor’s signature/veto), their alliance has been successful on more than three-quarters of those bills (78%). The oil industry alone has a 50% success rate.
A similar Digital Democracy analysis by CalMatters earlier this year found “two-thirds of the bills opposed by the oil industry in 2023 were killed, thanks in part to an alliance with the building trades union, forcing Democrats to sometimes choose between jobs and the environment.”
In a written response to our findings, the Western States Petroleum Association said, “It’s not a surprise that we fight hard for our industry and consumers. California policies are often costly and restrictive, and the political debates around them are often one-sided and extreme.”
“In California, we produce energy using local workers under the world’s strictest labor and environmental laws,” added Tom Baca, Secretary-Treasurer of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and International Vice President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. “Until we are no longer dependent on oil and gas, we will fight to maintain these jobs at California’s refineries.”
“These careers provide uplifting and life-changing opportunities supporting families and communities alike,” said Chris Hannan, President of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Gas Price Concerns
While some lawmakers say jobs are the driving factor when voting against climate-friendly legislation, others, like Rubio, say it’s the cost of driving.
“Guess who pays the highest rates of gas?” Rubio said, referring to the price of gas in California.
Taxes and environmental programs account for nearly a quarter of the average cost per gallon in California, which, according to AAA, has the highest gas prices in the nation.
“When I vote, or withhold the vote, I make my constituents the primary focus of how I’m voting,” Rubio said. “For example, the fact that we’re all going electric, and there’s a deadline.”
Rubio points to California’s controversial landmark clean car regulations, which will ban the sale of new gas-powered cars in California by 2035. Experts now say it’s unlikely we’ll have the electric charging infrastructure needed to support the number of EVs that are expected in the state by the deadline.
“I think a lot of times (in) our legislative process… we vote on bills based on hopes and dreams,” Rubio said.
Her voting record shows that, like most Democrats, she votes against oil industry interests most of the time. However, when she doesn’t, Rubio says her vote comes down to the potential impact on her low-income constituents and people like her parents.
“I appreciate that we want to be first, but are we being thoughtful about the unintended consequences?” Rubio said.
Data Methodology:
Voting and donations
- Data on voting and donations comes from CalMatters’ Digital Democracy Database, which tracks every word spoken in public hearings, every dollar donated to politicians, every bill introduced, and every vote cast in California’s state government.
- Digital Democracy’s donation data comes from OpenSecrets and is categorized using the same sectors and industries. The “oil and gas” categorization is an industry in the “energy and natural resources” sector.
- Digital Democracy’s analysis of vote alignments with the oil and gas industry is based on 6,463 bill positions taken by the Western States Petroleum Association since 2015 (2,995 positions since 2023), either in the form of testimonies in committee hearings, as they appear on bill analyses, or both. The WSPA is one of the largest lobby organizations in California.
- WSPA has taken a position on 103 distinct bills where a vote was held since 2015 with 269 legislator voting opportunities. This includes 33 bills since 2023 with 116 voting opportunities. Digital Democracy classified 30 of those bills as “environmental” with opportunities to vote 108 times.
- When calculating party-specific averages and totals, CBS News California excluded votes from Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil, who recently switched parties. She received no money from the oil industry during this session; however, she previously accepted $6,900 from oil and gas interests.
Polling
Congressional environmental voting
- Data on congressional voting on environmental issues comes from the League of Conservation Voters’ National Environmental Scorecard, which tracks the voting records of all members of Congress on environmental, climate, environmental justice, and democracy legislation. Annual scores are based on a scale of 0 to 100 and calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes cast by the total number of votes scored except for excused absences.
This story is part of a nationwide CBS News and Stations reporting project on climate and politics.
- Foaad Khosmood, Forbes professor of computer engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, performed the Digital Democracy data analysis for this story with assistance from Thomas Gerrity, CalMatters Digital Democracy engineering manager and Hans Poschman, CalMatters Digital Democracy transcription manager.
- Grace Manthey, CBS News Data Journalist, provided the data and analysis of the Yale Polling data and clean energy jobs, in addition to assisting with the interpretation of the Digital Democracy data analysis.
- Sarah Metz and Tracy Wolf provided information about congressional representatives, their Environmental Scorecard rating, the money they’ve received from the oil and gas industry and which districts may be “toss-up” districts in the coming election.