On the heels of harsh statements from CREW and Greenpeace, two additional public interest groups have now called on Senator Murkowski to come clean and return $35,000 in campaign contributions from the lobbyists who wrote her Dirty Air Act amendment.

The Alaska Public Interest Research Group wrote the following:

It’s certainly reasonable for elected officials to seek out advice and input from issue experts when crafting legislation. That sort of thing happens all the time, with non-profits, academics, and administration officials alike. But when corporations make big campaign contributions, and then their lobbyists are handed the pen to write legislation that could benefit the corporation’s short term bottom line, it just doesn’t look right.

To get rid of the appearance of these pay-to-play politics, Senator Murkowski could do two things: She could abandon her amendment that would prevent a step forward on climate change. Or she could give back the thirty five grand, along with any other corporate contributions tied to lobbyists seeking to influence crucial energy policy decisions.

In an ideal world, she would do both.

And Public Citizen wrote:

To remove the appearance of corruption, Murkowski should give back the $35,000 and any other contributions she has received from clients of Holmstead and Matella. But if she really wants to show Alaskans that she values representative democracy over pay-to-play politics, then she should become a part of the solution to the underlying problem. She should support an alternative to the current corrosive electoral system and become a co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act. This bill would allow candidates for Congress to run without taking a dime over $100 from individual supporters.

But then again, a fair system with real accountability might make it tougher for polluters to prevail. It might not appeal to Murkowski and her big oil buddies, but it sure sounds like a good idea to us.

Curiously, Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon has repeatedly ignored EnviroKnow’s requests for comment for the past four months. This may have something to do with it.

Spokesman for Senator Murkowski loses temper with blogger, admits that major GOP talking point on costs of climate legislation has nothing to with legislation that is actually being considered.

On September 16th, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski joined a growing chorus of Republican politicians touting a flawed analysis of the costs associated with cap and trade legislation (see: Treasury Department, CBO, Media Matters, Politifact and Grist) by issuing this press release:

“It’s becoming apparent that the administration knew all along how much their cap and trade program would cost, yet they continue to claim it will cost no more than a postage stamp a day,” Murkowski said.

<snip>

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total cost would be between $100 billion and $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be $1,761 a year, on top of what they already pay in taxes to the government.

These statements are factually incorrect, and they are thoroughly debunked by the links above.

On Monday, I wrote about the eight Republican politicians (note: since then Rep. Pete Sessions joined the party) who had already begun parroting this false talking point. I followed up with many of these Republican politicians, requesting clarification on their factually incorrect statements. The most interesting response — by far — came by way of an series of increasingly heated emails between myself and Murkowski staffer Robert Dillon. Mr. Dillon is the Republican Communications Director for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The emails were followed by a brief phone conversation, in which Mr. Dillon made the following comments.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following exchange took place between EnviroKnow.com and Robert Dillon, Republican Communications Director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, via email.

EnviroKnow:

As you probably know, Senator Murkowski sent a press release last week touting an analysis of legislation that was never considered by Congress.

I was wondering if you have a statement on this or a response:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/18/lamar-alexander/alexander-claims-cap-and-trade-will-cost-consumer-/

Please let me know.

Thank You

Robert Dillon:

Mr. Nelson:

You requested comment on Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s release on the potential cost of cap and trade legislation? Please call or provide a phone number and I will call you back.

Sincerely,

Robert Dillon

EnviroKnow:

I am not interested in speaking on the phone. I need something written so I can pass it along to my readers verbatim. I think they deserve an explanation. If you are able to provide a written statement justifying the Senator’s use of unquestionably false information, please do so as soon as possible. If you are unable to do so I will be forced to indicate as such in my piece. Legislation as complicated as cap and trade is difficult enough to get right when everyone participates in the debate in good faith. Intentionally misleading press releases from United States Senators — with the explicit purpose of confusing constituents — is not acceptable and will not stand.

I anticipate your prompt response.

Robert Dillon:

I’m not sure there’s benefit in talking to someone whose already made up his mind about a story without even talking to the other side. That’s not journalism. We can speak on the phone first to discuss your story and then I may provide you with something written. I have reservations about responding to anyone who repeatedly calls a sitting US senator a liar without even having the professional courtesy to call up and engage on an issue.

EnviroKnow:

I’m offering you the opportunity to dispute my accusation that the Senator’s press release was factually incorrect. You can take it or leave it. I understand if you are unable to provide a substantive response, given the fact that the press release was demonstrably false. It would behoove you to come up with some sort of explanation for the factually incorrect press release, or you may risk the appearance of a de facto admission of guilt by way of refusal to engage.

Again — it is up to you whether or not you provide me with a statement, but I think a refusal to even attempt to back up the clearly false claims made in the Senator’s press release will come across very poorly.

I’m looking forward to your response.

Robert Dillon:

I have no guarantee that if I provide you with a response that you won’t edit it or doctor it to prove your point, which is incorrect, by the way. Without such a guarantee I’m not going to consider you an accredited journalist. You can either make a phone call and have a civil conversation and get information for your story and thereby serve the interests of your readers – or you can choose to do otherwise. It’s your choice.

EnviroKnow:

Well, sir, I’ll gladly offer my personal guarantee that I won’t edit or doctor your statement. Frankly, as someone who has never edited a statement in such a manner and would never even consider doing so, I take offense at the implication. I just want a statement from someone on the Senator’s staff — since it is perfectly clear to the casual observer that the press release was factually incorrect.

If you are unable to dispute my claim, I will indicate as such. But as evidenced by my continuing to correspond with you on this, I would much rather have a statement I can publish.

How about this? I’ll publish a screenshot of the statement rather than copying/pasting the text. That is perfectly reasonable, no?

EnviroKnow:

Is this suitable for you? I truly just want to publish your statement — in full and unedited — so my readers can judge for themselves.

Please advise.

Robert Dillon:

If that’s true then we can have a conversation via phone ahead of time.

EnviroKnow:

I’ll call you shortly.