If so, the easiest path seems to be through Senator Lincoln’s office. The Sunlight Foundation published a massive research project yesterday in which they mapped out the connections between Senator Lincoln and various lobbyists. You can see a full visualization of this here and read the research here.

On the heels of aggressive action from the League of Conservation Voters, Credo and FOE and Move On, the Sierra Club is now targeting Senator Lincoln with a radio ad:

The Sierra Club has launched a new radio ad campaign calling out Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) for her decision to co-sponsor legislation that would undermine the Clean Air Act’s protections for public health and welfare and bailout big polluters at the expense of job-creating clean energy and cleaner burning natural gas. The 60-second radio spots, which began running yesterday, will run for two weeks in the Little Rock and Fort Smith media markets.

“Not only has Senator Lincoln helped stall comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, now she wants to take us backwards and gut the Clean Air Act too,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “Senator Lincoln’s actions could prevent President Obama from protecting the well-documented threats to public health and welfare presented by global warming pollution. The legislation she supports would bail out Big Oil by halting the president’s plans to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil by increasing fuel economy standards and would also prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from cleaning up dirty coal plants and other big polluters like oil refineries. Senator Lincoln’s constituents ought to ask her why she wants to help Big Oil and out-of-state coal companies to the detriment of the clean energy businesses and natural gas industry that are actually creating jobs in her home state.”

Click here to listen to the add, or read the transcript below.

“Record job losses… foreclosures… rising costs… Arkansas is hurting.

“In these tough times, we need strong leaders to stand up to special interests, and help get our economy back on track.

“But NOW, instead of standing up for Arkansas’ future, Senator Blanche Lincoln is co-sponsoring legislation to roll back the Clean Air Act laws that protect us from polluters putting poison into the air we breathe.

“Health experts say that Lincoln’s action will undermine one of our country’s greatest health and environmental laws.

“They’re urging Senators to oppose it.

“And if this wasn’t bad enough, a major national newspaper reports that the legislation Lincoln supports was done at the behest of lobbyists.

“Senator Lincoln, it’s time to choose sides.

“Lobbyists and Washington insiders—or the health and welfare of Arkansas families?

“Call Senator Lincoln at 501-375-2993.

“Tell her Arkansas needs more jobs and clean air. NOT more favors for special interest lobbyists.

“Paid for by Sierra Club of Arkansas”

Post Carbon:

MoveOn.org is launching a series of hard-hitting ads this week targeting the three Senate Democrats–Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.)–who’ve co-sponsored Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The television ads, which will amount to a six-figure buy and run in Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska, feature unsettling images of Americans smoking to highlight their exposure to air pollution. The shots include not only a Little League team puffing away, but a woman giving birth and a woman holding her baby–in which BOTH the mother and baby are holding cigarettes.

Here are the ads:

League of Conservation Voters:

“Instead of embracing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that creates jobs, reduces carbon pollution and increases energy independence, Senator Lincoln has decided to cast her lot with Big Oil and other corporate polluters who oppose transitioning to a clean energy economy,” said Gene Karpinski, LCV President. “Most regrettable is the fact that Senator Lincoln is walking away from her previous support for climate legislation – and given the scope, urgency and magnitude of this issue, she has more than earned a spot on LCV’s Dirty Dozen.”

Senator Lincoln recently announced her opposition to comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, despite the fact that it will create new clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and curb harmful carbon pollution.  Senator Lincoln recently co-sponsored Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution, largely written by Washington energy lobbyists, designed to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare. Senator Lincoln has taken more than $1 million in campaign cash from Big Oil and other energy interests, with oil and gas companies being among the top five contributors to her campaign this cycle. She has a lifetime LCV score of 49%, the second lowest score for any Democratic Senator up for re-election this cycle.

Here is Lincoln’s response:

U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln today said that threats from outside special interest groups will not deter her from remaining a strong and independent voice for Arkansas.

Lincoln was targeted today by a Washington-based, liberal environmental group because she stood for jobs and economic growth last week as a cosponsor of a resolution of disapproval to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Ironically, this comes just two months after the Nature Conservancy of Arkansas awarded her the Dale Bumpers “Forever Arkansas” award for her significant and enduring contributions to the conservation of natural resources in Arkansas.

Lincoln said she is working for a 21st century energy policy that creates new jobs and she will not be influenced by pressures from outside special interests seeking to influence Arkansas voters.

“I have built a practical, common-sense record on energy and environmental issues while working closely with Arkansas environmental advocates,” Lincoln said. “Threats from extremist groups from outside our state tell me I’m doing something right for Arkansas.”

You be the judge.

Solve Climate:

Deep-pocketed industries and polluters, already basking in this morning’s Supreme Court ruling that cleared the way for more corporate political influence, got a gift from Sen. Lisa Murkowski this afternoon.

The Alaska Republican introduced a “resolution of disapproval” under the Congressional Review Act to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Three Democrats — Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — joined her as co-sponsors. Lincoln, in announcing her support for the measure, called the EPA “heavy-handed” and criticized the current climate bills, which would have Congress write the ground rules for regulation; instead, she supports an energy bill that would expand off-shore drilling.

Here is the text of the legislation, via The Wonk Room:

dirtyairact –

Following up on ads released today by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund and Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace has now released a report applying pressure on the five Democratic Senators believed to be vulnerable to cosponsoring Senator Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act amendment to gut the Clean Air Act. The report details ‘campaign contributions that these five Democratic Senators have taken from the lobbying clients of Jeffrey Holmstead and Roger Martella, the DC influence-peddlers accused of funneling campaign cash to Senator Murkowski’:

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana — Since 1997, Senator Mary Landrieu has directly received $152,668 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas — Since 1997, Senator Blanche Lincoln, who is the Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee and has jurisdiction over clean energy legislation moving through the Senate, has directly received $139,766 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.

Jim Webb of Virginia — Since 2005, Senator Jim Webb has directly received $25,700 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.

Byron Dorgan of North Dakota — Since 1997, Senator Byron Dorgan has directly received $119,446 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska — Since 1997, Senator Ben Nelson has directly received $65,770 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees.

All told, these five Senators have directly received $503,350 from these two lobbyists, their firms, their climate legislation clients, their PACs and employees, since 1997.

Here is Greenpeace’s report on this:

peddling-influence –

Additionally, Greenpeace sent letters to the five Senators mentioned above, attempting to clarify their position on Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act amendment. Here is a copy of the letter they sent to Senator Webb:

Webb Murkowski Letter-1 –

Senator Dorgan, one of the five Senators who received a letter from Greenpeace, refused to say whether or not he supported the amendment in a conference call today with reporters:

Dorgan wouldn’t say whether he might support a possible amendment by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to stop the EPA from regulating carbon emissions. But, he said, his “preference is that Congress address this issue and not the EPA.” How the amendment is crafted — most notably whether it suspends the agency’s regulatory power or completely removes it — is crucial, the senator added.

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones has the bad news:

Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski has gained co-sponsorship for her effort to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide from at least one Democrat, her office confirmed Friday evening.

Spokesman Robert Dillon said that one Democrat has signed on, though he was not able to confirm the identity of the Democrat. There are, however, plenty of ideas about who this Democratic cosponsor may be. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Jim Webb (D-Va.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), all previously on record voicing concerns about carbon regulation, have been floated as possible sign-ons. We’ve put in inquiries at all those offices and will update as more information becomes available.

Miles Grant thinks it might be Senator Webb.

I wouldn’t put it past any of the dirty Dems listed above. All five are in the pocket of the coal and/or oil and/or agriculture  industries. Then again, Robert Dillon, Kate’s apparent source on this, is completely full of shit.

Here is the national ad:

Arkansas:

Indiana:

By wide margins, Arkansas voters support the energy legislation about to be debated in the Senate. When asked about a bill that “limits pollution and greenhouse gas emissions through what’s been called a ‘Cap and Trade’ plan and also invests in clean, renewable energy sources”: 55% of voters support it and just 37% oppose it.

Here are the results:

All Voters: 55% Support and 37% Oppose
Democrats: 77% Support and 13% Oppose
Republicans: 39% Support and 54% Oppose
Independents: 47% Support and 44% Oppose
Rural Voters: 53% Support and 38% Oppose

Here is the results summary:

I hope Senator Lincoln is paying attention.

Yesterday, Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA). You can view a section-by-section summary and the full text of the legislation here.

Many bloggers have already weighed in with their initial reactions. What follows is a round-up of these first impressions, as well as a few thoughts of my own.

Bradford Plumer has a solid summary, running down the list of they key differences between Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey. Key among the differences are the preservation of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a “crackdown on carbon speculators” and “stricter scrutiny for biofuels.” Among (what I consider to be) the weak points in the bill, Plumer identifies increased incentives for natural gas production and use, and a voluntary mechanism for methane capture, which on first glance seems awfully short-sighted.

Brad Johnson writes that: “Incorporating the efforts of a number of senators, the Kerry-Boxer legislation has strengthened a number of provisions.” Among these, Johnson highlights the stronger emissions limits, funding for green transportation, and the preservation of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which the House bill foolishly gutted. Johnson also mentions a few Senators who have already attacked the bill, including Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Kate Sheppard makes an interesting observation: “Noticeably missing from both the bill and their rhetoric was any reference to cap and trade. Instead, they’re calling it a ‘Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment’ program — and they’re promoting the energy and national security benefits rather than the emissions reductions goals.” Sheppard also observes that, as of yesterday’s unveiling, there was no Republican support for the bill whatsoever.

Elana Schor laments the lack of focus on transport, writing that “transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill’s focus on their area — which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” legislation.” Schor also predicts that the bill will not make it to the Senate floor in advance of December’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen, but that “Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility.”

Steve Benen also expresses skepticism that some of the more promising measures will make it to the Senate floor. Benen writes: “So, does the bill have a realistic shot? It won’t be easy. The first step for Boxer-Kerry will probably be the easiest: it’s going to pass the Environment and Public Works Committee, perhaps by the end of the month. From there, however, it will be subjected to scrutiny in at least four other Senate committees, each of which will change the bill, probably for the worse. Some of the entirely worthwhile measures introduced yesterday are not at all likely to withstand the process.” This, of course, brings to mind the old adage that the United States Senate is where good ideas go to die. This statement is as true now as it ever was, as far as I can tell.

Brian Beutler discusses the arduous path the bill must take through various unfriendly Senate committees. In particular, Beutler mentions potential roadblocks in both the Finance and Agriculture Committees. Beutler also takes note of the bright side: “James Inhofe will spend weeks and weeks saying more and more ridiculous things about it. So that should be fun.”

Matt Yglesias raises the same concern that I will below: “Kerry-Boxer is a somewhat stronger and better measure than the American Climate and Energy Security bill that passed the House. But of course ACES passed the House whereas Kerry-Boxer will doubtless be changed many, many times.”

Joseph Romm focuses on the genuine improvement over the House bill in terms of offsets. Romm republishes a guest-post from an expert on offsets, who writes: “Probably the most important difference between the bills is that the Kerry-Boxer bill does not specify which agency would be in charge of administering and ensuring the integrity of any offset program. In the House bill, a last minute compromise switched all of the administration of biological sequestration offsets to the USDA from the EPA, a change widely criticized by environmentalists because of the belief that the USDA would not be as effective in regulation.”

A. Siegel focuses primarily on the price collar, detailing the pros and cons of the approach Senators Kerry and Boxer have used. In the end, he concludes: “From my perspective, for the next 10+ years, it seems almost certain that the floor will have more impact on actual carbon prices than the ceiling … thus, having that floor will help drive more emissions cuts than a program without a cost collar.”

David Roberts takes note of the fact that the bill is called Kerry-Boxer, rather than Boxer-Kerry as was previously expected. Roberts writes: “Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself.” He also speculates that this decision was due to Senator Boxer’s “bungling” of the Lieberman-Warner bill, which was the Senate’s last attempt to address global warming.

Personally, I’m cautiously optimistic. While — as others have pointed out — the bill as it currently stands is stronger than the American Clean Energy and Security Act is several crucial ways, it has a treacherous gauntlet to run before reaching the President’s desk. The two greatest roadblocks I anticipate are in the Agriculture and Finance Committees.

In the House negotiations, Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson was able to extract several major concessions which significantly weakened the bill. Pollution-powered Senator Blanche Lincoln, who recently took over the Chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture will undoubtedly take the opportunity to do the bidding of her agribusiness benefactors. It would be a true shame for the Senate to grant devastating concessions to Senator Lincoln at the expense of the environmental integrity of the legislation.

The Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus, is also likely to be a major thorn in liberals’ side. Baucus has been fighting behind closed-doors to have a major role in the key aspects of the bill, including the financing for cap-and-trade mechanism. Senator Baucus’ insistence on wasting months trying to secure Republican support — despite all evidence that such support would never materialize — has been a major detriment to Democrats’ ability to move healthcare legislation in a timely manner. Indeed, many progressives have now accepted that Baucus’ attempts to gain Republican support are little more than pretense for weakening the bill and delaying the process as long as possible.

A smaller but still significant concern is a group of Midwestern Democratic Senators — led by Sherrod Brown — who are intent on extracting concessions for manufacturers in their states. Senator Brown, speaking of Senators Kerry and Boxer to The Hill yesterday, gave the ultimatum: “They don’t get the votes from Midwestern industrial-state senators unless manufacturing is a major component of this.” While the Midwestern Senators do have some valid concerns, the manufacturers they are advocating on behalf of now join a long list of industries seeking favorable concessions (read: free emissions credits): Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Agribusiness, Oil Refining, Electric Utilities, etc. The true test this bill faces is whether or not it can work its way through the Senate without ceding so much ground to these industries that the environmental integrity of the bill is compromised. Either way, as Steve Benen notes, “it’s a fight worth watching closely.”