Environment Essay, Research Paper
The Blue Ribbon Coalition: Protector of Recreation or
IV. Blue Ribbon Coalition Funding is Part of a Larger
A. Lobbying Expenditures:
While the corporation that fund the Blue Ribbon Coalition are using the coalition to advance
their anti-roadless area protection agenda, these corporations also spend massive resources
lobbying both the Administration and Congress directly. Appendix A of this report includes a
complete list of the lobbying expenditures for companies and trade associations that sponsor the
Blue Ribbon Coalition and the number of lobbyists they have hired to advance their agenda.
This report looked at expenditures between 1997, when the roadless area policy proposal was
first announced, to 1999, the latest expenditure information available.
? Timber Companies and Trade Associations: Between 1997 and 1999, these timber
companies and their trade associations spent more than $9 million on lobbying expenditures and
hired 47 lobbyists, in part to advance their anti-environmental agenda in Washington, D.C. The
American Forest and Paper Association spend $6.9 million and employed 36 lobbyists during
this period of time. Boise-Cascade, which logs more on national forestland than any other
timber company, spent $866,500 between 1997 and 1999.
? Oil and Gas Industry: Between 1997 and 1999, the oil and gas companies and trade
associations that fund the Blue Ribbon Coalition spent $36.7 million and employed 93 lobbyists
to advance their agenda on Capitol Hill and within the Clinton Administration. Exxon-Mobil
alone spent $19.9 million and employed 13 lobbyists while the American Petroleum Institute
spend $10.04 million and employed 60 lobbyists during this time.
? The Mining Industry: Between 1997 and 1999, the mining companies that fund the
Blue Ribbon Coalition spent $300,000 and employed 6 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
B. Campaign Contributions:
Another form of influence by Blue Ribbon Coalition corporate funders is to look at the amount
of campaign contributions expended during the fight to undermine the Forest Service?s roadless
area policy (with the spiraling costs of running campaigns, these large contributions become
relatively more important to those who seek to govern). The extractive industries? interests are
furthered by the influence their contributions hold over who runs for office and who wins