MSNBC hosted Breaux and Lott to defend oil and gas companies -- but failed to note they're lobbyists for them
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Andrea Mitchell discussed energy policy with former Sens. John Breaux and Trent Lott but failed to disclose that both are lobbyists for major oil and gas companies. While Mitchell said that Lott and Breaux "formed a firm" together, she did not note that their firm conducts lobbying or that its clients include oil and gas companies Chevron, Shell, and Plains Exploration & Production Co.
During the June 9 edition of MSNBC Live, chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell discussed energy policy with former Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Trent Lott (R-MS) but failed to disclose that both are lobbyists for major oil and gas companies. While Mitchell said that Lott and Breaux "formed a firm" together, she did not note that their firm conducts lobbying or that the Breaux Lott Leadership Group has clients that include oil and gas companies Chevron, Shell, and Plains Exploration & Production Co. Mitchell began the interview by stating: "Energy independence. Isn't that mythic? How can John McCain, Trent Lott, talk about energy independence when we aren't drilling, we haven't approved any new drilling, for a lot of environmental reasons, but bottom line, we have to import oil?"
During the segment, Lott asserted that America has to do "more drilling" and criticized former President Bill Clinton for vetoing legislation that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. Similarly, Breaux said that there are "huge potential reserves" in parts of the country, and "we gotta do what we can to develop our own resources right here." Breaux also criticized Sen. Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies, claiming that it "will produce less energy, not more."
According to a Media Matters for America search* of the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, Lott and Breaux are registered to lobby Congress on behalf of the following oil companies:
- Plains Exploration & Production Co. (PXP). Effective date of registration: 1/1/08. According to its website, PXP "is an independent oil and gas company primarily engaged in the activities of acquiring, developing, exploring and producing oil and gas in its core areas of operation: California, Rockies, Gulf Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Texas Panhandle, South Texas and the Permian Basin of the United States."
- Chevron USA Inc. Effective date of registration: 2/15/08.
- Shell Oil Co. Effective date of registration: 3/1/08.
A January 5 New Orleans Times-Picayune article reported that "Lott's out-of-the-blue decision to quit [the Senate] in December, before his term was up, was widely interpreted as a way of avoiding a new two-year ban on former members lobbying. That ban kicked in Jan. 1 ... Both longtime members of the influential Senate Finance and Commerce committees, Breaux said the firm will have a broad portfolio on tax, energy, health care and transportation issues." The Times-Picayune added that "Lott, a former Senate majority leader, still faces a one-year ban on lobbying the Senate, but he will be able to lobby the House and the administration."
An April 23 Roll Call article reported that "[l]ess than four months after he left office, former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has already scored a major payday downtown. The firm he founded with former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) earned at least $945,000 during its first quarter in business, according to House filings. ... On Feb. 15, it signed up Chevron, which paid $75,000 over the ensuing six weeks for help in the climate change debate. On March 1, it added to that list by signing three clients that each paid $50,000 for the month: Shell Oil (for work on offshore oil and gas issues); Nissan North America (climate change and clean air issues); and Northrup [sic] Grumman (naval vessels and an Air Force tanker), filings show."
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on June 9:
MITCHELL: Welcome back. The two presumed nominees are now focusing on the economy as gas and oil prices are soaring to record highs. John McCain told donors this morning that the nation needs energy independence. And right now, Barack Obama laying out the first steps, as you've just heard, to his economic plan in that speech in North Carolina. Former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott worked on John McCain's 2000 White House bid. He has now formed a firm with his pal, former Democratic Senator John Breaux. Welcome to both of you.
BREAUX: Glad to be with you.
MITCHELL: Energy independence. Isn't that mythic? How can John McCain, Trent Lott, talk about energy independence when we aren't drilling, we haven't approved any new drilling, for a lot of environmental reasons, but bottom line, we have to import oil?
LOTT: Absolutely right, Andrea. I think it is mythical to think we're going to be independent, but we can be less dependent. But in order to do that, we're going to have to produce more. We're going to have to have more supply, more oil and gas, more drilling. But we're also going to have to really go forward with getting nuclear plants, more hydro, alternative fuels, conservation -- the whole package. The problem is, Congress has not been able to come together with the administration to come up with legislation that will actually make America more independent and less reliant on foreign oil.
MITCHELL: Well, up until 2006, it was a Republican Congress and a Republican administration, and now you've got a Republican nominee, none of them talking about the entire package that you're talking about.
LOTT: Well, they should do that. You know, I used to say, you know, typical Republican, I want to produce more. That's the answer. More of everything. But I've came to the conclusion that's not the way you get things in Washington. Let's try alternative fuels. Let's go with bio -- you know -- diesel. Let's go with biofills. Let's encourage conservation. Let's give incentives. Let's do the whole package. You know, we did some positive things in the 1990s. We actually, for instance, passed ANWR legislation. President Clinton vetoed that. And we did an energy bill a couple of years ago. But it's just been nibbles around the edge.
MITCHELL: John Breaux, you're from the oil patch. How do you feel about your candidate talking about a windfall profits tax?
BREAUX: Well, a windfall profits tax is not going to produce a single barrel of oil. When we had a windfall profit tax back in the 1980s, we produced less energy than before we had the tax. A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies, but until we get the guys and women who produce the energy working with those who consume it, we're never going to solve the problem. A windfall profits tax will produce less energy, not more.
MITCHELL: So how is Barack Obama going to do in your state, Louisiana, and in the rest of the oil patch with this kind of proposal?
BREAUX: We have to have a balanced approach, and I agree with my friend, Trent Lott, on this. We cannot produce from Maine all the way to Key West, Florida, or from Alaska south all the way to San Diego. There are huge potential reserves in those areas. We at least ought to take a look and see what's there. We only have 6 percent of the world's energy in the United States. We're never going to have enough to be independent. We're going to have to look global economy as to where the energy is going to come from. But at least we gotta do what we can to develop our own resources right here, or we'll never solve the problem.
LOTT: I do think some credit should go to the Congress, the administration, and the industry for the fact that we passed fuel-efficiency requirements last year for the automobile industry. They were a part of the effort. They are going to be getting better, you know, fuel economy. And the industry is taking that leap now, going even to -- very soon -- all electric automobiles.
MITCHELL: What about John McCain and his relationship with the conservative evangelicals?
[...]
LOTT: I believe that most of those, you know, so-called evangelical, more conservative religious people will vote for John McCain. I hope so.
MITCHELL: Trent Lott, John Breaux, thank you very much.
*Media Matters queried the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database for "Lott, Trent" and "Breaux, John" under "Lobbyists / lobbyist name."















Real objective journalism there, MSNBC. Of course, as usual, taking advantage of the average voter's ignorance about what these ex-Senators are doing in their retirement.
What was that about Andrea Mitchell being a lib again???
JLyons I will turn this back on you ;-)
Some on here do not like MSNBC to be criticized. Are you sure you are not defending FOX?
You're doing it again, even after it's been explained to you.
JuliaJayne explained to you that it was not defense of MSNBC, but your unfair attacks on Keith Olbermann that happened.
No one has ever said (despite your assertion that "some say") that MSNBC cannot be attacked, or that those who call any particular attack on MSNBC fair are supporters of Fox News.
Considering that you claim that you don't want to continue this fight, why are you continuing this fight? Why throw a low blow on a new thread if you don't want to continue the fight? Maybe because you're not being honest about truly not wanting to participate in the nastiness?
Just stop. When you find yourself wanting to make a personal attack on me or JuliaJayne, just stop. Live with your own history, that you blatantly attacked Keith Olbermann for no good reason and repeatedly on threads that had nothing to do with him. Stop trying to attack others because they accurately pointed out your shortcomings - I even copied your own words, for god's sake. You have not been smeared by me. Get over it. You say you don't want to participate? Then stop!
Sue/Ellie/nomonbush
the only one who should stop is you. You keep bringing up Keith Olbermann and Julia, Give it a break Sue/Ellie/notthatgeorge and whatever sockpuppet you are now.
JuliaJayne explained to you that it was not defense of MSNBC, but your unfair attacks on Keith Olbermann that happened.
Bottleblonde, I know you hate me, i am sorry i took your parking space at the mall. Please tell me again what does Keith olbermann have to do with this thread? Where did i mention him on this thread?
"A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies........"
Exactly, it solves nothing except we will pay it at the pump. Corporations don't pay higher taxes, their consumers do. To think it stops at their gilded doors is naive.
Right on, Tommy. Either prices would rise or supply would fall, or both.
I'm "sure" that the gov, especially a Dem one, would ensure that the windfall tax revenues would go to "reinvestment". Just like the social security money stayed for social security.
it solves nothing except we will pay it at the pump.
Proof please? Or is this just another theory pulled out of your a**?
It's what happened when Carter got profit taxes passed. Do you need a lesson in Econ 101?
Why do you think a company would just pay more in taxes and leave prices the same? They will simply make money in another country.
Amid low oil prices, the tax was ended in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan
Looks like the sky didn't fall when it was enacted back in the 1980's.
"Why do you think a company would just pay more in taxes and leave prices the same? They will simply make money in another country."
Wouldn't it be just a tad diffucult to pass a "Windfall Profits" tax on to the customers? You would be charging more, which means your profits would be even higher, which means you could be paying more in WP taxes. A properly structured WP tax would not be assessed until AFTER a business has calculated it's profit...so it would not be a legitimate business expense to be deducted BEFORE caluculating profit.
Which only goes to show that it's a cartel, not an industry.
It's not supply and demand. It's not market forces. There is no competition. It's a cartel.
It's a cartel holding consumers and industries hostage to redistribute wealth to themselves. And their profits are ensured by American politicians ready and willing to send our most economically less-fortunate young men and women to die at taxpayer expense to secure the resources for them.
When their executives appear before Congress to account for it, they can make up whatever reasons they want. Whether it's "reinvestment," "global competition," or "we can't drill where we want to drill." They've got a lock box chock full of contingencies to divert the blame away from an $80,000 per-minute profit.
There are no solutions and I refuse to believe any candidate who says there are. We are truly screwed and we're going to get screwed even more.
There's a ton of competition in the global oil market. Are you serious? Exxon isn't even that big of a company, relative to the size of some in Russia and the Middle East.
Are you going to say that PC makers are cartels? Cellphone companies? Please.
Actually, you're right, there is competition, only it's not the kind of competition that benefits the consumer and dependent industries.
It's a competition to see who can charge the most, make the most profit, and give the biggest compensation packages to their executives, similar to the health care insurance industry.
Are you going to say that PC makers are cartels? Cellphone companies? Please.
Apple meet orange. Please.
I neglected to go there. PC manufacturers and cell phone providers fiercely compete for our dollars, it's a well-known fact.
Aside from a Safeway card discount, which I've heard amounts to a loss on the gas that gets made up from the required grocery purchase, there's vitrually no competitive environment when it comes to selling gas.
Senate Republicans just blocked action on the windfall profits bill, as part of their ongoing program of making sure the Reid-Pelosi Congress does not accomplish anything for the American People:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364846,00.html
Remember that next time you fill your tank, and especially remember it in November.
Save America. Vote Democratic.
And the talkers will scream once again that this is a 'do-nothing' Congress. And their stupid fans will eat and drink it all up like the ignorant and stupid little subjects they are.
Rinse. Repeat.
Wait, whoa. You just implied something I didn't know. Windfall profits taxes will lower the price of gas at the pump? Wow!
No. It means that the next time you're filling up, looking at the price, and complaining that no one is doing anything about it, you should remember that the Republicans in the Senate are blocking action on virtually everything. And that they should ALL be voted out of office.
(BTW, Carter's windfall profits tax might have reduced prices if he had been re-elected in 1980. Insatead, Reagan did everything he could to screw things up for the American People, all in the interest of making more money for his friends/contributors.)
The Carter induced WPT in 1980 only realized 20% of what is was projected to produce. Business proved it will not support an infrastructure for the purpose of supporting government. A WPT in the short-run would do little to change the price of gasoline, it might even increase it, as it did in the 80's as companies reduced production and focused iinvestment elsewhere. It would only be a boon for the government - a new source of revenue. In the long-run taxing an oil company on higher than average profits during a given period of time will affect business investment for the future. That, in turn, lowers investment in oil, raising the price at the pump, lowering wages, and lowering returns to investors. After all - satisfying investors, not filling governments coffers, is the primary focus of business.
After all - satisfying investors, not filling governments coffers or relieving consumers, is the primary focus of business.
Fixed your comment.
After all - satisfying investors, not filling governments coffers or relieving consumers, is the primary focus of business.
Thanks - but no thanks. Free market forces will set the price. Though I too am stung and perplexed by the recent prices at the pump I do believe in the free market system. When government interveins in the free market is rarely does more good than harm.
Free market forces will set the price.
Not in this case. You have people speculating in the commodities market who are wreaking havoc on oil prices. That's why gas prices have no correlation to supply and demand.
Interesting. I may be old-fashioned, but I seem to remember that in the supply-demand model, as demand drops so does price. Well, demand is dropping--some might say sharple--in this country for gasoline, but the price keeps going up. Of course, they have several musical-chairs-style rotating rationalizations for the failure of the free-market system--weak dollar, demand in China (did all the workers in China go out and buy SUVs the day Katrina hit New Orleans?), tight supplies worldwide, lack of refining capacity in the US (even though they're not even operating at capacity now?), somebody slipped on a banana peel in Nigeria--and since the attention span of the American citizen can be reasonably measured in nanoseconds, no one calls them to account, especially when pandering media wh!res like Andrea Mitchell give their lobbyists a free pass with no one from the opposing side to call them on their musical rationalizations...
And no, the WPT would not bring down prices for the consumer, since they would, unfortunately, pass it on to us, but frustration at oil company arrogance is starting to boil. I know it's a crazy solution, but since these executives are weakening the American economy in time of war merely for profit, how about a few treason trials for them, with appropriate punishments upon conviction?
but I seem to remember that in the supply-demand model, as demand drops so does price. Well, demand is dropping--some might say sharple--in this country for gasoline, but the price keeps going up.
You are correct however oil is a worldwide commodity, and it is the blood of industrialism. The gains we are making in the US by reducing demand are being erased by the increasing worldwide requirements.
how about a few treason trials for them, with appropriate punishments upon conviction
Oil comany exec's seem to be hauled before congress annually - nothing ever comes of it.
OOPS - forgot this link.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/dumb-or-ill-informed.html
I would love to see some examples of how gov't regulation does so much harm, but unrestrained free market capitalism does such wonderful things. Do you disagree that the deregulation of the banking industry lead to the S&L collapse? Or the deregulation of the energy industry lead to the Enron fiasco? Or the deregulation of the mortgage industry lead to the housing collapse? On and on. And, in the big picture, do you really think the economic costs associated with human health damage from a polluted environment are smaller than the amount of money an industry would lose from having to operate in a clean and safe manner?
Furthermore, there is already an abysmal record in this country of dirty industries such as energy exploration and production not paying their true costs of business. They already get away with passing on huge costs to the general public in the form of environmental damage that causes human health damage, ecological damage, regional economic damage, etc. If they were made to pay for the true costs of their operations, the bill would be massive. In reality, they barely scratch the surface and still whine and moan about too much regulation. Give me a break.
Anyone remember 1973-73? The first oil embargo. Every politician and economist said"We must end our dependency on fossil fuel". Since then we have continued to do nothing to achieve that goal. The next time you fill your gas tank, buy a bus/train/plane ticket, turn on your home a/c, think of your political leaders and their past/current stand on alternative sources of energy.