DATA RELEASE: EPA Rules Delay on Boilers & Cement, Abortion Funding Ban - MapLight Analyzes Money & Votes on HR 2250, HR 358, HR 2681

Editor's note: Updated campaign finance data will be loaded to MapLight's database this week. Data source: Center for Responsive Politics

Please contact MapLight's research team if you're interested in learning how to use MapLight's MoneyNearVotes transparency tool to find campaign contributions given to individual legislators from interest groups, companies, PAC's & individuals within a month, week, or day of a floor vote.

For Immediate Release:
October 17, 2011

Forestry, Manufacturing, Petroleum Industries Get House to Pass Bill Delaying Regulations on Boilers (HR 2250)
House Puts Social Issues on the Calendar, Passes Bill Banning Federal Funding for Abortion (HR 358)
Cement Industry Overpowers Health Concerns in Advancing Bill to Delay EPA Regulations (HR 2681)

Forestry, Manufacturing, Petroleum Industries Get House to Pass Bill Delaying Regulations on Boilers

 The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed (by a vote of 275-142) HR 2250, which would delay a ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency on achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators. The measure was supported by the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The measure was opposed by environmental and health policy groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association.

All House Members

  • Petroleum refining & marketing, Chemicals, Forestry & Forest Products, Paper & pulp mills and paper manufacturing, Manufacturing and Chambers of commerce interest groups, which support this bill, gave on average 3.0 times as much to House members who voted 'YES' ($16,709) as they gave to House members who voted 'NO' ($5,480).
  • Environmental policy and Health & welfare policy interest groups, which oppose this bill, gave on average 4.7 times as much to House members who voted 'NO' ($5,894) as they gave to House members who voted 'YES' ($1,265).

House Democrats

  • Petroleum refining & marketing, Chemicals, Forestry & Forest Products, Paper & pulp mills and paper manufacturing, Manufacturing, and Chambers of commerce interest groups gave on average 3.8 times as much to House Democrats who voted 'YES' ($20,956) as they gave to House Democrats who voted 'NO' ($5,480).
  • Environmental policy and Health & welfare policy interest groups gave on average 74% more to House Democrats who voted 'NO' ($5,894) than to House Democrats who voted 'YES' ($3,382).

House Republicans

  • No House Republicans voted against the bill. Petroleum refining & marketing, Chemicals, Forestry & Forest Products, Paper & pulp mills and paper manufacturing, Manufacturing, and Chambers of commerce interest groups gave on average $15,965 to House Republicans who voted 'YES,' while Environmental policy and Health & welfare policy interest groups gave on average only $894 to House Republicans who voted 'YES.'

METHODOLOGY: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to House members in office on day of vote, from selected interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2010. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org

A link to this research post can be found here.

###

House Puts Social Issues on the Calendar, Passes Bill Banning Federal Funding for Abortion

 Sandwiched between votes on three recent free trade agreements (Colombia, Panama, and South Korea) and delaying EPA regulations on industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, process heaters, and incinerators (HR 2250), the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed by a margin of 251-172 a bill (HR 358) that would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services. The Protect Life Act would block federal funding for abortions as well as grant protections to health care workers who have moral objections to performing certain medical procedures.

The measure was supported by the Family Research Council, the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, the National Right to Life Committee, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The measure was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Muslims for Progressive Values, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, the National Women's Law Center, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Amongst all House members

  • Abortion policy/Pro-Life interest groups gave on average $1,780 to House members who voted 'YES.' Lawmakers voting against the bill did not receive any contributions connected to Pro-Life interest groups.
  • Abortion policy/Pro-Choice interest groups gave on average 9.7 times as much to House members who voted 'NO' ($2,182) as they gave to House members who voted 'YES' ($225).

House Republicans

  • Pro-Life interest groups gave on average $1,855 to House Republicans who voted 'YES.' House Republicans voting against the bill did not receive any contributions connected to Pro-Life interest groups.
  • Pro-Choice interest groups gave on average 33 times as much to House Republicans who voted 'NO' ($7,775) as they gave to House Republicans who voted 'YES' ($237).

House Democrats

  • Pro-Life interest groups gave on average $588 to House Democrats who voted 'YES.' House Democrats voting against the bill did not receive any contributions connected to Pro-Life interest groups.
  • Pro-Choice interest groups gave on average 45 times as much to House Democrats who voted 'NO' ($2,116) as they gave to House Democrats who voted 'YES' ($47).

All Invested Interest Groups

  • Interest groups supporting this bill (Republican/Conservative, Pro-Life, Christian Conservative) gave on average 78 times as much to House members that voted YES ($24,081) as they gave to House members that voted NO ($310).
  • Interest groups opposing this bill (Democratic/Liberal, Women's issues, Minority/Ethnic Groups, Gay & lesbian rights & issues, Pro-Choice) gave on average 8.6 times as much to House members who voted 'NO' ($25,772) as they gave to House members who voted 'YES' ($2,992).
  • MapLight recorded that the Churches, clergy & religious organizations interest group both supported and opposed the bill.

METHODOLOGY: MapLight analysis of reported campaign contributions to House members in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2010. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org

A link to this research post can be found here.

###

Cement Industry Overpowers Health Concerns in Advancing Bill to Delay EPA Regulations

 The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (HR 2681) on October 6 that would push back the deadline for the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue achievable standards for cement manufacturing facilities. House Republicans were joined by a handful of Democrats in passing the bill. Two Republicans joined the majority of Democrats in voting against passage. The Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 faces an uphill battle in the Senate and on October 3 received a veto threat from President Obama.

The bill was supported by Lehigh Hanson, Inc., the National Association of Manufacturers, the Portland Cement Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as conservative ideological groups such as Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and the John Birch Society. The bill was opposed by environmental protection groups such as Earthjustice, the Environmental Integrity Project, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as the American Lung Association, a health policy group.

Supporting Interest Groups

  • Republican/Conservative interest groups gave on average 271 times as much to House members who voted 'YES' ($21,220) as they gave to House members who voted 'NO' ($78).
  • Stone, clay, glass & concrete products interest groups gave on average nearly 3 times as much to House members who voted 'YES' ($6,399) as they gave to House members who voted 'NO' ($2,157).
  • Builders associations interest groups gave on average 51 times as much to House members who voted 'YES' ($2,719) as they gave to House members who voted 'NO' ($54).
  • Manufacturing interest groups gave on average 4.3 times as much to House members who voted 'YES' ($497) as they gave to House members who voted 'NO' ($116).
  • Chambers of commerce gave on average 41% more to House members who voted 'YES' ($265) as they gave to House members who voted 'NO' ($189).
  • Combined, interest groups supporting this bill gave on average 12 times as much to House members who voted 'YES' ($31,100) as they gave to House members who voted 'NO' ($2,594).

Opposing Interest Groups

  • Environmental policy interest groups gave on average 5.2 times as much to House members who voted 'NO' ($4,988) as they gave to House members who voted 'YES' ($967).
  • Health & welfare policy interest groups gave on average 13 times as much to House members who voted 'NO' ($848) as they gave to House members who voted 'YES' ($65).
  • Combined, interest groups opposing this bill gave on average 5.7 times as much to House members who voted 'NO' ($5,835) as they gave to House members who voted 'YES' ($1,032).

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to House members in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2010. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org

A link to this research post can be found here.

###

 

About MapLight:
MapLight is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that reveals money's influence on politics. If our work has been helpful to you, please consider supporting us.

Media Contact

Pamela Behrsin
Communications
Office: (510) 868-0894
pamela@maplight.org