Steve Pearce (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Controversy has swirled around two TV ads from Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund attacking Republican congressional candidate Steve Pearce, with Pearce and others calling the ads false and misleading and Defenders standing by the accuracy of its ads.
I’ve been looking into the situation and found that the truth is somewhere in between. The ads aren’t entirely true, but they’re also not entirely false. You can view the ads here and here.
The central claim that’s been disputed centers around Pearce twice being named by the left-leaning group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as one of the most corrupt members of Congress. Regardless of whether the group’s subjective characterization of Pearce as corrupt is fair, it’s accurate to say the group calls him corrupt. But the House committee charged with ruling on ethical issues has rejected the claim at the heart of CREW’s attack on Pearce.
In 2007, Pearce made the group’s list of the most corrupt members of Congress primarily because of “his failure to properly report a transaction on his financial disclosure report.”
The CREW complaint states that Pearce was president of Lea Fishing Tools, Inc. in the fall of 2003, and sold the company’s assets to Key Energy Services for more than 540,000 shares of stock. Pearce failed to report that in his 2003 financial disclosure report, the complaint states.
“After selling Lea Fishing Tools’ assets to Key Energy, Rep. Pearce was required to report the sale on his financial disclosure form as a transaction, but he failed to do so,” the group’s complaint stated. “By failing to list the sale, Rep. Pearce appears to have violated the Ethics in Government Act.”
In 2008, Pearce ended up on CREW’s list again based on the same allegations. Pearce was quick to release publicly, for the first time, a letter from the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct stating that he was not required to report the sale of Lea Fishing Tools.
CREW admitted that it did not and should have known about the letter – but it also rejected the committee’s conclusion, standing by its allegation that Pearce was required to report the company sale and its inclusion of Pearce on its list of the most corrupt members of Congress.
So the group twice listed Pearce as among the most corrupt members of Congress. It’s a subjective list compiled by a subjective group – nothing more. Putting Pearce on that list the second time was something I questioned because of the committee’s letter. It’s accurate to say that the committee has officially rejected CREW’s allegation against Pearce.
But it’s also accurate to say – as Defenders does – that the group twice ranked Pearce as among the most corrupt members of Congress.
On to other claims in the ads…
‘Over $1 million in campaign cash’
The first ad from Defenders claims that Pearce “took over $1 million in campaign cash from big oil giants like BP and voted to give them billions in tax breaks.”
At the time the ad starting running a few weeks ago, OpenSecrets.org said Pearce had taken $998,178 in donations from the oil and gas industry – indicating that the claim that he had taken “over” $1 million not quite true.
However, since then, the site has been amended, and it now states that Pearce has taken $1,015,178 from the oil and gas industry. I’m not sure why it was changed, but we’re almost splitting hairs on this point.
Did Pearce vote to give such companies billions in tax breaks? Though I don’t agree with parts of FactCheck.org’s analysis of the first Defenders ad, the Web site is right on when it comes to this point. The ads’ claim is based on Pearce’s vote in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
From FactCheck:
“While the bill did provide $14.5 billion in subsidies to energy companies, most of that went to electric utilities, nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research — not to oil and gas companies. In fact, tax increases imposed by the bill on the oil and gas industry exceeded the tax breaks, according to a Congressional Research Service report released in 2007.”
“… So while it’s true that Pearce accepted roughly $1 million in donations from oil and gas companies over 19 years, his vote on the 2005 energy bill on balance did not give oil companies ‘billions in tax breaks.’”
Selling his business to a company ‘that was lobbying his committee’
The ad also states about the Lea Fishing Tools sale that Pearce “got rich selling his own company for twice its stated value to an oil company that was lobbying his committee.”
If there’s an implication there that Pearce took action to benefit that company, Key Energy, it’s not true. Roll Call reported in 2008 that it “found no evidence that Pearce has taken any legislative action to specifically benefit Key Energy Services.”
However, it’s true that a company official testified before a task force on which Pearce sat (he was appointed by then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert). Defenders provided a document proving that.
Is testifying before a task force on affordable natural gas formed by the House speaker the same as lobbying the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources? Mostly.
‘Producers of the toxic chemical MTBE’
The new claim in Defenders’ second ad is that Pearce “took thousands from the producers of the toxic chemical MTBE and then voted to protect them from liability for protecting New Mexico’s drinking water.”
Asked for a response to the new ad, the Pearce campaign didn’t refute the MTBE claim. According to the fact sheet Defenders provided to back up the ad, Pearce voted in 2003 and 2005 in favor of bills that would have protected companies from lawsuits related to MTBE contamination.
And, according to Defenders, Pearce has taken tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the corporations producing the chemical – which, incidentally, includes Valero Energy Corp., a company whose board included Bill Richardson before he became New Mexico’s governor.