Ryan ChartrandThis column constitutes a slight change of pace from the normal fare I usually cover, but it regards an issue of terrible importance to any resident of California.
Recently, the California Democratic Party received a $50,000 donation from Chevron the oil company that owns more than two thirds of all refineries in California. This is only the latest incident in a concerted attempt by Chevron to buy off Democrats all over the state, and a serious problem for the party that claims to stand for environmental protection and progressive values in this state.
So what’s so bad about Chevron, anyway? Just like the electric industry during the 2001 shortage, Chevron has figured out that they can make more money by producing less gas. Chevron reduced its first quarter production by 22 percent compared to last year, claiming “planned maintenance” as the reason for that decrease.
As a result of this declined production, however, the margin of error in the production line increases dramatically. Any unexpected disruption to the production of gas sends prices skyrocketing, and that price increase is passed on directly to the California consumer. Since gas production costs stay stable over time, that price increase equals pure profit in the pockets of Chevron’s executives. Unlike carrot sticks or new tube socks, gas isn’t a commodity that the average consumer can live without, or for which immediate alternatives exist. Consumers are forced to pay for this gas, despite the price increase.
In other eras, this type of economic situation would be called a trust. But when Chevron and the rest of Big Oil are forking over hundreds of thousands of dollars to California politicians, those in charge of regulating such markets look the other way.
During the 2006 campaign season, oil companies spent nearly $90 million on California political candidates, and to defeat the alternative energy-financing Proposition 89. Anyone with an ounce of reason knows that corporations don’t act out of charity, especially when it comes to political donations.
One could argue that the California Democratic Party should take the money of whomever is willing to give it to them, and hope that they can act free of that donor’s interest. That’s wishful thinking.
If you’re looking for any more evidence of the direct line to our elected officials that Chevron and the other oil producers have, one need to look no further than a Chevron-sponsored junket for Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s chief of staff Susan Kennedy. The pair took a spring break trip to an upscale resort in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, on the tab of a foundation financed in large part by Chevron. The red, white, and blue oil company even got a full day of unfettered access to the pair during their trip. Nunez, who was highly critical of oil companies last year, seems to have nothing to say on the topic this year. As if that weren’t enough, the chairs of the Senate and Assembly Energy Committees spent a week in Japan, financed by the same foundation.
If California’s elected Democrats think that the public won’t notice these lavish trips from oil companies, begin to connect the dots to the skyrocketing gas prices across the states, and that there won’t be any sort of political retribution from the voting populace, they are fooling themselves.
Witness the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in the wake of the electricity crisis of 2003, which, like the record prices of oil today, was in large part fabricated by industry. California Democrats cannot expect to receive from the pockets of Chevron and the other oil companies, and not look like they are in those same pockets. Give the donation back, California Democratic Party.
Zach Austin is a political science junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.