Despite a scientific consensus and growing recognition of the threats of climate change by business, military and government leaders around the world, many of our elected officials refuse to acknowledge the problem. \"I'm not a scientist<\/a>,\" say many (mostly Republican) elected officials, including Florida Gov. Rick Scott and the new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia famously released a television ad in which he was visto disparando una copia<\/a> of the Obama administration's cap-and-trade bill with a rifle. Then-Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) even launched an effort for the U.S. Senate to approve the Keystone XL pipeline in a last-ditch attempt in her 2014 reelection campaign. Ella qued\u00f3 a un voto de distancia.<\/a>.<\/p> Lo que estos pol\u00edticos tienen en com\u00fan es el dinero que reciben de la industria de los combustibles f\u00f3siles y el poder pol\u00edtico que esta ejerce en sus estados. El dinero que las grandes petroleras y las empresas contaminantes invierten en las elecciones estadounidenses es asombroso. En las elecciones de 2014, los grupos de presi\u00f3n del sector energ\u00e9tico gastaron casi 100 millones de d\u00f3lares en elecciones federales, un aumento de m\u00e1s de 20 millones de d\u00f3lares en el gasto de la industria. sobre las elecciones intermedias de 2010<\/a>No deber\u00eda sorprender que Koch Industries sea la El mayor gastador en esta categor\u00eda con $6.4 millones<\/a>.<\/p> \"We hear frequently, constantly from Republican lawmakers who say, we see climate change as a huge problem and we want to talk about ways to do this, but for now they're afraid to talk about it, because of the political repercussions,\" dijo Rob Sisson<\/a>, presidente del grupo ConservAmerica (anteriormente Republicanos por la Protecci\u00f3n del Medio Ambiente).<\/p> \u00bfD\u00f3nde nos deja todo esto? Dos de cada tres estadounidenses creen que la Tierra se est\u00e1 calentando y apoyan nuevos l\u00edmites de emisiones para las centrales el\u00e9ctricas. seg\u00fan una encuesta de Pew<\/a>, pero nueve de cada diez l\u00edderes republicanos en el Congreso niegan que el problema exista. En 2013, el Centro para el Progreso Americano descubri\u00f3 que m\u00e1s del 58 por ciento de los republicanos del Congreso<\/a> Eran negacionistas del cambio clim\u00e1tico. Esos mismos representantes obtuvieron $58.8 millones de la industria de los combustibles f\u00f3siles en contribuciones de campa\u00f1a.<\/p> Cada vez m\u00e1s, la industria canaliza su dinero a trav\u00e9s de grupos de dinero oscuro que no est\u00e1n obligados a revelar qui\u00e9nes son sus donantes. Tres grupos en particular han liderado el reciente esfuerzo pol\u00edtico y electoral en favor de la industria de los combustibles f\u00f3siles: la Alianza Energ\u00e9tica Americana (AEA), el Instituto Americano del Petr\u00f3leo (API) y la Coalici\u00f3n Americana para la Electricidad de Carb\u00f3n Limpio (ACCCE).<\/p> Since Citizens United, these groups have spent millions on \"issue ads\" via TV, radio and print, targeting elected officials and their stance on energy issues. These groups aggressively exploit reporting loopholes, so we don't know how much they spent on the 2014 election. However, their overall spending increased from $233 million in 2010 to $290 million in 2012.<\/p> Shortly after the Citizens United decision in 2010, the American Petroleum Institute announced it would create a political action committee. In a 2011 interview, API's executive vice president for government affairs Martin Durbin said it was \"a\u00f1adiendo una herramienta m\u00e1s a nuestro conjunto de herramientas.<\/a>\" During the 2014 campaign, the American Energy Alliance launched political attack ads in several states, including Virginia del Oeste<\/a>, Alaska <\/a>y Carolina del Norte<\/a>.<\/p> In its 2012 tax filings, ACCCE claims that it spent more than $23.5 million on \"communications programs.\" While ACCCE's advertisements generally do not mention or endorse specific candidates, they have clear political and electoral implications. For example, just one day before the first 2012 presidential debate, ACCCE launched an ad that imit\u00f3 los mensajes que utiliz\u00f3 Mitt Romney<\/a> in his \"war on coal\" ads. The ACCCE ad criticized \"our current leadership in Washington,\" while showing a picture of the White House and encouraging viewers to vote for candidates who favor coal. Another one of ACCCE's 2012 \"issue ads\" inst\u00f3 a los votantes<\/a> to \"send leaders to Washington that will put us on a path to low-cost American coal.\"<\/p>![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/legacy\/assets\/national-images\/democracy-wire\/whosevoice\/cc1.jpg\")
<\/p>![](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/legacy\/assets\/national-images\/democracy-wire\/whosevoice\/cc2.jpg\")
<\/p>