Contrary to previous elections in which the oil and gas industry has clearly backed the Republican nominee for president of the United States, in this year’s contest, fossil-fueled cash is making its way more often into the Democrat’s campaign war chest.

But then, little about this election is typical.

In a match-up that pits a longtime Democrat, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, against a newcomer to the GOP, Manhattan businessman Donald Trump, the contest features two candidates with historically low favorability ratings. Couple that with mud-slinging not seen at such proportions in a couple of centuries. In the 1828 contest, Democrat General Andrew Jackson’s mother was accused of being a prostitute, his wife a bigamist and Jackson himself, a murderer. His opponent, in turn, Republican John Quincy Adams, fielded claims of pimping American women to the Russians and having a government-funded pool table in the White House for gambling.

And so perhaps it’s time for a Clinton-Trump battle to confuse American political sensibilities. One of the key variables of an election is money. It’s also a crucial indicator of who is supporting whom.

As such, oil and gas industry groups can generally be counted in the Republicans’ corner. The lion’s share of their financial donations go toward Republicans: this year, that’s 96.4 percent compared to the 3.6 percent for Democrats, according to information from the Center for Responsive Politics.

 

But when it comes down to Clinton and Trump – based on numbers from the Federal Election Commission through Aug. 22 in the 2016 election cycle – oil and gas donated more money to Clinton. The lobby groups have given Clinton $550,971 – about 36 percent more than the $153,924 worth of donations to Trump.

As Mark Jones, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy fellow at Rice University in Houston, explains, one of the ways in which Trump’s campaign is unorthodox is that the candidate isn’t actively seeking donations.

“(Trump) is not raising large amounts of money to invest in (political) infrastructure, boots on the ground to air massive amounts of TV commercials. He isn’t fundraising like a regular presidential candidate, and therefore, he’s not going to the energy companies or reaching out to deep-pocketed donors in the same way that other candidates do,” Jones said. “So, one explanation is that Clinton is asking these individuals for money whereas Trump is far less aggressive in courting them.”

Another factor could be the simple fact that Clinton appears to be pounding Trump in the polls, Jones told Rigzone.

“(The polls) suggest a resounding Clinton victory. Many people donate not for reasons of policy or ideological affinity, but for access,” he said. “Under an access type of situation, it makes sense to donate to Hillary Clinton because she seems very likely to be the next president of the United States.”

Financial Flip-Flop

On its face, an election pitting a Republican against a Democrat is a clear-cut decision for the industry. Republicans tend to favor fewer regulations and fewer taxes on existing businesses. Democrats offer more support for renewables and additional taxes on fossil fuels. Trump has Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm in his ear – and there is speculation Hamm would even be Trump’s Energy Secretary; Clinton is a solar power supporter.

But the traditional dichotomy ends there.

Clinton has also pledged to support local jurisdictions when it comes to deciding rules on hydraulic fracturing – a flashpoint between her stance and that of primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who called for an outright ban to be enforced by the federal government. Trump offers plenty of criticism of the Obama Administration’s energy policy, but has offered little of his own.

“Clinton is too politically savvy to bring on the oil and gas apocalypse, and Trump doesn't seem to have a coherent policy position that would suggest clear sailing for fossil fuel producers under his regime,” said Ethan Bellamy, senior research analyst at R.W. Baird in Denver. “Both of these candidates will say whatever they need to in order to get elected, so I wouldn't get up in arms about any potential policy changes at this point.”

The difference is that Clinton will push a climate change agenda while Trump has oilman Hamm whispering pro-fracking policy in his ear, Bellamy told Rigzone.

“Trump's recent mention of support for local control of oil and gas issues certainly did not come from consultation with Hamm, though, so who can tell what direction he will take on this and a host of other issues? Inasmuch as Trump may be going off the reservation of a purist oil and gas policy, I think it's probably unlikely that Clinton will do much to prevent oil and gas development on non-federal lands,” he added.

Ed Hirs, economics fellow at the University of Houston, told Rigzone that it appears both candidates are still refining their energy policies.

“Looking at what (Trump adviser) Harold Hamm says, we’re going to cut back on regulation, we’re going to increase oil production and we’re going to have cheap gasoline,” he said. “But all of that is mutually exclusive. We’re not going to get energy independence and have cheap gasoline; the economics don’t work. Unless you’re Venezuela, and the economics don’t work there, either.”

As for Clinton, Hirs said it appears she wants to achieve solar power dependence by 2040.

“That seems to equate solar power with getting rid of crude oil and fossil fuels. Conceivably it could happen, but it’s going to cost us a fortune. There are no economic incentives in place to make us change our habits,” he explained.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/146485/Bucking_Oilfield_Tradi...