Charlie Dent, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania’s
15th District, serves as my representative. He currently is Chairman of the House
Committee on Ethics and is a member of the House Committee on
Appropriations. Dent is widely
viewed as very accessible to his constituents, and he is present for many
important local events, supporting businesses and communities throughout the
district. Because of the range of
ideologies present among voters in PA-15, Dent is a rather moderate Republican
who votes both with and against members of his own party, depending on the
issue at hand (GovTrack; VoteSmart).
A chart from GovTrack, which shows
Dent’s ideological score based on his voting record in Congress, indicates that Dent falls ideologically closer to the center than
many of his fellow House Republicans.
For more on Dent’s background and to see this chart, please visit my post from the first week of the semester.
Examining Dent’s voting record more closely reveals his tendency to vote
across party lines on some issues while staying true to the GOP on others. Dent was ranked in the top 5% of House
Republicans for joining bipartisan bills (GovTrack). For example, on the recent vote on the bill to defund
Planned Parenthood, which was heavily backed by many House Republicans, Dent
sided with the Democrats and voted against defunding (VoteSmart). Similarly, Dent reached across the
aisle to vote against the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act, which would not
have actually done much to augment women’s public health and safety (Ibid). These votes make sense, given the
substantial population of Democrats within the district. Consider that Dent’s NARAL Pro-Choice
rating is 25%—a step away from many GOP members, but still retaining some party
norms [VoteSane PAC]. However, on other
issues, chiefly energy and the military, Dent tends to vote more along the
party line. In January 2015, Dent
voted in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline Act; no House Republicans voted
against it (VoteSmart). Similarly,
just last week Dent, like most of his party, voted for the Native American
Energy Act, which would loosen regulations for energy production on Native
American lands (Ibid.)
Dent’s position on energy becomes more interesting when examining his
campaign funding in past election cycles.
In 2014, PPL Corporation, an energy company whose headquarters are
situated Allentown (the largest city within PA-15), was one of the top
supporters of Dent’s campaign (OpenSecrets). Unlike some of Dent’s other top donors, which do not use
lobbyists, PPL hires firms to lobby politicians; lobbyist Paulette Pidcock both
lobbied Dent on behalf of PPL as well as personally contributed money to his
campaign in 2014 (OpenSecrets). Moreover,
Electric Utilities and Oil & Gas were two of the top industries
contributing to the Dent campaign (Ibid).
Thus, these industries and companies have immense influence over Dent’s
political decisions, as can be seen in his voting record on energy- and fossil
fuel-related policy. Over the past
few years, Dent has been given pitiful ratings by multiple environmental
groups, likely due to supporting policies that put energy before environment
(VoteSmart). For example, in 2014
Dent supported HR 2824, Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining
Jobs in America (VoteSmart), thus aiding the fossil fuel and electricity
industries that rely, to some degree, on coal mining and usage. Similarly, in 2013, he helped pass HR
2728, the Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act
(VoteSmart), which was designed to keep the government from regulating fracking
in states that permitted it. While
Dent sides with the GOP on these issues, likely due to the combination of
pressure from his Republican constituency base and the energy industries that
provide substantial funds for his campaign, he has also helped Democrats pass
legislation promoting alternative and clean energy sources. For example, he was one of only 35
House Republicans to vote in favor of HR 6049 - Alternative Energy Tax
Incentives, which passed the chamber in 2008 (VoteSmart). Ultimately, on the issue of energy, it
seems that Dent’s financial support from electricity and fossil fuel industries
keeps him voting party line on most issues, although it does not prevent him
entirely of working with Democrats on alternative energy.
Another noteworthy finding from examining Dent’s campaign contributions
is that Air Products is the second highest donor. According to their website, the company, which is based,
like PPL Corp, in Allentown, “has been enabling its customers to become more
productive, energy efficient and sustainable for 75 years. With our atmospheric
gases, process and specialty gases, performance materials, equipment, and
technologies, we supply innovative solutions to energy, environment, and
emerging markets” (Air Products).
First of all, this is a marked departure from the fossil fuel industry
that also supports Dent. It may
also help explain why, as I mentioned previously, he votes both to protect
fossil fuel-based energy as well as clean and alternative energy
solutions. He likely walks a fine
line to promote policies that benefit both of these conflicting donors; walking
this line also likely allows him to appease the varying ideologies in the
district by voting with both parties on separate facets of the issue.
While researching Dent’s sponsored bills during his House tenure, I
noticed that many dealt with suspending duties on chemicals. For example, during the 112th
Congress, Dent sponsored bills to “temporarily suspend” the duties on Ancamine
2432 (HR 5042) and Triethylenediamine (HR 5039). Despite having passed high school chemistry, I needed to do
further research into what these chemicals are and why Dent cares. Using the very sophisticated method of
googling, I found out first that a search for “Ancamine 2432” produces a page
on the Air Products Website as the number one result. A search for “Triethylenediamine” reveals that it is known
by the commercial name DABCO, which is, like Ancamine, a registered trademark
of Air Products. These findings
are particularly important because they show that Dent was directly responding
to Air Products’ campaign contributions by attempting to pass legislation that
would lower the duties on the company’s chemical products. Thus, money certainly has a strong impact
on Dent, as his legislative actions reveal the influence of certain
industries. Additionally, by
voting to support policies that aid such companies as Air Products and PPL,
Dent is further seen by his constituents to be helping local business.
While the energy and fossil fuel industries play a major role in
influencing Dent’s lawmaking, the top contributing industry in his 2014
campaign, and so far in his 2016 campaign, is health professionals, followed
shortly by pharmaceuticals and health products (OpenSecrets). This is paralleled by Dent’s record of
introducing bills, many of which deal with public health and healthcare. For example, Dent has introduced the
following bills over the past few years (some of which he has introduced in
multiple sessions of Congress): Insurance Fairness
for Amputees Act, Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act, and the
Children’s Health Insurance Protection (CHIP) Act (GovTrack). He also has a record of supporting
public health policies, especially those that benefit veterans—he has received
near-perfect ratings from American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, and
Disabled American Veterans (VoteSmart).
Ultimately, this support of the health professionals and health products
industries in Dent’s legislation and voting record demonstrate the influence of
industries’ financial contributions on lawmakers’ decisions in Congress.
---
1 comment:
I think it's very interesting that you bring up the contributions that local "lehigh valley" corporations have given towards Dent. Air Products and PPL are pretty much household names all over the Lehigh Valley, and particularly in Bethlehem, Allentown, and Easton. Obviously, one would guess that Charlie Dent would want to advocate for these companies because they are his constituents, and employ many more of his constituents on top of that. However, it's a double whammy for Dent and his campaign. As you pointed out, because Dent votes to pass or oppose legislation that helps these companies, he is easily seen as a Congressman that supports his local constituency, but he also is garnering future contributions from these companies in his campaigns, so it's a win win. The question that could be presented though, is whether or not Dent would vote in support of these corporations if they weren't contributing to his campaign? Perhaps he would as a way to "show support" for his district. More importantly, since he is receiving money from these corporations, what happens if Dent is asked to vote on an issue that doesn't help these corporations, but that he agrees with, would he vote against their favor? Maybe Dent would choose not to vote at all, because that is certainly an option that some Congressman have employed in the past.
Post a Comment