Some Democrats in Congress might not know of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, but Rep. Brad Miller of Raleigh does.

Miller last year accused the state of Alaska of using an opinion essay written in part by known “climate-doubt” scientists to back its opposition to listing the polar bear as a threatened species, reports Barb Barrett.

Miller is chairman of the oversight panel on the House Science and Technology Committee. He accused ExxonMobil in October of funding un-scientific research because it had given money to one of the essay’s authors, an astrophysicist, for some work in the polar region.

The essay was published in the journal Ecological Complexity and, Miller wrote, cited six times in Alaska’s filing against listing the polar bear.

The debate over the polar bear was a major issue in Alaska last year, with the state opposing its inclusion under the Endangered Species Act. The state argued there was not enough science to determine that the polar bear could become endangered.

“If the Governor of Alaska … cannot tell whether this paper is science or an elaborate editorial, what is a less-sophisticated audience to think?” Miller asked in his letter to ExxonMobil on the issue.

Palin fired back, telling Miller in her own letter that it was he who didn’t understand the issues.

"I fear your comments may squash scientific debate,” she wrote. She also defended the funding of scientific studies by oil companies, writing that it would be fiscally difficult to fund all science with government money.

In its own rebuttal to Miller, ExxonMobil said it understood the essay to have been peer-reviewed.

Majority Action, a liberal 527 group created by two Democratic political consultants, is running a TV ad attacking U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole's record on oil issues.

What it says: The ad flashes corporate logos as ominous music plays and a narrator talks about Dole's record. "Chevron, $18.7 billion. BP, $20.8 billion. ExxonMobil, $40.6 billion. Big oil companies are making billions at our expense. And where has Elizabeth Dole been? In Washington, taking over a quarter-million in campaign cash from Big Oil and voting to give them billions more in tax breaks. Tell Elizabeth Dole we need lower fuel costs, not billions for big oil." Text on the screen reproduces phrases from two news articles: "Big Oil's Big Windfall ... a minimum of $7 billion and as much as $28 billion" and "$2.6 billion for oil and gas industries."

The background: Oil companies drilling on federal land typically pay a royalty fee.

In 1995, Congress created a royalty relief program for oil companies to spur production in the Gulf of Mexico. Waivers granted between then and 2000 added up to at least $7 billion in lost revenue for the federal government.

Dole was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2002.

As part of an omnibus energy bill in 2005, Congress extended some of the royalty relief provisions by another five years, but it cost far less than the previous measure. Dole voted for that bill.

Though an exact figure is not available, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the extensions and several other provisions in the 2005 bill would cost the federal government about $200 million over the following five years.

(Update: The U.S. Department of the Interior says it has so far cost the goverment nothing.)

Apart from royalty relief, the 2005 energy bill included $2.6 billion in tax cuts for oil and gas companies, but it also included $2.9 billion in tax hikes — a net tax increase for the industry.

Congressional budget analysts say they do not consider the royalty relief program to be a "tax break," although it has a similar effect on the federal budget.

Dole has received $266,456 in campaign contributions from people associated with the oil and gas industry since 2002 and another $35,000 from oil and gas companies' political action committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Bill Buck, executive director of Majority Action, defended the ad, but did not offer any other specifics.

"We assert that Senator Dole voted for billions in tax cuts for the oil industry because it is true," he said in an e-mail to Dome.

Is the ad accurate? In large part, no. The ad does not back up its claim that Dole has given "billions ... in tax breaks" to oil companies. The $7 billion figure cited is wildly inaccurate, since it refers to legislation from before Dole's time in the Senate and is not even properly termed a "tax break." The $2.6 billion figure is also misleading, since it leaves out the offsetting tax hikes in that bill.

Correction: An earlier version of the post incorrectly described its founders.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole has accepted more than a quarter of a miillion dollars from oil and gas companies and their employees.

According to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, the Salisbury Republican has received $266,456 from people associated with the oil and gas industry since 2002. Of that, $102,827 — or roughly 39 percent — came in the past two years.

Dole received much more from other industries, however.

Over her career, she's received $2.6 million from retirees, $903,810 from lawyers, $853,063 from people in real estate and $747,736 from employees of investment firms. Donations from the oil and gas sector were 14th among industries who gave to Dole.

Donors include Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, who gave $1,000 in April; and American Petroleum Institute president Red Cavaney, who gave $4,100 in 2007.

In addition, Dole has received $35,000 from oil and gas companies' political action committees since 2002, including $10,000 from Piedmont Natural Gas, $6,000 from ExxonMobil and $5,000 from Valero Energy.

Of that money, $30,500 came in the past two years.

After the jump, the contributions.

   Comments (0)

Oil companies do indeed make billions of dollars.

A recent TV ad by Majority Action attacks U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole for receiving contributions from the oil industry, which notes that "big oil companies are making billions at our expense."

As part of our usual fact-checking duties here at the Dome, we checked the numbers mentioned in the ad, and they are mostly accurate.

For comparison's sake, the companies and their previous earnings are below, based on information from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Chevron
2004: $13.3 billion
2005: $14.1 billion
2006: $17.1 billion
2007: $18.7 billion

BP
2004: $15.7 billion
2005: $19.6 billion
2006: $21.1 billion
2007: $21.2 billion

ExxonMobil
2004: $25.3 billion
2005: $36.1 billion
2006: $39.5 billion
2007: $40.6 billion

Note that the 2007 earnings we found are slightly higher for BP than the $20.8 billion cited by Majority Action. The ad cites a Feb. 6 article in the Charleston Post-Courier that we could not locate, although a report in the Houston Chronicle cites a similar number.

Majority Action, a liberal 527 group funded by investor George Soros, ran a radio ad last weekend that attacks U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole's record on mileage standards.

What it says: "Gas prices are over $4 a gallon, and if you’re traveling this holiday weekend one person you can thank for your higher fuel costs is Elizabeth Dole. In July of 2003, Dole voted against raising fuel mileage standards for our cars and trucks. If Dole had voted to raise mileage standards then, they would be taking effect today and North Carolina families could be saving $1,600 or more on fuel costs every year. Dole has also taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry and voted to give oil company giants like ExxonMobil billions in tax breaks."

The background: In 2003, the U.S. Senate debated a mammoth energy bill for more than two months. One amendment to the bill would have raised mileage standards on new cars, trucks and SUVs by specific benchmarks over several years, including 32 miles per gallon in 2008.

Dole voted against that amendment, which failed by nearly a two-thirds vote. She voted for a different amendment that would have left mileage standards up to the U.S. secretary of transportation.

In the end, both amendments were a moot point, since the bill never came to a vote.

According to a 2006 U.S. Department of Energy report, the average vehicle in the United States gets 20.2 mpg. In theory, a household with two cars both going the average 12,408 miles a year could save more than $1,600 a year on gas if they got 32 mpg instead.

Still, that presumes that the family replaced both cars and did not change its driving habits.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dole has received $261,456 from the oil and gas industries since her election in 2002.

But as FactCheck.org has reported, while the 2005 energy bill that Dole supported had $2.6 billion in tax cuts for oil and gas companies, it also had $2.9 billion in tax hikes for those same companies — a net increase of $300 million over 11 years.

Is the ad accurate? It's a stretch.

A new radio ad attempts to tie U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole to high gas prices.

The minute-long ad by liberal 527 group Majority Action is airing on radio stations in Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh-Durham and Wilmington this weekend.

Noting the upcoming Fourth of July holiday with the sound of fireworks, it argues that Dole voted against higher fuel mileage standards in 2003.

"Gas prices are over $4 a gallon, and if you’re traveling this holiday weekend one person you can thank for your higher fuel costs is Elizabeth Dole," the narrator says as ominous music plays.

Dole voted against an amendment that year to an energy bill that would have mandated increased mileage standards, though she voted for another amendment that would have directed the Secretary of Transportation to raise them instead.

Dole's rival, state Sen. Kay Hagan, says she is not involved in the ad, and Majority Action says the ad is not intended to influence the Senate race.

But Dole's campaign has called on Hagan to disavow outside advertising.

A transcript after the jump.

   Comments (3)

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's latest ad focuses on high gas prices and energy indepenence, Rob Christensen reports.

What the ad says: "Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed — except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it's time Washington worked for you. Not them."

The background: ExxonMobil reported earning a record $40.6 billion in profits in 2007. The average national cost of gas on April 7 was $3.33 per gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration.

It is technically true that Obama has not taken money directly from oil companies, because direct corporate contributions have long been banned.

But Obama's campaign has accepted $213,000 in contributions from people who work in the oil and gas industry or their spouses, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. And according to FactCheck.org, Obama's campaign has received money from executives of ExxonMobil ($30,850), Hess ($5,200), Shell ($9,900), ConocoPhillips ($4,300), Chevron ($9,500) and BP ($6,396.)

Obama's oil and gas industry contributions are a tiny fraction of the $193 million that Obama’s campaign has raised and are less than Clinton has brought in from similar sources.

Is the ad accurate? The assertion that Obama does not receive money from the oil industry is misleading. Accepting contributions from oil industry executives, as opposed to their political action committees, is a distinction without merit.

Are oil companies funding attacks on climate change science in North Carolina?

An investigation of tax records by the Institute for Southern Studies shows that the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh received at least $126,500 from groups with ties to the fossil-fuel industry between 2002 and 2005.

That includes contributions from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, The Cato Institute, The Reason Foundation, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Center for Energy and Economic Development and the DCI Group.

The Locke Foundation is also working with the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that's received money from ExxonMobil.

In recent months, the Locke Foundation has criticized the work of the Center for Climate Strategies, a nonprofit working with North Carolina and other states to reduce greenhouse gases.