Improbably, here on the night when election returns are coming in, I’ve decided to write about gas prices. But there’s no time like the present to get back to real policy issues. I’ve had quite enough of all this politics, thank you.

The Omaha World-Herald reported today that gas prices in the Omaha-Council Bluffs area have fallen to $2.00/gallon. “We are just giddy,” says a spokeswoman for the Holiday Plaza Conoco near Interstate 80 in North Platte, according to the paper. That’s cute.

But enough jubilation. It’s time for a life-lesson.

A little less than four months ago, Congress was considering legislation to curtail “speculation” in energy markets because it was supposedly causing high prices. Bills like S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008 and H.R. 6330, the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices (PUMP) Act. (Shoot! With that clever name, it was supposed to pass easily!)

Investors in energy futures do bid up prices when they see shortages in the future but, as we learned from an astute WashingtonWatch.com visitor, this helps to moderate supply and demand. Investors are the messenger about disruptions in markets, not the cause.

Much of the debate about oil speculation was generated by airline industry lobbying using trumped up advocacy groups - one business sector trying to gain advantage over another using government regulation.

Now the gasoline-price shoe is on the other foot. Prices have come back down. (They do at the end of every summer, y’know.) I think it’s time for the airline industry to send “speculators” a thank-you note. Maybe a gift-basket of fruit or something. Soaps and scented candles?

You and me, let’s recognize a few things, like: a) sophisticated lobbies will take advantage of crises and use our government to bash their opponents; 2) What goes up must come down; and, III) you shouldn’t set government policy based on anecdotes or crises, which can reverse themselves in just a few months.

Here’s another “wakerider” bill - legislation introduced on the heels of a newsworthy event - dealing with the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (discussed earlier here and here):

S. 3471, a bill to prohibit government-sponsored enterprises from making lobbying expenditures, political contributions, or other certain contributions. (I’m sure they meant “certain other” contributions.)

This is good, though. Part of the way these organizations shifted the risk of loss to the taxpayer (i.e. you) was by lobbying like crazy, spending something like $174 million on it over the last ten years.

Now, this bill is obviously too little too late. The damage is done and the new regulatory overseer of the Macs has reportedly said “All political activities, including all lobbying, will be halted immediately.” But maybe putting in law will make sure that stays true.

Here’s the current vote on S. 3471. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article about the bill.

I was flipping through the channels on a DirecTV setup yesterday when I spied a most interesting campaign put together by the satellite TV provider itself. On the unused channels, there was an important message aimed at subscribers.

Big Cable companies are encouraging states across the country to charge satellite subscribers, like you, higher state sales taxes. This is unfair!

A bipartisan group of members of Congress have said, enough is enough! They introduced the State Video Tax Fairness Act (HR 3679 & S 3418) to prevent any state from charging higher taxes on satellite subscribers than on other video customers.

The message invites DirecTV subscribers to contact their members of Congress encouraging support for these bills.

It’s very interesting to see a company go straight to its customers with a public policy push, but you see it more and more. Ebay Mainstreet is one of the most prominent I’ve seen.

Anyway, the campaign is working to some degree. Take a look at the first comment on H.R. 3679, The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007. It’s from a guy who saw a message on his DirecTV system. The Senate version hasn’t seen quite as much action.

Here’s the current voting on H.R. 3679, The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007 and S. 3418, The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki articles about the bills.

A little over a month ago, I wrote here about the debate on oil speculation.

One of the commenters on S. 3268, The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008 had pointed to a Web site called Stop Oil Speculation Now. I speculated (ahem) that this commenter might be a spinmeister for that campaign.

Whatever the case, now there’s a Web site on the other side. The Airline Oil Spin is its name, and it says:

The U.S. Airline Industry is wracked with problems. And the airline industry is working hard to pin all of those problems on “oil speculators,” by creating pseudo-grassroots campaigns like their recent effort to push legislation to stop some kinds of oil speculation.

The airlines “are currently engaged in the buying and selling of ‘paper contracts’ for jet fuel through their extensive fuel hedging programs,” this site says. Airlines are speculators themselves.

Now, The Airline Oil Spin links to a site called How Was Your Flight? that highlights problems with the airlines. How Was Your Flight? is a project of the Reaching Higher Coalition, which is “a coalition of community groups, clergy, elected leaders, and airport workers represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Service Workers West.”

Well, we have quite a selection of Web sites to root through, and we’re better off for having them, even if they’re all trying to spin us. Through the spin and counter-spin, we’ll learn a little bit and be in a better position to decide what we think.

I, for one, remain convinced that “oil speculation” is a bugaboo that we really shouldn’t be worried by. Buying and selling of futures contracts in commodities like oil helps to spread risk and smooth out supply and demand. Fast recent rises in the price of oil reflect uncertainty about where oil is going to come from, uncertainty caused by war and political instability in places like Iraq and Venezuela. And it’s caused by increasing consumption in countries with growing economies like China and India. Going after “speculators” is sort of shooting the messenger. (This is an opinion I concealed oh-so-cleverly in my earlier post.)

The debate continues. Here’s the vote on S. 3268, The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.

I wrote about the campaigning on S. 3268, the Stop Energy Speculation Act of 2008, here a few days ago.

The debate has taken a new twist as Republicans have pushed to expand domestic oil production as the preferred way of controlling energy prices.

Well, the World Wildlife Fund wants you to know that oil drilling is a big no-no. They’ve put an ad in the New York Times, and they want you to know about it. According to a release they’ve got out on the wires:

While more drilling would have virtually no impact on gas prices, the ad says, it could have a profoundly negative impact on America’s wilderness and waters and could jeopardize the nation’s billion dollar fisheries industry. WWF, which has a team of scientists and experts based in Alaska, notes in the ad that a major oil spill in Alaskan waters – where approximately half of all U.S. seafood is caught – could have a devastating impact on both the economy and the environment. It further states that oil companies have no proven method for cleaning up major oil spills in Arctic waters, further exacerbating the risk to protected areas.

Ah, the push and pull of legislative debate. To stop energy speculation? Drill for more oil? Fair-minded people can see both sides in both sides. And it looks like Congress will go to its August recess like Hamlet, without deciding.

What do you think? Here’s the vote on the Stop Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article.

A WashingtonWatch.com visitor wrote in yesterday asking about a solicitation she had received to sign a petition about the Social Security Preservation Act. The solicitation came from an organization called The Seniors Center with a P.O. Box address in Washington, D.C.

Direct mail is a common fund-raising technique in Washington, D.C., but it’s good to be skeptical of these kinds of things. While there are plenty of legitimate advocacy groups that use donated dollars to help advance the public policy goals of their membership, there are plenty more that do not. These latter groups raise money claiming an advocacy goal but use the money they collect simply to send more mail solicitations to raise more money.

Seniors are often their targets because many seniors want to be involved but lack the ability to determine which groups are legitimate and which are not.

A rule of thumb that I would use to decide whether to give to any advocacy group is whether you have ever heard of them before. If you have seen the group quoted or cited in newspaper articles, magazines, or television news, that means they are engaged on the issues - and it means you are engaged enough to judge. If you have not seen the group, either they are not a real advocacy organization, or you are not focused enough to intelligently spend money in this area. There is no substitute for being directly involved in public affairs, and writing a check to a group with an important-sounding name or a good fund-raising letter is not a substitute for that kind of engagement.

Of course, searching the Internet for information about a group might do the trick too. I found enough stories with negative and strange information about The Seniors Center and its founder Gary Jarmin that this looks like one to avoid.

Smart people check around before they write a check, and that includes writing in to yours truly for advice.

A staple of modern lobbying is the self-identified consumer group. Claiming to represent the interests of consumers, these groups send letters to Congress and issue press releases to create the appearance that a large cross-section of people actually feel strongly about an issue. They often front for different interests than actual consumers, such as owners of corporations. (Owners of corporations are also consumers, of course, but their advocacy tends to be motivated by their special interests as owners, not their general interests as consumers).

Here’s a case in point, discovered through their release this morning about the anti-speculation legislation coming to the Senate floor this week: Consumers for Competitive Choice.

I never heard of “C4CC” before, so I went looking to see who they are - or, it turns out, who he is. “About” pages aren’t much good for this, but here’s an excerpt from theirs/his:

Consumers for Competitive Choice (formerly Consumers for Cable Choice) is an alliance of consumer organizations with one million members throughout the United States who are committed to the development of a competitive, vibrant consumer market in the communications, energy, financial and health sectors. Our goal is the creation of an open, diverse, pro-consumer market that will stimulate price, expand choice and improve service. Our group members provide invaluable counsel and support in this endeavor.

Consumers for Cable Choice, huh?

Researching a bit further, we find that the Web domain name of this organization was registered to a lawyer in Indianapolis named Robert Johnson, who speaks for the organization in the press release. Mr. Johnson’s client list includes a number of telecommunications companies. It appears that he’s been advocating their policy interests in the name “Consumers for Cable Choice,” and is branching out into other fields like energy, health care, and financial services.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with this. Companies and their owners are entitled to advocate for their interests. But we can discount the idea that there are a million consumers behind this effort. There’s probably something like ten or twenty companies behind it.

The C4CC letter and release are focused on favoring S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008, which will get consideration in the Senate this week, and H.R. 6330, the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices (PUMP) Act, which is very cleverly named, and so almost certainly will pass with unanimous support. (Just kidding.)

Here’s the voting on S. 3268, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.


And here’s the same for H.R. 6330, the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices (PUMP) Act:

The Congressional Management Foundation has issued an interim draft report on communicating with Congress. Here’s their summary of the problem they seek to address*:

For nearly a decade, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) has been working to improve communications between citizens and Members of Congress. We have found that the Internet has made it easier and cheaper to contact Congress than ever before. However, technological developments have been so rapid that neither citizens and the organizers of grassroots advocacy campaigns (the senders) nor congressional offices (the receivers) have learned to use it in ways that facilitate truly effective communications between citizens and Members of Congress. As a result, while more messages are being sent to Congress, it seems that less actual communication is occurring.

They are asking for intelligent comments on the report. Take a look and let them know what you think. They even have a brief survey to make that easy.

*CMF has very stern language in the report about reproducing its contents. This is a small piece of a newsworthy item, making it a fair use of their copyrighted work. They want it widely known, so they probably don’t mind anyway, but they didn’t think about that when they put in the legal boilerplate. You see the legal risks I encounter just to get you the news, though, don’t you?