40
F
UEL
U
ND
E
R
FIR
E
public relations firms to spread their message through ads. They
gave money to business associations and political groups that
shared their views. They paid for spokespeople to criticize the
law on radio and TV shows and at public meetings. The spokes-
people warned voters that if Prop 87 were enacted, oil compa-
nies would pass on their increased costs to consumers, driving
up the price of gas. They even warned that oil companies might
choose to leave California—and take thousands of oil industry
jobs elsewhere—because it would cost too much to operate in
the state.
On the other side of the debate, supporters of Prop 87 ran ads,
held meetings, and put speakers on TV and radio. They sent the
message that Prop 87 would help protect California’s air, water,
and wildlife—and noted that the cost to oil companies would be
tiny in comparison to enormous oil company profits. But Big Oil
had much more money to spend than the Prop 87 backers. “If
we ran one TV ad, they ran two and a radio ad and a newspaper
ad,” said Yusef Robb, communications director for the pro-Prop
87 campaign. The Big Oil media blitz paid off. When Election Day
rolled around, 55 percent of Californians voted no on Prop 87.
PLAYING POLITICS
The Prop 87 story is just one of many instances of Big Oil flex-
ing its political and financial muscle. At the local, state, fed-
eral, and international levels, oil companies—like other major
industries—are heavily involved in politics. In the United
States, oil companies want legislation to open up more federally
owned lands and more offshore waters to drilling for oil and
gas. They support less strict environmental regulations, which
would make drilling cheaper, easier, and less time-consuming.
They also want to maximize their profits through tax breaks
and lower royalty payments to federal and state governments.
To achieve their goals, oil companies give large campaign
