Anti-Fracking Groups Give Bob Casey Millions While He Flip-Flops on Fracking
“Green” groups opposed to Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry have endorsed and funded the vulnerable Senate Democrat
Suddenly, Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania is a champion of fracking who will work to unleash American energy.
Or so he says. Anti-fracking environmental activist groups know better.
Top “green” groups have endorsed Casey for reelection and provided him with millions of dollars in financial support. According to campaign finance records, radical anti-fracking groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, and League of Conservation Voters have collectively spent more than $2 million in independent expenditures to elect Casey since 2006.
In 2024, that includes hundreds of thousands of dollars spent fighting his pro-energy opponent, Dave McCormick.
The NRDC, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Groups, are among the leading opponents of fracking that have expressed support for Casey.
The NRDC, for instance, describes Casey’s re-election bid as a “must win race” to advance their agenda—which includes abolishing fracking in Pennsylvania. The group frequently propagandizes against fracking and has worked to halt the process in Pennsylvania and other states.
In similar fashion, the Sierra Club is unwilling to stake out any middle ground and wants fracking “ended entirely” while claiming there are “no clean fossil fuels.” For its part the League of Conservation Voters, and its Pennsylvania affiliate, have a long history of opposing pipeline projects that enable natural gas to flow from the Marcellus Shale, and other regions rich in natural resources.
The NRDC Action Fund has previously endorsed Casey, as has the League of Conservation Action Fund, which includes Casey in its long list of Democratic “climate champions.”
The League also has a scorecard for voting records that gives Casey a 94% score. Allies of the fracking process do not receive that kind of rating from the League.
Then there’s the Sierra Club, a member of the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups, which has endorsed Casey. The Sierra Club remains committed to eliminating all fossil fuels.
Bob Casey Can't Hide From His Radical Record
Now Casey pretends he’s for fracking after spending his Senate career trying to limit or eliminate the critical practice altogether. At least that’s what he’s telling voters in the critical swing state, where polls now show the long-time incumbent Democrat could potentially be unseated by Dave McCormick, the Republican challenger. Casey has held the U.S. Senate seat since 2007 and was heavily favored to retain it heading into this year’s election.
Casey voted with the Harris-Biden administration more than 98% of the time. That’s a problem for anyone courting Pennsylvania residents who benefit from affordable and reliable energy given the administration’s hostility toward domestic energy production. The American Energy Alliance, a nonprofit group that favors free market energy policies, lists 250 ways the Harris-Biden regime have made it more difficult to produce oil and gas in the U.S. So, while Casey has been a reliable vote for policies that hinder American energy, he has suddenly had an epiphany in the final days of the 2024 campaign.
Who knew?
But like Kamala Harris, Casey is running into the buzzsaw of his own anti-energy positions that are anathema in a state that sits at the epicenter of the “Natural Gas Revolution.” Casey is on record backing legislation that would suffocate fracking exercises that have made it possible to tap into large deposits of oil and natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation that cuts across a substantial portion of Pennsylvania. But unlike Kamala, Casey avoided making overt statements expressing support for a ban on fracking. Not only that, but Casey is also running commercials now claiming he’s separating himself from the Biden administration on energy policy.
What is Fracking and How Does it Enable American Energy?
So, what has Casey’s benefactors in the “progressive” environmental movement twisted into all sorts of contortions?
Engineers who take part in the process of fracking, formally known has hydraulic fracturing, inject water mixed with sand and chemicals into a well at high pressure, producing a fluid that fractures the rock and releases trapped oil or gas. Fracking has existed in one form or another since 1940s. It is the application of this practice along horizontal drilling techniques that make it possible to tap through the hard shale to release gas supplies.
Pennsylvania voters should know that despite what Casey is telling them now, if he had his druthers fracking could have been brought to a standstill.
As the Washington Free Beacon reports, Casey has repeatedly introduced the “Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act” or FRAC Act, a bill that would have amended the Safe Drinking Water Act enabling the federal government to usurp state authority over fracking. Dan Kish, a senior fellow with the Institute for Energy Research, a group that advocates for free market energy policies, explains why Casey’s bill would have put the kibosh on oil and gas development in Pennsylvania.
“The entire fracking industry was given the green light because states were able to retain control of the regulatory process,” Kish said. “But Casey was all for taking control out of Pennsylvania’s hands and giving it to the federal government and the EPA. This means that once the environmentalists had enough of their allies in government, they would be able to essentially shut down fracking and do it with Casey’s blessing.”
By partnering with other senators who are not in states where fracking takes place, Kish sees Casey giving cover to a larger effort devoted to forcing more people into cities where the Democratic Party holds sway.
“It’s rural cleansing,” he said. “If you can’t farm, and you can’t log, and you can’t mine, and if you can’t drill for oil and gas, or run cattle, then you have to go into the cities for employment and it’s in the cities where the Democrats keeping making arguments for more and bigger government.”
(READ MORE: Kamala’s Fracking Ban Will Cost Pennsylvanians $41 Billion In Just One Year)
