Koch Industries, the closely held firm led by conservative and libertarian political donors Charles and David Koch, has a long record of entanglements with federal regulatory authorities; its foreign subsidiaries traded with Iran and some of its foreign employees violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by using bribes to get business deals, according to an exhaustive account by Bloomberg News. That record wasn't sufficient to prevent an executive from the company, Don Clay, from holding a position advising the government on some of the very issues the multi-billion dollar conglomerate has been in trouble for violating, according to official records available through the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Explorer.

Clay, who before joining Koch Industries served as an assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, sat on the agency's advisory committee for the the Clean Air Act and on some of its subcommittees that provided advice on various matters including regulation of toxic substances. Records show that Clay sat on multiple EPA federal advisory committees beginning in 1998 -- when he left his official post at the EPA and joined Koch Industries, through 2009.

Clay was in a position to advise the government on how to regulate a company he worked for, which is owned by people regularly fighting for less regulation in general. The EPA did not respond to questions about what issues Clay worked on exactly while he was on the advisory committee.

EPA enforcement data records presented on InfluenceExplorer.com, show details of some of the enforcement actions carried out against Koch Industries and its subsidiaries by the EPA, such as an incident in 2001 where Koch Pipeline dumped over 300,000 pounds of a toxic substance in Iowa, violating the Superfund. The company was fined $2.3 million dollars for that violation.

The table below is taken from InflunceExplorer.com and shows EPA violations by Koch Industries and its subsidiaries dating back to 2001. The data is new to the site and allows access to information that was once hard to obtain.

During the span of years that Clay held his position on the federal advisory committee, Koch Industries reported spending close to $32 million to influence multiple issues including the environment in 1998 and between 2006-2009, according to information obtained from lobbyist disclosure forms and displayed on TransparencyData.

Clay’s position on the advisory committee, in combination with lobbying efforts, gave Koch Industries an additional avenue to influence government. Not only could the company use its lobbyists to influence lawmakers and administration officials, it also had an inside advisor who could recommend policies preferred by the company directly to the EPA.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln has put herself front and center in opposing efforts by her party's leadership to pass or implement comprehensive caps on carbon emissions in the United States. She opposes the proposed cap and trade legislation that passed the House of Representatives and has been touted by President Barack Obama and senators John Kerry, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. Similarly, she has signed on to legislation that would block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing their own regulations to cap carbon emissions should cap and trade legislation fail to pass Congress. In this effort she is aided by a coterie of former staffers who currently lobby for a variety of interests seeking to weaken or derail carbon capping whether through legislation or the EPA's rule-making authority.

Six of Lincoln's former staffers currently lobby for interests invested in influencing carbon capping legislation. These interests include oil & gas trade groups, agriculutural companies, the airplane industry and biofuel and bioenergy firms. As chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Lincoln holds a powerful position to influence carbon capping legislation and she has made no secret of her desire to block the legislation.

(For a full visualization of Sen. Blanche Lincoln's former staffers lobbying for the energy and climate industries click here or the image to the right.)

The most influential of Lincoln's former staffers is Kelly Bingel, a lobbyist for Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti. Bingel is a former chief of staff to Lincoln and has been called "Sen. Lincoln’s alter ego." Bingel's clients include two incredibly powerful organizations opposed to carbon capping: the American Petroleum Institute (API), the lead trade group for the oil industry, and Koch Industries, one of the largest oil manufacturing, trading and investment companies in the country. David Koch, one of the two owners of Koch Industries, is a big contributor to conservative movement organizations and is an outspoken opponent of cap and trade legislation. Koch has invested millions in various conservative organizations that have led lobbying and grassroots stimulation efforts to get people to advocate to their lawmakers to oppose cap and trade legislation. API spent $7.32 million on lobbying last year, almost double what it spent in 2008. API states that any carbon capping legislation or regulations will cost the industry jobs and increase taxes.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Lincoln is currently the number one recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry from 2005 to 2010. She has received, through her campaign committee and her leadership political action committee (PAC),$309,500 from the industry.

Another former staffer to Lincoln, Ben Noble, lobbies for organizations opposed to carbon capping efforts including a variety of agricultural interests. Agricultural companies and trade groups have a major stake in cap and trade legislation as it moves through Congress. According to the EPA, agriculture accounts for 6 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The industry is seeking to avoid carbon capping regulation in cap and trade legislation or through EPA regulation.

One of Noble's clients, the USA Rice Federation, opposes cap and trade legislation and recently praised Lincoln for her stance against the legislation, "We applaud Chairman Lincoln for putting the American economy and jobs first in this debate. While there are a number of questions surrounding the issue of climate change, there is absolutely no question about the severe impact that pending legislation and regulation would have on our economy and jobs."

Lincoln is the top recipient of campaign contributions from a variety of agricultural industries including agricultural services, crop producers, food processors and meat processors and plants. Since 2005, Lincoln has received $789,372 from the agribusiness sector.

Both Bingel and Noble also represent organizations generally supportive of cap and trade legislation, so long as it contains language that allows them to maximize their profits under the new system. Bingel represents the electrical utility trade group the Electric Edison Institute (EEI). EEI, which includes members who have received specific benefits in the House-passed cap and trade legislation, sees the legislation as an openning into new markets with high potential to increase their share of energy distribution.

Noble represents the massive bio-tech, agribusiness firm Monsanto. Monsanto seeks to gain profits from a cap and trade system by getting farms and agribusiness to switch to a "no-till" method of farming. The "no-till" method would require farmers to purchase herbicides and seeds made by Monsanto. The lobbying effort by Monsanto is detailed in Tom Philpott's explanation at Grist.

Last week, Lincoln released her first campaign advertisement in the uphill battle to retain her Senate seat. The ad touts her continued opposition to the passage of cap and trade legislation. This continues her statement from last year that cap and trade is a "complete non-starter."

(Revision: Todd Wooten no longer lobbies for Enerkem. He is currently employed by Duke University.)

Further dispatches from the Fifth Branch of government provided by the Washington Post:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is likely to postpone offering an amendment (pdf) next week that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, according to sources familiar with the matter. ... The maneuvering comes as The Washington Post has confirmed that two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress.

As reported in McClatchy, the lobbyists are very honest about the whole thing:

"This is what lawyers in Washington do every day of the week, is to take a look," Holmstead said. "It happens all the time on almost every piece of legislation. Before language is introduced, it is almost always shared with people on all sides of the issue."

All the more reason for even more transparency in the interaction of lobbyists with our elected officials.

To follow up on a post from last week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is following through on her promise to post her daily schedule as a way of increasing transparency at the Environmental Protection Agency. You can view her schedule here.

For more on her other promises on transparency and public collaboration, see my post from last week.

Yesterday I wrote about how more and better downloadable data on toxics in our neighborhoods will be coming our way soon from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), thanks to the reinstatement of tougher standards for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

But it's important to remember that even a tougher TRI program has an obvious severe limitation--it relies on facilities reporting on their own pollution. In other words, let's say the Sunlight Foundation staffers, in our furious blogging every day, produced a bunch of nasty formaldehyde as a byproduct. If we we produced a certain amount, we'd have to fill out paperwork and file it with the EPA, and that would go into the TRI database. Self-reporting has its limits, as anybody who has ever met a toddler knows.

Another treasure trove of information over at the EPA is the Air Quality Systems (AQS) database, which it creates from thousands of actual monitors placed all over the country that measure the amount of certain toxic chemicals in the air, required under the Clean Air Act. This is the way the agency monitors ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulates, and sulfur dioxide. There's also another database, the National Emissions Inventory, which contains estimates on pollutants and where they are coming from, compiled from a variety of sources, such as state and local governments and the Federal Highway Administration.

What can you do with all these data? Well, for years, the American Lung Association has issued an annual report grading counties and cities for how badly they are polluted. In fact, the group is poised to release the next version of this report on April 29. This version will include a website, www.stateoftheair.org, where visitors can look up how their own communities' score.

But in this era these data could go a lot further. The EPA is making efforts to make the information more user friendly. This web page allows users to view pollutants on Google Earth.  And over here, at www.airnow.gov, EPA is working with several other agencies to produce a nifty mashup map that lets you see what air quality is like for about 300 U.S. cities.

There's a lot that remains clunky, however, for those of us who don't have advanced degrees in pollutionology. It takes a long time and a lot of clicking around at the section of the EPA's website devoted to air quality data to figure out where to find what. And then the information provided is not always written in plain English.

Surely there are talented programmers out there who could mash up this information in new, even more accessible ways. And of course intrepid reporters and bloggers who can use this information to do detailed investigations about not just how polluted their neighborhoods are, but where it's coming from. The auto, utility, and chemical industries, some of those that contribute to air pollution, all spend copious amount so of cash on lobbying Congress and campaign contributions, often for weaker air quality standards.