Polluting the Political Process: A Critical Examination of Oil and Gas Industry Donations and Climate Change Rhetoric in US Presidential Campaigns from 2008 to 2024
(2025) VBRM15 20251Division of Risk Management and Societal Safety
- Abstract
- For decades, the oil and gas industry has attempted to influence the American political system and downplay the severity of climate change. Corporations in the industry have donated massive sums of money to politicians, especially presidential candidates. This analysis explored the impact of those donations and whether there is a correlation between donations from the oil and gas industry and increasing climate change denial rhetoric amongst presidential nominees from both major parties. The analysis was structured as a deductive, collective case study with a mixed-methods approach and analyzed presidential campaigns from 2008-2024. Campaign rhetoric was scored using a novel climate change denial scoring system (CDSS) and those scores were... (More)
- For decades, the oil and gas industry has attempted to influence the American political system and downplay the severity of climate change. Corporations in the industry have donated massive sums of money to politicians, especially presidential candidates. This analysis explored the impact of those donations and whether there is a correlation between donations from the oil and gas industry and increasing climate change denial rhetoric amongst presidential nominees from both major parties. The analysis was structured as a deductive, collective case study with a mixed-methods approach and analyzed presidential campaigns from 2008-2024. Campaign rhetoric was scored using a novel climate change denial scoring system (CDSS) and those scores were compared to oil and gas industry contributions. Findings indicate that as contributions from the oil and gas industry increased over time, so did climate change denial amongst Republican presidential nominees. There is no increase in denial amongst Democratic nominees as they accepted more money from the industry. Although the sample size is too small to be considered statistically significant, the results indicate that there is a connection between donations and rhetoric, which highlights the need for more research in this area of political science. (Less)
- Popular Abstract
- As the effects of climate change worsen, it is crucial for political leaders to take climate science seriously and implement strong policies to reduce harm. In the United States, climate change denial remains common—thanks in part to the oil and gas industry, which has worked for decades to undermine climate science and delay action. One powerful way the industry shapes the conversation is by donating large sums of money to political campaigns, especially presidential candidates, to help amplify voices that align with their interests.
This study looks at how those campaign donations may influence what political candidates say about climate change. The research focused on the ten Republican and Democratic presidential nominees’ campaigns... (More) - As the effects of climate change worsen, it is crucial for political leaders to take climate science seriously and implement strong policies to reduce harm. In the United States, climate change denial remains common—thanks in part to the oil and gas industry, which has worked for decades to undermine climate science and delay action. One powerful way the industry shapes the conversation is by donating large sums of money to political campaigns, especially presidential candidates, to help amplify voices that align with their interests.
This study looks at how those campaign donations may influence what political candidates say about climate change. The research focused on the ten Republican and Democratic presidential nominees’ campaigns from 2008 and 2024 and began with the hypothesis that candidates who receive more money from the oil and gas industry are more likely to downplay or deny climate change.
To prove this hypothesis, the study used campaign contribution data from the US Federal Election Commission and gathered campaign messaging from debate transcripts, party platforms, and campaign websites. Each campaign’s climate-related statements were scored on a scale ranging from strong denial to strong support for climate action. These scores were then compared to how much oil and gas money each campaign received.
The results showed a clear pattern among Republican nominees: as oil and gas industry donations increased, climate denial became more pronounced. Interestingly, Democratic candidates showed the opposite trend—those who received more industry money tended to express stronger support for climate action. Across the board, most campaigns were at least somewhat friendly to the oil and gas industry. Republican campaigns often lacked specific
climate plans or avoided the issue altogether, while Democratic campaigns were more likely to support renewable energy, environmental justice efforts, and natural gas infrastructure.
The small number of campaigns analyzed in the study limits the ability to make broad statistical claims, but the research highlights a troubling dynamic: campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry could be shaping how presidential candidates talk about climate change. These findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that money in politics can significantly influence political speech. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9209176
- author
- Radenbaugh, Tyler Noble LU
- supervisor
-
- Misse Wester LU
- organization
- course
- VBRM15 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- campaign contributions, campaign finance, climate change denial, economic-elite domination theory, fossil fuel industry, oil and gas industry contributions, presidential elections, climate policy, dark money, case study, political influence
- language
- English
- id
- 9209176
- date added to LUP
- 2025-08-13 10:00:50
- date last changed
- 2025-08-13 10:00:50
@misc{9209176,
abstract = {{For decades, the oil and gas industry has attempted to influence the American political system and downplay the severity of climate change. Corporations in the industry have donated massive sums of money to politicians, especially presidential candidates. This analysis explored the impact of those donations and whether there is a correlation between donations from the oil and gas industry and increasing climate change denial rhetoric amongst presidential nominees from both major parties. The analysis was structured as a deductive, collective case study with a mixed-methods approach and analyzed presidential campaigns from 2008-2024. Campaign rhetoric was scored using a novel climate change denial scoring system (CDSS) and those scores were compared to oil and gas industry contributions. Findings indicate that as contributions from the oil and gas industry increased over time, so did climate change denial amongst Republican presidential nominees. There is no increase in denial amongst Democratic nominees as they accepted more money from the industry. Although the sample size is too small to be considered statistically significant, the results indicate that there is a connection between donations and rhetoric, which highlights the need for more research in this area of political science.}},
author = {{Radenbaugh, Tyler Noble}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Polluting the Political Process: A Critical Examination of Oil and Gas Industry Donations and Climate Change Rhetoric in US Presidential Campaigns from 2008 to 2024}},
year = {{2025}},
}