The Double Life of Congressional Lobbyists
Congressional lobbyists working for fossil fuel firms are simultaneously representing more than 300 local governments seeking federal funding for climate recovery. This finding emerges from a 2026 analysis of congressional lobbying disclosures. The research, conducted by F Minus and Make Polluters Pay, tracks the activity of firms that accept contracts from oil and gas companies while acting as representatives for cities and counties impacted by extreme weather.
Beyond those directly managing climate-related requests, another 568 local governments hired fossil fuel lobbyists to handle non-climate issues during the same period. These portfolios often include topics such as home insurance and healthcare. The overlap creates a situation where local governments pay firms that may simultaneously oppose the very climate policies those governments depend on to manage rising infrastructure costs. James Browning, founder of F Minus, notes that many local leaders likely remain unaware of these dual allegiances.
Conflicts in Representation
The law firm Greenberg Traurig serves as a primary example of this arrangement. The firm represents major entities including the American Petroleum Institute, ConocoPhillips, and the Western States Petroleum Association. These clients actively challenge state-level climate superfund legislation. These bills aim to hold fossil fuel companies liable for historic emissions and direct the resulting revenue toward climate mitigation projects.
Miami-Dade County in Florida retained Greenberg Traurig to lobby for shoreline protection and restoration efforts in the Everglades. At the same time, the firm represents clients dedicated to blocking the funding mechanisms that would support such projects. A similar dynamic exists in New York, where Westchester County and the City of Rochester utilize the firm for advocacy. These jurisdictions could see their own local climate funding efforts undermined by the lobbying success of the firm's private sector clients.
The Legislative War of Words
New York and Vermont enacted climate superfund legislation in 2024. Despite this, industry opposition remains high. During 2026, 13 additional states reviewed similar bills. Organizers report high public support for these measures, yet they frequently encounter intense resistance from industry lobbyists behind closed doors. Data from Brown University suggests that while public testimony on these bills often favors legislation, registered lobbyists maintain a massive presence at state capitols to stifle progress.
Opponents of these bills, including fossil fuel corporations and conservative groups, often lean on claims regarding economic impact. They argue that fees on oil firms would increase costs for consumers. Economists challenge this, pointing to the nature of oil as a global commodity. They note that individual companies lack the market power to unilaterally raise prices without losing market share. Regardless, the repetition of these arguments continues to shape the legislative environment.
Next Steps and Wider Implications
Legislators have begun to address these tensions through national action. In April, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Harriet Hageman introduced the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act. This bill seeks to prohibit climate superfund laws and dismiss active accountability lawsuits. Disclosures from the second quarter of 2026 show that the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Companies are actively lobbying for this legislation.
Local governments continue to face the burden of climate-related damages. As they search for funding, the divide between their stated goals and the political interests of their hired lobbyists will likely grow. The launch of the F Minus database provides a resource for local leaders to vet their representation more closely. Whether city halls choose to change their contracting practices remains to be seen. The influence of behind-the-scenes lobbying remains a hurdle for those seeking to implement state-level climate accountability.