Scott Pruitt’s Meetings with Campaign Donors

by Shane Pollock

Since taking office in 2017, the head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt has been reported of meeting with at least 39 of his campaign donors, including major oil, gas, and coal companies, such as Murray Energy. This report comes at a time where Pruitt is facing a lot of criticism for his office’s spending habits. The meetings with past donors have greatly outnumbered meetings with environmental organizations. On top of this, Pruitt has already given speeches at 4 different events planned by the Federalist Society, another one of Pruitt’s donors during his campaign for Attorney General. Pruitt has also been seen touring a coal mine in Wyoming, Arch Coal, which ironically also donated to his campaign in 2014. All of these meetings and events are made public by the EPA, and can be seen here: .

What do you think about Pruitt focusing a lot of his time on past donors of his campaigns? Is it a normal part of politics, or is in inappropriate for a sitting administrator to do? Do you think Pruitt should be more concerned with our environment than maintaining past relationships? Personally, I believe Pruitt is focusing far too much of his time on the wrong industries. With so much attention on the oil & gas industry, how is he benefiting our environment?


6 thoughts on “Scott Pruitt’s Meetings with Campaign Donors

  1. I’m not honestly sure why so many people are surprised at all of the things that have come out about Scott Pruitt in the last few weeks. As we saw in the video we watched in class, Pruitt has a past of blurring the lines when it comes to the industries who have put a vast amount of money into his campaigns. I think if he were balancing his time between both environmentally friendly industries/groups and industries/groups that may not be as friendly for the environment he could potentially pass it off as being a normal part of politics. However, considering what he should be doing as the head of the EPA is helping the environment, not his campaign donors, it’s pretty clear what his intentions are. I think in the back of his mind he knows his post at the EPA won’t last very long so he’s trying to maintain his past relationships so they can continue supporting his political career. I do think that it will be interesting to see how Trump handles the pressure from the overwhelming amount of people who want to see Pruitt replaced.

  2. As we have talked about before and seen on the documentary we watched in class, Scott Pruit is not fit to be the head of the EPA. He, just like Donald Trump is self interested which is why the current president chose him for this position. It was his mission to find the biggest critic of the EPA and make him the head of it. Thankfully, it has come out that he is not fit for the job in his sneaky business deals. I agree with Catherine completely when she says that he is looking more into maintaining relationships for the end of this position to carry his political career post EPA. As head of a sensitive agency such as one that is suppose to protect environmental rights, I think his time has been served and its time to look for a candidate that cares about the position a little more.

  3. I agree with the previous two comments and as I also discussed in my blog last week, it should not come as a surprise that Scott Pruitt isn’t fit for the job. Were we expecting that he’d magically start caring about the environment with his new position? That he’d cut all his past relations? Mr Pruitt and the Trump Administration are on a mission to provide job security and business profit in the U.S.A., and in their opinion that clashes with environmental well-being. We can feel outrage with every article that’s posted about Mr Pruitt’s illegitimacy. We can resent the newest white house and governmental appointments. We can stand and watch the next three years and hope for a more environmental-friendly administration. But if our government is not going to take care of our basic human rights we need to take matters in our own hands. Be mindful of the products you buy and where they come from, which car you use and what type of meat you eat. Every little bit you contribute helps more than being bitter or raging on social media.

  4. We now know the name Scott Pruitt and realize that he is just a tool for big oil/coal. Pruitt’s success has come from donations and support from these industries and these are the areas where he is most strongly focused. To put it quite frank, Pruitt is not in his position at the EPA to help or benefit the environment. He is there to restrict them as much as possible and put them on the course of disestablishment. Trump is using Pruitt as a driving force in his fight to drive out the push for sustainable energy because the short term ends of the revenue from big coal and oil are too large to overlook. I assume the meeting with advisors is to show that he is still on track and has the same state of mind. If they didn’t want them to be public I promise that you would not have been so easily able to discover the contents and purpose behind these meetings. Pruitt is flaunting his power and trying to accomplish as much in his short term as possible.

  5. As much as I do not like Scott Pruitt talking to his top donators it is part of his job to please the people that help put him in office, its basic politics. I feel if I were gonna end up in his shoes i would be doing the same thing as him. His job as head of EPA in my opinion does not mean thinking of ways to save the environment but more of a person to oversee what everyone is doing and chiming in or adding a provision here or there. Although i do believe he is spending too much time on oil and gas companies he has to hear out to everyone that calls to him and they have the largest voice.

  6. I think that Scott Pruitt is doing the exact job he was brought on to do. The Trump administration didn’t want an environmentalist who would put out heavy regulations, they wanted someone who would help the industry and economy grow in the quickest way possible. I also think that it is understandable that he would meet with his supporter given that they are the ones who put him in the position he’s in today. The thing I’m most interested in is where or not him renting from a lobbying group’s chairman would be a conflict of interest for him. Out of all the “morally improper” dealings mentioned in this article, I believe that is the one I would consider the most actionable, because the concessions he is getting from the chairman of Williams and Jensen is a textbook example of a bribe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s