Right now, the outdoors is facing an unprecedented political attack. Efforts to halt climate change are being . Agencies that protect the environment are being . The Endangered Species Act may be 鈥.鈥 And efforts are underway to . There鈥檚 even talk of .
Why is this happening? In part because the oil and gas industries have bought off our politicians.
Rather than complain about the state of politics, work to be the change we believe in, or espouse some other well-meaning but ultimately ineffective slogan, why don鈥檛 we borrow a leaf from the Koch brothers鈥 playbook and buy our own politicians?
Oil Money Versus the Outdoors
Earlier this year, the outdoor recreation industry decided to seriously throw its political weight around for the first time. Politicians in Utah were threatening the places we play outdoors鈥攖hey wanted to rescind the Bears Ears National Monument designation鈥攕o our biggest brands visited the state to remind legislators how much money they bring in and how many jobs they account for. Or more accurately: how much cash they could take with them if they left.
According to , 鈥淥utdoor recreation contributes more than $12 billion to the economy, employs more than 122,000 people, and is the primary driver behind the tourism industry. Not only does Utah outdoor recreation create $856 million in state and local tax revenues, it is the reason for $3.6 billion in wages and salaries.鈥
Oil and gas? Utah produces , and that industry .
One of the most visible symbols of the role outdoor recreation plays in Utah鈥檚 economy is the biannual Outdoor Retailer trade show. Each year, it brings 50,000 visitors and $45 million to Salt Lake City. Yet when leaders from Patagonia, The North Face, REI, and Outdoor Retailer called Utah Governor Gary Herbert to demand that he cease efforts to rescind the Bears Ears designation, he sided with oil and gas. In doing so, Herbert was prepared to let OR leave the state (which it did shortly thereafter).
Why? Money: . Private donations from individuals associated with that industry may have accounted for more.
Herbert is well known for blurring the lines between oversight of oil and gas in the state and his own political fundraising. For three years running, he has piggybacked a fundraising event on top of the state鈥檚 official Energy Development Summit, charging attendees $5,000 a table. Matt Pacenza, executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, has called the connection between the fundraiser and the summit 鈥.鈥
There is no line item for outdoor recreation in Herbert鈥檚 campaign聽disclosure, but he did receive $19,000 from Recreation and Live Entertainment and $8,000 from Lodging and Tourism, which share some of our interests, particularly in Utah. I wonder if that phone call with Outdoor Retailer and its leading brands would have gone differently if they had been lining his pockets with as much cash as oil and gas?
The financial connection between oil and gas money and policy is even clearer with another Utah politician. 听狈辞飞, . In January, Bishop stated that he 鈥渨ould love to invalidate [the ESA].鈥 Why? 鈥淚t鈥檚 been used for control of the land.鈥 The industry that would like to gain access to land currently off-limits due to the ESA? Oil and gas.

How the Outdoors Lobbies Now
It鈥檚 important to realize that our industry is currently engaged in significant and successful efforts to lobby for our interests. But it鈥檚 also important to understand that those efforts, along with our industry, are fairly young and still evolving.
I spoke with Amy Roberts, executive director of the , who detailed our industry鈥檚 lobbying efforts in Washington. The OIA is a trade organization that lobbies for the interests of members like Birkenstock, Big Agnes, and even giant companies like REI, but also includes tiny specialty gear brands and mom-and pop-retailers with only a single storefront.
鈥淔or the industry as a whole, we鈥檝e had a PAC since 2008,鈥 explains Roberts. The OIA uses campaign donations from that PAC to try to influence policy on topics like public lands and the environment, as well as trade policies that are important to its members. That means the PAC donates to both Democrat and Republican candidates, Roberts says, and focuses exclusively on candidates running for federal office.
Those donations buy the OIA access. Once the offices of a politician are paying attention, the OIA meets with staff to 鈥渄iscuss the nitty-gritty of policy,鈥 Roberts says. When OIA gets a meeting with a member of Congress, the group鈥檚 strategy is to bring along executives of companies from their districts鈥攃onstituents, in other words.
So far, this sounds exactly like the lobbying strategy of oil and gas. Campaign donations are used not only to help like-minded politicians get elected, but also to buy access to discuss policy and demonstrate its benefits back home. Trouble is, the difference between the amount of money spent by the OIA versus oil and gas is huge. The OIA鈥檚 PAC spends about $50,000 per election cycle, across all its donations, says Roberts. Last year, oil and gas PACs donated three times that amount to Rob Bishop alone.
Despite that disparity, we do still have a voice in Washington. 鈥淲e鈥檙e seen as a fun industry,鈥 says Roberts. 鈥淲e have a halo.鈥 She says the OIA doesn鈥檛 have trouble getting meetings, despite the small amount it鈥檚聽able to donate. 鈥淲here I think we鈥檝e had the most success over the last decade is how we鈥檝e been able to talk about the power of the outdoor recreation economy,鈥 Roberts explains. She鈥檚 talking about the outdoor recreation industry鈥檚 , a figure you鈥檝e likely seen bandied about in articles about public lands and politics for the past few years.
One of the OIA鈥檚 biggest successes was last year鈥檚 Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act. It authorizes the Department of Commerce to measure the industry鈥檚 contribution to the gross domestic product and will allow us to break down those jobs and dollars by congressional district. It鈥檚 widely believed that the results, coming in 2018, will bring the outdoor recreation industry out of the shadows and into the mainstream by verifying just how much we generate in consumer spending. If that $646 billion number is accurate, it would make outdoor recreation the third-largest source of consumer spending in the United States, behind only healthcare and financial services. Oil and gas only accounts for $354 billion a year.
But attention doesn鈥檛 buy policy.
Where Outdoors Lobbying Is Going
If the industry is so big, why don鈥檛 we have a bigger voice in politics and the funds to buy it?
鈥淲ealth is very much consolidated in oil and gas, and we don鈥檛 have many wealthy tycoons in outdoor recreation,鈥 explains Cam Brensinger, founder of Nemo Equipment. Nemo is an OIA member, and Brensinger has been visiting Washington to lobby lawmakers with that company for nearly a decade. Brensinger is 40 years old, and the company he started is 15. Both are successful, but they鈥檙e not (yet) at the point where they have congressmen in their pockets.
鈥淚f you look at the founders of the iconic outdoor companies, they鈥檙e just now getting to retirement age,鈥 says Roberts. 鈥淥ur industry is just one or two generations old at this point. We are less entrenched in Washington.鈥
(CA) was founded in 1989 by REI, Patagonia, The North Face, and Kelty to fund grassroots conservation efforts. Today, it boasts more than 200 member companies that donate a portion of their earnings. Kate Ketscheck, a member of the CA board, tells me, 鈥淸The Conservation Alliance] has contributed $17 million since 1989, saving 50 million acres of wildlands, protecting nearly 3,000 miles of rivers, halting or removing 29 dams, designating five marine reserves, and purchasing 12 climbing areas.鈥
In November, the CA recognized the political threat to public lands and voted to create a Public Lands Defense Fund. It will work to defend 鈥渂edrock conservation laws鈥 like the Antiquities Act, preserve previous national monument designations, and prevent the transfer of public lands to state or private hands. The fund has received an initial financial commitment from The North Face and Patagonia to the tune of $100,000 per year for the next three years.
The fund doesn鈥檛 operate its own programs, but instead grants money to organizations working to protect public lands. The CA but does not currently give you the ability to direct your donation toward a specific program like the Public Lands Defense Fund. It鈥檚 also almost entirely funded by its member companies, but Ketschek tells me they鈥檙e working on a program to enable member companies to educate their customers about the CA and the work it does. One hundred percent of funds raised by the CA go to its grants.
So far, no one has presented the Public Lands Defense Fund with a plan to buy a politician.
How to Buy a Congressman
In 2006, he pleaded guilty to felony counts of lobbying-related conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion; served four years in prison; and was fined more than $20 million. The scandal also brought down a congressman from Ohio, along with many staff and other political types. Abramoff is the living embodiment of corruption in politics. And, man, was he good at it.
According to Abramoff, 鈥淭he whole system is corrupt.鈥 And buying politicians is pretty easy. Abramoff describes it as a widespread activity, one that hasn鈥檛 been diminished by reforms enacted after his downfall. 鈥淚t hasn鈥檛 been cleaned up at all,鈥 he told interviewer Lesley Stahl.
In the interview, Abramoff lays out a simple three-step plan for buying a congressperson:
1. Offer jobs to their staff. 鈥淲hen we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, 鈥榊ou know, when you鈥檙e done working on the Hill, we鈥檇 very much like you to consider coming to work for us.鈥 Now, the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to 鈥檈m, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they鈥檙e gonna do. And not only that, they鈥檙e gonna think of things we can鈥檛 think of to do.鈥
2. Pay for leisure activities. 鈥淚 spent over a million dollars a year on tickets to sporting events and concerts and whatnot at all the venues. I had two people on my staff whose virtual full-time job was booking tickets. We were Ticketmaster for these guys.鈥
3. Organize fundraisers. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a steak. But you can take him to a fundraising lunch, and not only buy him that steak, but give him $25,000 extra, and call it a fundraiser.鈥
Together, that approach enabled Abramoff to draft language for his client companies and have it directly introduced into bills. He estimates that he had that ability with 鈥渙ver 100鈥 of our elected representatives.
Let鈥檚 Buy a Congressman!
If buying a congressman is so easy, and if buying congressmen (and other politicians) is what nets oil and gas victories over our interests even though we have the moral and economic high ground, then why aren鈥檛 we buying our very own congressmen? Let鈥檚 look at Abramoff鈥檚 methods and figure out how they could translate to the outdoor recreation industry.
1. Offer jobs to congressional staff. This should be easy. Who wouldn鈥檛 want to work for an outdoors company? It鈥檚 true that we probably couldn鈥檛 match the salaries of a high-powered lobbying firm, but think of the benefits.
2. Pay for leisure activities. Again, easy. Abramoff offered congressmen all-expenses-paid skyboxes for them and 鈥渦p to two dozen鈥 of their friends at Redskins games. Football is boring鈥攈ow about a whitewater rafting trip? Heck, former congressional aides turned professional river guides could even bend politicians鈥 ears about policy as they鈥檙e experiencing an endorphin high after swimming a Class V.
The OIA鈥檚 Roberts is candid about our industry鈥檚 appeal. She鈥檚 able to get meetings despite her tiny budget specifically because people love the outdoors and the athletes outdoor brands sponsor. Abramoff describes his staff as 鈥渓ike Ticketmaster.鈥 Could the outdoor recreation industry be like travel agents for politicians?
3. Organize fundraisers. This is where it gets serious. Everyone who works in this industry is passionate about the outdoors and its causes. And there are 6.1 million of us. Many of us already donate money to wildlife charities and political campaigns. And yet there鈥檚 no cohesive program to apply our collective cash to achieving our collective political goals.
Like oil and gas, or any other big, politically entrenched industry, there鈥檚 no reason our money couldn鈥檛 buy us the ability to have our own language introduced in congressional bills and to ensure that members of that organization vote in our favor.
It鈥檚 All About the Benjamins
On April 21, 2016, Bernie Sanders achieved the impossible. Targeting individual donors contributing an average of $27, he raised as much money for his primary campaign as his establishment rival鈥. Could a similar campaign of grassroots donations be used to give the outdoors the political clout (read: budget) it needs?
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 completely ignore the fact that you have to participate in the political process,鈥 Roberts tells me. 鈥淎nd that involves supporting candidates who share your values. Those other industries definitely have larger war chests than we do.鈥 Roberts says the OIA is planning to pursue more grassroots funding. 鈥淚 think that鈥檚 where we have a lot of opportunity,鈥 she tells me.
So how do we get a larger war chest to influence policy around public lands, the environment, wild animals, and all that stuff that鈥檚 so essential to our lives? Let鈥檚 pull out a napkin and scribble down some numbers.
REI has demonstrated a willingness to put its money where its mouth is and fund public lands defense. REI is owned by its members, who pay $20 to join and who must spend more than $10 on a regularly priced purchase. Those members receive an annual dividend for 10 percent of what they spent on regularly priced purchases in the previous year. REI has and .
Those dividends arrive in the form of a gift card. I got mine in the mail a week ago and have already lost it. It was for a little less then $27. I would have happily ticked a box for 100 percent of my dividend to go to the Conservation Alliance鈥檚 Public Lands Defense Fund. I would happily make that payment recurring, every year, forever. An informal survey of the REI members currently present in my house (three) suggests that they would happily do the same.
My point here isn鈥檛 to pick on REI. It鈥檚 to demonstrate that our industry has ample funding sources available to achieve the political goals that have suddenly become so important to our future. All it would take is setting up the ability for all of us to participate in them and educating us about the ability to do so. Bernie did it, and we can, too. We just recreate his campaign鈥檚 fundraising structure.
Once that money starts flowing, we need to stop being precious about how it鈥檚 spent. There will be a time when ethical, moral people run politics in Washington. That time is not now. We clearly understand how oil and gas beats us. With outdoor recreation鈥檚 sheer numbers, there鈥檚 no reason we can鈥檛 start winning, too. It鈥檚 time the outdoors starts fighting dirty.