(6) But those of us in politics sure do. Bipartisanship on climate, common beforehand, was killed dead by the 2010 Citizens United decision when it unleashed all that fossil fuel dark money. Politics has never been the same.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 776
Yes30%
No66%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party4%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 87 sponsored · 209 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
(5) An unjustified subsidy that big creates a massive motive to meddle in politics. If fossil fuel spends $70 billion a year on corrupt political influence, it’s still a 10-1 payback on their investment. You don't see it all because so much is hidden “dark money.”
(4) If that subsidy weren’t protected by politics, it would create a big incentive for products to reduce the harm. A $100/ton pollution fee creates a $99/ton incentive to innovate and reduce the harm. The “free-to-pollute” subsidy kills that incentive.
(3) As a subsidy, this is a big one: the International Monetary Fund pegs it north of $700 billion per year, just in the United States. That means $700 billion in harm annually we all have to absorb.
(2) “Pollute-for-free” has no economic, moral or environmental justification. Even Milton Friedman taught that “negative externalities” like pollution need to be in the price of the product, or it’s a subsidy.
Let’s remember: (1) the fossil fuel industry is desperate to pollute for free; if they can’t pollute for free, their business model collapses.
🧵
Shared this thread with a friend in the investment space (no greenie!), and here’s what he had to say:
“In ten years, no one will buy a house without thinking about climate change-induced risks and costs … It is a future that is rapidly coming into focus.”
Exactly.
They’re used to false facts. How about Citizens United’s “no need to worry about corruption, all the political money we just released is going to be transparent: you’ll know who the donors are”?
And, of course, then they lied about it (lying to Congress is SOP for Trumpsters):
Trump’s bogus FEMA in action: www.politico.com/news/2026/05...
Happy Mother’s Day! 💐
Trump is granting polluters’ wishlists to poison our air with cancer-causing chemicals, no questions asked. The No Passes for Polluters Act would stop this corruption. www.propublica.org/article/clea...
Equal parts gangster and gong show, playing carelessly with people’s lives.
www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
Yet Dems shy away from the issue, despite voting 100% to get rid of dark money when given the chance. (Republicans 100% defend dark money.) www.politico.com/news/2026/05...
Should be us. This is the price of the corrupt Trump administration decision to cede this entire industry to the Chinese, just for added gasoline sales for his big fossil fuel donors. Corruption has a cost. American industries will pay.
10. Last, but definitely not least: It’s fun as hell to fight the bad guys!! So let’s saddle up for a big ol’ fight.
If we want to shed those labels, the best way to do that is to wage a big ol’ fight; better still against bad ol’ villains; better still if the fight is against fraud and corruption to protect families from being swindled.
9. Many Americans think Democrats are “weak” and “don’t fight.”
We shouldn’t leave the villains out of the story. Every story is better with a villain, and these are first-class villains. We would do well to talk loudly about the villainy.
8. Fossil fuel’s climate denial fraud operation and dark money corruption operation are villains right out of Central Casting (cue the moustache twirl).
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History776 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
776 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (67-33) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (32-67) |
| 2026-01-29 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-55, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-27 | S. 3627 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (82-15) |
| 2026-01-15 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (85-14, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-14 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 98 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2026-01-13 | S.J. Res. 84 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-01-12 | H.R. 6938 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (80-13, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-08 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-40) |
| 2026-01-08 | S.J. Res. 98 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 98 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-01-07 | S.J. Res. 86 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (43-50) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2026-01-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-01-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-42) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-35) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-36) |
| 2025-12-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-12-18 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (50-50) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (69-27) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-12-17 | S. 1071 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (77-20) |
| 2025-12-15 | S. 1071 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-20, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 1071 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (75-22) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3385 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-11 | S. 3386 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-10 | S. Res. 532 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-12-10 | S.J. Res. 82 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-49) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-12-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (57-32) |
| 2025-12-04 | S. Res. 520 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-04 | H.J. Res. 131 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-45) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-34) |
| 2025-12-03 | S.J. Res. 91 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (57-41) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-40) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (60-39) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.