The Oregon State Capitol rotunda, now open to the public after years of construction, stands as a symbol of democracy in action. But, as recent investigations reveal, the workings inside its walls are far from transparent—especially when it comes to the influence of lobbyists and the sprawling reach of the fossil fuel industry. Two new reports, published on October 25 and 26, 2025, by The Bulletin and TAG24, cast a harsh light on how weak disclosure rules and favorable tax policies are allowing powerful interests to shape policy in Oregon and across the United States, often with little public scrutiny.
Oregon, a state already grappling with the highest cancer death rate among western states, finds itself at the intersection of these issues. According to The Bulletin, the Trump administration’s recent cuts to federal cancer research funding have left Oregon lawmakers scrambling to fill the gaps. In this fraught environment, lobbyists have emerged as pivotal players—but not always in ways that serve the public good. The state’s weak lobbying disclosure and transparency rules mean that lobbyists are not required to inform clients, or even obtain their consent, before representing interests directly opposed to their own. This lack of oversight enables lobbyists to work simultaneously for organizations fighting cancer and for corporations producing carcinogens at industrial scale.
It’s a dizzying web of conflicting allegiances. As The Bulletin details, major healthcare providers and insurers such as Oregon Health & Science University, Moda Health, and PacificSource share lobbyists with fossil fuel companies and tobacco conglomerates. US Oncology and the Willamette Valley Cancer Institute, both involved in treating cancer patients, are represented by the same lobbying firm as Big Tobacco and utilities like PacifiCorp, which operates the dirtiest, coal-heavy power supply in the state. The conflicts extend beyond health. Conservation groups like the Deschutes River Alliance share lobbyists with Cascade Natural Gas, whose leaky pipelines traverse sensitive watersheds. Even Oregon’s housing authorities, tasked with providing affordable homes, employ the same lobbyists as Airbnb, a company often criticized for driving up housing costs.
These overlapping interests aren’t just theoretical. Lobbyists are not required to disclose when they take a position on legislation or to report meetings with lawmakers, leaving the public in the dark about who is really pulling the strings. Sometimes, the influence is overt, as when Pacific Power publicly advocated for House Bill 3917 earlier this year. The bill, if passed, could have shielded utilities from liability in wildfire lawsuits, potentially saving them billions. More often, though, the maneuvering happens behind closed doors, with no obligation for transparency.
“Does the lobbying firm Miller Public Affairs tell clients US Oncology and Willamette Valley Cancer Institute that its client Altria, a tobacco giant, pays three to six times more than they do for the firm’s services?” the Oregon Capital Chronicle commentary asks pointedly. “Does Lane Transit District know that its climate goals may be undermined by its lobbyist, Oxley & Associates, working for the Western States Petroleum Association?” These are not idle questions. Oregon law allows lobbyists to have such conflicts of interest with total impunity, and the result is a system where unpopular clients—like tobacco and fossil fuel companies—can launder their reputation by piggybacking on more sympathetic causes.
This is not just an Oregon problem. According to the Oregon Capital Chronicle, states like California have seen lobbyists profit from supporting and opposing the same environmental regulations, while Washington and Colorado have enacted stronger disclosure laws. Oregon, however, lags behind, and reform advocates are calling for change. The proposed solutions are straightforward: require lobbyists to disclose every position they take for a client on legislation, and obligate them to inform clients before advocating for interests that run counter to their own. Such reforms, proponents argue, would make corporate influence in lawmaking more transparent and help restore public trust in government.
Meanwhile, the reach of the fossil fuel industry—and its ability to shape policy—extends far beyond state borders. A report published by TAG24 on October 26, 2025, reveals that US oil and gas giants, despite producing most of their output at home, pay billions more in taxes overseas than they do domestically. The analysis, titled America-Last and Planet-Last: How US Tax Policy Subsidizes Oil and Gas Extraction Abroad, examined disclosures from 11 publicly traded US companies since 2017. The findings are startling: these firms paid an effective current-year tax rate of just 12.1 percent, well below the statutory 21 percent corporate tax rate. In Chevron’s case, the rate fell to a mere 7.9 percent.
Despite producing 51 percent of their oil and gas in the United States, these companies paid only 18 percent of their total taxes to the US government. The numbers are staggering. ExxonMobil paid $11.5 billion to the United Arab Emirates in 2023 and 2024—almost five times what it paid to the US during the same period. ConocoPhillips, for its part, paid more than twice as much tax to Libya as to the US, even though over 70 percent of its production was domestic.
What explains this disparity? According to Zorka Milin of the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition, the answer lies in a tangle of industry-specific subsidies and tax rules that allow companies to offset their US tax obligations with payments to foreign governments—including those with histories of corruption or weak oversight. “The headline finding of our report is that these companies are indeed very lightly taxed. They are under-taxed relative to any kind of number of metrics,” Milin told AFP. “These policies make no sense economically, environmentally, or ethically. It’s time for Congress to close these loopholes.”
The roots of these favorable tax treatments run deep. The oil and gas industry has benefited from tax subsidies for more than a century, dating back to the earliest days of the US tax code. But the push for more has never stopped. In the months leading up to the passage of the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill—which rolled back corporate tax reforms implemented under former President Joe Biden—the industry spent $20 million on lobbying efforts. The result? A tax system that rewards extraction abroad, often at the expense of American taxpayers and the environment.
Both reports converge on a common theme: the urgent need for reform. In Oregon, that means tightening lobbying disclosure rules and shining a light on conflicts of interest that allow corporate influence to flourish unchecked. Nationally, it means rethinking tax policies that incentivize fossil fuel extraction overseas while shortchanging the US treasury. As lawmakers in Oregon and Washington, D.C. consider the path forward, the message from advocates and watchdogs is clear: transparency and accountability are not just nice-to-haves—they are essential to restoring faith in the democratic process.
The stakes could hardly be higher. From the halls of the Oregon State Capitol to the boardrooms of multinational oil giants, the choices made now will shape the health of communities, the integrity of government, and the future of the planet. Whether lawmakers will seize the moment for reform remains to be seen, but the call for change is growing harder to ignore.
