Clean-energy super PAC names its target list for general elections
A clean-energy super PAC plans a $15 million campaign targeting seven Republican House candidates in the general election, including incumbents who voted to end renewable energy tax credits.
The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, a super PAC launched earlier this year, announced it will spend $15 million to oppose seven Republican candidates in the upcoming general elections. The coalition targets incumbent Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Victoria Spartz of Indiana, along with four challengers in Florida, New York, Texas, and Nevada. All targeted incumbents voted last year to end Biden-era renewable energy tax credits, framing the opposition as a response to their policy decisions.
Invest in Tomorrow’s strategy focuses on criticizing candidates’ broader records rather than directly attacking their votes on clean energy incentives. For example, ads targeting Rep. Victoria Spartz highlight her healthcare funding record and allegations of self-enrichment, avoiding direct mention of her role in repealing renewable energy tax credits. Coalition chair Tom Matzzie stated that opposing clean energy policies now carries political consequences, signaling a shift in messaging for the general election phase.
The coalition’s earlier primary victories involved targeting candidates already in vulnerable positions, making it difficult to isolate the impact of its spending. This round presents a tougher challenge, as incumbents like Boebert and Spartz are expected to win despite controversies. However, polling suggests some targeted challengers, such as Mike Beltran and Scott Perry, may lose, potentially aiding Democrats in their bid to regain control of the House.
Separately, the Supreme Court began hearings in a climate lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, against Exxon Mobil and Suncor, testing whether local governments can hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate impacts. Justices focused questions on implications for oil companies rather than communities, leaving the case’s outcome uncertain.