Close this search box.

PA-Sen: Shedding Light on McGinty’s Role in the Energy Industry

McGinty-sadSenate candidate Katie McGinty has campaigned heavily on her dedication to the energy industry and environmental issues, but that unwavering commitment is now being questioned.

According to Chris Potter of the Post-Gazette, Republicans are attacking McGinty’s private sector work.

“She’s used her role as a government official to profit from the revolving door,” said Alleigh Marre, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which hopes to see incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey re-elected next year.

Marre and those that share her opinion are referring to the vast benefits she has gained from serving on the boards of NRG Energy and Iberdrola.

When leaving both boards, she received a substantial amount of money. Specifically, she received $1.1 million in cash and stock awards upon leaving NRG Energy. Once she left these firms, she did not lobby on behalf of them.

Furthermore, McGinty was still on Iberdrola’s board in 2014, when she was campaigning for Governor, and criticizing incumbent Tom Corbett’s energy policy.

“It’s not just that she is benefiting financially,” Ms. Marre said of Ms. McGinty’s Iberdrola ties. “She then turns around and campaigns on it.”

Most environmentalists, however, praised McGinty’s efforts. They cite her accomplishments in the Rendell administration’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard which is on pace to have sources like solar, wind and new coal technologies providing 18 percent of the state’s power by 2020.

“The Rendell administration spearheaded many of the commonwealth’s top environmental initiatives,” said David Masur, executive director of PennEnvironment. “It might not have happened at all if Secretary McGinty wasn’t tenaciously working the halls.”

Moreover, former Gov. Ed Rendell had positive words about McGinty, stating that her “fabulous job” of pursuing wind and solar firms helped the state rank third nationwide in a 2009 Pew Charitable Trust survey of green jobs.

20 Responses

  1. The Republicans are on to the achilles heel of McGinty and a prime weakness of her candidacy—her bogus “environmental” claims. She is a shill for the energy industry from whom she profits handsomely–just as the Republicans claim. Rendell and McGinty—foxes in the hen house. $1.1 million in cash as a starter for McGinty’s pocket. This financial connection will do her in. In and out of the doors of government and corporations—revolving door McGinty.

  2. It seems the April 1st edition has come a little early this year. People defending Pat Toomey by attacking someone else’s environmental record?! Oh man. Perhaps they should spend more time explaining why Toomey thought it was appropriate to raise money by exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks! Absolutely appalling.

  3. McGinty is an unaccomplished political stooge for left wing causes and lining her family coffers. How sad the party of Kennedy , Johnson, Truman and Humphrey offers us this pathetic loser. After 8 years of incompetence , corruption, racism, and anti semitism from Obama our Nation needs to do better. So many talented women and we have Hillary the diva and corrupt and McGinty who is a light head. I would not vote for her for dog catcher.

  4. Good points Montco. To piggyback on that, this is still a coal state. Many families in the western part of the state, even democratic ones, are decedents of miners. To me, this is someone who can bring those supporters to the table and try and find a way to work together, rather than demonizing an industry and losing the party a shot in local elections.

    And let’s not forget she stood up to one of the coal industry’s worst offenders when she was secretary…

  5. Sorry, Guzzardi, but I call BS. Do some Dem candidates take dirty corporate money to get elected? Sure. But once in office, they almost always will do better on the environment than Republicans. Don’t try to peddle false equivalence on this, it’s just not true.

    Bottom line: Some Dems are better than others on green issues. But nearly ALL Dems are better than ALL Repubs when it comes to the environment. Fact.

  6. CentralPADem, if you’re worried about coal wolves, you should be more worried about McGinty… She took $120,000 from a coal executive that ended up right in her pocket(money was used to repay a personal loan she made to her own campaign), after fast tracking approval for a dirty coal plant for this Rendell supporter before more stringent air quality laws went into effect.

    One of the companies of that same nice coal executive was implicated in one of the worst toxic waste dumping cases in PA history.

    Don’t take my word for it:

    McGinty’s claims of pro environment and interest in helping the middle class simply aren’t backed up by her resume. She and her husband have made themselves very wealthy working in the energy industry. Which is perfectly fine until she starts claiming to be some kind of history of public service. Disingenuous fraud.

  7. Geez, what a tough call…who would be better for the environment: McGinty or Toomey? (Hint: Toomey’s League of Conservation livetime scorecard: 9%)

    I don’t mind if this becomes an issue in the Dem primary, it seems to me we might need to push McGinty to be a bit a greener. But don’t even try to come at her about the environment from the Toomey camp.

  8. Not a real issue, find me any Washington politician who does not work hard for their special interests. Not something that will affect my opinion of her one way or another.

  9. Wait a sec – let me get this straight – The Republicans are criticizing McGinty for shilling for energy companies? Its Republicans saying this?

  10. The fact that she took $120,000 that ended up going straight into her pocket from a coal executive and Rendell supporter (with ties to PA’s worst midnight dumping case) whom she had fast tracked a dirty coal project for should be of interest to everyone as well.

    Now she’s all about fighting for the middle class. What a complete fabrication of a candidate.

  • Does the NYC Verdict Make You More or Less Likely to Vote For Trump in 2024?

    • Less Likely (36%)
    • More Likely (34%)
    • Makes No Difference (30%)

    Total Voters: 112

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen