“This law aims to solve a non-existent issue while creating real costs for taxpayers and retirees. By increasing administrative burdens and jeopardizing pensions, it exemplifies massive government overreach.”
In case you missed it, last week Americans for Free Markets Executive Director John Wittman authored an op-ed in OK Energy Today highlighting the consequences of Oklahoma’s Energy Discrimination Elimination Act (EDEA), which bars public state funds, including pension assets, from being managed by financial firms that are believed to be boycotting certain industries, including energy companies.
Passed in 2022, the EDEA empowers the state treasurer to identify financial institutions that are claimed to be boycotting energy companies and subsequently blacklisting them from managing state pension funds.
However, as Wittman points out in his op-ed, “many of the targeted firms are among the largest oil and gas industry financers, as highlighted in the Banking on Climate Chaos report released earlier this year. Additionally, traditional energy faces no difficulty in securing financing and banking services, raising a critical question: What criteria is the treasurer using to justify these decisions?”
Oklahoma County District Court Judge Sheila Stinson recognized this core flaw in the argument behind the EDEA, and affirmed that “the Court finds that divesture or transfer of assets and investments has the potential to affect the financial soundness of the investment accounts.”
While Judge Stinson made the correct decision, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond is “doubling down on his support for the EDEA and appealed the county judge’s ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court where it now awaits judgement. Oklahoma’s lawmakers show no signs of seeing reason, despite the obvious consequences on retirees’ pensions,” Wittman explains.
Wittman also points out how Oklahoma’s EDEA takes a page from the Californian playbook when it comes to pursuing politically-motivated mandates:
“While California imposes strict climate reporting mandates, Oklahoma limits access to profitable pension investments. In both cases, partisan-driven policies impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on markets. While this type of political power grab may work in California, that is not the reputation the Sooner State should be known for.”
Wittman concludes by urging lawmakers in Oklahoma and elsewhere to prioritize prosperity over politics when considering any new government mandates regarding investment decisions:
“Lawmakers should prioritize free market principles, empowering asset managers to pursue the best returns for pensioners, and voters passionately support this sentiment… Anytime the government inserts politics into the marketplace, whether from the Left or the Right, it’s the taxpayers who pay the price.”
To read the full piece in OK Energy Today, click HERE.
###
