Jia Lissa
In a significant departure from traditional environmental advocacy, a political action committee (PAC) known as the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition has launched a series of hard-hitting attack ads, signaling a new, aggressive strategy within the renewable energy sector. Funded largely by crypto billionaire Chris Larsen and spearheaded by seasoned New York City political operatives, this pro-solar group is targeting congressional candidates, primarily Republicans, with tactics typically reserved for the most contentious political battles. These campaigns bypass conventional appeals to scientific consensus or climate fears, instead focusing on candidates’ vulnerabilities unrelated to energy policy, such as personal conduct or controversial statements.
The PAC’s recent advertisements highlight two distinct but equally damaging narratives. In Colorado, voters are being reminded of an incident in 2023 where Republican Representative Lauren Boebert and her date were reportedly captured on camera engaging in inappropriate behavior during a performance of the musical Beetlejuice. The ad, a $1.5 million campaign, directly questions Boebert’s trustworthiness, with the narrator stating, "If Lauren Boebert can’t be trusted in a room full of kids, then she can’t be trusted in the halls of Congress." Simultaneously, in upstate New York, another ad targets Anthony Constantino, a Trumpist congressional candidate, over his sticker-printing company’s brief production of stickers bearing the controversial slogan, “Kill the Police.” These seemingly disparate attacks underscore the PAC’s calculated approach to political influence.
A New Era for Green Advocacy: The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition
The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition operates with a semi-anonymous veil, its true nature as a pro-solar energy outfit not immediately apparent from its attack ads. The PAC’s funding, significantly bolstered by Chris Larsen, co-founder of blockchain finance firm Ripple, marks a substantial investment in this unconventional strategy. Larsen himself articulates the rationale behind this shift, stating, “Playing hardball politics, that’s what our opponents do, right, in oil and gas? And I just think the solar industry has been—I don’t know how to describe it—a little too nice.” This sentiment reflects a growing frustration within parts of the renewable energy industry regarding what they perceive as the fossil fuel industry’s ruthless political maneuvering.
Traditionally, green groups have relied on appeals to environmental science, the urgency of climate change, and the long-term benefits of collective action. Their political engagement has often been aligned with Democratic platforms, emphasizing policy reform and public awareness. However, the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition is charting a different course, adopting a "knives out" approach that seeks to dismantle political opposition through aggressive campaigning, rather than solely through policy debates or public education. This pivot signifies a potential maturation or radicalization of environmental political action, mirroring the bare-knuckle tactics seen in other special interest areas, such as labor or gun control advocacy.
Strategic Attacks and Primary Successes
The PAC’s aggressive strategy is not merely theoretical; it has already demonstrated tangible results. The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition has pledged $15 million to oppose seven prominent critics of renewable energy in the current congressional elections, building upon approximately $5 million already spent during the primaries. This earlier spending targeted several Republican representatives, achieving notable successes.
In South Carolina, the PAC labeled Representative Ralph Norman a "MAGA traitor" in its ads. In Tennessee, Representative Andy Ogles was criticized for allegedly not bothering to go to work. Perhaps most controversially, Representative Chip Roy of Texas was attacked with ads claiming he had "chosen the side of powerful pedophiles" during his run for Texas Attorney General. The PAC allocated almost $1.5 million to impede Roy’s campaign, strategically placing ads on right-wing platforms like Truth Social and Rumble, and notably, never once mentioning "solar" or "renewables." This tactic, according to Chris Coffey, CEO of Tusk Strategies, which runs the PAC, is deliberate: “Don’t talk about renewables. Don’t talk about climate. Pick the best issue that we can pick. And in a Republican primary, we should savage this guy for not being MAGA enough.”
Despite Roy receiving a 100 percent rating from Heritage Action, a Trumpist think tank, the PAC’s efforts were credited by some with influencing the outcomes. All four of these targeted primary candidates—Norman, Ogles, Roy (in his AG race), and even one Democrat, Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee, who received funding from an Invest in Tomorrow-affiliated PAC—lost their respective primary races. Chris Burger, a Republican political consultant in Tennessee, explicitly stated the pro-solar group was "the difference maker," asserting that Ogles’ primary opponent "doesn’t win if the PAC doesn’t come in with $2 million." This demonstrates the potent impact of focused, well-funded attack campaigns, even when the underlying policy agenda is not explicitly stated.
Current Targets and Broader Implications
As the November election approaches, the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition continues its offensive. A $2 million ad campaign is currently underway, assailing GOP Representative Victoria Spartz of Indiana with allegations of corruption. The PAC is also reportedly preparing to target Texas Republican Brandon Herrera over controversial jokes about "abolishing old people" and his proposed plan to eliminate Social Security. The ongoing $1.5 million campaign against Lauren Boebert further solidifies the PAC’s commitment to these diverse, character-based attacks.
The shift in tactics has not been universally embraced within the green movement. Some "natural allies" in the renewables field express concern that such aggressive tactics could alienate crucial decision-makers and politicize an issue that could otherwise garner bipartisan support. However, Steph Bosh, board chair of the Community Clean Energy Coalition, applauds the more aggressive stance, asserting, “As a broad renewable energy industry, we need to be loved, respected, and feared. We need to have a carrot, and we need to have a stick.”
Democratic pundit and former campaign manager James Carville, however, questions the scale of the PAC’s efforts, remarking to the Washington Monthly, “Twenty million—what the fuck do you think the carbon industry spends in a year?” Indeed, lobbying data consistently shows the fossil fuel industry spending hundreds of millions annually on political influence, dwarfing the solar PAC’s current outlay. For instance, in 2023 alone, the oil and gas industry spent over $100 million on federal lobbying, alongside significant campaign contributions. This highlights the immense financial disparity that the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition seeks to overcome with its targeted, high-impact campaigns.
The targeted politicians, predictably, have denounced the PAC’s actions. Chip Roy dismissed the spending as playing "zero role" in his race, while his campaign staff condemned "radical California Marxists trying to buy Texas elections." Ralph Norman warned of "the elite" behind the "$1 million attack ad against me," and Andy Ogles lamented that "they literally are trying to make an example out of me." These reactions underscore the perceived threat posed by the PAC’s unconventional and unsparing approach.
The Shifting Sands of Republican Energy Policy
The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition’s aggressive stance comes amidst a complex and evolving landscape of Republican energy policy. The Trump administration, throughout its tenure, displayed marked hostility towards renewable energy, particularly offshore wind, which the former president controversially claimed "causes cancer," "kills all your birds," and drives whales "crazy." The administration actively promoted oil, gas, and coal production, simultaneously undercutting renewable alternatives through bureaucratic hurdles, slashing green-tech subsidies, and even paying companies billions to halt offshore wind farm construction. Globally, the former president urged other nations to shun "green energy scam," famously stating at the United Nations General Assembly, "If you don’t get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail."
However, there has been a nuanced, albeit small, shift in the Republican stance on solar power compared to other renewables. Richard Goldberg, a former member of the administration’s National Energy Dominance Council, observed to WIRED, “While wind is dead, solar is merely in the ICU.” This slight opening has created an opportunity for solar advocates to appeal to the "America First" movement, especially given spiking domestic energy prices, geopolitical events impacting global oil markets, and the burgeoning, "borderline-insatiable" energy demands of AI data centers.
In February, the American Clean Power Association launched a "American Energy First" campaign explicitly designed to appeal to MAGA voters. A poll conducted by former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway’s consulting company revealed that 75 percent of MAGA voters in key states supported expanding solar energy. This campaign includes "paid media partnerships with podcasts like the Katie Miller Pod" (hosted by Katie Miller, former DOGE spokesperson and wife of former White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller) and "advertorials and sponsorships with right-of-center publications." Katie Miller, who has since become a vocal advocate for solar on social media, emphasizing its role in national security, exemplifies this new outreach, posting, "Over 70 percent of the new utility-scale capacity went into states won by President Trump. Electricity generation is a national security issue—not a partisan one."
National Security, AI, and American-Made Solar
A significant driver for this shift is the escalating concern over the AI race with China and the energy requirements of data centers. China has rapidly expanded its renewable energy infrastructure, adding an astounding 315 gigawatts of solar to its grid last year—approximately six times more than the United States added from all sources combined. This allows China to power its rapidly growing data centers with greater ease, a stark contrast to the challenges faced by the U.S. MAGA-aligned solar promoters are leveraging this disparity, framing renewable energy not as a climate solution, but as a critical national security imperative to prevent the U.S. from losing the AI race to China.
T1 Energy, an American solar manufacturing company, has actively pursued this narrative. They have engaged Checkmate Government Relations, a lobbying firm co-led by Donald Trump Jr.’s hunting buddy, and Tower Strategy, headed by former CIA operations officer Rick De La Torre, to lobby the administration. Their argument centers on differentiating American-made solar from Chinese solar. De La Torre posted on LinkedIn, "American-made, utility-scale solar is one of the few technologies that can be deployed at the speed and scale required" for data centers, adding, "China knows this. That is why it continues to flood markets, compress margins, and keep U.S. manufacturers on the defensive. Undercut. Outscale. Outlast." He urged Washington to "Treat solar manufacturing as a strategic industry, the way we now treat semiconductors and critical minerals."
These arguments appear to be gaining traction. In August, the Trump administration imposed a new 15 percent tariff and price floors on foreign-made solar components, hailed by T1’s CEO as a victory for domestic supply chains. Furthermore, bipartisan negotiations continue in Congress on a permitting reform bill that could streamline the connection of solar projects to the electric grid.
The Internal Debate: Hardball vs. Bipartisan Outreach
This apparent progress has led to an internal debate within the solar industry. Russell Gold, T1’s executive vice president for strategic communications, voiced concerns about the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition’s aggressive tactics: “We’ve been hard at work speaking to Republicans about why supporting solar and batteries helps with energy abundance and affordability. And we’ve been successful. If this [Invest in Tomorrow Coalition] becomes about going after Republicans and turns solar back into a partisan issue, that would be an epic blunder.” This highlights the tension between two distinct strategies for advancing renewable energy: one that seeks to build bridges and find common ground, and another that aims to dismantle opposition through political force.
The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition is led by an experienced team. Tom Matzzie, CEO of CleanChoice Energy, serves as executive chair, with co-founders including Peter Davidson, CEO of Aligned Climate Capital, and Michael Brune, former executive director of the Sierra Club. However, Chris Larsen remains the primary financial engine, having contributed $6 million of the initial $7 million raised by the PAC through August 31, according to federal election commission records.
Larsen’s recent political giving history reveals a mixed record. Earlier this year, he invested $3.5 million to support congressional candidate Alex Bores, who ultimately lost, having been targeted by the AI industry. His company, Ripple Labs, also donated nearly $100 million to Fairshake, a pro-crypto PAC that achieved some electoral successes in 2024 but recently failed to pass its preferred cryptocurrency regulation bill in the Senate. These varied outcomes underscore the unpredictable nature of political spending, regardless of the financial commitment.
Despite the PAC’s aggressive "stick" approach, Larsen also articulates a "carrot" strategy, suggesting a potential future where fossil and renewable energy sources coexist. “You could be pro oil and gas and pro solar,” he states, hinting at a pragmatic, all-of-the-above energy approach that could resonate in traditionally fossil-fuel-dependent regions. This dual message—aggressive targeting of opponents alongside a vision of energy integration—reflects the complex, evolving political landscape of energy in America. The Invest in Tomorrow Coalition’s bold foray into hardball politics marks a significant moment, potentially reshaping how environmental and energy issues are contested in the political arena for years to come.
