You won't find the answer to that question at her official web site or her campaign web site.  At those sites, we learn that she wants to "stabilize" energy prices, that she is against "price gouging", that she favors energy independence, and that she backs subsidies for what one might call "boutique" sources of energy, small scale, fashionable sources such as biofuels.  But most of us know that most politicians, from time to time, say things that they don't believe.  And almost every politician sometimes does not lay out their complete ideas, fearing that voters may not appreciate every part.  So what she says on these sites, and in public statements, should not be taken as proof that she does, in fact, favor stable prices.  And it is interesting to see that she does not claim to favor lower energy prices.

Let's turn then from her web sites to her record.  During her one term in the House, she voted for the 1993 Clinton economic package — which included an increase in the federal tax on gasoline.  Now, possibly, she rejected that part of the package but felt the rest of it made acceptance of the gasoline tax increase regrettable, but necessary.  I don't know of any evidence for that idea, but it is possible.  Last year, here in Washington state, there was a great debate over the increase in gasoline taxes that Governor Christine Gregoire pushed through the legislature — and I never heard any objection from Cantwell to this destabilizing action.   Maybe I am being crude even to entertain this thought, but I can't help suspecting that Cantwell objects to "price gouging" — unless the taxman is doing the gouging.

And that's not all.  While in Congress, Cantwell has opposed almost every effort to expand the production of energy from conventional sources, most notably oil drilling in a small portion of ANWR.  Now almost any economist will tell you that, if you restrict the supply of energy, as Cantwell has voted over and over again to do, the price will be higher.  It is possible, of course, that Cantwell does not understand this elementary economic principle, though she is said to be intelligent.  (Or maybe she is just poorly educated; her college degree is in public administration, not economics.)

In short, if we were to judge Cantwell by the practical effects of the policies she has backed, higher gas taxes and restrictions on supplies, we would have to conclude that she favors higher energy prices.

Finally, and here I am going to be a little speculative, I think that Senator Cantwell — in her heart of hearts — favors higher energy prices.  In her 2000 campaign for the Senate she received crucial support from environmental extremists.  From what I can tell, that support was deserved; she honestly believes that the ideas of, for instance, the Sierra Club, would be good for the nation.  And environmentalists almost all want us to use less energy — and a few of them are honest enough to say that the best way to get us to use less energy to raise prices, preferably through taxes.

There is also this awkward fact.  Senator Cantwell says that she favors energy independence.  I don't know of any serious energy economist who believes that achieving that would mean stable or lower energy prices.  In fact, energy independence would mean much higher energy prices.  We import oil from Canada and Mexico and Venezuela and the Middle East, not because we like all those folks, but because their energy is cheaper than our own sources.  One can argue that energy independence would be worth those higher prices — but one can not simultaneously claim to favor both energy independence and stable energy prices.

In practice, Senator Cantwell has worked to make our energy prices higher.  I believe that, in principle, she favors those higher prices, though she says the opposite in public.  That's not unusual behavior for a politician, but it is dishonest.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(The analysis in this post would apply, with only a few details changed, to most Democratic senators.  There are exceptions from energy producing states, such as Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, but not many.

In contrast, her opponent, Mike McGavick, is in favor of lower energy prices and mostly backs measures that might help bring that about.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I should say that, everything else being equal, I favor lower energy prices, for the same reason I favor lower prices for almost everything else.  But things are not always equal and I am willing to listen to those who argue that we would be better off with a tax on imported oil or even a carbon tax, if other taxes were cut at the same time.  For more on this subject, you may want to read my objections to the usual arguments for higher gas taxes and my sketchy thoughts on the costs of energy independence.  And don't miss this wonderfully funny Debra Saunders column on the perfect California energy plan.)