o2strategies

MAINE REFERENDUM

Thu, 01 Oct 2026 17:02:30 GMT

CASE STUDY

Challenge

In 2005, Maine was the only New England state that did not protect LGBTQ+ individuals from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Two previous efforts, one in 1997 and another in 2000 had been defeated. In the 2005 session, Maine’s Legislature again passed a law to protect LGBTQ+ individuals from employment discrimination. But opponents again exercised the “People’s Veto” provision of Maine law, securing enough signatures to require a state referendum on the Legislature’s actions. The “People’s Veto” provision also added an element of confusion, in which a “Yes” vote meant opposing the Legislature’s action, while a “No” vote supported adding sexual orientation to Maine’s anti-employment discrimination law. This confusion required an education and persuasion campaign.

Approach

While the education component was conducted statewide through all media, the persuasion target was focused on the largely rural, predominantly French Catholic population of northern Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. In each of the previous two efforts, the 2nd CD had overwhelmingly opposed protecting LGBTQ+ individuals.

Research suggested that few Northern Maine residents believed they knew any gay individuals, helping to create a lack of empathy. Seeking to build empathy by different means, our campaign relied on a former Maine state trooper speaking of how he hurt for his gay son who had lost his job due to discrimination. Our campaign, “Maine Doesn’t Discriminate,” concluded by asking for a “No” vote on the referendum because “no parent wants to see their child hurt.”

Outcome

On Nov. 8, 2005, more than 55 percent of Maine voters voted “No,” securing the protections the Legislature had passed against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law went into effect Dec. 28, 2005, marking the end of the long struggle in Maine to achieve legal job protections in for LGBT+ individuals.

NAVY ENERGY

Thu, 01 Oct 2026 16:20:53 GMT

CASE STUDY

Challenge

As U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the Clinton Administration, Ray Mabus saw firsthand the financial, environmental and security vulnerabilities caused by dependence on fossil fuels. As Navy Secretary in the Obama Administration, Mabus prioritized shifting Sailors and Marines toward increased usage of renewable fuels to meet the Administration’s national security and environmental objectives. First as senior advisor, then chief of staff to Mabus, Thomas Oppel oversaw development of the strategy, messaging and execution of an energy policy to overcome inertia within the Navy Department and often hostile political opposition to Mabus’ renewable energy focus.

Approach

We emphasized the strategic and financial advantage of renewable fuels, beginning with a major speech in October 2009 outlining five goals for Navy. The most important of those goals was sourcing 50 percent of Navy and Marine Corps energy ashore and afloat by 2020 and the deployment of the “Great Green Fleet,” a Navy strike group, by 2016. Speeches, op-eds and other messaging focused on how oil and gas sales financed our adversaries and the expense to the Navy of those globally priced fuels and defending the Strait of Hormuz — through which a fifth of the world’s oil was being shipped, giving outsized influence to the Middle East. We also promoted the economic and qualitative benefits of research into developing renewable fuels, battery storage and other processes.

Outcome

Reporting on Mabus’ October 2009 energy speech highlighted a line Oppel wrote: “If Navy comes, they will build it,” playing off the famous line in Field of Dreams. Despite initial skepticism, the energy initiatives enabled the Navy and Marine Corps to far outpace even Secretary Mabus’ most ambitious goals. Ashore, renewables like solar, wind and geothermal were powering more than half of department facilities by 2016, four years ahead of schedule and saving Navy $400 million. That same year, nuclear and bio-diesel renewables produced 40 percent of Navy and Marine Corps power afloat. In an awesome proof of concept in 2016, a Navy strike group — led by the John C. Stennis aircraft carrier, along with cruisers, destroyers and bio-fueled F-18s —exercised with several international partners also relying on renewables off the coast of Hawaii. While critics who misunderstood the process pounced on the high cost of biodiesel when first purchased in small demonstration quantities, by 2016, the Defense Acquisition Agency was purchasing biodiesel for nearly the same cost as conventional fuel. These actions made the Navy and Marine Corps less susceptible to volatile global fuel prices, as well as negatively impacting Russia which heavily relies on sales of oil and gas.

DEEPWATER HORIZON RECOVERY

Thu, 01 Oct 2026 15:55:55 GMT

CASE STUDY

Challenge

The ultra-deepwater oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers and ultimately spewing an estimated 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. With an economy built on fishing and tourism, as well as oil and gas extraction, the damage to the region was immediate and lasting. Focusing initially on stopping the leak and cleaning up, President Obama asked his Navy Secretary, former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus and the most senior Administration leader from a Gulf State, to develop a long-term recovery plan for the economy and health of the region. As chief of staff to Secretary Mabus and at his direction, Thomas Oppel supervised the approach, development and initial implementation of that plan.

Approach

While some elements of recovery plan, such as the need for federal financial support, were immediately obvious, Mabus and Oppel decided broad public support for any plan could only come through soliciting direct and personal input from every state and sector. Oppel created and supervised two teams composed of Navy Department political appointees. One team was charged with developing policy recommendations and coordinating an inter-agency process with federal agencies: Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, Treasury and others. The second team scheduled and staffed over 100 public and private meetings across the Gulf Coast, including with all five Gulf State governors, myriad state agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and dozens of town halls with the general public. Just three months after President Obama announced this recovery planning effort, information gathered from these two efforts resulted in the report America’s Gulf Coast, A Long-Term Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, which was submitted to the President.

Outcome

The 126-page report encompassed five topic areas deemed critical to the long-term recovery of the Gulf region. However, two key recommendations were to take the unprecedented step of dedicating a significant portion of the civil penalties authorized in the 1972 Clean Water Act directly to the Gulf Coast and to create a Gulf Coast council — including elected officials, NGOs and citizens — to decide on the appropriate distribution of funds. Both recommendations were included in the bipartisan RESTORE ACT, which President Obama signed into law in July. The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council established by that law continues to operate today, adjudicating funding projects through Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund, which received 80 percent of the $1 billion in civil penalties assessed from the Deepwater Horizon spill. Additional appropriations over the years have enabled the Trust Fund to obligate more than $1.6 billion, including nearly $500 million in direct funding to the five Gulf Coast states.