Is Nick Langworthy the Plastics Lobby's Favorite Congressman?

This past August, I saw TV ads praising Rep. Langworthy (R-NY23). The ads called him a "bold leader" bringing "fresh ideas" to Washington, and told people to call his office and thank him "for prioritizing solutions over politics." These ads didn't come from his campaign, even though the election is about ten weeks away. They came from an industry trade group called the American Chemistry Council.

Why would the American Chemistry Council pay for ads praising Langworthy?

Burn It, Bank It, Call It Recycled

Earlier this year, Langworthy sponsored H.R. 7502, the Recycled Materials Attribution Act. Langworthy said:

Langworthy's bill takes that idea and applies it to plastic. It's the kind of policy the American Chemistry Council and other plastics-industry groups have been pushing for since 2020.

Here's an example that helps explain it. Picture a bakery that bakes some bread with organic flour and some with regular flour. A mass-balance system would let the bakery say all its bread is organic even though some bread might not contain any organic flour. Langworthy's bill would let companies do the same thing with recycled plastic. They could say that a product has recycled plastic in it, even if that plastic bottle doesn't have any recycled plastic in it. Real, mechanical recycling costs money. You have to collect the plastic, sort it, grind it up, process it, and put it into new plastic. Chemical recycling works differently: plastic is collected, sorted, and cleaned, then processed into fuel, chemicals, or new plastic, but you can't tell which, or how much of the old plastic becomes new plastic.

Campaign Contributions and a TV Ad

Federal records show Langworthy has taken $38,000 this election cycle in direct contributions from eight oil, chemical, and petrochemical PACs. They do the refining and make plastic. The $38,000 in direct PAC contributions is still much less than the $95,900 the American Chemistry Council spent on the independent expenditure ad alone, but the pattern across individual donors is consistent:

Source: FEC Schedule A itemized receipts for Langworthy For Congress (C00817932).

Here's the American Chemistry Council ad, word for word:

Notice what's missing? The ad never tells you how to vote. If it did, that would put it into another campaign finance category. The American Chemistry Council's own press release calls it an "independent expenditure advertisement," and ACC reported the spending to the Federal Election Commission, as required. But instead of asking voters to vote a certain way, the ad asks people to call Langworthy's office and thank him. It's not a campaign ad, but it still puts Langworthy's name and record in a favorable light in front of voters right before an election.

The Committee Connection

Langworthy wasn't the only member of Congress the American Chemistry Council backed this cycle. In all, ACC spent $1 million in 2026 (so far) on ads for six candidates. Four of those six sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the committee that has power over Langworthy's Recycled Materials Attribution Act. They are Chairman Brett Guthrie ($80,276), Rep. Gary Palmer ($131,018), Rep. Gabe Evans ($88,088), and Langworthy ($95,900).

The history of Langworthy's Recycled Materials Attribution Act starts before he introduced it. In the third quarter of 2025, the American Chemistry Council listed "unintroduced legislation titled the 'Recycled Materials Attribution Act'" in its federal lobbying report. This was just four months before Langworthy introduced it. In other words, the plastics trade group was lobbying for a bill by that exact same name as the bill Langworthy introduced.

Where Did the Language in Langworthy's Bill Come From?

Langworthy sponsored this bill. But the actual wording in H.R. 7502 already exists in a lot of state laws. The bill requires an "auditable chain-of-custody accounting methodology... that enables the attribution of the mass of inputs to 1 or more outputs." Similar language appears in laws in Kansas, Louisiana, and Texas.

The American Chemistry Council has spent years pushing "mass-balance accounting" recycling laws in state after state. In 2023, ACC said 24 states had passed laws supporting advanced recycling. ACC has advocated for advanced-recycling legislation at the state level for years, and Langworthy' bill would extend "mass-balance" across the country. It would also overrule existing state laws including state laws like those in California that are more rigorous than the Recycled Materials Attribution Act.

Pro's and Con's of the Recycled Materials Attribution Act

Not surprisingly, the plastics industry strongly supports Langworthy's Recycled Materials Attribution Act. The Consumer Brands Association says it would let newer recycling methods count as "recycling" so more kinds of plastic, the kinds mechanical recycling can't handle, get recycled instead of going to a landfill. The American Chemistry Council says mass-balance accounting isn't a loophole because a company can't claim more "recycled" credit than what it actually puts into the process. And they say that similar accounting systems are already used for paper recycling.

But environmental groups, consumer advocates, and mechanical recyclers strongly object to Langworthy's Recycled Materials Attribution Act. The National Consumers League's John Breyault spoke out against Langworthy's Recycled Materials Attribution Act at a July congressional hearing. The Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling, the companies doing mechanical plastic recycling, also came out against it. They said the bill would let recycled content be assigned to "new plastic products, even when the recycled feedstock does not physically become those products."

Even the U.S. government rejected mass balance accounting. In 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency required plastic packaging to contain at least 15 percent postconsumer recycled content measured by weight, not by mass-balance accounting, to receive the EPA's Safer Choice label. The EPA did this after a ProPublica investigation found mass-balance accounting let companies advertise products as having 20 - 30% recycled content when they actually contained less than 1%. But Langworthy's Recycled Materials Attribution Act would let mass-balance accounting count as "recycled" under federal marketing law so companies could continue to claim 20-30% recycled content without containing any recycled content.

How We Got Here, Step by Step

December 2024: Langworthy is appointed to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

March 2025 – June 2026: Eight oil, chemical, and petrochemical PACs give Langworthy $38,000 in direct campaign contributions (see the full table above).

October 2025: The American Chemistry Council's federal lobbying report lists "unintroduced legislation titled the 'Recycled Materials Attribution Act'" as something it's lobbying for.

February 11, 2026: Langworthy introduces a bill with the same title, the Recycled Materials Attribution Act.

July 2026: The Recycled Materials Attribution Act gets a hearing in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.

August 2026: TV ads sponsored by the American Chemistry Council appear praising Langworthy for "bold ideas."

August 2026: The American Chemistry Council reports $1 million in outside spending on six politicians. Four of them, including Langworthy, sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the committee that will help decide if the Recycled Materials Attribution Act becomes law.

September 1, 2026: The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade approves the Recycled Materials Attribution Act by voice vote and sends it to the full committee.

September 16, 2026: The full House Energy and Commerce Committee approves the Recycled Materials Attribution Act by a 28-19 vote and sends it to the House.