The idea that David Vitter can say with a straight face that he supports legislation to “remove” the liability cap for BP’s oil spill, and hold them accountable, only makes sense on the surface. You have to ignore a host of past experience, as well as the flawed legislation he’s actually pushing, to arrive at that conclusion.

As far back as 2000, Vitter sought to make the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 “the exclusive criminal penalties” for all oil spills. Unlike today, where violations under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, royalty fees for oil extraction, and a host of other potential penalties and fees apply, Vitter wanted to streamline that all into one payment – and not alter the cap on that payment from its current $75 million dollars. Experts predict that BP is now on the hook for anywhere from $20-$60 billion.

In the immediate aftermath of the spill, Vitter called for more offshore drilling in the region, showing less regard for the safety of Louisiana citizens than the promise of profits for the oil industry. Now, as the catastrophe becomes clear, he promotes his legislation to raise the liability cap (10 years later), which he says was “objected to by the other side.”

There’s a very good reason for that objection. It’s terrible policy. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) did the objecting, and his office characterizes the Vitter bill as riddled with loopholes, and lacking in accountability for anything but the BP spill. His bill is actually a one-time change in the law to force BP to honor “all legitimate claims” (“legitimate” is not defined, so it’s a huge loophole) based on a communication they wrote and essentially turning it into a contract. This is a bill of attainder with dubious constitutionality under Article I, Section 9, and the forcing of an unintended contract may not be constitutional either – which is probably what Vitter is counting on.

Further, it puts in the future a liability limit equal to their profits for the last four quarters, or $150 million, whatever is greater. This outsources the responsibility for the damage caps to the accountants of the company affected. And as The Daily Kingfish notes, one company involved in this disaster, Andarko, would get away with the $150 million cap, under the Vitter scenario:

BP doesn’t own the entirety of the lease, it only owns 65% of it. Another company, Anadarko, owns 25% of the lease. In the last 4 quarters, Anadarko has lost $135 million, so they would face no more than $150 million in liability, despite the fact that they hold an estimated $50 billion in assets.

Needless to say, Andarko has funded Vitter’s campaigns in the past, as well as this year.

I’m not as sanguine as Jay Newton-Small that this clear protection on behalf of industry puts Vitter, who’s up for re-election this year, in any kind of political trouble. His opponent, Charlie Melancon, has turned into a populist over the BP disaster, calling for CEO Tony Hayward’s ouster and tearing up at a press conference committee hearing. He’s way, way behind, though. Vitter looks safe. And that’s why he feels comfortable to protect an industry which has showered him with almost $400,000 since 2005.

He’s not above lying about it, however.