« Hillary is to Health Care as Obama is to ? | another_reader's Blog | Hillary's Environmental Revolution »
Obama--No Oil Company Money?
FactCheck.org took a look at Obama's claim that he doesn't take money from oil companies and here is their summary:
In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."
Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.
We find the statement misleading:
Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
For the article in full, click here.
I've always thought his claims about who takes money from were quite dubious, so I was not surprised when they found this:
We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.
In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.
Advertisement
Maybe some people who happen to work for oil companies like Obama's message. What's wrong with that?
Should he exclude contributions from bike messengers too? What about short order cooks? Mule shit shovelers?
April 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say give him a free pass as usual.
April 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
Seeing as he's taken far less money from Oil, Pharma, Defense and Banking, I think a few hundred thousand dollars out of over $200 million raised so far a whopping .0011 percentage of oil money contributed to his campaign).
Y'up, that's pass-worthy.
Next subject please...
April 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't hear him claiming he's taken "far less" money.
April 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that there is a difference between individual donors and PACS/lobbyists.
What next? Anyone who buys gas from a Chevron station can't donate because they are supporting an oil company through their patronage?
It's not like Michelle Obama and David Axelrod are being paid by a foreign country to advocate a trade deal that Obama says he is opposed to.
April 9, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am now waiting for your blog post regarding Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's contributions taken in from both companies and employees of Oil and Gas industry!
April 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as she makes a false claim about not taking money from lobbyists, I will be happy to do so.
April 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Hillary Clinton gets more money from lobbyists than any other candidate in the race (including McCain-us) AND more money from Drug Companies than any other member of Congress. So her television ads should run something like this.
"I'm Hillary Clinton, And I approve this BS ... brought to you by Prozac."
April 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Maybe some people who happen to work for drug companies like Hillary's message. What's wrong with that?
Should she exclude contributions from bike messengers too? What about short order cooks? Mule shit shovelers?"
What she shouldn't do, is mislead the fine people of Pennsylvania. Which is what Obama's done. Just admit he was busted telling a porky and move on.
April 9, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, no, mislead? Never. Misspeak? maybe, sometimes, under immense pressure.
She'll promise them everything, but she'll never lie.
April 11, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but Hillary doesn't say that she doesn't take money from lobbyist. Obama said he didn't take money from oil companies. So he doesn't except $5,000.00 contributions from an Oil PAC, but he does accept 100,000 bundles from oil executives who extort it from their underlings and distributors/vendors. Bundling is letting your supporters extort money on your behalf. He's no more guilty of this than his opponents, but he's the holier than thou candidate, which make it stink more.
April 9, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the Oil Money
http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php
April 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great site! Thanks for the link.
April 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Clinton needs to read this part of that data that she keeps using, "HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."
She knows what she is saying is bullshit or she isnt very bright, either way it isnt good for Hillary to keep doing these baseless attacks.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
I do find this one funny though for Hillary
Bear Stearns $152,090
April 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the Democratic Party is watching how the race is starting to spiral again. Hillary needs to have her dosage upped. She's cycling.
April 9, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama voted yes on cheney's energy bill, Clinton voted no and proposed changes to the energy policy.
Oil roars to record over $112 on U.S. inventory drop.
Nice work Obama and you pay 4 bucks a gallon, give him a free pass for this obvious mistake as usual.
You get what you vote for.
April 9, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, it is the lesser of the obvious mistakes, isn't it?
I agree, though; some Obama supporters do seem to give him a free pass on this. On the other hand, supporters of any candidate always do this. Clintonites do it. McCainiacs do it. Par for the course. Call it even.
April 9, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an OOOOLD argument. It didn't stick then, it won't stick now.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrMRzzhtkEXXcGY9cNmKYSRpVigD8VBG6UO0
THE FACTS:
Both sides refer to votes on an energy bill Congress passed in 2005. In the Senate, Clinton voted against the bill and Obama voted for it.
It is a stretch to call it "Dick Cheney's energy bill," a hot-button reference for many Democrats. Although the House bill was framed according to the vice president's energy priorities, by the time it passed the Senate many of those measures, such as drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, had been stripped away. Its broad new benefits for nuclear power and the coal industry mirrored Cheney's priorities, however.
Although opposed by environmentalists, many Democrats viewed the final bill as the best compromise that could be achieved in a GOP-controlled Congress. Clinton at the time said she opposed the bill because it did not do enough to cut reliance on foreign oil and address global warming.
Clinton's claim that the bill "was loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies" also overstates the case. While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax. The bill's $14.3 billion in energy tax breaks mostly went for renewable energy and efficiency programs and the nuclear and coal industries, both of which are prominent in Obama's home state of Illinois.
April 9, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact check: Obama and oil
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx?p=1
Obama has taken $213,884 from the oil and gas industry as of Feb. 29th, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,813 in that same period.
Just a trip down memory lane....for the Clintonistas.
April 9, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And again, the point is that Clinton never claimed that she didn't take money from the oil and gas industries like your man does.
April 9, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the point is that Hillary is ruining her chances every time she talks about lobbyists, company money and Iraq.
Instead, she should talk about things where she's strong: health care and women issues. Unfortunately, at this point, it might not be enough to rescue her campaign.
April 9, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm Hillary Clinton, And I approve this BS ... brought to you by Prozac."
LMAO...
April 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an OOOLD argument. It didn't stick then, and it won't stick now
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrMRzzhtkEXXcGY9cNmKYSRpVigD8VBG6UO0
THE FACTS:
Both sides refer to votes on an energy bill Congress passed in 2005. In the Senate, Clinton voted against the bill and Obama voted for it.
It is a stretch to call it "Dick Cheney's energy bill," a hot-button reference for many Democrats. Although the House bill was framed according to the vice president's energy priorities, by the time it passed the Senate many of those measures, such as drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, had been stripped away. Its broad new benefits for nuclear power and the coal industry mirrored Cheney's priorities, however.
Although opposed by environmentalists, many Democrats viewed the final bill as the best compromise that could be achieved in a GOP-controlled Congress. Clinton at the time said she opposed the bill because it did not do enough to cut reliance on foreign oil and address global warming.
Clinton's claim that the bill "was loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies" also overstates the case. While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax. The bill's $14.3 billion in energy tax breaks mostly went for renewable energy and efficiency programs and the nuclear and coal industries, both of which are prominent in Obama's home state of Illinois.
April 9, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink