Obama and oil companies

The latest primary dispute: Does Obama take oil money? 14

This is a new ad from Obama, playing now in Pennsylvania:

In response, the Clinton campaign rushed out a statement claiming that Obama does too accept money from oil and gas companies:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar -- are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company.

Counters Obama's press secretary Bill Burton, does not:

"Senator Obama is the only candidate in the race who doesn't accept campaign contributions from special interests PACs and Washington lobbyists, and that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists."

So does Obama take money from oil companies or not? The answer is, yes and no. Mostly no. But not entirely no.

The Center for Responsive Politics offers a list of the top recipients of oil and gas money in the 2008 election cycle. I draw your attention to the highlighted names:

Rank Candidate Office Amount
1 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) Pres $659,158
2 Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $442,063
3 Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate $349,780
4 McCain, John (R) Pres $291,685
5 Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $289,950
6 Richardson, Bill (D) Pres $206,125
7 Obama, Barack (D) Pres $163,840
8 Thompson, Fred (R) Pres $161,654
9 Domenici, Pete V (R-NM) Senate $148,350
10 Inhofe, James M (R-OK) Senate $143,800

This reflects gifts from both PACs and those giving over $200. Obama's campaign claims his money comes from the latter -- individuals, not PACS or lobbyists. In that sense, Burton's claim is legitimate.

They make much of this over on MyDD, but I'm not sure it exonerates Obama as fully as all that. I'm guessing most of the money did not come from janitors and fleet mechanics. Most of it came from oil executives, bundled in large amounts, on behalf of oil company interests.

Anyway, it's another episode in silly season. Obviously the more relevant question is what Obama proposes to do about the high price of oil. On that score, it's not promising that he led with a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, one of the goofier pieces of demagoguery to take root among Dems lately.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. naught101 Posted 7:11 pm
    29 Mar 2008

    a good sourcehttp://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campa ...

    Very detailed.
    The Clinton campaign's hypocrisy of attacking Obama on oil contributions is rank, so is the Obama campaign's lying.

    check out http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.

    Permalink

  2. enki Posted 9:21 pm
    29 Mar 2008

    And the winner is......?Ok, so the oil companies contribute to EVERY candidate. More to those that they think will do the most for them and less to those that they think will do less. Of the Candidates most likely to have a chance at winning (Obama, McCain, Clinton) Obama received the least from the oil companies. That seems to be a good thing to me :D

    Mike Johnston

    Permalink

  3. Tasermons Partner Posted 1:23 am
    30 Mar 2008

    Less than 300,000...All candidates recieved less than $300,000.  The campaigns cost Tens of Millions a MONTH.  Hard to think of a few hundred thousand as anything meaningful under those terms.

    Permalink

  4. ipsofacto Posted 2:26 pm
    30 Mar 2008

    right & wrong all aroundObama uses pared down language, suitable for advertising but stilll able to draw fire.  "Penalty on windfall profits" is punitive language that sounds like the closing of tax loopholes he's voted for a few times in the effort to extend the production tax credit for wind and solar energy.   Also, when he says that Exxon "made" 40 billion, he's downplaying their actual income... that was Exxon's final net profits in one year.  They made much more income than that.  

       simple language for a simple ad; perhaps his campaign also thinks his target audience in PA is a simple audience.   Yes?  no?  
    - ipso.  

    Permalink

  5. racc Posted 3:00 pm
    30 Mar 2008

    Oil is a Political LiabilityGood news that accepting money from oil companies is a political liability.
    Hopefully, both them and the automobile companies will be going the way of the dinosaurs.

    Permalink

  6. DarthPetrol Posted 3:53 am
    31 Mar 2008

    No "oil company" contributionsHow ironic that Democrats are now tagging each other with the oil company contribution epithet that was once reserved for Republicans only.
    In reality there are NO OIL COMPANY CONTRIBUTIONS. Corporations are not allowed by law to contribute either to candidates or political parties.  Their employees can, and are required to list their employer.  That is where this lie gets slung around.  Employees are free to support whoever they want.  
    Corporate PACs are limited to $5k in contributions per year per person and limited to $5k in donations per candidate to a max of $15k.
    The oil company buying political influence myth is also alive and well.  The top 20 PACS are dominated by labor unions and attorneys.  The largest PAC is the Operators Engineers Union at $2 million.  The PACS for the 3 largest US oil companies (ExxonMobil $264k, Chevron $200k, ConocoPhillips $70k) in total amount to 1/4 the size of the Operators Engineers.  
    So it is ironic that the big evil oil companies have less political clout than their employees' unions PAC.  
    Why don't we ever hear about evil union or evil trial lawyers undue influence on politicians?  Oh that's right - because they give disproportionally to the Democrat Party.

    Permalink

  7. dotcommodity Posted 2:05 pm
    31 Mar 2008

    The key is how well they each withstandthe effects of lobbying money.
    Both Obama and Clinton have pretty good voting records that show they are not pushovers.
    McCain maintains the "maverick" (for a Republican) image on global warming, but shoots down every bill on the environment by simply not turning up to vote.
    See examples in this link:

    MCain = McSame: check this eco voting record (!)

    Permalink

  8. GreyFlcn Posted 2:33 pm
    31 Mar 2008

    IncidentallyObama gets the least from :

    1. Oil companies

    http://www.oilwatchdog.org/?topicId=8059&/The+Industr ...

    2. Agribusiness

    http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/1/10/82158/7671?sho ...

    3. Defense Contractors

    http://www.alternet.org/story/65869/
    Obama also gets the most from:

    1. Small donors

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/politics/ci_8748705

    Permalink

  9. DarthPetrol Posted 12:07 am
    01 Apr 2008

    SourceGrey - you cite oilwatchdog as a source? There is an unbiased source of information!
    Your post perpetuates the myth.  Here is the direct quote from Opensecrets.com:  
    "This chart lists the top donors to this member of Congress during the 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."
    There is no such thing as "oil company" money in electoral politics.

    Permalink

  10. amazingdrx Posted 1:06 am
    01 Apr 2008

    Huh?Isn't the main issue how much we "donate" to oil companies?  Ask anyone filling their tank and swiping their card, they'll agree.
    Oil is killing our economy.  Oil wars and oil trade deficits are destroying our national solvency and currency.  Oil is helping to destroy the human friendly climate of planet earth.
    Don't let the wing nuts tyry to turn it all around and blame barack somehow.  In fact he is the only one who is in a position to try and help us out of this multi-level death spiral that big oil, big coal, nuclear, and agribizz interests have us on.
    We need a new FDR and Teddy Roosevelt combined, Barack is as close as we have seen anyone compare to them in a very long time.  Just be grateful he is willing to risk it all to do his patriotic duty to save this nation.  

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  11. DarthPetrol Posted 4:49 am
    01 Apr 2008

    Back to the pointObama claims to not take money from oil companies or lobbyists.  There is no such thing as oil company political donations - they are illegal. He does appear to take contributions from employees of oil companies, which is not the same thing.  
    The policies he proposes, windfall taxes, mandating solutions are likely to make the problem worse not better.  These have been tried before and lead to unintended consequences.  
    The last time windfall profits was tried it led to lower domestic oil production and a exodus of US jobs overseas.
    Domestic energy policies can encourage new sources of energy without punishing those companies that invested heavily in older technologies.  

    Permalink

  12. amazingdrx Posted 10:19 am
    01 Apr 2008

    Hillary=DarthShe has officially accepted dimbulb limboob wing nut membership with this latest load.  
    Put on your pants suit and dance around darth, dance around.  You are Hillary now!

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  13. amazingdrx Posted 1:13 pm
    01 Apr 2008

    ScaifeNow Hill is makinmg nice with Scaife to get his newspaper's endorsement.  Was it her idea to hire Dick Morris?  She's ready for command alright!

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  14. In the belly Posted 1:22 pm
    01 Apr 2008

    oil company PACs = oil companiesSure, legally they are separate entities, but in reality?  The board will be composed of executives from the company and employees vetted by management, invitations to join the PAC will be to more highly compensated employees who the PAC will expect to share the company's "outlook," candidates supported will be folks who can be expected to promote a pro-business, anti-regulation agenda, etc.
    Call it what you will, it is a tool of the company.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement