Factcheck: Obama's Oil Spill

[TitanTiger 21,151]

From the non-partisan FactCheck.org:

Obama's Oil Spill

March 31, 2008

Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

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.

Analysis

Sen. Barack Obama's ad began running late last week in Pennsylvania and Indiana. In it, Obama talks about the United States' reliance on foreign oil and the need for energy independence and alternative fuels.

Only Legal Contributions, Please

Obama's right on both counts when he says that "Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas." ExxonMobil's profits in 2007 hit $40.6 billion, the highest ever recorded by any company.

Obama '08 Ad: Nothing's Changed

Obama: Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.

I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

The national average price for a gallon of gas in the week ending March 24, the most recent data available, was $3.26, but prices are higher than the average in some areas.

Our problem comes with this statement:

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

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.

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

Lobbyist Loopholes?

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.

– by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob..._oil_spill.html

[RunInRed 18,172]

A couple of main points:

Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless

Q: You've been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. The Boston Globe in August reported: "In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric.

A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007

People know his "bundlers" because he pushed disclosure law OBAMA: [to Gravel]: We don't just need a change in political parties in Washington. We've got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason I don't take PAC money, I don't take federal lobbyists' money is because we've got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests.

GRAVEL: Barack Obama says he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is? And, besides that, he has received $195,000 from the head of a foreign-owned bank who has lobbyists in Washington.

OBAMA: Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money. And the bundlers--the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. And that's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money

Few lobbyists proffer an explicit quid pro quo to elected officials. Their influence comes from having more access than the average voter, having better information, and more staying power when it comes to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code that means billions for their clients.

For most politicians, money is not about maintaining status and power. It is about scaring off challengers and fighting off the fear. Money cannot guarantee a victory, but without money, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

When I decided to run for the Senate, I found myself spending time with people of means. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.109-115 Oct 1, 2006

Q: Do you accept campaign contributions from executives?

A: I don't accept money from federal registered lobbyists and from federal PACs. Now, I'm sure that we've received money from people who work at companies, because we're getting contributions of $5, $10, $100 from all sorts of people. We don't want to finance our campaign by people whose professional job it is to influence legislation in Washington. The drug companies, the insurance companies spent a billion dollars over the last 10 years blocking reform. That's how we ended up with a prescription drug bill that is better for drug companies than it is for our seniors. So it is an imperfect system. Money is the original sin of politics, & when you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money because otherwise you can't compete. But it's less important what your health-care plan is, than are you able to overcome the special-interest-driven agendas?

Source: Huffington Post Mash-Up: 2007 Democratic on-line debate Sep 13, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack...ment_Reform.htm

[arnaldoabru 11]

I wonder how much McCain has raised from oil companies? Is Charles Keating dead, and if not does he still have money to give his ole buddy.

[TitanTiger 21,151]

arnold, you have a hard time understanding topical matters. McCain isn't the issue in this thread.

The issue, which runinred also missed, is that Obama has just put out an ad that touts the fact that he "hasn't taken any money from oil companies." Now, most people realize when a politician says that in a campaign, he or she is drawing a distinction between themselves and their opponents. In other words, they are implying that what they themselves aren't doing, their opponent is doing. This article not only shows that to be a rather empty boast on Obama's part, but also points out that he is taking money from "individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry."

It doesn't matter that Obama has a section on his website where he admits being soiled by the "original sin" of politics when he makes a TV ad that contains a misleading statement on the issue.

[AUTiger1 0]

arnold, you have a hard time understanding topical matters. McCain isn't the issue in this thread.

The issue, which runinred also missed, is that Obama has just put out an ad that touts the fact that he "hasn't taken any money from oil companies." Now, most people realize when a politician says that in a campaign, he or she is drawing a distinction between themselves and their opponents. In other words, they are implying that what they themselves aren't doing, their opponent is doing. This article not only shows that to be a rather empty boast on Obama's part, but also points out that he is taking money from "individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry."

It doesn't matter that Obama has a section on his website where he admits being soiled by the "original sin" of politics when he makes a TV ad that contains a misleading statement on the issue.

.....never mind, what else can I add to what you have said already? Yet, I love it how when they slam McCain it's alright. Yet when someone says anything that may show Obama in a negative light, we are diverting attention away from our candidate, trying to spin it the other way and point the blame finger elsewhere and playing cheap, mean spirited politics.

[RunInRed 18,172]

arnold, you have a hard time understanding topical matters. McCain isn't the issue in this thread.

The issue, which runinred also missed, is that Obama has just put out an ad that touts the fact that he "hasn't taken any money from oil companies." Now, most people realize when a politician says that in a campaign, he or she is drawing a distinction between themselves and their opponents. In other words, they are implying that what they themselves aren't doing, their opponent is doing. This article not only shows that to be a rather empty boast on Obama's part, but also points out that he is taking money from "individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry."

It doesn't matter that Obama has a section on his website where he admits being soiled by the "original sin" of politics when he makes a TV ad that contains a misleading statement on the issue.

Obama has done more than ANYONE to try to take money out of politics, create transparency in government, and reduce special interest weight in Washington. For you to ignore that fact cheapens the entire discussion and brings into question yoru ability to see the larger picture. Is he perfect? No. Is he trying to address this issue? Yes.

You guys are really making me laugh...you constantly berate people who are trying to solve problems and change the ways of Washington. You deride the system and our government yet at the same time constantly preach more of the same and try to bring down anyone who fights for something better. The hypocrisy is so thick it's almost to the point where it does not even warrant a response.

Now, Titan, I like you...you have constantly been a voice of reason on this board. But I strongly disagree with you here.

[TitanTiger 21,151]

Obama has done more than ANYONE to try to take money out of politics, create transparency in government, and reduce special interest weight in Washington. For you to ignore that fact cheapens the entire discussion and brings into question yoru ability to see the larger picture. Is he perfect? No. Is he trying to address this issue? Yes.

You guys are really making me laugh...you constantly berate people who are trying to solve problems and change the ways of Washington. You deride the system and our government yet at the same time constantly preach more of the same and try to bring down anyone who fights for something better. The hypocrisy is so thick it's almost to the point where it does not even warrant a response.

Now, Titan, I like you...you have constantly been a voice of reason on this board. But I strongly disagree with you here.

I like Obama in many ways. But he can't have it both ways on this. You can't talk about doing things different in Washington if you're going to parse words and give off false impressions of yourself. He overreached on this ad and FactCheck called him on it. He needs to pay more attention to the things he's claiming.

[RunInRed 18,172]

The other problem I have with this whole argument (it was used earlier in the campaign with healthcare and drug companies as well) is that all of these companies are big employers in the U.S. So they have tons of workers...from the executives all the way down through the rank. I have a friend for example...who graduated in Engineering from AU who works for ExxonMobil in Houston...he probably makes about 75k/year as a project manager. Let's say he wants to give a a couple hundred bucks to a candidate. Well then he is now included in the little chart above as working for an oil company and donating to a candidate. Even worse...if he contributes through a grass roots advocacy group, his donation becomes even more tainted. So in essence, we see the flaw in this analysis because using this logic, any one who works for any major industry can't donate to a campaign without be giving the label described above.

Again, we all want money out of politics but we have to be realistic. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to run a campaign. If you don't get elected, you can't enact change. So the sytem isn't perfect. But there is a candidate out there who is trying to change things.

Reminder: By all accounts Obama has run a grass roots effort with his average donation being just over $100. Over 1 million Americans have given to the campaign. He has not taken any money from Federally registered lobbyist or PACs. It's a start.

[TexasTiger 14,164]

Obama has done more than ANYONE to try to take money out of politics, create transparency in government, and reduce special interest weight in Washington. For you to ignore that fact cheapens the entire discussion and brings into question yoru ability to see the larger picture. Is he perfect? No. Is he trying to address this issue? Yes.

You guys are really making me laugh...you constantly berate people who are trying to solve problems and change the ways of Washington. You deride the system and our government yet at the same time constantly preach more of the same and try to bring down anyone who fights for something better. The hypocrisy is so thick it's almost to the point where it does not even warrant a response.

Now, Titan, I like you...you have constantly been a voice of reason on this board. But I strongly disagree with you here.

I like Obama in many ways. But he can't have it both ways on this. You can't talk about doing things different in Washington if you're going to parse words and give off false impressions of yourself. He overreached on this ad and FactCheck called him on it. He needs to pay more attention to the things he's claiming.

I'm not sure about this one. Saying "I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists" can be shorthand for not taking money from oil and gas PACs and lobbyists, which is true and which does set him apart from McCain and Clinton. When individuals give, they have to list their industry and employer, but their limit is $2,300. Apparently, individuals in that industry have donated $213,000 dollars out of the almost $200 million that he has raised-- a little more than one-tenth of one-percent. I think he can honestly say that he doesn't owe the industry a thing, which is the premise of the ad. If you look at the industries he's taken money from you may draw your own conclusion about whom he may "owe", although the reality is that he has raised most of his money from over 2 million citizens who support his campaign.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id...&cycle=2008

It sounds like Obama is technically correct and Fact Check is technically correct, but the thrust of Obama's premise stands up to scrutiny.

[TitanTiger 21,151]

I might be inclined to agree with you if not for this:

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.

I don't think if most people saw that, then saw Obama's claim in the ad, that they'd think it was a good idea to make such a broad assertion.

[TexasTiger 14,164]

Yeah, but between them, they still raise less than one-tenth of one-percent of his total donations. I still don't see much of a case for owing the oil industry.

I might be inclined to agree with you if not for this:

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.

I don't think if most people saw that, then saw Obama's claim in the ad, that they'd think it was a good idea to make such a broad assertion.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Point. Set. Match.

Next.

[TitanTiger 21,151]

Point. Set. Match.

Next.

Um, no.

Yeah, but between them, they still raise less than one-tenth of one-percent of his total donations. I still don't see much of a case for owing the oil industry.

Well, my contention wasn't whether he owed the oil industry or whether any of his decisions were definitely influenced by them (in fact, FactCheck said the same thing). My contention is that when you say that you don't take money from the oil companies, that:

1. Since none of other candidates do either, the boast is meaningless and,

2. You have oil company execs bundling donations for you...

...the statement is misleading and an overreach on his part.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Bigger Picture:

Some candidates have taken money from pacs/lobbyist, some have not.

[TitanTiger 21,151]

Bigger Picture:

Some candidates have taken money from pacs/lobbyist, some have not.

It is a bigger picture. However, that's not what Obama said. His claim is broader. And while it makes for a pithy soundbite, it's not accurate nor meaningful when comparing the candidates.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Bigger Picture:

Some candidates have taken money from pacs/lobbyist, some have not.

It is a bigger picture. However, that's not what Obama said. His claim is broader. And while it makes for a pithy soundbite, it's not accurate nor meaningful when comparing the candidates.

I disagree and again I think you are splitting hairs on this issue and in the process, ignoring the bigger picture. Just because you started the topic does not mean you have to dig your feet in the ground.

Believe me, Obama has some weaknesses, I know. He's not a perfect candidate and he will not be a perfect President. But this is not the issue he's most vunerable on if you are trying to take a shot at him...quite the contrary, it's one of his strengths.

It would be the equivalent of me attacking Tubs for not being a disciplinarian or for not running a clean, faith-based program. It's just makes you look uniformed, which we all know is not the case.

[TitanTiger 21,151]

No, I get the bigger issue. But it's bothersome when politicians make grand claims that aren't backed up by the full picture. Obama has actually been good about this in my opinion but he's dropping the ball on this one. He has a good position to stand on with this issue...as long as he states it accurately and doesn't try to make it sound grander than it really is.

This argument doesn't make me look uninformed. I'm bringing more information to the table, not less. It does however make you look like a fawning groupie rather than an informed supporter.

[RunInRed 18,172]

You think he's overstating his position in this one ad, I think you are splitting hairs. Call me a "groupie"....gosh knows you won't be the first or last on this board.

[TitanTiger 21,151]

You think he's overstating his position in this one ad, I think you are splitting hairs. Call me a "groupie"....gosh knows you won't be the first or last on this board.

Well, the groupie swipe was payback for saying that pointing out this parsing of words issue makes me look "uninformed."

[Tigermike 3,673]

At best, Obama issued a deceptive non-sequitur, and at worst, flat-out lied about his funding.

[TexasTiger 14,164]

At best, Obama issued a deceptive non-sequitur, and at worst, flat-out lied about his funding.

So what would the "flat-out lie" be?