Corporate Contributions for McCain?
Corporations are banned from making campaign contributions (though they are free to form PACs, where all career-wise climbers toss their dollars in with their country-club bosses). It's becoming increasingly obvious, though, that the oil companies are NOT going to sit on the sidelines this election season. In an election that features change from Obama or a third term of record profits from "McSame", they are going "all-in" for McCain.
They've come up with an ingenious mechanism to translate some of those obscene profits into support for McCain, without technically violating the law against contributing directly. It's absolutely Rovian in its underhanded simplicity.
McCain has taken the moral low ground by flip-flopping on open drilling. Any honest and informed person knows that off-shore drilling will take a decade or more to produce even a trickle of gasoline, and provides absolutely no relief for high prices at the pump for the foreseeable future. Immediately, though, it will foul our coastal ecosystems, and expose more of our fisheries and natural beauty to the risk of another Exxon Valdez.
But birds gotta fly, and oil companies gotta drill. And McCain is the key to offshore oil drilling.
So, rather than making campaign contributions to McCain, they have worked out a little sleight of hand. McCain has sold his maverick soul to the oil companies, and now all the oil companies have to do is run dozens upon dozens of "issue advertisements" misleading Americans into believing that offshore drilling will lower gas prices.
An extra dollop of pay-off comes from the fact that there's no similar group of obscenely profitable companies who are positioned to respond. The charming bed and breakfast overlooking the ocean cannot afford prime time "issue advertisements" to compete with the oil companies. The hardworking fishermen don't have the time to go talk to the hotshots on Madison Avenue. Environmentalists cannot hope to raise money with the cruel efficiency of the oil industry siphoning unwilling donations out of my own wallet whenever I fill my tank.
The oil companies are going to use a portion of their record-setting profits to try to buy the election for McCain. They have profited wildly during Bush's presidency, and McCain represents more of the same.
Whenever you see their advertisements urging us to throw away our environmental heritage for a false quick bandaid, recognize what they are trying to do. They're skirting the laws and trying to fool us into supporting another term of record profits.
Labels: Campaign Finance, John McCain, oil industry
posted by Dan at 6/24/2008 07:23:00 AM
27 Comments:
We don't need to drill for oil off of our coast; China is doing it for us.
Since 2006
This comment has been removed by the author.
Could you explain to me when a profit of less than 10% of gross sales came to be considered an obscenity?
And if the government gets a higher percentage of the gross sales in taxes, does that make those taxes obscenely high?
Remember -- oil companies make 10 cents on every gallon of gas -- state and federal taxes are closer to 50 cents a gallon. Do you really mean to suggest that it is the oil companies who are exploitive?
And Ted Kennedy's too busy working to defeat wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod.
Snicker
Whistleblower - you know that rightwinger moonbat lie has been debunked, don't you?
And Rhymes - I'd have to say $11 BILLION in profits for one quarter is excessive. Period.
Hey Dan,
Go over to the left side of your home page and on your list of links. Between J-Dub and Jaybird there is a link to just about any left wing tripe that is funded by the left wing PAC's. To not acknowledge that is hypocritical. Another thing I would like to point out, the AFL-CIO is pumping $200 million into the Democratic party. Ther is more than one source for big money.
Whistleblower - Great point!! If only it weren't a lie . . .
Craig - change the subject much? The difference is that the Jackson County Democratic Party and the AFL-CIO are working within the law, while the oil companies are skirting it for McCain.
"11 billion in profit in one quarter is excessive." Spoken like a true socialist.
BTW, we could get oil out of ANWR faster than we will get a majority of KCMOSD graduates who are reading at grade level.
If we can't fix the schools in ten years then we shouldn't do it. That is exactly analagous to the arguments about drilling. I can't get it tomorrow so it isn't worth doing. Typical.
Dan,
Your words, not mine.
"without technically violating the law against contributing directly."
It is not changing the subject, it is holding both parties to the same level of accountability.
Dan -
Any actual EVIDENCE for this little piece of tripe?
No? Who'd a thunk.
Ya think millions aren't being funneled into Obama's campaign? That he raises that kind of money on "small donors?" (and then bails on his principles when it's in his interest. Nice)You can't be that naive. Different kind of politics, my ass. Obama is Chicago politics, with everything that includes.
Whisleblower isn't lying. Cuba has issued exploration contracts to companies from India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
Just because they're not yet "drinking our milkshake" doesn't make it a lie.
If Bill Clinton hadn't extended the moratorium on offshore drilling back in 1998, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The "it'll take 10 years to impact gas prices" argument is tremendously short-sighted.
The longer we delay, the longer we extend our dependence on foreign oil and leave ourselves at their mercy. We certainly need to move ahead with renewable energy sources, but our need for petroleum isn't going to go away any time in the near future.
As far as natural beauty goes, current proposals call for drilling in the Gulf between 100 - 150 miles offshore. And as far as risks go, there are numerous platforms which were subjected to severe weather (even Category 5 hurricanes) with little to no oil spillage.
Domestic drilling for oil needs to be an essential part of our nation’s long-term energy policy, along with nuclear power, oil shale, and coal liquification (liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world). There are environmentally responsible ways to use these resources, and we shouldn't shrink from them simply because oil companies stand to make a profit. Our economy is currently feeling the pain of that kind of class warfare mentality.
Dan, this is one of your worst threads. If you assume that only R's and not D's bend every campaign finance rule to their limit, you are not only naive, but in the case case ignorant.
Look to where and how the Wall Street, Pharma, Trial Lawyer, Union, Hollywood and of course Soros money gets to D's.
China is not drilling. Whistleblower is a liar. Deal with it.
Sad -
Sorry to bust on your oil-soaked Republican buddy, but the fact that the oil industry is trying to buy the election for John McCain is a legitimate story. Your false and lame claim that "everybody does it" is disgustingly amoral - even if your claim were true, would that make it okay for McCain and the oil industry to engage in that kind of behavior?
Wonderful thing, that Google. Derrick Jackson, writing in his syndicated column as captured from the Seattle Post Intelligencer at
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/361985_jacksononline08.html
writes:
"In the 2008 election cycle the second-biggest recipient of contributions from Exxon after the $39,730 for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, is Obama at $23,550. Clinton is in fourth place at $15,700. Both are ahead of the $8,450 for John McCain, the virtual nominee of the Republican Party.
Then there's Chevron. The all-time leader in contributions from that company since 1990 is former California congressman Richard Pombo. Pombo was ousted from his House seat in 2006 in a fierce campaign by environmentalists enraged by his attempts to gut the Endangered Species Act. But guess who is now number three in money from Chevron in the 2008 cycle? Clinton, at $9,350. Obama is seventh, at $7,263. Again, both are ahead of McCain's $5,500.
How about British Petroleum? Its top-three all-time recipients in contributions since 1990 are Rep. Don Young of Alaska, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, and Bush (uh, could that have anything to do with drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?). But look now who's doing the drilling. The number two recipient in the current cycle is Obama at $10,196, more than double what BP has given to Stevens."
So it looks like BO is taking a lot more from the oil companies than JM is. Like FISA, like public contributions, like NAFTA, BO can be counted on to change his position when the election is over and he doesn't need the MoveOn/KOS crowd anymore. Welcome to Jeremiah Wright/Austan Goolsbee/Sammy Power world.
Derrick Johnson has it absolutely wrong. Obama has taken exactly zero dollars from Exxon. Zero. Obama has taken exactly zero dollars from Exxon's PAC. Zero. Same with all the other oil companies.
Obama has brought in lots of money from hard-working individuals, some of who work for oil companies, but not a single dime from the oil companies or their PACs.
I assume that you simply didn't realize that you can't accept syndicated columnists like Derrick Johnson to tell the truth. I'm glad I was able to set you straight.
Is Dan more reliable than the "syndicated columnist"?
We think not.
Top Recipients of Exxon's money:
Cornyn, John $40,400
Obama, Barack $32,550
Clinton, Hillary $22,621
Romney, Mitt $20,750
McCain, John $18,801
Paul, Ron $6,808
Source: OpenSecrets.Org
Most of Obama's money has come from lawyers and law firms.
Obama has spent 4 times the money on his campaign than McCain has.
For comparison purposes, here's a link to McCain's money.
Do you really believe that the money listed comes from Exxon? Because it doesn't.
You need to have a little more knowledge about things before you try to sit at the adult table.
Exxon Mobil Corporation Campaign Contributions
And, again, as I said above, not a single dime came from Exxon. You understand that, don't you? The money was donated to Obama by employees who realize he is the best candidate.
Dan choses his words wisely. He will intentionally deceive, while being sure (in his mind) that he does not lie.
Dan doesn't understand why intentional deception is considered to be a lie by people with integrity.
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.
Source: FactCheck.org
But what Factcheck.org missed is the fact that Obama hasn't taken PAC money from oil companies, either.
How many people who give money to campaigns believe that their gift comes from their company?
Dan's absolutely right on this one. The oil companies are backing McSame because he'll let them drill anywhere. Obama isn't taking their money, but some of the oil companies have employees with a conscience.
Sure, Dan's right about the oil company donations, but only if you focus on the words of what was said. If you focus on the spirit of the debate, you can make an argument that the oil companies hire people who give Obama money, and that's kind of like giving him money, sort of.
Even though McCain is flip-flopping on drilling, and doing exactly what the oil companies want him to do.
Trial attorney via the class action suit does much more harm then 'big oil'.
Sad -
You're obviously wrong on many levels, but even if you were correct - does that make it okay for McCain to flip-flop and get purchased by the oil industry? Does that make it okay for the oil industry to run advertisements in favor of their chosen candidate?
or MoveOn, with their Hollywood, Soros money run ads for Obama? Dan, has Hollywood or trial attorneys 'bought' Obama?
Often you unfortunately become very closed minded and ingnore facts when you pick and side and dig in. I think its likley stuborness and your ego wont let you out of traps you find yourself in
Post a Comment
<< Home