Obama the biggest recipient of BP oil cash

Martial Media, Culture and Other Arts Off Topic
1

You gotta love this one!

"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should “not be used inappropriately” to halt Obama’s push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP’s largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.

As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.

Several BP executives have given directly to Landrieu’s campaign, including current and previous U.S. operation Presidents Lamar McKay and Robert Malone. Other donors include Margaret Hudson, BP’s America vice president, and Benjamin Cannon, federal affairs director for the U.S. branch. Donations ranged from $1,000 to $2,300 during the past campaign cycle.

Environmentalists complain that Landrieu has played down the impact of oil spills.

“They own Mary Landrieu and the rest of the Louisiana delegation,” said Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies. “They have more money, disposable income and a fleet of dispensable lobbyists to beat the band.”"

Source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

I wondered why Obama just came out and said he supported offshore drilling. Now I know why!

2

why is anyoone surprised at this hypocritical sack of @#*+

3

So, how many of those contributions happened after the oil spill?

In addition:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/04/04greenwire-big-contributor-bp-finds-itself-without-a-frie-26062.html

The company’s political action committee has helped the re-election efforts of many, including Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has backed expanded drilling; and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who sits on key committees and whose state right now stands to be the most affected by oil headed for land. Landrieu also is considered a swing vote in climate legislation.

And that’s just part of BP’s political spending.

BP has enriched the campaign coffers of Landrieu, giving her $16,250 in the 2008 campaign cycle, when she was up for re-election. That contribution made Landrieu third for the highest amount received from BP’s political action committee or BP employees. The first two were then-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

BP gave McConnell’s re-election campaign $8,500 in 2008. McConnell’s office did not directly address the campaign contributions.

Murkowski has received $7,000 from BP this campaign cycle, according to Center for Responsive Politics.

BP in the past two election cycles has given $10,200 to Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), who is on the House Appropriations Committee.

4

Actually… oil rig accidents are pretty rare. One accident and now they are TEH DEADLY?

5

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1011464]So, how many of those contributions happened after the oil spill?[/QUOTE]

LMAO at you making excuses for the Kenyan socialist who loves American corporations cash.

6

[QUOTE=1bad65;1011498]LMAO at you making excuses for the Kenyan socialist who loves American corporations cash.[/QUOTE]

All politicians take corporate contributions. Heck, the conservative leaning Supreme Court just removed the limits on corporate contributions. Besides, aren’t corporations people too?

I would note that total amount indicated in that article is a drop in the bucket compared to the contributions made to George W. Bush by Enron. :smiley:

7

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1011506]I would note that total amount indicated in that article is a drop in the bucket compared to the contributions made to George W. Bush by Enron. :D[/QUOTE]

But Bush wasn’t bashing Enron while taking the cash. Nor did he flip-flop to help his corporate givers, unlike what Obama did by flip-flopping on offshore drilling.

8

[QUOTE=1bad65;1011728]But Bush wasn’t bashing Enron while taking the cash. Nor did he flip-flop to help his corporate givers, unlike what Obama did by flip-flopping on offshore drilling.[/QUOTE]

And when did President Obama bash BP while taking their cash? I mean during the Presidential campaign.

9

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1011749]And when did President Obama bash BP while taking their cash? I mean during the Presidential campaign.[/QUOTE]

What rock are you living under? The guy bashes ‘big business’ and ‘big oil’ every chance he gets.

10

If I post stories/video/etc of him bashing ‘Big Oil’ and offshore drilling during the campaign, you will admit he is a hypocrite, right?

11

[QUOTE=1bad65;1011780]If I post stories/video/etc of him bashing ‘Big Oil’ and offshore drilling during the campaign, you will admit he is a hypocrite, right?[/QUOTE]

I guess by your definition if one takes money from a contributor, one is forever prevented from criticizing them.

Oh, I found this interesting:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/05/bp-and-obama-playing-internet-gotcha-with-campaign-finance-numbers/

BP And Obama: Playing Internet Gotcha With Campaign Finance Numbers

Politico has a scoop today tailor-made for the online, read-a-headline-and-click-away culture. “Obama Biggest Recipient of BP Cash” it blares, gaining the coveted Matt Drudge link with a dollar sign in the word “CA$H” to prove the point. In the print copy of Politico, the Drudge-bait is toned down, “Before Spill, BP Pumped Money Into Washington.” Campaign finance stories like this are necessary, especially with the Washington Post reporting today that the Obama Administration exempted BP’s Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental study on an apparently flawed premise. But one can’t help but wonder if this specific campaign finance story was written in an overly online-friendly way.

My concern is that the story wins the Drudge link, but fails to provide the context readers need. It is true that according to this online database Obama received slightly more money from BP’s PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else. But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests–and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.

The article presents the money as a largely Democratic problem, highlighting the donations to Obama and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu at the top of the piece. Much lower down do we get mention of the fact that historically Republicans have taken much more money from BP, but this is buried in the assertion that Democrats have almost pulled even with Republicans in recent years. That’s one way of slicing the numbers. Another would be to say that in the last 20 years, BP has given 71 percent of its money to Republicans, and 29 percent to Democrats. (That number is not in the story, which also chooses not to count soft money contributions during the 20-year horizon. If soft money, which was given to party committees, not individuals, Obama would no longer be the top recipient. BP, for instance, gave more than $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, far more than the money that went to Obama.) One could also point out that of the top 30 recipients of BP money over this time period, 26 are Republican and only four are Democrats.

One other bit of context that might have been useful in the Politico story, but might also have hurt its chances for news cycle impact: The Center for Responsive Politics keeps a list of heavy hitter institutional campaign donors. By total donations given since 1989, BP ranks number 106, behind the Southern Company, Exxon, Chevron and even Enron, which has not existed for most of the last decade. BP’s total donations, of more than $6 million with soft money, pales in comparison to the $45 million given by AT&T, which is number one on the list, or the $32 million that was given by Goldman Sachs, over the same time period.

Another interesting question to ask is, has BP historically punched its own weight in campaign contributions? In recent years, BP has been listed as the fourth largest company in the world by revenue. Exxon, which has had slightly larger revenue, gave 74 percent more money in contributions than BP over the same period ($10.8 million vs. $6.2 million). Now revenue is a crude measure of a company’s regulatory interests. But it can also be said that adding such context, while serving the reader, might have dimmed the chances of success online. In the Interweb, as we all know, articles tend to thrive when they appeal simply to partisan loyalties.

This is funny:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/05/obama_has_to_answer_for_donati.html

Why did you take money from a company whose oil rig was going to explode two years later, Obama?!? B@stard!

12

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1011802]I guess by your definition if one takes money from a contributor, one is forever prevented from criticizing them.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. But when he says one thing, then takes the money, then flip-flops, it’s hypocracy on parade.

"Sen. Barack Obama stood his ground Wednesday in opposing what he calls the “scheme” of offshore drilling, during a campaign event in Springfield, Missouri.

“The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they’re doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it’s tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we’re going to solve this problem, but it’s not real.”

"I understand how desperate folks are. If I thought that I could provide you some immediate relief on gas by drilling off the shores of California and New Jersey… I’d do it.”

But the Democratic presidential candidate added, “The soonest you would see any drop of oil from drilling off our shores would be 10 years from now…The most you would end up saving 10 years or 20 years from now would be a few cents on the gallon, although at that point, I figure oil might be $12 a gallon.”

Citing the oil companies’ record profits, Obama charged that they are, “making money hand-over fist, they’re making out like bandits.”

Obama then proposed his own answers: “First of all, let’s make the oil companies drill where they’re already got leases, let’s increase supply by making them do what they’re supposed to do.”

Obama also said he wants to make sure speculators aren’t manipulating the oil markets.

To a standing ovation, he said, “And let’s get serious about alternative energy sources like solar and wind and bio-diesel. Let’s raise fuel efficiency standards on cars. Let’s get plug-in hybrids all across America. Let’s finally free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. That’s the direction we need to go.”"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/obama-calls-offshore-drilling-a-scheme/?fbid=d4aaxoiBn0I

So first it’s a “scheme”, then when the money rolls in he suddenly decides it’s good policy. Hypocrite.

13

More hypocracy from the Kenyan socialist

Here he blasts the oil companies for their lobbying and how they are shaping policy. Of course the checks from ‘Big Oil’ were rolling in while he was saying this. :rolleyes:

"Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama lashed out Monday at the power of the oil, insurance and pharmaceutical industries in blocking progressive policy in Washington and used his charges to bolster his calls for ethical reforms in government.

“The reason that we’re not getting things done is not because we don’t have good plans or good policy prescriptions,” Obama said. “The reason is because it’s not our agenda that’s being moved forward in Washington – it’s the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity.”

Speaking at Roosevelt Middle School, not far from the Cedar River, Obama said if he is elected, no one who worked in his administration would be allowed to lobby the White House after they left – a revolving-door ban affecting potentially thousands of workers."

Source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama_tuejul31,0,3036878.story

14

You make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). :eek:

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.” - John Wayne

Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn’t bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

15

[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1011897]Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn’t bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.[/QUOTE]

Of course I want him to fail in implementing his policies. I don’t like recort deficits, ~10% unemployment, and growing inflation. Do you?

16

[QUOTE=1bad65;1012084]Of course I want him to fail in implementing his policies. I don’t like recort deficits, ~10% unemployment, and growing inflation. Do you?[/QUOTE]

Best job gain in four years…

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/07/news/economy/jobs_april/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T3

And who really is responsible for the unemployment? REALLY? Or the deficit? Who wiped out our surplus?

Seriously… really now…

17

:D…

18

[QUOTE=Drake;1012103]Best job gain in four years…[/QUOTE]

Yet unemployment is UP to 9.9%

[QUOTE=Drake;1012103]And who really is responsible for the unemployment? REALLY? Or the deficit? Who wiped out our surplus?

Seriously… really now…[/QUOTE]

It’s not just one person’s fault, plenty of blame to go around there. I’ll admit that. But we were promised us that unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed the Kenyan’s ‘stimulus’ package. So not only did unemployment go up to 10%, we have a huge bill to foot now. But some of us saw the fail coming, because we are not ignorant of history:

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.” -Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury

Of course the Kenyan screwed it up even worse, as unemployment under his massive spending actually went up! :eek:

19

You make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). :eek:

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.” - John Wayne

Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn’t bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

20

Are you gonna spam the forum, or address the points I made? :rolleyes: