Oil Money in the Presidential Campaigns

by Deb Cupples |   As I covered a few days ago, both major presidential candidates have received large sums of industry-tied cash: the oil and gas industry, the insurance industry, the securities and investment industry, the real estate industry....  To me, that's evidence of the pressing need for real campaign finance reform.

ABC News reports that John McCain has received about three times as much money from employees or representatives of the oil and gas industry, while Barack Obama has received noticeably more money from employees or representatives of three of the largest oil companies:

"Based on data downloaded electronically from the Federal Election Commission on July 29, 2008, reports CRP: 'Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.'" (ABC Blog)

That wouldn't be much of a story -- given that McCain got three times more overall --  if the DNC hadn't recently launched a website that ties John McCain specifically to Exxon (whose employees gave a bit more money to Obama). 

That and Sen. Obama's campaign has been focusing on McCain's unseemly ties to oil companies.

McCain responded  to Sen. Obama's charges:

"I think Senator Obama might be a little bit confused. Yesterday, he accused me of having President Bush's policies on energy. That's odd because he voted for the President's energy bill and I voted against it.

"I voted against it, had $2.8 billion in corporate welfare to Big Oil companies, and they're already making record profits, as you know. Senator Obama voted for that bill and its Big Oil giveaways. I know he hasn't been in the Senate that long, but even in the real world, voting for something means you support it and voting against something means you oppose it." (ABC)

Sen. Obama's campaign's respondse to McCain's response:

"The Obama campaign disputes that the bill was "the president's" energy bill, and in Lansing told voters that McCain voted "against an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country." (ABC)

I suppose the debate is as settled as it ever will be, but note that Oil and Gas is not the only industry that seeks to influence our public policy.   And both Obama and McCain have taken plenty of money from other industries.  I've got 10 examples here.

In all fairness, the candidates have to take "tainted" money to be competitive: it's the nature of our system.  And it's precisely the reason we need real campaign finance reform.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Related Buck Naked Politics Posts

* Tainted Money: Why We Need Campaign Finance Reform

* McCain Gets Rewards from Oil Companies?

* ABC Ignores Obama's Misleading Message about Lobbyists' Money

* Why Alan Grayson is The Congressional Candidate for Florida's Dist. 8

.

Comments

[Adam]

The raw numbers don't mean much to me in and of themselves. What makes McCain's contributions so galling IMO are two things:

1) The fairly blatant circumvention of campaign finance law - laws which, ironically, McCain had a hand in creating. The story about the low-level employees making huge contributions is pretty damning, as is the one about the guy who was "bundling" $2300 contributions from auto mechanics.

2) The obvious cause-effect relation in the timing of contributions. McCain got a big flood of oil money both immediately before and immediately after his announcement about offshore drilling. It's like the mouse hitting the button for a feeder pellet.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

This is a very narrow post.

I wrote about oil $ in this piece. Period. McCain got 3 times more from the industry overall (I'm guessing that includes retailers and refiners but am not sure), and Obama got a bit more from three big COMPANIES with interests in energy policy.

I also pointed out the irony of the DNC's connecting McCain to Exxon, a company whose employees gave a bit more to Obama than to McCain. The DNC should have done its research.

There's nothing more to my post.

I see that you DIDN'T comment on my earlier piece with the table of 10 industries and how much each candidate has received from them.

http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/08/tained-campaign.html

I'd like to know what you think about that, because it's a bit bigger of a picture -- given that other industries also might seek to buy public policies that hurt the public (Pharma, Real Estate, Gambling, Hedge Funds/Private Equity...).

Remember, the small, folksy donor is NOT included in the data I present in the tables, because donors who give less than $200 don't get labeled by the FEC.

I'll be putting up more tables in the next couple of days.