I've been hearing quite a bit about BP money going to Obama and found numerous articles on the subject. Below is a portion of one. So many loyal democrats and anti-Republicans thought it was odd that Obama was, and still is, pushing for more drilling in the Gulf. Now you know why.
By ERIKA LOVLEY | 5/5/10 5:05 AM EDT
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.
On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying ? including $15.9 million last year alone ? as it has tried to influence energy policy.
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.
An Obama spokesman rejected the notion that the president took big oil money.
?President Obama didn?t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign,? spokesman Ben LaBolt said. ?He raised $750 million from nearly four million Americans. And since he became president, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.? (who cares that Obama received big money from BP for the last twenty years, right?)
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 blas? 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.
Replies
45
SoWal Expert
I don't find this surprising at all- since BP has been giving money to federal candidates for over 20 years, according to the article. Are you going to mention the others who took this money, or is Obama suddenly now responsible for all the drilling in the Gulf since it began?;-)
Beach Fanatic
I see your Obama/BP and their hundreds of thousands.
I raise you Cheney/ Halliburton and their tens of millions.
I get bonus points, too, for citing Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.
Gulf oil spill: The Halliburton connection | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times
"According to experts cited in Friday's Wall St. Journal, the timing of last week's cement job in relation to the explosion -- only 20 hours beforehand, and the history of cement problems in other blowouts "point to it as a possible culprit." Robert MacKenzie, managing director of energy and natural resources at FBR Capital Markets and a former cementing engineer, told the Journal, "The initial likely cause of gas coming to the surface had something to do with the cement."
I raise you Cheney/ Halliburton and their tens of millions.
I get bonus points, too, for citing Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.
Gulf oil spill: The Halliburton connection | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times
"According to experts cited in Friday's Wall St. Journal, the timing of last week's cement job in relation to the explosion -- only 20 hours beforehand, and the history of cement problems in other blowouts "point to it as a possible culprit." Robert MacKenzie, managing director of energy and natural resources at FBR Capital Markets and a former cementing engineer, told the Journal, "The initial likely cause of gas coming to the surface had something to do with the cement."
Beach Fanatic
"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 blas? about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill."
REALLY??? then how do we "not let this serious crisis go to waste?"
I feel that politicians are now on the horns of a major dillemma, and whatever path they take will end up in impalement.
REALLY??? then how do we "not let this serious crisis go to waste?"
I feel that politicians are now on the horns of a major dillemma, and whatever path they take will end up in impalement.
Edited
margarita brocolia
I see your Obama/BP and their hundreds of thousands..
I raise you Cheney/ Halliburton and their tens of millions.
I get bonus points, too, for citing Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.
Gulf oil spill: The Halliburton connection | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times
"According to experts cited in Friday's Wall St. Journal, the timing of last week's cement job in relation to the explosion -- only 20 hours beforehand, and the history of cement problems in other blowouts "point to it as a possible culprit." Robert MacKenzie, managing director of energy and natural resources at FBR Capital Markets and a former cementing engineer, told the Journal, "The initial likely cause of gas coming to the surface had something to do with the cement."
Thanks Buz ... I would figure BP to be like most large corporations in the spreading of their dollars, but it is interesting to see the proportions. Gotta love how this message board keeps us all on our toes with clarifying information. TY SoWal.com.
.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
I'm under the impression that Obama's support for drilling was a compromise and a gimme to his political opponents so that he can ask for something in return.
margarita brocolia
I'm under the impression that Obama's support for drilling was a compromise and a gimme to his political opponents so that he can ask for something in return..
That's what I'm leaning towards also, Not that I like it.
I am hoping he wasn't just campaigning for Alternative Energy to get a segment of votes. I really, really want it to be true that he will make a push for alternative energy.
People are fired up now, so it seems promoting it soon would be good. But maybe there is too much else going on ....... or he isn't that committed, god I hope it's not that.
.
SoWal Guide
I'm under the impression that Obama's support for drilling was a compromise and a gimme to his political opponents so that he can ask for something in return.
my impression and hope is that this president, who does have a pretty good thinking brain, is opening up the issue for evaluation, debate, study, and hopefully for the people of America to come out with strong voices one way or another on the issue. and the oil spill is helping bring out many voices.
Obama is not one to announce that we are going to drill in the gulf starting today because its what we need, no matter what the cost. fortunately, we no longer have that kind of administration in office.
but, I do agree Geo that Obama is using this issue to try to find compromise and work between both parties. which is really how things need to be done. I don't like hearing he is in support of gulf drilling. is he? I think he's in support of evaluation of its need and feasibility.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I don't find this surprising at all- since BP has been giving money to federal candidates for over 20 years, according to the article. Are you going to mention the others who took this money, or is Obama suddenly now responsible for all the drilling in the Gulf since it began?;-)
I simply point it out to show people that it doesn't matter which party a politician belongs to. They all take money from the same puppet masters.
Beach Fanatic
I simply point it out to show people that it doesn't matter which party a politician belongs to. They all take money from the same puppet masters.
Exactly. The biggest difference in the 2 parties is not who is owned and who isn't, its simply who the owners are.
Beach Fanatic
BP And Obama: Playing Internet Gotcha With Campaign Finance Numbers - Swampland - TIME.com
Excerpt: but worth the entire read
Excerpt: but worth the entire read
...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.....
SoWal Insider
Bottom line is we need Campaign Finance Reform and every dollar needs to be disclosed, proving US Citizenship and that the donor is actually alive and mentally competent. When asked to show the books, every candidate until Obama did. My guess is that people are skeptical of where a record $750MM came from.
Other than that, this story has nothing to uncover. PACs are legitimate. And, the Presidential campaign is a game of raising dollars.
Other than that, this story has nothing to uncover. PACs are legitimate. And, the Presidential campaign is a game of raising dollars.
Beach Fanatic
Lobbyist for big oil, auto, finance, insurance, pharma have been writing talking points and LAWS for the party in power for decades if not longer. Have you ever looked at the 26 page list of lobbyist just for the state of Florida? Hundreds of millions of $$$ were spent just in the last 6 months for banking "reform". They shifted funds from cheney to obama so fast it made your head spin when it was obvious that Mccain-Palin was a train wreck. Truly equal opportunity in D.C. Best Guv'ment $$ can buy!
Beach Fanatic
Bottom line is we need Campaign Finance Reform and every dollar needs to be disclosed, proving US Citizenship and that the donor is actually alive and mentally competent. When asked to show the books, every candidate until Obama did. My guess is that people are skeptical of where a record $750MM came from.
Other than that, this story has nothing to uncover. PACs are legitimate. And, the Presidential campaign is a game of raising dollars.
You are right, on all counts.
G
Beach Fanatic
Big business controls America. As to political activity with big business; the players may change but the game remains the same.
Beach Fanatic
Bottom line is we need Campaign Finance Reform and every dollar needs to be disclosed, proving US Citizenship and that the donor is actually alive and mentally competent. When asked to show the books, every candidate until Obama did. My guess is that people are skeptical of where a record $750MM came from.
Other than that, this story has nothing to uncover. PACs are legitimate. And, the Presidential campaign is a game of raising dollars.
Perhaps, a major rework of campaign funding is the only real solution. It would apply to every single elected office, local to national. Prohibit any contributions to candidate or party over, say, $250. No independent spending for campaign ads. No soft contributions. Provide each candidate a modest standard package of promotion materials, media exposure, travel budget, etc. at public expense. Require each candidate to submit a clear platform.
In my simplistic view, that would quickly give us "government for the people", not the sad system we now endure at all levels of government.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Maybe instead of allowing fund-raising for politicians, we should allow them only to have debates in a public forum, broadcast on all media outlets. (I know, borrrrrr-ing, for most people, but we may not get sucked into believing that the rhetoric from stump speeches represents honesty. )
Beach Comber
i simply point it out to show people that it doesn't matter which party a politician belongs to. They all take money from the same puppet masters.this is how the political world goes round and round.
Beach Fanatic
I simply point it out to show people that it doesn't matter which party a politician belongs to. They all take money from the same puppet masters.
Ah Murray.....that will all change once the Tea-baggers get their folks elected this fall. Just ask them....
SoWal Guide
Maybe instead of allowing fund-raising for politicians, we should allow them only to have debates in a public forum, broadcast on all media outlets. (I know, borrrrrr-ing, for most people, but we may not get sucked into believing that the rhetoric from stump speeches represents honesty. )
or maybe we should just allow corporations to contribute unlimited funds directly to their candidates of choice and just let corporations run everything directly. oh yeah, that is how it is now right?
Beach Fanatic
or maybe we should just allow corporations to contribute unlimited funds directly to their candidates of choice and just let corporations run everything directly. oh yeah, that is how it is now right?
The organization Common Cause has taken on campaign finance reform as one of their issues. They have quite a few ideas on how reform could be accomplished. Here is a link to what they are proposing:
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/{...OMMONCAUSECAMPAIGNFINANCEREFORMAGENDA2009.PDF
"Restoring public faith in their government?and making government work in the public interest?will require bold action. Common Cause offers an agenda to sweep in a new era of campaign finance reform in Washington. At the centerpiece of that agenda, lies a voluntary system of public funding that enables federal candidates to just say ?no? to large contributions and run vigorous campaigns on a combination of small donations and limited public dollars. The new campaign fi nance model presented here combines the best from successful state public fi nancing systems and Internet-base small-donor fundraising strategies. This 21st Century approach?combined with a lobbyist contribution ban, an end to Hill fundraising quotas, closing loopholes, greater transparency and a nonpartisan, effective enforcement agency?offers the best opportunity to clean up Washington and give the American people the government they deserve."
Beach Fanatic
Someone remind me... does BP stand for Bought Politicians or Beaches Polluted? Or soon to be Bankruptcy Protected. Their response seems like Barely Prepared. And they sure hate the Bad Press.
Truely surprising to me is that Deepwater Horizons Insurance policy on the sunken rig has been paid-$401 Million dollars. Paid rather quick IMO. Something smells fishy and its more than just the dead sealife!
Truely surprising to me is that Deepwater Horizons Insurance policy on the sunken rig has been paid-$401 Million dollars. Paid rather quick IMO. Something smells fishy and its more than just the dead sealife!
SoWal Expert
I believe that is just for Transocean's policy that covers the physical rig and operating costs/lost revenue. Lloyd's expects to pay out in the Billions by the time it is done. Transocean also has a policy on the rig for hundreds of millions in environmental damage.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Transocean's rig is reported to cost about $500 million, so it wouldn't be surprising to learn that they received $401 million in insurance money for it.
I really wasn't trying to start another thread on BP's lack of handling the problem. Let's keep this one focused on politricks and payback of political promises (which applies to all politicians, not just one party).
I really wasn't trying to start another thread on BP's lack of handling the problem. Let's keep this one focused on politricks and payback of political promises (which applies to all politicians, not just one party).
Beach Fanatic
Ah Murray.....that will all change once the Tea-baggers get their folks elected this fall. Just ask them....
I thought all of this was supposed to change when Obama got elected :roll:
SoWal Guide
I thought all of this was supposed to change when Obama got elected :roll:
how so?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.