Obama No Different Than Other Pols

[Rohirrim]

Obama says he doesn't take oil money. He does.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129895

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.

Same as it ever was.

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.

[orinjkrush]

new bottle. old whine.

[Dukes]

Change my ass.

[snowspot66]

As a Ron Paul supporter I hate that anybody gets money from big companies. But what I think needs to be shown is the comparisons of other candidates. Big companies give to all the campaigns to hedge their bets. They give most to the ones they want to win.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Hmmm...interesting story...I'm going to withold my opinion on this until more actual facts are available. Remember the story a few weeks ago about the Canadian politician who alleged that Obama had told him in secret he was going to say one thing in public and do something else about NAFTA? People jumped all over it. It turned up last week that the Canadian Parliment admitted it was BS. So while this "could" be something...nothing in this story proves it is.

I notice several things here if you look carefully past the hype. Clearly there's an insinuation of impropriety, so if you're going to publish this shouldn't you have something more than inuendo and a smattering of facts that may or may not support the apparent conclusion? Observe the following:

1) Nothing illegal is even hinted at here.

2) Thousands of people work in oil & gas, some of whom contributed to Obama's campaign. No doubt people who work in the automobile industry, the IT industry and the commercial contracting industry also contributed to various campaigns...as have employees in all kinds of industries. In and of itself, contributions from employees only mean something if you can show an attempt to buy influence. Does Joe the accountant or Fred the janitor who work for Exxon count? Or are they saying his contributions came from people standing to directly benefit are influencing him with contributions?

3) Among the oil & gas employees, the only two mentioned as especially significant are the two that Obama HIMSELF lists on his website. Apparently he wasn't trying to hide this fact so it's not like this is some kind of scoop.

4) People who were FORMER lobbyists or worked in their organizations or their spouses contributed. If they are FORMER lobbyists, ie; no longer engaged in this activity, are we being asked to believe they're now working for free? Or are we being asked to believe they're being paid under the table? If it's the latter, proof of this needs to be offered instead of simple inuendo.

5) PAC's are mentioned, though he hasn't been proven to take any money from them...but it isn't the legal PAC money that's actually likely to buy influence, it's the under the table stuff...the illegal stuff like McCain's gotten over the years. Is there evidence of this happening? If so they need to state it, but since they didn't obvioulsy nothing's come to light.

Does anyone actually think Obama's going to tank his whole philosophy and poliltical stance on half a dozen issues and suddenly become the oil industry's next Bush-like puppet? That's a huge stretch and if that's what they're looking for money involved here doesn't look like it woud go very far.

As I said...I'm waiting to see, but I know some of you won't do so.

[Bronco Jamus]

I don't have a problem with businesses giving donations to politics. They have a right to as much as any entity. However, the amount should be no more than a cap on private citizens.

[Bronco Bob]

Answering that call at 3 in the morning...

.
(Notice which end he is holding next to his ear.)

[shakenbake]

Hmmm...interesting story...I'm going to withold my opinion on this until more actual facts are available. Remember the story a few weeks ago about the Canadian politician who alleged that Obama had told him in secret he was going to say one thing in public and do something else about NAFTA? People jumped all over it. It turned up last week that the Canadian Parliment admitted it was BS. So while this "could" be something...nothing in this story proves it is.

I notice several things here if you look carefully past the hype. Clearly there's an insinuation of impropriety, so if you're going to publish this shouldn't you have something more than inuendo and a smattering of facts that may or may not support the apparent conclusion? Observe the following:

1) Nothing illegal is even hinted at here.

2) Thousands of people work in oil & gas, some of whom contributed to Obama's campaign. No doubt people who work in the automobile industry, the IT industry and the commercial contracting industry also contributed to various campaigns...as have employees in all kinds of industries. In and of itself, contributions from employees only mean something if you can show an attempt to buy influence. Does Joe the accountant or Fred the janitor who work for Exxon count? Or are they saying his contributions came from people standing to directly benefit are influencing him with contributions?

3) Among the oil & gas employees, the only two mentioned as especially significant are the two that Obama HIMSELF lists on his website. Apparently he wasn't trying to hide this fact so it's not like this is some kind of scoop.

4) People who were FORMER lobbyists or worked in their organizations or their spouses contributed. If they are FORMER lobbyists, ie; no longer engaged in this activity, are we being asked to believe they're now working for free? Or are we being asked to believe they're being paid under the table? If it's the latter, proof of this needs to be offered instead of simple inuendo.

5) PAC's are mentioned, though he hasn't been proven to take any money from them...but it isn't the legal PAC money that's actually likely to buy influence, it's the under the table stuff...the illegal stuff like McCain's gotten over the years. Is there evidence of this happening? If so they need to state it, but since they didn't obvioulsy nothing's come to light.

Does anyone actually think Obama's going to tank his whole philosophy and poliltical stance on half a dozen issues and suddenly become the oil industry's next Bush-like puppet? That's a huge stretch and if that's what they're looking for money involved here doesn't look like it woud go very far.

As I said...I'm waiting to see, but I know some of you won't do so.

Would you hold judgement if it was Bush and not Obama? The reason why this is an issue is because Obama made it one. He claimed in a recent ad he doesn't accept money from oil companies, I guess he just accepts them from their CEO's. I am also pretty sure by law you have to list your donators.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Would you hold judgement if it was Bush and not Obama?
Not the best example here...but I get your point. Choose a different industry and the answer would be yes...it'a ALWAYS wise to withold judgement till the facts are in.
The reason why this is an issue is because Obama made it one. He claimed in a recent ad he doesn't accept money from oil companies, I guess he just accepts them from their CEO's. I am also pretty sure by law you have to list your donators.
How do you think they found this? Did you read the story...dude it's POSTED ON HIS WEBSITE. You have no evidence he accepted money from oil company CEO's and the story does not say that he did. It only says two oil company CEO's were influential in getting others to donate to him. Incidently...I have a client in the same Oklahoma region interested in entering the Texas energy market. Their interest lies in investment in sustainable green tech...in this case wind and solar...far removed from the anti-environmentalism and pro Iraqi conflict ideaology espoused by the top management at big oil. I don't think to many oil industry leaders think Obama is gonne be their boy. The idea is fundamentally silly. It's more likely that individual political passions are driving this.

[Spider]

Obama set all kinds of records in donations , really cant expect him to be able to vet every one that gave him money .....but I have to wonder , if some of these people did give him money , only later to sat got ya .....****ing setup

[footstepsfrom#27]

Obama set all kinds of records in donations , really cant expect him to be able to vet every one that gave him money .....but I have to wonder , if some of these people did give him money , only later to sat got ya .....****ing setup
Accepting donations from people who work in certain industries is not only legal, it's probably unavoidable. It isn't accepting money that's the issue, it's accepting it for influence, and in every speech I've heard him deliver, the context of his remarks makes it clear he's talking about the purchase of political influence.

I both own a business and work as an analyst and consultant for corporations in a space that crosses over into financial services. If I cut Obama a check for $200 and mail it...is he suddenly accepting influence from inside the finance industry? That's nonsense. MUCH more information is needed here.

[Rohirrim]

The point of this article is that Obama is deliberately misleading the American people with a lawyerly trick of rhetoric. I guess we can expect more of the same when he's in the WH?

As Fact Check put it: We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference.

[cutthemdown]

Obama promised to only accept matching funds if the Repub also did. McCain has said he will only take matching funds so Obama will be in a tough spot. Either forgo public money and outspend McCain, go back on his word, or take public matching funds and play McCain even.

Either way it could backfire. One way McCain will use it to say he is going back on word, the other he won't have a money advantage.