Big Oil has a candidate … and it’s not Obama

August 8, 2008

I guess I can’t blame a campaign for trying. Now that John McCain’s financial support from the oil industry has become increasingly controversial, the new push in Republican circles is to argue that Big Oil actually supports Barack Obama more.

The RNC said yesterday that Obama “has taken the most money from Big Oil’s very biggest.”

The McCain campaign followed up today with a blog post that argues, “Big Oil’s candidate is…Barack Obama,” citing a report from the Center for Responsive Politics detailing campaign contributions from employees in the oil industry and their families.

There are a couple of things wrong with this odd argument, not including the hilarious irony of Republicans using “Big Oil” in a negative context. First, there’s a qualitative and quantitative difference between some low-level Chevron employee chipping in to the Obama campaign, and the kind of bundling we’ve seen from oil executives working on McCain’s behalf. There’s money from the oil industry and then there’s money from the oil industry.

Second, as a factual matter, ThinkProgress notes that the McCain campaign is quoting the Center for Responsive Politics study in a careless and deceptive way. From the report:

McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though — Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list goes on…. McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. — $91,000 to Obama’s $8,000 — which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain’s campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama’s has — $1.3 million compared to about $394,000. […]

Comparing Obama’s and McCain’s financial ties to the oil industry, there’s no question that McCain has benefited more from the industry’s contributions.

I’d add, though, that while it’s not surprising that McCain is enjoying the largess of the oil industry, counting up contributions is only part of the broader problem.

It’s mildly interesting to see which candidates are receiving contributions from Big Oil, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees — the problem isn’t just that McCain is taking Big Oil’s cash, it’s that he’s pushing Big Oil’s agenda. That’s a much bigger deal.

Obama made this point well the other day.

“So if Senator McCain wants to talk about why Washington is broken, that’s a debate I’m happy to have. Because Senator McCain’s energy plan reads like an early Christmas list for oil and gas lobbyists. And it’s no wonder – because many of his top advisors are former oil and gas lobbyists.

“Instead of offering a plan with significant investments in alternative energy, he’s offering a gas tax gimmick that will pad oil company profits and save you – at most – a quarter and a nickel a day over the course of an entire summer. That’s why Washington is broken.

“Instead of supporting my plan to use the windfall profits of oil companies to help you pay rising costs, he’s offering $4 billion more in tax breaks to oil companies like Exxon that just made the largest quarterly profit in the history of the United States of America. That’s why Washington is broken.

“Instead of offering a comprehensive plan that will lower gas prices, the centerpiece of his entire energy plan is more drilling. It’s a proposal that won’t yield a drop of oil for at least seven years, but it’s produced a gusher for Senator McCain. Because after he announced his drilling proposal to a room full of oil executives, the industry ponied up nearly a million dollars in contributions. That’s the kind of special interest-driven politics that’s stopped us from solving our energy crisis. And that’s why Washington is broken.”

That’s really the point — connecting the money to the policy. Indeed, as we talked about last night, McCain won’t even support a bipartisan energy proposal that includes all of what he says he wants, precisely because it closes tax loopholes that currently benefit — you guessed it — the oil companies.

If the McCain campaign and the RNC want to criticize the money Obama has received from people who work in the oil industry, that’s fine — because it’s irrelevant. The key here is which candidate has a sensible, forward-thinking energy policy, and which has an energy agenda shaped by ExxonMobil.

And that, my friends, leads to an obvious answer.

About 90 minutes ago, MSNBC posted the numbers they got from some supposedly independent watchdog group: $340k from big oil for Obama, just over a million for McCain. I have no idea what kind of math they used to disappear a million of McCain’s donations, but then I somehow doubt the “independent” group is as independent as they claim. I changed the channel after that, my tolerance for cable news is exhausted for today.

  • Mr Benen, this is from the Boston Globe’s campaign blog:

    Barack Obama is running TV ads asserting that Republican rival John McCain is “in the pocket” of Big Oil, and the Democratic National Committee is pushing an “Exxon-McCain ’08” campaign.

    But while Obama’s campaign points to the flood of contributions from oil executives that flowed to McCain after he changed his position and came out in favor of more offshore oil drilling, a watchdog group says that it turns out that Obama has received more campaign cash from executives at some of those companies.

    The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today that employees of Exxon, Chevron, and BP have all contributed more money to Obama than to McCain.

    “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,” the center said.

  • Take out the following sentences:

    “That’s why Washington is broken”
    “That’s why Washington is broken”
    “That’s the kind of special interest-driven politics that’s stopped us from solving our energy crisis. And that’s why Washington is broken.”

    And you will have a much better speech. All this “Washington is broken” “special-interest politics” just waters down his message. He starts the paragraph commenting on John McCain’s faults, then has to add something about the general state of politics, which waters down the very effective message he was sending.

  • If Obama got 394K from oil company employees out of 300M total, that would be less than fifteen one-hundredths of a percent of his donations. He may well have gotten more from color blind people with Tourette syndrome. Without knowing who raised the money and what influence they would therefore expect to have on policy, it’s absolutely meaningless.

  • I’m still trying to figure out what it is that T. Boone Pickens is going to say. The only thing I’ve heard so far is that we can’t drill our way out of this mess. This is the pentultimate oil man and he’s off message from Big Oil and McLame. Could this be the October suprise that vaults Obama into the White House? Has T. Boone gotten a heart from the Wizard? Please, to everyone of these things.

  • Hey Steve,

    You ever get tired of having to write “There are a couple of things wrong with this argument”??

    😀

    ‘Cause it seems as if everything that comes out of Camp McCain has at least “a couple things wrong” with it.

    (not that I’m complaining, you’re doing a damn fine job setting the record straigh – easily one of the best in the biz)

  • I was listening to NPR’s Day to Day just this morning when a guest panelist made the “point” that Obama had received more money from big oil than McCain. Of course that surprised me and the source seemed credible (I can’t remember the name). I guess that meme was quick to take off.

  • As I mentioned on a previous post, I was reading RedState yesterday to get a good laugh, and they also covered this story. And yes, they also badmouthed Big Oil and said Obama was their candidate based upon this cherry-picking of the facts. In that post, they also badmouthed Bush and his energy policy, which they said was a giveaway to Big Oil that Obama supported and McCain opposed. Somehow, it doesn’t occur to them that Big Oil and Bush are McCain’s problem no matter how hard they try to spin things, and that they’re just hurting McCain when they try to link Obama to either.

    It’s really odd, I’ve always assumed that conservatives were so in love with their Big Picture Narratives that they often ignored reality and facts that betrayed their beliefs. But now they’re just latching onto anything that makes Obama look bad, even if it destroys everything they just said. These people truly are clueless if they’re not given something better to say.

  • The Obama Campaign has raised more money than any Presidential Candidate in history. The money comes from everywhere. He can pick and choose what is the right policy to push, knowing that he doesn’t have to worry about raising money.

    McCain, on the other hand, is far more restricted and needs to push whatever policy his backers want… otherwise, he might not collect another check next time.

  • 6. On August 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am, neilt said:
    Hey Steve,

    You ever get tired of having to write “There are a couple of things wrong with this argument”??

    ‘Cause it seems as if everything that comes out of Camp McCain has at least “a couple things wrong” with it.

    (not that I’m complaining, you’re doing a damn fine job setting the record straigh – easily one of the best in the biz)

    __________________

    I’m fond of tallying up the phrase(s) “Wait, it gets better/worse,” myself. 🙂

  • How do they know who works for whom when employees are giving. I’m an employee as is just about everyone who gives, I imagine. Do they know who my employer is? No one has ever asked me…just asking. I think (and hope with my fingers crossed) that most people know that ALL companies hedge their bets in a close election and pass of donations to both candidates even as they are favoring one.

  • The Center for Responsive Politics did the numbers for both candidates. They also did an article showing why the Obama ad got it wrong although some of their numbers were based on the CRP’s own numbers.

    The CRP is non-partisan.

    The CRP article on oil and Obama also points out that Obama got more from Big Oil companies, like Exxon. However, McCain got more overall. Their statement was that Big Oil favors Obama, but they as well point out it is not by much.

    Its a shame that a group which does a public service, and does it in a non-partisan way, is attacked because they bring out a few points a person does’t want to hear.

    The Center for Responsible Politics is not choosing sides, they are simply providing information to help voters. Nor do they slam either candidate, their articles are very nuetral. If only one could say as much of the main streem media.

  • The thing we need to fire back with here is that, when Republicans turn an issue around like this hoping to reveal “obvious liberal hypocrisy [and they try to do it a lot!], they are admitting that what their candidate has done is wrong. It should work like this:

    Dems: McCain has accepted $2 million dollars in donations from Big Oil since he flip-flopped on offshore drilling.

    Reps: So?

    Dems: So, he’s in Big Oil’s Pocket.

    Reps: Well, Obama took more money from this one oil guy than McCain did. So he’s in Big Oil’s pocket and he’s a hypocrite!

    Dems: So, you’re saying that accepting money from Big Oil is wrong?

    Reps: Um…sure.

    Dems: And which candidate took the most money from Big Oil?

    Reps: Wait a minute…

  • McCain, on the other hand, is far more restricted and needs to push whatever policy his backers want… otherwise, he might not collect another check next time.

    I don’t understand why people don’t think Obama is a capable leader, or question his ability. He’s obviously superior at fund raising (out performed the Clinton Fund Raising machine) and getting people to back his ideas. He’s articulate and makes logical, practical and sound arguements/conclusions. He’s able to manage people on the macro and micro level. And he’s not a typical staffer / cliff note politician. He’s engaged in the details/nuances and understands desired results. He also used new approaches and new technologies to his advantage to fund raise. All these qualities add up to the type of Manager / Director / Boss I like to work for. How is he not fit to lead?

    You mentioned, McCain is restricted to the whims of his party and constituents due to funding issues. If you look at the sub context of this statement just a little more closely, you’ll notice that McCain is the exact opposite of everything that qualifies Obama as a superior manager. So really, if we define the qualities of what it means to be a leader, McCain fall short this election.

  • Obma gets his money from derrick operatives, McCain from maverick operatives.

    Always hopeful, @11,
    All political contribution forms — both on-line and those sent through s-mail — have a few little boxes you need to fill. One is regarding your citizenship/legal status, which only requires a check. Another which only requires a check is “I swear this comes from my own funds, etc”. But two need to be filled in full. One is “occupation” and one is “employer”. If you don’t fill them, an online donation will be returned to you for supplementary info. I don’t know what happens if you don’t fill them on a s-mail solicitation or if you just send a cold check, without accompanying form. But, basically, that’s how they know who sent, how much and who their employers are.

    Win, @13,
    How can Big Oil *favor* Obama if he got one third of the money McCain got from them? Or are we talking about the definition of “Big” here?

  • If you’ve been following the Hess/Sargeant McCain contribution scandal, you’ll note that McCain’s oil numbers might be fraudulently low.

    • Comments are closed.