Gee, what another shocking revelation…McCain=Big Oil
It turns out that two high-ranking McCain campaign officials, one of whom is also one of McCain’s more prolific bundlers, were both were paid lobbyists for Hess for roughly three years, according to disclosure forms.
The two lobbyists are Wayne Berman, McCain’s national finance co-chairman, and John Green, who’s been the McCain campaign’s chief Congressional liaison since March. Both men worked for a firm called Ogilvy Government Relations. The firm has been paid $800,000 by Hess from 2005 up to the present, including $720,000 during the period that both of the two lobbied for the company, the forms say.
So my question is to twist this to a local level, when Mr. Copeland spoke in favor of oil, how much money will Mr. Dupont errr Mr. Copeland get from Oil companies?
Drill here.. drill now.. pay less.. 😉
+1 to that! US is one of the most environmentally conscious countries in the world (this goes double when compared to nations like Venezuela or China, who very well may be tapping into offshore oil we could be drilling) Drill oil, sell it cheap to the American people, and increase our refining capability so we can be less dependent on foreign nations until alternatives become viable.
“and increase our refining capability so we can be less dependent on foreign nations until alternatives become viable.”
That’s a really good point. Our refineries are old and inefficient.
wb,
oh, right so the oil companies are going to sell the oil to the cheapest bidder. Riiiiigggghtttt. Just like that oil in Alaska we get shipped to us…oh wait, we don’t
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.
is that $$$ amount direction contributions or bundles?
source please.
ha!
I’m going to love the next couple weeks as the McCain bundlers get exposed.
Dave,
Are you getting a cut of Copeland’s Hess money now that you are back in the shilling business?
OpenSecrets.org
To FSP’s point. Comparing the donations of the oil company’s employees and extending that to make it looks like the companies support Obama is dishonest.
Just cos you work for an oil company does not mean you agree with your employers policies.
KJ — Are you really saying the good oil company employees donated to Obama and the evil ones donated 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.”
But it wasn’t until June 17th that McCain gave his oil friendly speech. What do July’s figures look like?
Just cos you work for an oil company does not mean you agree with your employers policies.
Sorta like being in a union and forced to contribute money to candidates you don’t support.
And are you suggesting that oil company employees want their companies to lose money? Doesn’t sound like most employees I know.
No FSP. All I am saying is the employee donations patterns don’t mean much. They are supposed to donate their own funds. As for their employers .. we all know which direction that wind is blowing in.
Err Sharon.. Oil is an essential commodity, there is no way that oil companies will lose just cos their employees decide to donate their money to different parties or in this case to the dems.
People are voting for a President not someone who supports their company, as if that is the only thing that matters!
Sharon, off-topic, but you mentioned you live in Texas… how did you find us?
Not to mention it is good policy to have a comprehensive energy strategy. Oil, Gas, Wind, Nuclear, and other renewable sources. People will support their interests. That is fine. In this case it is in all of our interests.
Karmicjay,
If Democrats enact policies that hurt the oil industry (or make it more profitable to go overseas), that has an effect on people here in the U.S., including employees of those companies.
Pandora, I found you through Dana at Common Sense Political Thought. I was a lurker for a while. I like the mix of posts here, even when I don’t quite understand all the local politics. 😉
BTW, I’m an “all of the above” kinda person. Even though I’m a native born Texan (and have seen first hand the impact of Washington on oil producers), I kinda agree with Paris Hilton. Drill here, drill now, and develop alternatives.
The problem in a research sense is that you cannot either completely dismiss company employee donations as unrelated to company agendas or completely count them, either. There are many companies which exert all sorts of indirect (and direct) pressure of middle- and upper- level executives to donate to the “correct” candidate.
But since PAC money now plays such a small part in donations to either McCain or Obama (source: http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/MapAppCompare.do
You have to make some sort of attempt to weight those donations.
I don’t follow the oil industry sector closely enough to be able to tell you how to do it. However, by analogy, look at the defense sector: personal contributions from employees of major defense contractors are running about 70-30 in favor of Obama–and most companies fit into one of three categories–all Obama, all McCain, or almost exactly a 50-50 split. I refuse to believe that’s coincidence.
Moreover, if you cross list the major retired military figures (and their wives) who work as lobbyists or frontmen for huge defense contractors with the major retired military figures who have publicly endorsed Obama, you discover an amazing almost 1-1 ratio.
I am not raising this issue to bash Obama, but to make the point that under the new election laws the best way for industry sectors to have an impact on the presidential race is to “encourage” donations to the “correct” candidate from employees. Some firms’ donations openly prefer one candidate or the other; other firms’ appear to be hedging their bets.
So while it seems like the oil/energy sector is lining up behind McCain (along with tobacco, health insurance, and pharmaceuticals), it also seems like the defense industry and the entertainment sectors (plus–although I haven’t done the numbers–the transportation industry) seem to be lined up behind Obama.
But the way the election donation laws are now written actually helps obscure which industries are choosing to support which candidate.
If I were a smart oil company right now, I’d be hedging my bets with about 25-30% donations to the Obama campaign.
“If Democrats enact policies that hurt the oil industry (or make it more profitable to go overseas), that has an effect on people here in the U.S., including employees of those companies.”
I understand what you’re saying about potential job loss, but can we at least stop all the corporate welfare? They don’t seem to need it anymore.
I understand what you’re saying about potential job loss, but can we at least stop all the corporate welfare? They don’t seem to need it anymore.
My point has always been that corporations who choose to accept government welfare payments have absolutely no right to complain when the government comes in to regulate them.
Want to be free (or at least more free) (free-er? is that a word? i forget), corporate America? Then stand on your own damn feet and quit lusting after my tax dollars.
And no I don’t think the big three auto makers are too big to let fail.
Isn’t the freedom to fall flat on your face as well as succeed the backbone of Capitalism? Why are profits always applauded and losses end in “government bail-out”?
Has American Capitalism become risk free?
“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.”
Um…anyone?
“But it wasn’t until June 17th that McCain gave his oil friendly speech. What do July’s figures look like?”
Once again, Pandora, your huge box reeks of ignorance.
You guys don’t know what you’re talking about! Obama wants to really tighten campaign finance laws…Oh that’s right!
A. Bundy,
You are about the creepiest, most disturbed motherfucker commenting on this site.
And I love it!
“And no I don’t think the big three auto makers are too big to let fail.”
Steve – I couldn’t agree more. Why continue to prop them up when they can’t make a competitive product.
Pandora – I’m with you on the bail-outs. I can’t believe Congress just bailed everyone out of the whole mortgage mess.
Enjoy mike bundy is getting banned. Maybe she can bring her low class loser act to DWA?
Let’s hope. Is it really necessary to ban someone? You know how I feel about such censorious tactics.
As you might have guessed, I’m thinking bundy is female.
Anyway, she/he will be not commenting here for long.
I think the personal attacks cross a line. So if you enjoy them feel free to allow that crap at DWA.
Once again, Pandora, your huge box reeks of ignorance.
For once, I’m having trouble arguing with jason.
And a further point: as contentious and vituperative as the recent Cathloic flame-war got (I believe I called dv a “whining pussy” at one point and DD labeled me an apologist for child abuse; God only knows what dv called me–the spelling always leaves room for doubt)–there was a level of mutual consent to mudslinging (both past, present, and assumed for future) whereas the current gratuitous attack on Pandora is a completely different matter.
My heros! But, really, it doesn’t bother me. A Bundy adds nothing of value… he/she is a sad person with nothing better to do.