Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Media misleadingly claim Obama is the "single largest recipient of BP's cash"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 08:48 AM
Original message
Media misleadingly claim Obama is the "single largest recipient of BP's cash"
Media outlets have misleadingly claimed that President Obama is "the single largest recipient of BP's cash" to back up Sarah Palin's baseless suggestion that contributions from oil companies have affected Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill. In fact, the money comes almost entirely from individuals employed by BP, not the corporation itself, and represents a minuscule fraction of Obama's total campaign contributions.

-----------

Palin suggests connection between "contributions made to President Obama" by oil companies and administration's response to oil spill. From the May 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

PALIN: Well, I think that there is, perhaps, a hesitancy to -- I don't really know how to put this, Chris , except to say that the oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign and are supportive of him now, I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration -- if there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico. {snip}



-----------

Media cite campaign contributions "from BP" to back up Palin's claim

  • AFP notes Palin's comments, says BP's "single largest donation" during past 20 years went to Obama.

  • Drudge hypes AFP article about Palin's accusation.

  • Citing CRP's data, Doocy claims Palin was "absolutely right."

  • Hoft cites AFP article, Palin to attack Obama "for his lax response to the Gulf oil spill crisis."


-----------

In fact, money "from BP" to Obama has come almost entirely from BP employees, including all BP-related donations during presidential campaign

  • CRP: Money donated "from BP" to Obama in 2008 election was entirely from BP employees.

  • CRP data shows BP's PAC contributed $1,000 to Obama's Senate campaign in 2004.

  • Donations from BP or its employees represents just .01 percent of Obama's total fundraising.

  • Scherer: "People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest."

  • WSJ: 75 percent of oil and gas industry's donations since 1990 have gone to Republicans.


-----------

MORE DETAILS: Media misleadingly claim Obama is the "single largest recipient of BP's cash"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. So, then
Why is he afraid of BP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That is an utterly nonsensical question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Idiotic question having nothing to do with the post
He's not "afraid" of them any more than I am. It's scary that they are in charge of cleaning up but it's also set up like that from 1989 and Obama didn't create that system. It's not his fault the Feds have no expertise or equipment to deal with it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. But the Feds have authority, and BP is still hurting people under the Feds watch
Where's the accountability? Why is BP still sending workers out with no hazmat gear for the cameras? Why does BP control the airspace above the spill?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. I'm sorry
Obama is the bestest ever!! How dare I question his highness.

How dare I suggest he is afraid of putting BP in it's rightful place.
True, had it been me that dumped oil in the gulf, I'd be in jail already, and that is because no one is scared of me. BP and I are equal in the great Obama's eye of all seeing and all knowing. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Ridiculous
It doesn't matter who is sitting in that chair, BP would still be in charge because we have nothing to replace it with. I did not sing Obama's praises in my post, just stating THE WAY IT IS. It's an industry-specific fuck up and the best hope is with the same assholes who put it there stopping the oil. There is not a lot of choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Eh?
You say BP is in charge, and Obama says he is in charge.

You may want to do a bit of research, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. He's not and it's too sad that's all you have to offer.
President Obama's Press Conference May 27, 2010

"The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort. As far as I’m concerned, BP is responsible for this horrific disaster, and we will hold them fully accountable on behalf of the United States as well as the people and communities victimized by this tragedy. We will demand that they pay every dime they owe for the damage they’ve done and the painful losses that they’ve caused. And we will continue to take full advantage of the unique technology and expertise they have to help stop this leak."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x21693


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. I read the words
And they are right on. He's being tough, he's leading, he's the 'daddy'.

And then I see what is actually happening and I see fear, still.
Unabated but well founded fear.

Its as if you are telling me that since Obama is president and he has a sternly worded speech, I have nothing to fear? Indeed, you seem to be saying: Daddy's home, were all saved!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. No be scared, be very scared.
But there IS no "big daddy" who could be president and save us unless he has superpowers. The point is this post has NOTHING to do with your response to it. Hate Obama or love Obama, the constant media talking point that he is rolling in BP money is incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Oh?
Are you f'n trying to tell me BP's money has NO influence?

Warning: I am just about done being nice to you, K8-EEE.

Please, before you come at me, get your facts straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. Exactly. The fucking corporatemediawhores are
sucking in all kinds but the facts remain that it's gNOp propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Forget "daddy"...he's the President and this is
what he says and I believe it. Not telling you not to be afraid of anything..that's up to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Believe me
I place no 'Daddy' moniker on Obama. But you seem to be doing just that.

"Daddy says he's gonna fix this" that's damn near what you are claiming. Obama's gonna fix this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. That's your opinion.. I'm saying President Obama is
on it and he's dealing with the reality of the horrible tragedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. well
You are in the minority. Most everyone I talk to sees it opposite from you.
But, Obama is trying. His problem is he isn't much of an environmentalist, so how could he really grasp the problem?

He's getting on with this 'teachable' moment, I'd say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. President Obama "grasps" this problem whether
you think so or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Eh
I appreciate you thinking you have to protect Obama.

He's dug himself a hole and is struggling to climb out.

I hope he makes it up and out and saves the day, because we really need him to fix this as best as possible. If not him, who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. I'm not "protecting" the President..the SS does that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. I see what you mean
You are protecting yourself. That's cool. No one else is gonna do it, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samplegirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Great informative post!
Kicked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frustratedlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Their talking points for the day from the GOP?
Hey, speaking of talking points, where's Rove? Cheney? I always shudder when I don't see their evil faces for a while. They are up to something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. But a lot of companies contribute to Presidents through employees to skirt finance laws.
I wouldn't put too much stock in the claim that the money is not coming from the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. less than .01 %
As the Center for Responsive Politics points out, Obama recieved $71,051 which "accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama's total campaign contributions."

Compare that to Palin's statement "I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there's any connection with the contributions made to president Obama...Now if this was President Bush or if this were a Republican in office who hadn't received as much support even as President Obama has from BP and other oil companies, you know the mainstream media would be all over his case in terms of asking questions"

I don't understand why people are so willing to accept Palin's version of the truth?

I mean, what's the issue here? Even if some of that money, or even all of it, came "from the top," so what? Again, it "accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama's total campaign contributions."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. It doesn't matter...facts are facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. This section of the report is the most important section
WSJ: 75 percent of oil and gas industry's donations since 1990 have gone to Republicans. In a May 23 article about Palin's comments, The Wall Street Journal noted that, according to CRP, "Since 1990, oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties, with 75% of the money going to Republicans." WSJ further noted:

So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry's $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
13. It's all semantics. Bottom line is that our elected officials are all on the take. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. No, it isn't
Think of the company you work for. If you contribute to a political candidate - any political candidate, is it related at all to your company?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Well, for me personally...yes it is.
I'm self employed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. You got me there
I'm a retiree of AT&T Bell Labs - I can tell you, when I contribute it is NEVER about how it would impact AT&T. There are many who contribute to PACs and THAT money is given in teh companies interest.

The point is that Obama will come out highest for practically very company. He is the only person EVER to have turned down public money in both the primary and general election. There was very little PAC money taken. (If they are included - the 5 highest of all time will usually be Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush and Kerry. Of these, Bush and McCain got more PAC money)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Personally, I believe there is too much money in politics to begin with.
The net result is that we are governed solely by those with substantial means, who are disconnected from life's realities either through advantage of birthright or by association.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. I agree with you completely and many of the politicians I most respect have
spoken of that as well. Kerry made a great case one of the times he and Wellstone introduced their Clean Elections bill.


Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.

Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.

Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook.
The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections where our citizens are the ones who make the difference

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
28. Anonymous cheap shots on the internet don't make it so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Just like anonymous cheap shot rebuttals on the internet don't refute it either. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. Good..you admit they're cheap shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. No, I actually believe that a large percentage of our legislators are in it more for the money
Edited on Tue Jun-01-10 06:06 PM by NorthCarolina
than any personal desire to "serve the public good". There are exceptions of course, but most of the honorable legislators that do work to better the lives of average Americans only receive public ridicule by those that feed off the corporate teat. So I do not consider my original comment to be a "cheap shot" at all. Sorry that you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
14. That Republicans get 75% of all oil contributions has been in mainstream media. A lot, actually. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-01-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
36. i want to know who's giving money to whom
including employees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC