ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Fact check: Obama and oil

Posted: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:14 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa. -- The Clinton campaign today accused the Obama campaign of "false advertising," claiming that a recent ad Obama released in Pennsylvania was disngenous because Obama has been the recipient of more than $200,000 from the oil and gas industry.

In the ad, Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more."

Obama has taken $213,884 from the oil and gas industry as of Feb. 29th, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,813 in that same period.

Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per a list released on his campaign Web site.

Robert Cavnar, listed as a bundler who has raised between $50,000 to $100,000 for the campaign, is the chairman and CEO of Mission Resources Corp., a Houston-based firm. George Kaiser, also listed in the same $50,000 to $100,000 category, is the CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company.

"It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.  "Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors."

Obama routinely criticizes companies like Exxon-Mobil on the stump, but over the course of his presidential campaign he has taken more than $30,000 from individuals working for Exxon-Mobil. Clinton has taken more than $20,000 from Exxon-Mobil in the same period.

Just last month, Obama took more than $11,000 from individuals at Exxon-Mobil, per the center. At least 12 of those contributions came from individuals who contributed $250 each, the lowest listed donation. In that same period, Clinton took more than $3,000 from individuals working at Exxon-Mobil.

However, many of those contributions appear to come from workers at the firm not just executives. For example, Patrice McGowan, an Exxon-Mobil shift supervisor, who lives in Joliet, Ill., has donated $982 to Obama as of January. She also has a blog profile on Obama’s campaign Web site.

“I am a single woman who has worked shift work all my life, sometimes never seeing another woman on the job for weeks,” her profile reads, in part.

In a statement today, Obama spokesman Bill Burton, reiterated that Obama doesn't take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, and "that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists."

Picking on the energy industry is a standard part of Obama's stump speech, where he harshly criticizes the 2005 energy bill and the Vice President Dick Cheney's efforts in passing it.

"Exxon Mobil reported more than $10 billion in quarterly profits," Obama told a town hall in Greenburg, Pa. today. And then referring to Cheney, he added, "He met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. So is it any wonder than that the energy laws that were written were good for Exxon-Mobil but they are not good for you?"

However, Obama did vote for that bill and has been repeatedly criticized by the Clinton campaign for the vote. Obama has defended that vote saying that despite it being a "flawed bill," it had strong provisions for alternative fuels and was the best deal that could be struck on the issue. 

Today, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the bill, supported by Pennsylvania Congressmen Murtha and Kanjorski "actually raised taxes on oil companies and made the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation's history."

Despite the attacks, Obama doesn't appear to be backing down from his criticism of the energy industry or on special interest influences.

"I don't take PAC money,” he said this evening. “I don't take money from federal registered lobbyists. I don't want those strings attached.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Well, as long as Senator Clinton is doing John McCain's work, the Republican candidate can take it easy.

The important thing is that Obama surfaced the feelings of the people about the excessive profits of Exxon/Mobile. How can we ask OPEC to reduce their profit margins when our own companies have no sense of proportion?
The Clintons are just a  bit much.  They twist the truth and then wonder why NO ONE TRUST THEM.
Thank you for making it clear. Obama accepts money from individuals not from PACs. I believe the Clinton campaign forgets about the ease of using the Internet. The TRUTH is out there if you want to find it. Check out the TRUTH on www.opensecrets.org. Hillary needs to give it a rest. I'm beginning to loose respect for her candidacy. She's appearing very petty. As my great aunt always says, people no longer have any social graces. I guess she was talking about the folks running Hillary's campaign.
If you want to understand this, go to the Federal Election Commission website and research the donors for the various candidates.  It takes a bit of digging, but with patience the facts emerge.

In last month's reporting, Hillary Clinton accepted over 12 million dollars from donors in the District of Columbia.  These are virtually all large dollar PAC and lobbyist donations.  

Obama by contrast accepted less than 1 million from the DC region, and there is absolutely no evidence in the records available through the FEC that his stated policy of eschewing PAC and lobbyist money is untrue

Clinton is bought and sold.  McCain is bought and sold.  Obama is not.  

It is time to elect a president beholden to the voters first.
Clinton the serial lier is trying to defer attention to her lies.

Sorry, too cute by half Hillary.
"From the industry" is misleading at best... he got contributions from individuals that work in the industry, not the industry.

When a person whose politics lean one direction happens to work for an employer that is associated with a different set of politics, as happens at all large companies, does it make sense to associate those individual contributions to their employers ? The companies didn't make the contributions.
Obama -- Change you can no longer believe in
McCain --Change you can TRUST.

Obama -- Hopelessness
McCain -- REAL Hope
Individual contributions from people working in various industries is not the same as taking PAC or lobbyist contributions but in politics anything can be stretched or spun if presented in the right way. I work for a Fortune 500 company that's engaged in business process outsourcing and have contributed to political campaigns but have done that as an individual, not under the direction of my company or as a result to gain influence for my particular industry over another. The contributions were a personal decision and relatively small, barely registering under the threshold here of $250. Does that mean that the recipient campaign would then be labelled as "taking money" from a company that's "moving American jobs offshore"? It would be interesting to see the full break-down of the donors that contributed the $11k and how many of them might be below the $250 minimum reported as a follow-up to the Fact Check analysis done here.
For those of you who haven't donated to a candidate, in order to do so you have to acknowledge a number of things (over 18, not money from someone else, things like that) and to identify your employer and your job. So if you work for WalMart as a cashier or at an Exxon station as an attendant, that's what you would put.  It's my understanding that that information is tallied and totaled together and made public. All the donations from WalMarts or from retail stores would be gathered together and could, if there were enough individuals - even if their donations were small, amount to a significant number.  Consequently, the real comparison is not in the total figure but in the number of donations and the size of those donations. Obama's  $213,884 from the oil and gas industry and Clinton's $306,813 may actually reflect very different giving patterns, since it's my understanding that she does accept money from PACs and lobbyists.  Therefore, unless someone finds record of money to Obama from an oil and gas PAC or registered lobbyist, I don't believe that there is necessarily any problem with the statement he makes in the ad. -- Someone else may be able to explain this more clearly, but that is my understanding. -- Sorry to say, I believe that Clinton is once again depending on people to simply accept flat statements from her without inquiring into what they mean or whether her characterization is correct. (Takes you back to those Social Security and pro-choice flyers in NH.)
Obama has been caught in ANOTHER lie. He must think that Americans are a bunch of idiots.
This is the age of very quick information. Lies can be exposed at the speed of light.
If he has accepted oil and gas money, then this should be on one of your news programs.  Many people do not read the blogs and will never know this unless you tell them.

I don't understand why everybody in the news media will shout anything negative about Senator Clinton, but bury stuff like this instead of telling people what Senator Obama is doing.

Kind of like the story yesterday about Senator Obama saying he would have quit his church if Wright had not retired.  I would like him to answer these questions; "why did you wait almost two weeks to say this?  Have you been reading the blogs about how negatively that this has affected you?"

What a flawed story.  First Read should be ashamed.  There is a big difference from taking money from individuals who work in an industry and taking money from an industry itself (PACs, organizations, etc).  This is hack work.  I expect more from MSNBC.
Hillary has lawyers pouring over Senator Obama's tax returns looking for campaign dirt. She hasn't even released her 2000 throught 2006 tax returns..We need to demand they be released because we all know there is a 'deal breaker' there.  Voter's would like to see her tax returns before the next round of Primarys. Please, reporters help us with this by demanding she be as 'transparent' as she claims she is. Senator Obama should refuse to discuss his return until Hillary has released hers.  
Hillary has lawyers pouring over Senator Obama's tax returns looking for campaign dirt. She hasn't even released her 2000 throught 2006 tax returns..We need to demand they be released because we all know there is a 'deal breaker' there.  Voter's would like to see her tax returns before the next round of Primarys. Please, reporters help us with this by demanding she be as 'transparent' as she claims she is. Senator Obama should refuse to discuss his return until Hillary has released hers.  
Isn't there kind of a BIG difference in taking money from the corporation and taking money from individuals who work for the corporation???

Am I missing something here?
I can not believe that Hillary would make a big deal out of a donation when she herself has not made public monies given to her.  Anything to stretch the truth so it makes her look better, Oh to late.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=834887

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google