Wash. Post repeated McCain criticism of Obama for energy bill vote without noting Obama's stated reasons for voting for bill

In an October 8 article, The Washington Post uncritically repeated Sen. John McCain's comment, during the October 7 presidential debate, that Sen. Barack Obama voted for an "energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies." However, staff writers Dan Balz, Anne E. Kornblut, and Michael Abramowitz did not note that Obama has said he voted for the bill because it included extensive investments in renewable energy. Nor did they note that the bill actually resulted in a net tax increase for the oil and gas industry.

On June 29, 2005, Obama's Senate office issued a press release in which he said: "This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil." The release went on to cite the legislation's investments in biofuels, plug-in hybrids, flexible-fuel vehicles "that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline," and clean-coal technology as reasons he voted for the bill. The release also quoted Obama saying:

So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey toward energy independence.

Moreover, as Media Matters for America has noted, on August 4, the Associated Press reported that "Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Democrat voted for the bill because it included huge investments in renewable energy," and CNN.com reported in an August 5 article that "[d]uring the primary season, Obama defended his vote," saying "it was the best that we could do right now, given the makeup of Congress."

Balz, Kornblut, and Abramowitz also did not note that, while McCain claimed that the bill was "loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies," a February 27, 2007, Congressional Research Service report found that although the bill "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry," it also "provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years":

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years. Energy tax increases comprise the oil spill liability tax and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank financing rate, both of which are imposed on oil refineries. If these taxes are subtracted from the tax subsidies, the oil and gas refinery and distribution sector received a net tax increase of $1,356 million ($2,857 million minus $1,501 million).

From the October 8 Washington Post article:

At another point in the debate, McCain was asked whether the United States should sponsor research and development programs to find new sources of energy. He said it should, then changed the subject to return to a core issue of his career: pork-barrel spending. Referring to his rival across the stage as "that one," McCain cited an energy bill, sponsored by Bush, that Obama had supported.

"There was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies. And it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one," McCain said, gesturing toward his rival. "You know who voted against it? Me."