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.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Palin suggests connection between Obama's response to oil spill and contributions to him by oil companies
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 [Wallace], 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.
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, why the administration didn't get in there -- didn't get in there and make sure that the regulatory agencies were doing what they were doing with the oversight to make sure that things like this don't happen.
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. In a May 23 article about Palin's comments, Agence France-Presse reported: "More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics [CRP]." From the AFP article:
"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," she told Fox News Sunday.
More than 3.5 million dollars has been given to candidates by BP over the last 20 years, with the largest single donation, 77,051 dollars, going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Palin suggested this close relationship explained why Obama was, "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."
Drudge hypes AFP article about Palin's accusation. On May 24, the Drudge Report linked to the AFP article with the headline, "Day 34: Palin accuses Obama of being in bed with big oil":
Citing CRP's data, Doocy claims Palin was "absolutely right." On the May 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, after airing Palin's comments, co-host Gretchen Carlson said, "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, President Obama received more than ... $71,000 from BP, and I guess that was more than any other candidate among the 3.5 million that BP has donated over the last 20 years." Co-host Steve Doocy later said that "when it comes down to the single largest recipient of BP cash, [Palin is] absolutely right ... it was Barack Obama."
Hoft cites AFP article, Palin to attack Obama "for his lax response to the Gulf oil spill crisis." In a May 23 post, Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft wrote: "Sarah Palin slammed President Obama today for his lax response to the Gulf oil spill crisis. (Obama went golfing again yesterday.) Palin pointed out Big Oil's record donations to Obama in 2008." Hoft also linked to the AFP article on Palin's claims.
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. Contrary to the suggestion that Obama received donations "from BP" during the 2008 presidential campaign, the money came exclusively from BP employees -- not the corporation itself. In an email exchange with Media Matters for America, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees. ... Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC."
CRP data shows BP's PAC contributed $1,000 to Obama's Senate campaign in 2004. According to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org database, BP's political action committee has made one contribution to an Obama campaign -- $1,000 in 2004, when Obama was running for U.S. Senate in Illinois. CRP reports that Obama received a total of $6,000 in contributions from BP's PAC and BP employees prior to 2008.
Donations from BP or its employees represents just .01 percent of Obama's total fundraising. As Media Matters senior fellow Jamison Foser has noted, Obama has raised more than $799 million for his campaigns. The $77,051 he has received from BP's PAC and employees accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama's total campaign contributions.
Scherer: "People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest." In a May 5 Swampland post, Time's Michael Scherer cited CRP's data and noted that "[i]t is true that ... Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else." Scherer went on to explain:
But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.
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.
Moreover, contrary to Palin's claim, Obama administration responded immediately to spill
Obama administration responded immediately to the spill. Contrary to Palin's assertion that Obama was "doggone slow" in responding to the oil spill, as Media Matters has shown, the Obama administration initiated its response to the spill within hours of the oil rig explosion, which occurred late in the evening of April 20.
Scherer: "[T]here is no evidence ... that the boot-on-the-neck White House has been going soft on BP." Writing on Palin's remarks in a May 24 Swampland post, Scherer wrote: "More importantly, however, there is no evidence (so far) that the boot-on-the-neck White House has been going soft on BP, even as everyone collectively fails to stop the oil from spouting."
Obama issued an executive order establishing an independent commission to investigate BP's oil spill. On May 22, Obama issued an executive order which created an independent commission to investigate the spill. The commission will "examine the relevant facts and circumstances concerning the root causes of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster"; "develop options for guarding against, and mitigating the impact of, oil spills associated with offshore drilling, taking into consideration the environmental, public health, and economic effects of such options"; and "submit a final public report to the President with its findings and options for consideration within 6 months of the date of the Commission's first meeting," among other things.
And Palin is right about one thing, if this was a Republican president in office, the left, and the mainstream media, would be going bonkers.
I doubt these campaign contributions have anything to do with Obama's response, actually. But why doesn't MMfA just say that instead of playing silly shell and word games.
Compare big oil contributions in the 2008 race. Obama 800K. McCain 2.7 million.
Now the picture is stark isn't it? You would think that would shut someone like Palin up. It doesn't.
Obama is no friend on big oil. Everyone but the wingnuts knows this.
And don't be naive. The party in power is the friend. Corporations, big oil included, will contribute and cozy up to whomever is in charge or who they think will be in charge. So they are definitely their "friend"
"OBAMA PUTTING THE BOOT TO BP'S THROAT"
or
"OBAMA IN BED WITH BP"
No one can have it both ways. You wingnuts look especially ridiculous on this issue.
The response to that comment by Rand Paul should have been:
"I think you have greatly overestimated the President's shoe size."
Randy
What does that prove? That the biggest BP money receiver lost?
If one cannot see who big oil, wall street, military suppliers rely on to stay in business, we need a crane to pull his/her head out of the sand.
Others said that BP gave Obama money. He did not get money from BP.
Others have said that he got money from BP, implying that he might have been influenced by that money - and so the tiny amount of money he got from them IS relevant to that implication!
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005240042
Moreso than usual, I mean.
Why are they concerned about federal intervention if they believe it is no big deal?
Palin's making a BS claim - even YOU admit that!
75% of almost $13M has gone to Republican's in the past 20 years, but we're supposed to think - as Palin implies - that $71K is somehow significant? Even as it represetns only .01% of the money he raised?
WTF, dude? It's not "parsing." It's called PUTTING IT PERSPECTIVE. You might try it sometime, but you'll find that the practice tends to have a liberal bias. They're using misleading statistics and MMFA PUTS IT IN PERSPECTIVE. In layman's terms that called THINKING, but since almost half of the laymen out their don't DO THAT anymore, MMFA has to PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE for them.
Wiat's more, there a huge, HUGE, HUGE difference between money that comes form individual employees and money that comes from the Company's PAC. It's as big as the difference between the Union and the Managament. In fact, that IS basically the difference! (Minus the literal Union.)
-----------------------------------------------------
You're unbelievable! SPILL, BABY SPILL!
This is an old trick by mmfa...equating a large number with the percentage of the total and making it seem insignificant.
Well, here's an even more insignificant number...if you use mmfa's line of reasoning. The figure is 0.003.
Yep, that's the percent of the Gulf Coast Oil production that is leaking from the BP rig. Pick your own number but here's a production number from 2006 of 1.5 miillion bpd a day...that should put it in perspective for you.
If Obama's number is paltry to you...then the amount leaking from the BP rig should be equally paltry.
All those mom & pop corner oil companies would like to thank the Republican party for blocking any effective regulation of their small businesses.
heh heh
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=A&type=P&id=D000000091
good luck with your studies.
But thanks anyway for the good luck wishes.
Of course, feel free to disagree, yawn.
So what?
Who said it was a large percentage of the oil being drilled?
That's right, NO ONE said that. What we've said is that the amount of oil being leaked into the water is problematic because even that amount of oil is bad for the environment. It matters NOT what percentage of the overall oil being drilled it is, doofus! That's totally a strawman argument.
UNLIKE the amount of money that BP gave to Obama relative to the amount of money contributed to Obama overall - it's ridiculous to assert that THAT percentage of money influences his decisions! To a poor person, the amount of money that BP employees gave to Obama would be a godsend - that doesn't make it relevant to Obama's decisions!
What a dishonest hack you seem to ALWAYS be, Wesley the Weasel.
Unfourtunately, when any idiot tries this, he usually ends up missing the most important part of the analysis: RELEVENCE.
Is it relevant that a company's contibution's (that company's EMPLOYEES, actually - and there's a huge difference!) represent only 0.01% of a cadidate's overall contributions? YES. Because it means that he could have done just as well without them. So he's hardly dependent on - or beholden to - those donations.
Is it relevant what % of a company's production is involved in a spill in a certain area? No. Of course not. Why would it be? The only releavnt number (or %, if you prefer) here is: What is % of oil/water is enough to cause serious ecological damage. Well - I don't know, but, considering the even Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour are up in arms about this (albeit blaming Obama, which is still absurd) I think it's safe to say we're well beyond that %.
Wes, seriously, did you really think that weak-@$$ nonsense was going to stump me? Either I'm not as dumb as you think I am, or you are much dumber than I thought you were.
--------------------------------------------------------
FAIL - Go back to school!
--------------------
LOL
Without getting into whether the administration’s response has been adequate, we can say that the oil and gas industry leans heavily Republican in its campaign contributions, and the 2008 presidential race was no exception. Republican candidate John McCain and his ticketmate Palin took in nearly three times the amount of money from the industry’s political action committees and employees as did Obama and running mate Joe Biden: about $2.4 million compared with $890,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama, however, received about twice as much from British Petroleum’s executives and PAC as McCain did: $71,051 compared with $36,649. {Even FactCheck got this wrong - Obama got NO money from the BP PAC.}
Since 1990, oil and gas industry interests have contributed $188.3 million (75 percent) to Republican candidates for federal office and $61.4 million to Democrats (24 percent), the center says.
Why was her buddy Rand Paul saying Obama was being UnAmerican to have so much pressure on BP.....?
BP has also ratcheted up its corporate giving and lobbying power over the past decade, shifting more money to Democrats. In 2000, the company gave almost 39 percent more to Republicans than to Democrats. But by 2008, they gave democrats just as much money as Republicans with BP donations. Most of that money going to Obama.
So the Oil industry has given more to Republicans over twenty years, but BP has given more to democrats in the last ten.
Sorry mmfA, not the cover you're looking for for Barry. You can adjust the monies for inflation all you want but Barry's hands are as oily as the Louisiana beaches.
Is he being too hard or too easy?
Also, I'm pretty sure that Obama has not been too kind to the oil industry in general, as in, proposing large windfall taxes against oil companies in particular.
How are his hands oily? The federal response to the spill (coast guard and FEMA on the scene day of) has been good so far.
Is Obama "putting a boot" to the BP's throat?
OR
Is Obama in bed with BP?
It cannot be both, as each choice is antithetical to the other.
So pick a talking point and coordinate with the other nincompoops and paint huffers of the right.
Randy
Everyone on the right follows one voice, Limbaugh, and repeat every talking point verbatim
OR
They have different opinions like this BP spill.
It cannot be both, as each viewpoint is antithetical to the other.
So pick one.
It's kind of the cousin to the voices on the right who so loudly damned the health care and stimulus bills, but then took credit for them in their home districts after they passed.
In fact, Rushbo and his mindless minions often adopt contradictory lying points and fling them both against the wall.
E.g. Obama is a hapless incompetent "child" who is completely inept, and at the same screeching that he's the next Hitler, relentless enslaving the nation with his terrifying, diabolical scheme.
Your arguments so often descend to "I know you are but what am I" that it would not be surprising to find that you've yet to graduate from junior H.S.
~
Why do you even bother?
BP giving
Who's being misleading here? You say that they're shifting more money to dems - you think that had anything to do with the fact that they saw which way the wind was blowing? Why spend money trying to woo the soon to be minority party?
It has been, and always will be the REPUBLICANS who are the oil-friendly party. And they will alwasy be the darlings of the oil industry. DRILL BABY, DRILL! (Remember?) What's more, as I said above, there is a huge, HUGE, HUGE difference between money that comes from individual employees and money that comes from the Company's PAC. And if you can't recognize the difference there then your analytical skill (or maybe just your intellectual honesty) needs some maintainence.
When they stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them.
------------------------------------
SPILL, BABY, SPILL!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you don't know the difference between employees and ownership, you've either never had a JOB, or you're just and idiot!
I meant to look this up yesterday, but forgot to.
BP's North American HQ's are in Chicago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yup, that's right. So, there's a VERY GOOD reason why Obama got more money from those folks, as he's a local guy to them!
But Sarah Palin and others will NEVER tell you that, will they?