Clinton Camp: Obama Falsely Claims He Doesn't Take Oil Money

A new memo out from the Clinton campaign:

False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money From Oil Companies

Phil Singer: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. 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. I wonder if they'll fix the ad."

A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. 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 anymore."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar - are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum.

In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which was written in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney's energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies.

Here's the ad:

Comments

[ObamaEdwards]

Everything coming from the Clinton camp is suspect at this point. Do they have a picture of Hillary dodging sniper fire? Are they denying that they made up the story about Obama's secret exchange with Canadian officials? It's all just garbage. The Clintons have sold out the Democratic Party principles in a pathetic attempt to win an election in which the voters have rejected them. Pee-yooooo.

[Mattie]

wow, obama is a liar, I'm shocked. Wow, obama supporters blame Clinton because Obama is a liar, I'm shocked. All you have to do is go to Senate.gov to see that he voted for Cheney's energy bill and she didn't to learn the truth, but you guys don't want to know the truth. LOL politics of hope and change, more like lies and despair!

[AndrewInToronto]

Obama is not lying nor are those in his campaign. It is actually the Clinton campaign which is as can be seen by taking a look at the FEC website and doing the searching. This is not meant sarcastically; the search engines are really easy to use and all the money is in individual contributions as I pointed out earlier: average contribution from an ExxonMobil worker in February, $596; Chevron, $580; and BP, $900. All individual !

[Keith52]

Top Donors to the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation

November 22, 2004

(Organizations)

ALLTEL
Alphawood Foundation
Annenberg Foundation
Avalon Capital Group
Dubai Foundation
Embassy of the State of Qatar
Entergy Corporation
Government of Brunei
Magna International Inc.
Satoshi Iue (Chmn. Sanyo Electric)
Soros Foundation
State of Kuwait
Taiwan Economic & Cultural Office
Anheuser-Busch Foundation
David Geffen Foundation
Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation
Roy & Christine Sturgis Foundation
Royal Saudi Family
Wal-Mart/Sam's Club Foundation
Walton Family Foundation
Wasserman Foundation

[Alessan]

Hillary didn;'t lie about taking money from lobbyiest, she does, and doesn't have plans to change that right now. I guess if Obama gives back all the money, from Insurance, Oil
and large investment banking firms like Merrill, Goldman, involved in Hedge Funds and
subprime mortgage gate maybe Hillary won't take money from lobbyiest. LOL

[Oldtt]

To find out more about the nefarious work of this foundation try this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Clinton_Foundation

[Alessan]

Obama/ ?,


Save your Peeyoooo for Obama.

[bigdaddyvike]

Lying and cheating. From a Clinton. Go figure. This is so Karl Rove it's pathetic. I guess it's true: she will stop at nothing.

[SShaw490]

It's funny that Hillary would even bring this kind of thing up, because she's the only one who even has a MECHANISM for big-money companies and individuals who expect future access to give big dollars - to one of Bill's foundations. They can give whatever they want to him, and you can bet that people who give $500K to Bill's charities expect future access to Hillary. And notice that Hillary won't even DISCUSS releasing those donor lists. Hillary is an ignoramous for even wanting to talk about it.

Hillary is proving the old adage about politicians - the longer they're in the business, the stupider they get.

[PhoenixtheUndying]

Some more tidbits: Hugh Hefner donated 2300 dollars to hillary. Not to be outdone, obama accepted a similar amount from cristie hefner. this is fun

[kimm2749]

So it is okay to lie if you are obama- he never heard wright's comments or he would have left the church (3/15/08) then on 3/17/08- he did hear the racists comments with his children, but it's okay.

He takes oil money and says he doesn't , but that is okay because we should be blaming Hillary anyway???

You obama supporters are crazy-stop and pay attention to what you are defending.

I am an independent voter who has always leaned left, but I doubt I can support a candidate that is in the running simply because he isn't ever responsible for his actions-Hillary is responsible for his actions and every possible crisis under the sun.

[openmindnheart]

Obama's statement is exactly the same as the statement he gave to the New York Times during April of 2007. WORD FOR WORD. Don't be fooled by pundits. The article discussed Obama's spiritual journey.

[BitJam]

Do you have any evidence of these alledged lies? If so please post some links. These boards have been filled with false charges of Obama lying. For example there were a bunch of posts that claimed he lied based on the disingenuous idea that the words "controversial" and "objectionable" are synonymous.

Your first claim seems to be of this sort. Just because Obama says he heard some racists comments does not mean he heard the objectionable comments that are being pushed 24/7 by FOX News. Without better evidence this is hardly a sound basis to call someone a liar.

If you don't provide links or proof, I will have to assume your claims are false just like all the others that came before.

[meese]

Let's just look at your first paragraph. He said that he never heard several of those *specific* statements that were played on TV, and that he wasn't present when those were said. He did say, however, that he's heard Wright say *other* things that Wright has said folks might find "offensive".

It's amazing that people make it out like Wright only has every said 10 things in his life. No, he's said quite a bit more, and much of it was positive and uplifting. (I'm not even religious, but I read some of it and it was inspiring.) Sure, he's also said dumb things, but that's how it goes.

Is Hillary holding herself responsible for stretching the truth to its breaking point about her foreign policy and military experience?

[ErinBerin84]

I remember Dan Abrams debunking the Dick Cheney Energy Bill thing on his show.
According to one of Clinton's mailers, Obama ""voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies." But when the Congress passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and factcheck.orgtcheck.org)

also, via the pittsburghchannel.com
"It is true that President George W. Bush and Cheney supported the bill. It's also true that Clinton opposed it and Obama voted for it, along with 73 other senators, 25 of them Democrats.

But it is false to say the bill was a windfall for oil companies.

According to the Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service, the bill did include $14 billion in subsidies. But the vast majority of that sum, more than $11 billion, went to nuclear power, solar and wind power, clean coal technology and hybrid cars. The oil and gas industry got $2.6 billion in subsidies, but that total was offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bottom line was that there was a $300 million tax increase for the oil and gas industry as a whole and even bigger tax hike for refiners, which was $1.3 billion. And that's hardly a giveaway.

A big reason Obama supported the bill was the subsidies for ethanol, a fuel that is made from corn.

[AndrewInToronto]

Thank you, Erin, for breakdown !!

[mutatio]

"A big reason Obama supported the bill was the subsidies for ethanol, a fuel that is made from corn."

Which research has shown is not a solid option for reducing carbon emissions. Why would Obama push for this? He was gearing up for a presidential run, and um, which states is first on the list again? Oh yeah. Iowa. Pander much?

[Greek256]

Anybody with half a brain should realize that ethanol may not be ideal for the ecology but it could reduce are dependency on foreign oil which must be a top priority for anybody seeking the presidency. That should have been an ongoing process since the 1973 oil embargo but big business(Hillary's constituency---like Walmart)has shut that effort down.

[ErinBerin84]

Haha, he doesn't even need to pander to Iowa. Corn grown in Illinois is used to produce 40% of the ethanol consumed in the United States. In fact, Hillary Clinton had widely been accused of pandering to the Iowa audience. Her Strategic Energy Fund that she is pushing would help pay for clean energy transition, including the production of cellulosic ethanol, by placing a tax fee on major oil company profits. Previously however, she had voted a total of 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production. Senator Clinton even stated in 2002 that “there is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”,

moral of the story: all politicians pander

[openmindnheart]

Yah think he may have wanted have an alternative fuel? How about keeping the money in the midwest where it has been hardest hit by NAFTA?

[meese]

How about Illinois, his own state, which grows tons of corn? After all, he is supposed to be representing their interests, so it's really not that weird.

[ObserverinVancouver]

Anyone who watches Dan Abrams knows that when he's doing his "fact checking" he'll decide in Obama's favour only when he can't find a way to wiggle out of it, so if he debunked this you can take it to the bank.

[the2thdoc]

Ok. I and other healthcare providers have contributed. My friends work in the insurance industry, pharmaceutical research, real estate and other organizations have contributed as well. We are members of our respective professional organizations. Note to HRC campaign, it is not the individual contribution that matters...unless the individual is using that contribution to gain favor and favor is gained from making that contribution. Obama has worked on transparency in campaign funding, which is why the facts of these contributions can be researched. Campaigns just throwing inflammatory, non-factual information out into the airwaves to create suspicion and detract from the issues is so unpalatable. The country feels the same way according to the trend of the gallup poll. The TRUTH shall set us FREE from this mess come November! But, HRC needs to be careful or she won't even be considered for VP!

[mutatio]

FWIW, there was a senator who was lauded for years in regard to his ethics and transparency in regard to campaign finances an lobbyist contributions. He's now leading the GOP ticket for president with lobbyists in his campaign and on his bus.

[PhoenixtheUndying]

Google is wonderful. So it seems, according to the fec, that corporations aren't allowed to contribute to candidates at all, just their employees. And so these assertions are patently false. At OpenSecrets.com I searced for all contributions from Exxon employees and found that, using her own argument, we could say Hillary Clinton accepted over 15,200 dollars from Exxon alone. But that wouldn't be fair. Also I discovered a Nintendo employee donated 250 dollars to Obama. In short: Hillary Lies Again

[lanesharon]

Well, maybe before you guys say it is NOT true, you should go out and check. Look at Obama's donations in Texas, for those who gave $2300 or over. It is pretty obvious. Go here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.asp

Choose Obama, Texas, $2300 or more

BTW, Energy or energy sector designations usually mean 'oil or gas' industries in TX. I have a son who works in the oil industry.

And, as wall all know, no one can show an oil company, itself, giving donations. That would be a real no-no to the media. But, I have to assume that if the chief officers of a company are giving me money, then it might be coming from that industry. Note also, there are several - self employed energy sector donator. I guess I would call that a donation from the industry. DUH

Take Care, Sharon

[zeph]

...Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the Obama campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are employed by law firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum raised February 16-29, 2008 by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms: $2,650,000. (There are also dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall Street working the Armani-suit and red-suspenders cocktail circuits, like Bruce Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs; J. Michael Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; Louis Susman, managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. Each raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.)

Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American people? According to the website of Akin Gump, it takes a village to deliver a capital to the corporations: ...

...When queried about this, Massie Ritsch, communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, says: "The wall between a firm's legal practice and its lobbying shop can be low - the work of an attorney and a lobbyist trying to influence regulations and laws can be so intertwined. So, if anything, the influence of the lobbying industry in presidential campaigns is undercounted."...

From: Black Agenda Report, March 5. The guy is no different than any other ambitious politician.

[jhoffman]

So following your logic the Obama campaign has to return any donation from an individual that "works" for a corporation? That simply does not make much sense to me. The problem with the American campaign finance system is that it gives more access and leverage to narrow special interests. Well placed PAC contributions from corporate interests can net millions of dollars worth of tax breaks for specific industries or even a handful of companies.

I must admit that the best way to squash special interests' influence in politics is to change to a publicly financed campaign. Short of this, however, building a campaign based on grassroots donations, as Obama's has, seems the best solution.

[midknightryder13]

So you are saying that the employees and owners SHOULD NOT be allowed to exercise their right to contribute to the candidate of their choice simply because of who they work for?

[Oldtt]

Give it up zeph, you're preaching to a deaf choir. John Adams said that facts are stubborn things, but I'm sure he also was aware of the old maxim "there are none so blind as those that will not see."

[Roose]

GO AWAY! We've had enough of you and your sychophant advisors. Just leave already!

[papatag]

It's like watching a train wreck. The Hillary camp is getting so desparate.
Mark my words, there will be more crying from her in the next 30 days.

[gevan]

"Hillary opposd Cheney's energy bill..." How'd that work out? Another of her stunning legislative achievments, no doubt.

[majseventh]

That advertisement is way over done with an absolute NO. How can he get away with that?

[BitJam]

Don't blame the Clinton camp. The mainstream media is responsible for these lies. They've been letting her repeat the Nafta-gate lies for three solid weeks after they were debunked by the Canadian Prime Minister. Heck, even the Huffington Post repeated the Nafta-gate lies as recently as yesterday.

The Clinton camp will continue to lie, obfuscate and distort until the mainstream media calls them out. It is the job of the Clinton camp to push the truth (and lies) as far as they can. It is the job of the media to hold them in line and call them out on their blatant lies. The media is failing us. As long as the media keeps falling down on the job, the Clinton camp will continue to lie with impunity.

[MelDel7365]

This is the kind of thing Clinton needs to stop. THIS is why people are calling for her to quit. She doesn't need to quit - she just needs to quit this stuff.

This strikes me as the same kind of obfuscation as the whole "Obama wasn't a law Professor" dust up. He was a Senior lecturer - He was, in fact, a Law professor just not a tenured Law Professor. So, he wasn't really lying - He wasn't even really embelleshing - he taught for around 10 years. He chose not to be tenured.

In much the same way - Obama does not take money from Oil companies, I'm quite certain. However, when you donate to his campaign, you are required to provide your job and your employer. For example, my husband words for a utility company. However, we are strong supporters of strong environmental regulations. So, though my husband works for a utiilty, he does not necessarily support their agenda. But - I'll bet that his contribution could be counted as one from the energy industry.

So, this is article is disingenuous.