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

[naijaman]

This accusation is yet another false one. EMPLOYEES from oil companies have donated to Obama's campaign, but he has refused money from lobbyists that represent these oil companies.

Yet another Clinton lie.

Sheesh.

[ginnypoo]

He gave them those profits. He supported the 2005 Energy Bill.

[jungfookid]

Here are the searches for obama contributions from exxon, bp, shell from the opensecrets donor tracking service:

shell:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00009638&name=&employ=shell&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A
bp:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00009638&name=&employ=bp&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A
exxon
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00009638&name=&employ=exxon&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A

I dunno what this all means, but all the contributions listed on here appear to be from individual donors who happen to be employed by oil companies. Physicians, Engineers, and the like. Although, does anyone know what a rackman is? They seem to give a lot.

[billrott]

It means these donations are from people who work in the oil and gas industry. These are individual's donations that are not coordinated. These are not the same as receiving PAC and Lobbyist money which the Clinton campaign has alleged them to be.

[Roose]

This is what a REAL oil donor looks like.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/5137

[Insearchoftruth]

The WSJ debunked the Clinton Campaign claim that Obama was taking money from lobbyists involved in the mortgage market meltdown and showed that in fact Clinton had received more from employees of the same financial institutions. A quick look at opensecrets.org reveals that according to campaign reports Obama received $206, 125 versus Clinton's 213,884 from employees of the oil and gas industry. She can't help herself! Truthfulness is not part of her nature.

[MaineMike]

Is $160,000 supposed to be a big number?

According to www.fec.gov, Obama has raised over $193 million. So $160,000 is 0.08%

And another thing, if these claims are based on donors who happen to work for oil companies: everyone with a job works for a company that could be considerred a special interest group.

[MrDeadeye2U]

I was disturbed by the misleading headline, but I guess the "Clinton Camp" attribution in the lead has become a de facto disclaimer:

"Be advised - what follows is Bullshit".

[keir]

http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/barack_obama.asp?cycle=08#StateTotals

Hillary has again "misspoken". I know that there are many people that will not bother checking out her "facts" and that is what she is counting on. Her supporters wander why we get so angry...when this kind of thing happens all the time.

Hillary and Bill feel that they can make this claim because lieing and taking from fat Dogs is what they do...so it is hard for them to believe that someone can get this far without it.

[MrDeadeye2U]

The statement "I landed in Bosnia, while there was sniper fire" while it may be true in the literal, once you add the part about the sniper fire being in East Africa. Well there you go.

I teach my children that the SPEAKER of the truth is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring that the intent is accurately conveyed. When my child asks to go to the mall and I remind her that she is grounded; I return to ask her if she followed my direction; "I did not go to the mall" in light of the fact that she went to the movies "IS A LIE".

Maybe uneducated people constitute their base for a reason. They may have neither the desire, tools nor facility to figure out the fact that they are being played or be too busy feeding their families and staving off foreclosure. The same way the ignorant masses, against their interest, worshipped at the conservative altar. How's that working so far? At least the educated Wall Street/Halliburton types had a interest in supporting the Bush boondoggle, the country is going to hell in a handbasket, but they are doing OK. (Bear Stearns bankrupt but CEO sells stock for $60MM was worth $1.1BB a year ago, SORRY 'bout you luck) How 'bout a JOB? Asshole!

Whence I believe not when you speak, it matters not what you speak.

I have tuned Hillary out.

[verlaine]

Hillary Clinton is lying sack of excrement who doesn't have an honest bone in her body

[ALIMO]

It is really concerning that everything that comes out of Hillary's mouth is a lie. Why does this not bother the media and the voters. The woman seems to be a pathological liar. I will not support her if she somehow cons her way into the general election. She can not be trusted. All these promises she is making must be lies-there is nothing real about this woman. She is willing to destroy the democratic party for her visions of profound power. What is up with women voting for a woman that is such a disgrace to womanhood. I am sure Barack knows how to play politics-but Hillary is like a child that tells some mighty big whoppers!

[debwarot]

Ah, come one, verlaine. Tell us what you rally think!

[SouthCentralDel]

Surprised that HuffPo doesn't put this in context. Now people whom don't dig that deep will take this as common knowledge without the whole story. These contributors were individual folks from these industries whom made contributions to Obama's campaign.

For a better explanation, go here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/145339/267

[jhoffman]

Nice post. Thanks for the link. SouthCentralDel is right, Huffington Post, you should do some reporting on this (don't just post the fallacious memo).

[ruscle]

EXCELLENT LINE SouthCentralDel. Thanks for that clear explanation.

[majseventh]

I reccomend your link to all. Obama needs to get "REAL" with all of us. He is not holier than thou by far and needs to take that commercial down. Who cares if he takes the money if it is legal, just don't lie about it.
People need to read the comments on this link. Interesting.

[OhMyGoodness]

Sweetie... did you read the article from the link that you're praising? It talks about the deception that Hillary is trying to plant in the minds of the ignorant. He hasn't lied about where his money comes from. Show me something that proves that he takes money from lobbyists and pacs and then I'd be willing to concede the liar part.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

It's not money from the oil industry, it's just individuals who happen to work for them. It could be a janitor or a secretary. It's not the same as Clinton, who takes PAC and lobbyist money from the oil industry. There's a huge difference, and there is no way Obama needs to stop his ad because it's accurate. It's the Clinton claim that is misleading.

[cathye]

By your logic, the cashier is at my local BP is not allowed to contribute $10 to a presidential campaign because it's oil money. An ATM serviceman for a bank can't cut a check for $20 because it's money from the financial sector. I myself am not allowed to toss in one penny because it's tainted money from the technology industry!

[thetruth3]

Maybe I'm just an intelligent and pragmatic liberal, but just don't get it. Obama took donations from PACs and lobbyists and criminals and through his church who reveres Farrakhan for his state and US Senate campaigns but isn't for his presidential campaign? And this makes him clean and honorable? Wacky logic.

[FreedomLoverX]

You are not an "intelligent and pragmatic liberal". Actually, you are a lying Hillary hack. You don't get it? You get it just fine. I get it too. You are a lying hack.

[kimm2749]

so to defend obama-we attack Hillary. If a person supports a democrat- aren't we glad? I think it is okay to admit that obama is not perfect and that not being perfect is his fault- not hillary.

[Giglawyer]

You are neither intelligent nor pragmatic.

[treadway123]

Ya right! My cousin works for exon----------a simple employee---------he donated to the Obama campagne. His donation fall under a oil company. A lot of thier employees gave--------So that makes Obama a big lier who takes from the oil comp.

[PingMama]

Helloooooo. The donations were from individuals working for those companies.

You'll get it some day.

[Didi47]

thetruth3:
Speaking the truth to Obama supporters and the Repub. MSM is a complete waste of time. Look at them, they're doing everything they can to remove the voting rights of 25% of the population!

Just goes to show.. Senators like Leahy and his ilk don't give two hoots about the will of the public. This is worse than the whole Bush election fiasco.

Obama doesn't stand a chance against the Repubs... everyone knows that and I'm wondering how many back door deals these supposed dems have made with the Repubs. And they say Obama is a uniter? Just scroll through his supporters posts... it's enough to make one sick.

[BigLib]

Think Progress retracts McCain plagiarism charge

Yesterday, liberal blog Think Progress published an explosive and "EXCLUSIVE" charge that John McCain had plagiarized from a 1996 speech by Adm. Timothy Ziemer.

Now Think Progress takes it back.

Think Progress had gotten a tip and searched Nexis to verify the scoop. But it never contacted the campaign. From the explanation: "After we published the post, the McCain campaign contacted us and pointed to a speech given by the senator in 1995, which appears on McCain’s Senate site."

While I'm all for transparency on blogs, and have made mistakes corrected by readers, it's remarkable that Think Progress would allege that the Republican nominee for president plagiarized a speech without putting the two speeches before the campaign for comment. Or, apparently, checking the candidate's website first.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Caught in a lie!

[youcannotbeserious]

I never believed his claim of donations from the little people mime. Oh, I''m sure he got some but not enough but to come out and say he doesn't accept from big oil, and now this, just says he's the not a politician he wants us to believe despite what the Obots say.

Sen. Obama you're a nice guy but not ready for prime time.

[Lucille]

To youcannotbeserious,

Huff Post just printed the text from the Clinton campaign, they are not endorsing it or saying it's true or not. I wait to hear Obama's response before I'd passed judgement as you have done.

[anney]

I didn't know there are any little people mimes! If I'd heard him say that, I might not have believed it either.

[illinB]

Mini-Marcel Marceau is one his biggest (little) bundlers.

[hubbstan]

Please fact check before buying in to any candidate's advertisement.

Kavi Grace, a New York lawyer, wrote: Claiming that a candidate has "taken... money from" a certain entity or industry is false and misleading... Especially when you consider that corporations are prohibited by federal law from making donations to a presidential candidate!.
See detailed argument on:
http://weneedobama.blogspot.com/

The Wall Street Journal: Sen. Clinton received more from major subprime companies than Sen. Obama and probable Republican nominee John McCain.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120666677096370545.html

Also: Clinton Campaign Lies About Obama Donations
http://weneedobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-campaign-lies-about-obama.html

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Well instead of believing the Horse Shit of Hillary Clinton's Campaign, why not go to

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

And see for yourself. Maybe then you will believe.

[efranklin]

Obama's donor base is not something that needs to be taken on faith, because it's a matter of public record. He has not taken money from PACs and lobbyists. Facts are not up for dispute.

[zeph]

Don't believe the hype. Read the article at Black Agenda Report from March 5, 2008. Obama uses a loophole wherein he can accept bundled donations from individuals within lobbying firms, without it being technically labeled as donations from lobbyists. Obama is nothing more and nothing less than a slick, marketed, ambitious politician. Sorry.

[GBecker]

Chalk this up to another "misstatement" by the HRC camp!

Check it our yourselves at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.asp Poke around and read the figures yourselves. Don't wait for the MSM to throw their spin on it or forget to report any of this.

What's that sound I hear? Oh, just another nail in HRC's coffin.

Obama '08!

[keir]

From Campaignmoney.com Robert Cavnar did not even donate to Obama...he gave to Edwards...$2,000.00. He made a whopping donation to the DNC but the most he gave to individuals is $2,300 for Nancy Pelosi and Lampson.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/robert-cavnar.asp?cycle=08

[Client9]

This must be chapter 1 of the Clintons' Tonya Harding playbook.

[billrott]

Huffington Post, When you publish something that is factually untrue without pointing this out to the readership, are you not guilty of publishing a lie.