Obama Camp Won't Pull Oil Ad That Clinton Calls Misleading

Chicago Sun Times:

The Clinton campaign is complaining about an Obama ad where Obama touts that he does not take money from oil companies. But I talked to Obama top strategist David Axelrod a short time ago here and he said he has no plans to change it.

The ad has been criticized from factcheck.org as misleading because no federal candidate--for President, House or Senate can take money from corporations and corporate political action committees get their money mostly from employees.

Read the whole story: Chicago Sun Times

Comments

[Lindy222]

I'm not seeing where any of the Hillary supporters here has offered any evidence that Obama has accepted oil industry money from either PACs or lobbyists in his run for the Presidency. Did I just miss it or something?

[nomobull]

no

[MoreCowBellNowPlease]

No, but the point is that his ad is leading people to believe he is not influenced by oil companies and his opponents are.

That is misleading because while no candidate can take money directly from corporations both he and Clinton get money from oil companies in some form. Hillary in the form of PACs (at a limit of $5K) and Obama in the form of oil companies pooling money to the tune of $150K (see article above). Which is worse to you?

(Individuals who donated and had to indicate that they workd for an oil company are not included in that $150K nor should they be. They are separate from the pooled money cited in this article)

Clinton can't take money either since no Pres Candidate can.

You decide.

[gwhizz]

AGAIN Obama tries to slither around the truth.

[unenrolled]

I know you meant to say Hillary slithers

[gwhizz]

No, sorry. I meant Obama. Just like I wrote. Sorry you're so blind.

[rollingdivision]

Obama accepts lobbyist and sector donations just like everyone else. He's not any different except he has accepted more cash. Much like the Clinton "it all depends on what the meaning of is is" Obama is trying to make a false distinction by carefully using weasel wording to define his terms. From open secrets.org
Agribusiness Obama$540,456 McCain 531,841
Communications/Electronics Obama$7,138,283 McCain$1,713,390
Construction Obama$1,448,393 McCain$1,041,232
Defense Obama$195,132 McCain$227,274
Energy & Natural Resources Obama$862,030 McCain$807,852
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Obama$15,268,502 McCain$8,555,655
Health Obama$3,986,561 McCain$1,384,210
Lawyers and LOBBYISTS Obama$13,805,333 McCain$4,201,665
Transportation Obama$468,120 McCain$711,563
Misc Business Obama$15,786,950 McCain$5,157,738
Labor Obama$62,167 McCain$2,800
Ideological/Single-Issue Obama$482,359 McCain$269,172
Other Obama$17,854,593 McCain$8,682,839

[mark77]

You are obviously confusing employees of an industry with lobbyists. I work in engineering, and therefore I belong to the tramsportation industry. Any donations I make to presidential candidates would show up as a donation "from the transportation industry."

Also you have no links and no evidence to support any of your other claims. Obama has a legally binding ban on his website's donation page stipulating that if you are a federally registered lobbyist, you can't donate to his campaign. Ask your candidate Clinton to include such a ban on her website.

If you want a candidate who is going to fight against the special interests and you are at the same time supporting Clinton, then there is really nothing to say to you.

[rollingdivision]

NO, I am not confusing employees and an industry with lobbyists. First, Opensecrets.org lists Obama's lawyer and federally registered Lobbyist donations at $13,805,333 as reported to the FEC by the Obama campaign, not me. From factcheck.org “In addition, Obama accepts donations from the employees, families and others directly tied to lobbyists. We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.”

Second, as Obama keeps parsing the words so do his supporters. It has been illegal for corporations to make political donations for over 30 years, no one accusing Obama of accepting illegal corporate money. Rather, Obama is receiving millions of dollars from the executives and managers of corporations, perfectly legal, that is how the corporate executives make sure they gain a seat at the Obama table.

[rollingdivision]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

A Globe review of campaign finance records shows he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator , a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

Obama's eight years in Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

[rollingdivision]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/32/
Obama's, " anti-lobbyist policy includes one caveat and a few loopholes that weaken his claim to be funding his political campaign in a way that's truly different from his competitors.

He almost always qualifies his statement to note that he won't take money from federal lobbyists, a distinction that allows him to accept money from well-connected state lobbyists.

For example, South Florida lobbyist Russ Klenet and his wife will host a fundraising event in Broward County for Obama on August 25. Klenet represents state groups such as the Florida Association of Mortgage Brokers, but also companies such as Match.com and Election Systems & Software.

And Obama still accepts tens of thousands of dollars from people who work for Washington firms that do substantial lobbying. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is an Obama contributor who isn't a registered lobbyist, but works as a consultant for Alston & Bird, a lobbying firm in Washington.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that Obama accepted $55,019 from employees at lobbying firms, and much more from companies that are not classified as lobbying firms but have lobbying divisions.

So we give Obama's statement a Half-True on the Truth-O-Meter. While Obama can accurately say that he does not accept money from federally registered lobbyists, he still accepts thousands from people in the influence industry."

[mark77]

None of those links says anything about Obama's presidential campaign. He has not taken any lobbyist money in his campaign.

Again, tell your candidate Clinton to include a ban on federal lobbyist money on her
donations page as Obama has done. Go to her own website, hillaryclinton.com, and see for yourself.

Again you are avoiding the fundamental issue, which is that if you are against lobbyists, why are you supporting Clinton, who has said herself that lobbyists represent the American people?

[buddhistMonkey]

Obama Didn't Want My Money:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/7/124812/3285/604/491642

[Ping]

He is making her play defense. Also every ad that Hillary has to run against Obama in Penn, is an ad she cannot run in Indiana or North Carolina. It's about money and advertising now and Hillary is at a disadvantage. This is the POWER game, and Obama definitely has the advantage.

[Susan1968]

Yeah ... Change You Can Purchase.

I can't believe he has so many people hoodwinked into handing over their hard-earned cash.

But that's what happens in a cult.

[cyndeewi]

Susan1968, I am so glad that you learned a new word... Hoodwinked.

[buddhistMonkey]

We weren't hoodwinked. Millions of us gladly contributed to Obama's campaign because we know he's the superior candidate. He has rewarded our efforts by demonstrating that he's a vastly better campaigner and money-manager than John McCain (and Hillary, too, of course, but she's no longer a factor in the race).

By the way, don't worry... we won't try to convert you to our "cult." Obama supporters have been shown statistically to be better educated than Clinton and McCain supporters. It's fairly obvious that you don't fall into that category, so we'll just leave you to wallow in the mediocrity of your chosen candidate.

[flyguy14222]

And I hear that Obama is going to forgo public financing should he squeak out the nom. Way to go Obama, can't win on experience OR judgment so just BUY the election. Yeah that's change alright. Who does he think he is fooling?

[Ping]

He's built the organization that will be the model for future Presidential runs. There's no doubt that Obama is a better executive and manager than Clinton, just look at their campaigns.

[buddhistMonkey]

Yeah, right. Obama is "buying" the election, all right... only, it's with the people's money, contributed by millions of small donors. That's the very definition of public financing. You're just sore because Barack Obama is raising more money than Hillary and John McCain put together, and he's a better campaigner and money-manager than both of them put together, too.

[Susan1968]

I knew his Chicago style politics would come into play.

"I'm a differnet kind of politian."

I wonder how many Obama supporters in states that have voted are having buyer's remorse.

Me? I can't stand the tone of his voice anymore and his habit of going "umm, ummm, ummm" when he's buying time to cook up the perfect VAGUE answer.

[HeadScratcher]

I guarantee that "buyers remorse" is running rampant among Hillary supporters all over the country. It's one thing after another with Senator Clinton.

[Susan1968]

He's running a misleading "dirty tricks" ad. Oldest dirty trick in the book -- playing voters for idiots with his lie.

That Obama - he'll do anything to win.

[buddhistMonkey]

((( "I wonder how many Obama supporters in states that have voted are having buyer's remorse." )))

If I had to guess, I'd say "none."

[TN]

The ad will work for him, because it is too hard for Hillary to explain to the average person. When they hear numbers like 200,000 it is not material anymore compared to millions, billions and trillions. She's do better to let it go.

[oshpd1]

Misleading the ad may be but is Hillary more misleading? Read this article by Bill Clinton's former advisor and ask Hillary about misleading.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/04/09/hill-lobbyists-more-the-merrier/#more-313

[ChrisS13]

NOw your using Dick Morris as some type of proof. Do you watch this nutcase on Fox News?

[SkoolOFBarROCK]

you can discredit Dick Morris all you want but how about you try to do independent research, you will come to a similar conclusion to what he wrote about in this article.

[SCG]

" Another Clinton fundraiser has a suspect past "

By Greg Gordon and Will Connors | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008

HOUSTON — A Texas oilman who's accused of defrauding the Nigerian government by illegally pumping and exporting 10 million barrels of oil is a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

continues: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32613.html

[olderdem]

Since most that donate work in some industry and the industry you work in has to be reported when you donate, the aggregrate impact of any one industry adds up. The real news is that out of the $100+ million raised by Obama only $200,000 came from employees of the oil industry, given how significant tthat industry is in this country.

The big questions that goes unanswered -- out of the $500 million donated to Bill Clinton foundation/library how much of that was donated by oil rich countries, the oil industry, or any other foreign interests? What do they expect in return if Hillary is elected? Will Bill have no infuence on Hillary if she is president? We already no about Bill's $800,000 from Columbia (not individuals in Colombia, but the Colombian government). How much more will the Reps uncover if Hillary is the nominee?

[Raisean]

I completely agree...

[Raisean]

Why would you want someone who can't even run their own campaign, to run our country? It doesn't make since. You have to prove that you can be a leader, and what better way is there than running your campaign? I mean look at all of the problems that she's had with her campaign, am I the only one who sees this?

[XYZ]

I definatly want someone that can run a tight and effective campaign. Obama has done better than all other campaigns in that regards.

Plus history proves, when campaigns have shakeups they usally lose.

[PioneerKing]

Obama received a total of $213,000 from employees of different oil/gas compaines.
Obama has raised nearly $250 million. $213,000 is a nominal percentage of the total funds raised.

[ChrisS13]

THe money doesn't come from ordinary employees. They only use the industry when they are referring to stock holders, executive, administrators and there families. He is taking money from policy makers and direct beneficiaries.

The main point is he is misleading people by hinting that other candidates are taking money from big oil ...HINT HINT, he's trying to hint that HRC takes Oil company money, because he knows normal working joe, is outraged by gas prices.


I don't care if you support OBama or not, you can at least show some integrity and admit that the commercial is misleading. Have at least some sense of self respect.

[rojo7449]

You're very generous, ChrisS13. If this was about Hillary, the term would not be "misleading", she would just be a LIAR.

Obama supporters do not listen to the facts of how Obama circumvents the PAC and manages to get much, much more money from the management personnel of special interests by doing so.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

[olderdem]

Everyone that donates has to report the industry the work in. You don't know what you are writing about. Make a donation to Obama online and find out.

PACS are the same as the Company -- the Companies directly solicate donations from employees to give to candidates to support the Companies political goals. Learn.

The ad is accurate, and in no way misleading to anyone that understands where the money comes from. Only Hilary is trying to mislead by saying its not accurate. Factcheck is full of BS on this one.

[Sabreen60]

Hillary is probably just ticked off because she didn't think of doing the ad first. It is not misleading. Obama is very smart. He would not make an ad unless it is based on the truth. The man is a lawyer from Harvard. Also, he did not mention Hillary. He said he doesn't take corporate money. What was he suppose to say? "I don't take corporate money and neither does Hillary??? Get real. Hillary is losing and whining about everything.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

to be accurate and honest, his TV commercial should say he doesn't accept PAC money from the Oil Industry. Cliinton is correctto say no one accepts money from oil companies because it is illegal for any company todonate to any candidate.

Secondly, two oil company CEOs are bif "bundlers" for Obama whcih won't sound too good to the people of PA.

[SLone08]

I think they'll be more concerned that two senior members of Hillary's staff (and her husband!) have been making money supporting a trade deal which will send more manufacturing jobs overseas while Hillary says she opposes it - sorta like NAFTA. Conflict of interest? I'd say so.

Coincidentally, who bundles for Hillary? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd really just like to know

[Raisean]

Don't forget Bill Back it too!

[rojo7449]

Hillary openly admits she takes PAC money, and money from lobbyists. Google who bundles for her if you want to know.

When it comes to this Colombian trade deal, you do not know what Bill's role is. He could be consulting them on what they need to do to trade with this country. The term TRADE is a 2-way street, you know. We give Colombia something, they give us something. Do you know the details about this particular trade issue? What they are expected to give us? Do you have any idea what you are criticizing?

[fixbone]

what is the problem, hrc can run an ad that says she does not either

[buddhistMonkey]

The ad is already accurate and honest.

[mutatio]

Par for the course. Why is it not doublespeak? Because Obama said so.

[mjc]

Good grief. There seems to be very little understanding of how campaign finances work on this thread. Obama has two wealthy "bundlers" on his "team" and these guys, CEOs, got lots of their friends, neighbors and employees to contribute to their "bundle". Factcheck.org got the goods on Obama and all they can really do is expose the problems but they cannot do any real damage to Obama's finances. Remember when Obama said he would take public financing worth $84 million if he got the Democrat nomination? It was a pledge to McCain who also SAID that he would since at that time his fortune was way down. So much for ethics and public control over financing of national campaigns. Yeah....Obama should know better and be better but betcha he won't!

[IngeniousGirl]

you know I "bundled" money for Obama, and I am not a CEO and definitely not wealthy. I have a son in Iraq which is my motivator.
The smallest donation was $50.00 from my physical therapist, and the largest was $700.00 from my ex-husband good friend. I've donated a total of my own money of $2,300 and then I raised an additional $2,300 with 9 checks. From my friends and relatives who are barely making it.
Now what does "got the goods" on Obama mean? That just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Every candidate asks individuals who can, to ask for campaign donations. Hillary and McCain do the exact same thing.

[ChrisS13]

I feel bad that people would give up money when they are barely getting by,. It doesn't make sense especially if they have kids. OBamas not a saviour and I hope your happy that he is spending over 300,000 a day in PA. Especially with misleading ads. No candidate can take money from Oil Companies, insinuating that others do is dishonesty. NOt too mention WRONG, when you account for two top Oil guys bundling for him. Wake up people. Obama's just another typical politician, I hope you'll start to understand that.

[Neef]

There's a significant difference between "better"and "perfect". Some of us don't demand perfection in a human politician.

As far as factcheck.org getting the goods, they said that Obamas claim was (to quote) "technically true". Which sounds a lot like "it's true", with a BS caveat.

[XYZ]

Factcheck is revealed to be opinionated, with the technically true line. BSCheck is what it should be called.

[SkoolOFBarROCK]

Are you saying if i work for GM and i get a bunch of my co workers to donate money to the Obama campaign, that he takes money from Ford?. The employees of the oil company donated as individuals not on behalf of the oil company.

[Mattie]

Please, the man voted for the Cheney Energy Bill, he is in the pocket of big oil. He gave them huge tax freaks, while they rake in billions in profits from the middle class. Last week he went out and criticized those tax breaks , while forgetting to tell the American public that he voted for them. I guess we're better off when he's to busy to show up to vote.

[AnninCA]

Mattie......they don't even get that. They don't know what that bill meant. And they sure couldn't see the connection.

I do. You do. Several of us do.

But when you send your "Starbucks" money?

Trust me......that type doesn't have a clue.

[HeadScratcher]

I do. You do.

YOU DON'T.

In your simplistic world of spin, you haven't really looked into the Energy Bill to see what it contained in total. The tax breaks to big oil have been on the books for some time. Democrats in the House and Senate tried to get the breaks out and put the revenue gained into renewables. The House passed such a bill - led by Nancy Pelosi. The Senate faced a filibuster over the tax provisions, but finally decided to drop them from the bill to save the provisions that will increase gas mileage requirements for vehicles. Bush threatened to veto the bill unless the tax breaks for big oil were included, along with the gas mileage increases. These are FACTS. Let me say again, FACTS.

[HeadScratcher]

Mattie - in your uninformed rantings about huge tax cuts to the richest corporations in America, you also failed to mention the energy bill included provisions for energy efficiency, numerous provisions for research into alternative energy, and enhanced gas mileage provisions for vehicles. Numerous attempts to take out the tax breaks for big oil were stripped from the final bill because of a veto threat by Bush and the refusal of Republicans in the Senate to avoid a filibuster - a Bush veto would have rendered all the good provisions dead in the water. By the way, the bill was HR 6. Omnibus legislation often has good and bad all in one bill.

One could make the case that Hillary doesn't support better gas mileage requirements for vehicles, but then that would be as stupid as your ridiculous comment.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

you mean Obama was nsuccessful in using his famous UNITING skill sto get the tax breaks removed from the bill? That doesn't bode well for his future success, does it?