Democrats Target Big Oil Profits In Latest Attack On GOP Senate Candidates

WASHINGTON -- The Democrats' Senate campaign committee is making good Thursday on its promise to try to tar several GOP contenders with their votes protecting tax breaks for oil companies.

A Democratic source said an online campaign will use targeted Google and Facebook ads that coincide with oil companies announcing their latest round of mega profits. The ads, launching in four states, target Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, former Virginia Sen. George Allen, Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake and Montana Rep. Dennis Rehberg, all of whom have opposed ending tax subsidies for oil companies.

"For too long, the GOP has protected multi-billion dollar tax breaks for their big oil contributors. Now oil company profits are soaring and middle-class families are struggling," said Matt Canter, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, referring to reports that all the major oil companies are about to notch record profits, again.

"It's time for Senate Republicans to stop collecting campaign contributions from the industry and then doing their bidding," Canter added in statement to be released with the campaign launch. "Our campaign will rally opposition to Senate Republicans and Republican candidates' policies that put their Big Oil campaign contributors ahead of middle-class families."

In fact, Republicans have gotten vastly more in campaign contributions than Democrats from oil and gas interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which found that the GOP has outpaced its rival $123 million to $42 million in contributions from the industry.

Former and current House members on the GOP ticket opposed several efforts in the last Congress to end some $21 billion in subsidies to large oil companies. Allen opposed smaller efforts before losing his Senate seat in 2006.

Besides criticizing the Republican candidates, the ads will ask voters to call the candidates to complain, as well as direct them to a petition to make the point online.

Canter's counterpart, National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh, was unimpressed with the effort.

"Given the fact that it's the Democrats who control the Senate, and it's the Democrats who made the political decision to leave this out of their latest stimulus proposal, this is really an embarrassing and desperate line of attack," Walsh said in an email, referring to the fact that the Senate leadership removed the oil subsidy cut earlier this month from President Obama's $447 billion jobs bill, which failed in the Senate.

The Democrats took it out in hopes of keeping their caucus united. A handful of Democrats represent states with powerful oil interests, and might have opposed it -- which gives a handy rebuttal for the GOP.

"We look forward to hearing what Mary Landrieu [of Louisiana], Mark Begich [of Alaska] and other Senate Democrats who oppose tax hikes on energy producers have to say about their own party strategists accusing them of being in the pocket of 'Big Oil,'" Walsh said. "I have no doubt those quotes will come in handy when each of them faces the voters in 2014" when their reelections come up.

Still, Democrats can point to the much greater dependence on oil companies by Republicans, which prompted them to pursue the campaign.

Comments

[RC Hindle]

08:22 AM on 10/29/2011

Amazing. I see the TP/GOP apologists defending oil subsidies without a single good reason. Seems to me that before Bush II got into office, regular gas was (in my area) right around 1.35/gallon. then the GOP Oil Men got into office, and then it got to nearly $5/gallon (due to oil company employed speculators). Now....about 3.45. I suspect that if another Texan (or other Big Oil bought GOP candidate) gets into the White House we'll be paying 6-7 dollars/gallon. and the environment will be all the worse for it.

So.....Why would I want to have another GOP candidate in any office in this country?

No good reason I can find.

[TAMPA M]

08:55 AM on 10/28/2011

Environmental toxins associated with the oil and gas development industries, asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular, autoimmune diseases, liver failure, cancer and other ailments such as headaches, nausea, and sleeplessness.

Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan is right about one thing, it will create jobs in the healthcare industry, and as far as the health insurance cartel, their profits should soar.

As far as the Republicans job bill, not one word in there has anything to do with creating jobs. The bill should be called the assault bill.

Their bill should be called the assault on the environment and the health of the community job killer bill.

[RC Hindle]

08:26 AM on 10/29/2011

Fanned and faved. Your assessment of the effects of increased drilling are spot on. All the WRONG people will benefit, while the rest of us....merely cannon fodder for Big Business-run Government.

Well played!

[Bgrngod]

08:49 PM on 10/27/2011

Soooo... the US tax payers get to give these big oil companies subsidies that they can then use to buy lobbying efforts for further benefits? Those lobbying efforts include huge cash donations to various politicians? So let me get this right...

The american tax payers get to pay for getting themselves screwed over?

I'm trying to see where any of the benefit it and I just can't find it. Corporate welfare has got to go.

[apogee2perogee]

08:14 PM on 10/27/2011

The following link will take you to a discussion where a representative for the American Petroleum Institute asserts that the oil industry doesn't need any tax breaks. It also includes information that should (I know, only should) make some of the cons understand that the oil companies do indeed get special tax breaks specific to their industry.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/oiltax_05-12.html

[apogee2perogee]

09:00 PM on 10/27/2011

Indeed...prime evidence.

[realsurfin]

08:10 PM on 10/27/2011

it gives new meaning to the term Slick Politician... Bankers and Oil seem to own the politicians and America is their playground. Koch brothers of America and the shadow government.

[dpooch]

07:59 PM on 10/27/2011

Hey when I buy my gas at the pump and wile I pay for my gas I think that some of this gas I have already payed for in my income-tax because subsidies given to a profitable company. Now the goober wants to rant about a solar company that failed ok start ups fail all the time. But for me to have to help keep the most profitable company on the planet profitable wile they profit from a product wile never paying the cost of the dammage they do to my planet. Just not right. Nothing about it.

[Viable Way]

08:46 PM on 10/27/2011

I calculated that the oil companies made a PROFIT after taxes of about $150 last year for every man, woman and child in the USA. Did you get your money's worth?

Of course the profit is calculated AFTER they deducted as much as they could in the form of travel, entertainment and expensive offices. You are right, I am sure, that they didn't pay enough to clean up after themselves.

What amazed me was that the BANKS earned MORE PROFIT per person on LOWER GROSS TRANSACTIONS...about $170 for every citizen last year.

[TOPCAT711]

07:48 PM on 10/27/2011

Is 'big oil' aware that Michele Bachmann promised us $2 a gallon gas ?

[drwtsn]

08:07 PM on 10/27/2011

She plans to do that by giving oil companies $800B in subsidies in return for their promise to keep prices down.

[election2012]

02:19 AM on 10/28/2011

Another empty talking point, of course.

[lulubelle1956]

07:44 PM on 10/27/2011

Exon reported a 41% PROFIT INCREASE for the 2d quarter (not the year) today. Meantime, no one except the top 1% can afford their home heating costs or cars.

Exxon Mobil profit soars 41% - CNN Money
money.cnn.com/2011/10/27/news/companies/exxon_mobil/
11 hours ago – Exxon Mobil profit soars 41%. By Aaron Smith @CNNMoney October 27, 2011: 11:45 AM ET. Exxon Mobil reported a 41% increase in net ...

Exxon Mobil profit jumps 41 percent - CSMonitor.com
www.csmonitor.com/.../Exxon-Mobil-profit-jumps-41-percent
6 hours ago – Exxon Mobil Corp. increased earnings 41 percent, even though it produced less oil and natural gas liquids. Elise Amendola/AP/File. Enlarge ...

Exxon Reports 41% Increase In Profits | Stock Market News
thestockmarketwatch.com/.../exxon...41-increase-in-profits/11022
Jul 28, 2011 – Cost of oil has been on the rise for over six months due to various reasons. As violence in Libya has continued, a large percentage of oil output ...

[bowloforanges]

07:32 PM on 10/27/2011

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, (from Ancient Greek: κλέπτης (thief) and κράτος (rule), "rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds.

Occupy!

[Marchant2]

06:31 PM on 10/27/2011

Not only protect oil and gas, but also give them free reign over the environment.

Could someone please remind me about the nature of the God we hear so much about from Righties because from where I'm standing, the Devil has taken up lodging inside a giant Trojan elephant that's been wheeled onto our Main Streets.

[Tikiman]

07:23 PM on 10/27/2011

You know what makes me sick. These corporations make billions and billions in profits yet they're never satisfied. A minute doesn't go by on the TV where they aren't showing some oil company marketing how they "agree" with all of us or how they are at the forefront of green energy research. Anything to gain public favor, even though anyone with a brain knows iwhat they advertise isn't true. Then, god forbid if anyone in the press criticizes them, like Paul Krugman did the other day. Then they send their pit bull, the American Petroleum Institute (API) out to do damage control for them. Their latest thing is how taxing them will hurt jobs. Go to the website, it's ridiculous, they project the result of no taxation will allow the creation of over a million jobs! If you believe this contact me, I have so great real estate in the Sahara desert that you may be interested in.

[Viable Way]

08:49 PM on 10/27/2011

I have some oceanfront property in AZ to add to sweeten the deal.

[Bill Duckworth]

07:15 PM on 10/27/2011

What is new about this. Both parites knew in 2008

"

Tax Cuts and Deficits

48% Tax Cuts
36% Defense, Home Land Security,
10% Entitlements
7% Domestic Discretionary Programs

Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years"

[FrankLuchan]

07:02 PM on 10/27/2011

Hey Dems, no worries.

Let's strip all the 'tax breaks' away.

Ooops, those very same tax breaks are used by all your favorite 'Green' companies and 'Hollywood' companies.

No worries. Strip 'em all away.

Tax the heck out of all the companies that are actually EMPLOYING people.

Now that's an AWESOME idea.

Gosh, you Democrats are doing a great job. Keep up the good work!

You will all get your just rewards in November 2012.

[bowloforanges]

06:36 PM on 10/27/2011

Probably re-instate: Glass-Steagall Act too.

The Banking Act of 1933, Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the FDIC in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3). Some provisions of the Act, such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).

The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks.

[Bill Duckworth]

07:22 PM on 10/27/2011

Congressio­nal Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributo­r to the reemergenc­e of substantia­l budget deficits in recent years"

Why republican fuss about DEBT the created and get a tax break to boot.

Knowledge is great, but does little to make it better. But at least it can put 2 party Crony Capitalist in their place, but then they don't hear a thing or care.

Money is everything even if the Chicks or Guy Partner is for free

[FrankLuchan]

08:46 PM on 10/27/2011

Hmmmm.

I would seem the substantial $5,000,000,000,000 deficit increase over the last 3 years is mainly SPENDING.

You are without a clue.

[driller7530]

07:01 PM on 10/27/2011

i fail to understand the libocrat complaint? is it that oil companies are run better than the US government? (excluding BritishPetroleum ) whats the beef ?, america pays less per gallon for fuel than ALMOST any country on earth, and a far,far,far,less percentage of personal income ANY country. but then again I work in big oil , as an Idependant contract geologist. BIG OIL the only job where work is required not begged for. and the one industry that makes money when the dems are in or the repubs are in (a principle of free enterprise, making money) dont like free enterprise ? go to russia or china. want socialism? go to canada or England

[bowloforanges]

06:41 PM on 10/27/2011

What Is Wrong with Corporate Welfare?
As some of the above examples illustrate, there are many problems
with corporate welfare programs.

1. Corporate welfare is a big drain on the taxpayer. In FY02, $93
billion of taxpayer money was spent on programs that subsidize businesses.
By eliminating these programs, Congress could provide every household
in the country with an $860 per year tax cut.

2. Corporate welfare creates an uneven playing field. By giving
selected businesses and industries special advantages, corporate subsidies
put businesses that are less politically connected at an unfair disadvantage.

3. Corporate welfare programs are anti-consumer. By helping particular businesses, the government often damages consumers. For example,
the protectionist federal sugar program costs consumers several billion
dollars per year in higher product prices.

[driller7530]

06:59 PM on 10/27/2011

corporate welfare = general motors poor product built by union slackers.
corporate welfare = aig bailouts
corporate welfare = bailout of big banks by government.
corporate welfare = failure to properly tax those lil car makers from Nipon (protectionism from fair trade)
corporate welfare = giving away things to those who dont need them
corporate welfare = obamacare

[bowloforanges]

06:42 PM on 10/27/2011

4. The government does a poor job of picking winners. Federal loan
programs, such as those operated by the SBA, have high delinquency
rates, indicating that the difficult job of analyzing business risks should
be left to the private sector. With regard to technology subsidies, the
federal government has a long history of wasting money on failed ideas.
It is the role of private entrepreneurs and investors to take technology
risks through institutions such as ‘‘angel’’ financing, venture capital, and
stock markets. Government should not use taxpayer money on risky
schemes.

5. Corporate welfare fosters corruption. Corporate welfare generates
an unhealthy—sometimes corrupt—relationship between business and
the government. For example, a Maritime Administration program aided
shipbuilders by guaranteeing a $1.1 billion loan to build cruise ships in
Sen. Trent Lott’s hometown. Before the ships were completed, the company went bankrupt and left taxpayers with a $200 million tab. Steering
taxpayer funds into risky private schemes in important politicians’ districts
should be stopped.

6. Corporate welfare depletes private-sector strength. While ‘‘market entrepreneurs’’ work hard to create new businesses, corporate welfare
helps create ‘‘political entrepreneurs’’ who spend their energies seeking
government handouts. Corporate welfare draws talented people and firms
into wasteful subsidy-seeking activities and away from more productive
pursuits. Besides, companies receiving subsidies usually become weaker
and less efficient, not stronger.

[NessEliot1932]

06:56 PM on 10/27/2011

DeMint Takes 83 Times More LEGALIZED BR1BES from $BIG 01L than LAB0R!