Claims Dept: Obama on gas prices


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's latest ad focuses on high gas prices and energy indepenence, Rob Christensen reports.

What the ad says: "Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed — except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it's time Washington worked for you. Not them."

The background: ExxonMobil reported earning a record $40.6 billion in profits in 2007. The average national cost of gas on April 7 was $3.33 per gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration.

It is technically true that Obama has not taken money directly from oil companies, because direct corporate contributions have long been banned.

But Obama's campaign has accepted $213,000 in contributions from people who work in the oil and gas industry or their spouses, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. And according to FactCheck.org, Obama's campaign has received money from executives of ExxonMobil ($30,850), Hess ($5,200), Shell ($9,900), ConocoPhillips ($4,300), Chevron ($9,500) and BP ($6,396.)

Obama's oil and gas industry contributions are a tiny fraction of the $193 million that Obama’s campaign has raised and are less than Clinton has brought in from similar sources.

Is the ad accurate? The assertion that Obama does not receive money from the oil industry is misleading. Accepting contributions from oil industry executives, as opposed to their political action committees, is a distinction without merit.

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Bull hockey

Jeeves, write that fella a note, would you? I'm just a regular Joe. My desk is made of nothing but simple oak.

— RTB 

Re: Bull hockey

Oh Ryan, we know that you're rolling in dough, lighting cigars with $100.00 bills, and that you blog on a marble-top desk wearing a silk smoking jacket.

I knew that

Or at least I couldn't find any. Which makes you a perfect hypothetical example.

Re: Bull hockey

For the record: I've never given a political contribution.

— RTB 

Distinction without Merit

It *is* a distinction without merit. To say that he could get THAT much money from oil magnates themselves and it not be about the businesses that enabled said magnates to make those donations is ridiculous.

Hell, I'm a supporter of Obama's, and I think for him to say he isn't taking money from oil when the reality is that he's receiving it from oil's individual incarnations is fudging, and he ought to be called on it.

I doubt the personal contributions of a Ryan, Ted or Steve come even close, proportionally, to what these fat cats are donating, and to suggest there's no expectation that this will be recognized by the candidate is just plain silly.

Bull hockey

Distinction without merit?

Since when did the fact-checking department at the Old Reliable become the arbiters of what has merit? Stick to the freakin' facts. This debate is about PACs, not individuals.

If Ryan Beckwith gives a contribution to Richard Moore, does that mean Moore's getting money from the newspaper industry? No? What about if Ted Vaden does? Or Steve Ford?

If I give a contribution to Larry Kissell, does that mean he's getting money from the advertising industry?

This analysis is completely full of holes.