Recently I saw the ad where Obama claimed he didn't take contributions from oil companies and the claim struck a chord in my memory. I was under the impression that oil companies could not legally donate to a campaign at all. So, I did some checking and it seems that FactCheck.org did an entire page on Obama's deceptive Pennsylvania ad.
Here is the transcript of the Obama ad:
"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 that Washington worked for you. Not them. "
Yet, as FactCheck.org reminds us, it has been illegal for the last 100 years for an oil company to directly donate to a political campaign. So, while it is technically correct that Obama isn't taking money from oil companies, it is ALSO true that neither is anyone else! Yet, here is Obama saying he doesn't take oil money as if he has made a conscious decision to refuse their support. Someone who does not know that oil companies are barred by law from donating to politicians might easily be led to imagine that Obama is standing up against Bigoil with this ad. It is truly deceptive.
But, there is also another deception, one of omission, in Obama's ad. Again, FactCheck.org reveals the reality that two of Obama's biggest "bundler" donors are executives at oil companies. "Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies," FactCheck.org says, "and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful."
The Clinton campaign has made some complaints about the Obama ad be known, but it doesn't seem that the deceptions in this ad are getting much play. I have seen a few blogs like the Huffington Post discuss this thing, but not very many MSM sources of news have investigated the charge.
Clinton complains that Obama's ad amounts to "false advertising" and that his claims of not taking money from PACS and Bigoil are deceptive. For once, I agree with Hillary.
Here is FactCheck.org on this charge:
When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.
We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.
In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.
And still we get silence from the Obammites in the media. It is becoming clear that the MSM has dumped their longtime favorite Clinton and jumped with both feet onto the Obama bandwagon. It is just as clear that they have abdicated to the Internet their proper role as reporters and watchdogs.
(Favorite Newsbuster Motherbelt also saw this one and tipped us)
