It turns out that two high-ranking McCain campaign officials, one of whom is also one of McCain’s more prolific bundlers, were both were paid lobbyists for Hess for roughly three years, according to disclosure forms.The two lobbyists are Wayne Berman, McCain’s national finance co-chairman, and John Green, who’s been the McCain campaign’s chief Congressional liaison since March. Both men worked for a firm called Ogilvy Government Relations. The firm has been paid $800,000 by Hess from 2005 up to the present, including $720,000 during the period that both of the two lobbied for the company, the forms say.
So my question is to twist this to a local level, when Mr. Copeland spoke in favor of oil, how much money will Mr. Dupont errr Mr. Copeland get from Oil companies?
32 responses so far ↓
1 karmicjay // Aug 7, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Drill here.. drill now.. pay less..
2 Weer'd Beard // Aug 7, 2008 at 7:39 pm
+1 to that! US is one of the most environmentally conscious countries in the world (this goes double when compared to nations like Venezuela or China, who very well may be tapping into offshore oil we could be drilling) Drill oil, sell it cheap to the American people, and increase our refining capability so we can be less dependent on foreign nations until alternatives become viable.
3 mike w. // Aug 7, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“and increase our refining capability so we can be less dependent on foreign nations until alternatives become viable.”
That’s a really good point. Our refineries are old and inefficient.
4 Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger // Aug 7, 2008 at 7:53 pm
wb,
oh, right so the oil companies are going to sell the oil to the cheapest bidder. Riiiiigggghtttt. Just like that oil in Alaska we get shipped to us…oh wait, we don’t
5 FSP // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain’s $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.
6 Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:22 pm
is that $$$ amount direction contributions or bundles?
source please.
7 Jason330 // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:25 pm
ha!
I’m going to love the next couple weeks as the McCain bundlers get exposed.
Dave,
Are you getting a cut of Copeland’s Hess money now that you are back in the shilling business?
8 FSP // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:25 pm
OpenSecrets.org
9 karmicjay // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:38 pm
To FSP’s point. Comparing the donations of the oil company’s employees and extending that to make it looks like the companies support Obama is dishonest.
Just cos you work for an oil company does not mean you agree with your employers policies.
10 FSP // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:44 pm
KJ — Are you really saying the good oil company employees donated to Obama and the evil ones donated to McCain?
11 pandora // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm
“Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain’s $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.”
But it wasn’t until June 17th that McCain gave his oil friendly speech. What do July’s figures look like?
12 Sharon // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Just cos you work for an oil company does not mean you agree with your employers policies.
Sorta like being in a union and forced to contribute money to candidates you don’t support.
And are you suggesting that oil company employees want their companies to lose money? Doesn’t sound like most employees I know.
13 karmicjay // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:51 pm
No FSP. All I am saying is the employee donations patterns don’t mean much. They are supposed to donate their own funds. As for their employers .. we all know which direction that wind is blowing in.
14 karmicjay // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Err Sharon.. Oil is an essential commodity, there is no way that oil companies will lose just cos their employees decide to donate their money to different parties or in this case to the dems.
People are voting for a President not someone who supports their company, as if that is the only thing that matters!
15 pandora // Aug 7, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Sharon, off-topic, but you mentioned you live in Texas… how did you find us?
16 David // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Not to mention it is good policy to have a comprehensive energy strategy. Oil, Gas, Wind, Nuclear, and other renewable sources. People will support their interests. That is fine. In this case it is in all of our interests.
17 Sharon // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Karmicjay,
If Democrats enact policies that hurt the oil industry (or make it more profitable to go overseas), that has an effect on people here in the U.S., including employees of those companies.
Pandora, I found you through Dana at Common Sense Political Thought. I was a lurker for a while. I like the mix of posts here, even when I don’t quite understand all the local politics.
18 Sharon // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:23 pm
BTW, I’m an “all of the above” kinda person. Even though I’m a native born Texan (and have seen first hand the impact of Washington on oil producers), I kinda agree with Paris Hilton. Drill here, drill now, and develop alternatives.
19 Steve Newton // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:23 pm
The problem in a research sense is that you cannot either completely dismiss company employee donations as unrelated to company agendas or completely count them, either. There are many companies which exert all sorts of indirect (and direct) pressure of middle- and upper- level executives to donate to the “correct” candidate.
But since PAC money now plays such a small part in donations to either McCain or Obama (source: http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/MapAppCompare.do
You have to make some sort of attempt to weight those donations.
I don’t follow the oil industry sector closely enough to be able to tell you how to do it. However, by analogy, look at the defense sector: personal contributions from employees of major defense contractors are running about 70-30 in favor of Obama–and most companies fit into one of three categories–all Obama, all McCain, or almost exactly a 50-50 split. I refuse to believe that’s coincidence.
Moreover, if you cross list the major retired military figures (and their wives) who work as lobbyists or frontmen for huge defense contractors with the major retired military figures who have publicly endorsed Obama, you discover an amazing almost 1-1 ratio.
I am not raising this issue to bash Obama, but to make the point that under the new election laws the best way for industry sectors to have an impact on the presidential race is to “encourage” donations to the “correct” candidate from employees. Some firms’ donations openly prefer one candidate or the other; other firms’ appear to be hedging their bets.
So while it seems like the oil/energy sector is lining up behind McCain (along with tobacco, health insurance, and pharmaceuticals), it also seems like the defense industry and the entertainment sectors (plus–although I haven’t done the numbers–the transportation industry) seem to be lined up behind Obama.
But the way the election donation laws are now written actually helps obscure which industries are choosing to support which candidate.
If I were a smart oil company right now, I’d be hedging my bets with about 25-30% donations to the Obama campaign.
20 pandora // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:26 pm
“If Democrats enact policies that hurt the oil industry (or make it more profitable to go overseas), that has an effect on people here in the U.S., including employees of those companies.”
I understand what you’re saying about potential job loss, but can we at least stop all the corporate welfare? They don’t seem to need it anymore.
21 Steve Newton // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I understand what you’re saying about potential job loss, but can we at least stop all the corporate welfare? They don’t seem to need it anymore.
My point has always been that corporations who choose to accept government welfare payments have absolutely no right to complain when the government comes in to regulate them.
Want to be free (or at least more free) (free-er? is that a word? i forget), corporate America? Then stand on your own damn feet and quit lusting after my tax dollars.
And no I don’t think the big three auto makers are too big to let fail.
22 pandora // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Isn’t the freedom to fall flat on your face as well as succeed the backbone of Capitalism? Why are profits always applauded and losses end in “government bail-out”?
Has American Capitalism become risk free?
23 A. Bundy // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain’s $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.”
Um…anyone?
“But it wasn’t until June 17th that McCain gave his oil friendly speech. What do July’s figures look like?”
Once again, Pandora, your huge box reeks of ignorance.
You guys don’t know what you’re talking about! Obama wants to really tighten campaign finance laws…Oh that’s right!
24 Mike Matthews // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:07 pm
A. Bundy,
You are about the creepiest, most disturbed motherfucker commenting on this site.
And I love it!
25 mike w. // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:31 pm
“And no I don’t think the big three auto makers are too big to let fail.”
Steve - I couldn’t agree more. Why continue to prop them up when they can’t make a competitive product.
Pandora - I’m with you on the bail-outs. I can’t believe Congress just bailed everyone out of the whole mortgage mess.
26 Jason330 // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Enjoy mike bundy is getting banned. Maybe she can bring her low class loser act to DWA?
27 Mike Matthews // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Let’s hope. Is it really necessary to ban someone? You know how I feel about such censorious tactics.
28 Jason330 // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:49 pm
As you might have guessed, I’m thinking bundy is female.
Anyway, she/he will be not commenting here for long.
29 Jason330 // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I think the personal attacks cross a line. So if you enjoy them feel free to allow that crap at DWA.
30 Steve Newton // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Once again, Pandora, your huge box reeks of ignorance.
For once, I’m having trouble arguing with jason.
31 Steve Newton // Aug 7, 2008 at 11:03 pm
And a further point: as contentious and vituperative as the recent Cathloic flame-war got (I believe I called dv a “whining pussy” at one point and DD labeled me an apologist for child abuse; God only knows what dv called me–the spelling always leaves room for doubt)–there was a level of mutual consent to mudslinging (both past, present, and assumed for future) whereas the current gratuitous attack on Pandora is a completely different matter.
32 pandora // Aug 7, 2008 at 11:09 pm
My heros! But, really, it doesn’t bother me. A Bundy adds nothing of value… he/she is a sad person with nothing better to do.
Leave a Comment