Big Oil gave $134K to ea. Senator voting No on Energy Bill | MAPLight.org Today, the US Senate voted against the energy bill,(S.3044). "The energy package would revoke $17 billion in tax breaks extended to big oil companies like Exxon and slap a 25% windfall profits tax on firms that don't invest in new energy sources." MAPLight.org's research team revealed that oil producers gave an average of $134,821 to each of the 43 senators who voted 'no.'

Methinks if we checked a little more there might even be a few more sharin' in this wealth that might be a bit of a surprise. Here's one accordin' to this item on FactCheck.org benefitin' from the largess of folks associated with big oil too, eh?

You should be careful my friend....

FACTS make people around here very angry lately.


Mr. Obama is some "Change" eh ??

Individual contributions ARE NOT the same as corporate or corp/PAC contributions. How in the world would any lower echelon employee in Sen Obama's campaign staff know who these people are? Gimme a break.

Yep, sure wish some would educate themselves about the info that is required when an individual makes a political contribution. So easy to condemn when all the facts are not known.

Sure an easy rule to evade.

So, you are sitting in your office and the boss comes by and says, "Amy, the firm would like for you to contribute $2300 to Obama. We'll see that your year-end bonus more than offsets that."

And if you say no, there won't be a year-end bonus because you won't be there at the end of the year.

I don't believe this happens....I think some employees think it might happen so they donate to the candidate their employer supports or they might donate to a candidate they feel will help their employer stay afloat...but I don't believe there is the kind of coercion you've described.

Very true, eh? There's a really big difference methinks, those from individuals are legal, the others ain't!Sure is, but methinks the fact someone was also able to vet this info for the article cited in the original note in this thread kinda shows it's doable, unless they was referrin' to illegal contributions and IMHO if that was the case it woulda been mentioned. So easy to condemn when all the facts are not known, eh?

We believe what we want to believe. Visit opensecrets.org and see how Wall $treet has funded both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton starting 18 months ago. They did NOT fund John Edwards, probably the Dems least vulnerable candidate (white male southerner). As a result, he never had a chance.

Yes, I imagine there can be pressure for workers particularly within the unions.
I was only referring to the fact that when individuals donate, they are required to state their place of employment. At least when I donate, that's what I need to fill in on the form.So for example, if there are 5000 employees at an oil company and 4000 of those employees and their spouses decide to donate to a candidate, it does not mean that the contributions are from the oil company. That's the point I was making.

And the point that I was making is how easy it is on Wall $treet (where the annual bonus is a major sized check) for the company to "suggest" your political gifts.

I remember looking at opensectrets at the start of this long soap opera and I saw that John Edwards had 5 Million whereas Hillary and Obama each had about 100 Million. And at that time, the list of funders for the latter two included a who's who of investment banker firms.

I mean, of course, INDIVIDUALS who just happen to work for those firms.

Of course. I understand your point. Campaign finance reform is complicated, for sure. The goal of closing all loopholes so that corporations and other large donation entities do not have undo influence on politicians is a daunting task.Of course, the key to real "reform" lies within the politicians themselves...will they allow their biggest donors to influence their policies or will their policy agendas be free of monied influence.
I suppose the answer is public financing....no donations from anyone or any group.

What do you think? My head spins when I read all the issues surrounding campaign finance reform.

I posted this in 04:

Terry Gross interviewed Jimmy Carter yesterday on NPR's "Fresh Air." I found it rather revealing that Carter, whose Carter Center has supervised elections in over 50 third world countries, said his organisation could not supervise the American Election (if we were to ask) because we didn't meet their Four Basic Standards:


1. All qualified candidates must have free access to the media. Period. In America, candidates must raise $100 million minimum to even be considered. And Nader would have to be included.

2. All central election committees must be non partisan. We have 50 that do not qualify. In Florida, the notoriously partisan Katherine Harris ran for congress and was easily elected. Her replacement, the present Secretary of State, didn't even run. He was APPOINTED by Jeb Bush.

3. All voters must vote the same way. In America, some vote on touch screens, some vote in optical scan cards, some probably still use "chad-o-matics." And, of course, some are not "allowed" to vote at all.

4. A physical recount for close elections is mandatory. The technology is available. In fact, most of it was invented in America! It is OK to use touch screen machines - only Carter elections require that they produce a paper ballot which the voter visually checks and then deposits in the "recount box."

Interesting food for thought about the country that claims to want to export freedom and democracy to the third world.

I found this article on Bloomberg website. before I lay it down I kept thinking of burning off being like a fire eater who uses fuel to blow flames from their mouth. If true is that not a waste of fuel. If it is a waste then more questions to cost of oil present themselves.
______________________________________________________________

Exxon May Be Fined by Equatorial Guinea for Gas, Oil Daily Says

By Dinakar Sethuraman

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. may be fined at least $300 million by Equatorial Guinea for flaring gas at its Zafiro field, the International Oil Daily said, citing the country's Deputy Energy Minister Gabriel Nguema Lima.

The West African nation wants to use the gas at the field, located in the Gulf of Guinea, for a liquefied natural gas production unit proposed by Equatorial Guinea LNG Holdings, the trade publication said.

The field, which produces 210,000 barrels of crude oil a day, accounts for 175 million cubic feet, or 78 percent, of the 224 million cubic feet of gas flared in the country daily. The government plans to slash gas flaring to 10 million cubic feet a day by 2013.

Equatorial Guinea LNG is owned by state gas company Songas, Marathon Oil Corp., Mitsui & Co. and Marubeni Corp.

To contact the reporter on this story: Dinakar Sethuraman in Singapore at dinakar@bloomberg.net

"Flaring" gas has been done for 100 years. The oil men don't have the infrastructure to deal with the possible use of the gas. To them, it is an explosion hazard, so they light it off and go on about their business.

Which is oil.

Is it wasting or is it necessary?

Depends on the price, doesn't it?

Would we let the tap water run if we paid by the ounce?

talk about putting in perspective...
thanks for answering.


I saw moveon.org is dismantling

I think they are baking.

http://moveon.org/