« McCain Campaign Raising Money Off ... Obama's Call For Keeping Tires Inflated | Home | Hess Corporation "Office Manager" And Her Husband Both Gave $28,500 To Elect McCain »
Multiple Oil Company Executives Gave Huge Contributions To Electing McCain Just Days After Offshore Drilling Reversal
Ten senior Hess Corporation executives and/or members of the Hess family each gave $28,500 to the joint RNC-McCain fundraising committee, just days after McCain reversed himself to favor offshore drilling, according to Federal Election Commission reports.Nine of these contributions, seven from Hess executives and two from members of the Hess family, came on the same day, June 24th, the records show. The total collected in the wake of McCain's reversal for the fund, called McCain Victory 2008, from Hess execs and family is $285,000.
We were alerted to the contributions by Campaign Money Watch, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign contributions. The contributions were given a quick mention deep in a report the group issued late last week, but with no names or other details provided. The Hess contributions are clearly newsworthy on their own.
The Washington Post reported last week that campaign contributions from oil industry execs rose in a big way in the last half of June, after McCain drew a huge amount of attention by reversing his opposition on June 16th to the federal ban on offshore drilling.
These Hess contributions, however, hadn't been reported until now, and they will give more ammo to those arguing that McCain is being rewarded by campaign contributions in exchange for pro-industry positions. Here's a table detailing the contributions:
J. Barclay Collins Hess Corp. Attorney $28,500 19-Jun John B. Hess Hess Corp. Executive $28,500 24-Jun Susan K. Hess Homemaker Homemaker $28,500 24-Jun Norma W. Hess Retired Retired $28,500 24-Jun John J. O'Connor Hess Corp. Executive $28,500 24-Jun Lawrence Ornstein Hess Corp. Senior VP $28,500 24-Jun John Reilly Hess Corp. Executive $28,500 24-Jun Alice Rocchio Hess Corp. Office Manager $28,500 24-Jun John Scelfo Hess Corp. Senior VP of Finance $28,500 24-Jun F. Borden Walker Hess Corp. Businessman $28,500 24-Jun
Norma W. Hess is the widow of oil magnate and company founder Leon Hess, and Susan K. Hess is the wife of Hess chairman and CEO John Hess.
Neither a spokesperson for Hess nor the McCain campaign immediately responded to requests for comment. More on this in a bit.
Late Update: It turns out that $28,500 is the maximum that can be given to the RNC, but because this particular victory fund collects money via various channels, an individual donor can actually give more than that to it. I've edited out "maximum" from the headline. Obviously this doesn't change the story in any way.
Late Late Update: A Hess office manager and her husband, an Amtrak worker, each chipped in $28,000 apiece, too.
Late Late Late Update: Turns out that the office manager and her Amtrak husband rent their home in Flushing, Queens.
Still Later Update: It's likely that the Amtrak worker makes considerably less than $100,000 a year.
Advertisement
Now there's some fund-raising for you!...way to go! and see what your new policy got you for you! and for us...a real screwing by the big time oil boys and girls!
August 4, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's disgusting.
August 4, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. That's a lot of money from senior executives in the same company on the same day.
Will this get as much attention as the tire gauge issue?
August 4, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this serious? On 'Office Manager' donated $28,500.00 to a political campaign? I dont know any 'Office Manager' that could afford more than half their salary for a campaign.... Wonder who that person really is....
August 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
These kinds of loopholes have existed forever to allow rich donors to circumvent campaign contribution limits. The kind where Bob Smith contributes the maximum amount and so do his wife and kids. It becomes virtually impossible to track where the money actually came from. So you get these kinds of cases where you can have Janitors that donate $28K.
August 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a large difference between a rich person's spouse or child donating money and the office manager. In the case of a immediate relative, it is probable money/salaries are within joint accounts and basic common property issues.
In the case of an office manager with a husband that is alleged to not be wealthy, it is a lot easier to prove illegal and unethical actions occurred. here is a simple test. Lets say a person never donated to a campaign before and then donates an amount that equates to roughly 30-50% of their annual income. That would be a red flag.
Now lets say that the person got a bonus from her company in the amount that equals the donation. Lets say the bonus occurred out of the normal payment cycle for the year, etc. That would be a red flag.
This person is pretty open in my opinion. Unless we are not understanding the issues here or she and her husband inherited a lot of money or some other pre-existing family wealth was available, this person is screwed.
August 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty neat how most of them made the same decision on the same day.
August 4, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has campaign ad written all over it.
August 4, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
damn, what a coinky-dink ... all those big-assed contributions on the same day....
August 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God....how sad
August 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I noticed that the day after he gave his endorsement of offshore drilling. I wonder why he did that? You endorse we give you money or vice versa. Chicken or the egg?
If Obama's ad can get the MSM to take notice of this- that would be awesome.
August 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the media would take notice of any Obama ad, I think that would be awmesome in general.
August 4, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do something. Thx
August 4, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the kind of dollars and change the G.O.P. believes in.
August 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Nail on the head!
August 4, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS HUGE!
Probably the media will ignore it anyway.
We're on our own, boys and girls. Let's fight.
August 4, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they did not ignore it then they'd feel compelled to come up with some sort of "balanced" report where they take a closer look at Obama's donors and sorta mask on McCain's.
August 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
On June 20th, Bill OReilly asked: WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU: REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS?
He went on to attack Obama for his failure to support offshore drilling. Around the same time, John McCain campaign recieved $285,000 for oil execs. So, who is looking out for you?
August 4, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't Obama flopped on offshore drilling as well?
August 4, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. You're not paying attention.
August 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Barack Obama's conversion in favor of offshore drilling on the road to the White House will ease the standoff in the U.S. Congress over energy but forging a veto-proof bill still faces big hurdles.
The Democratic presidential candidate said he would back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader package, signaling support for legislation unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators just before Congress recessed on Friday.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post in Florida on Friday.
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0340213420080803
August 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not in favor of it and doesn't like it (and regularly says as much), but he's willing to compromise to limited and restricted drilling as part of a much bigger energy package.
August 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
against it, says it's bad, but willing to allow it. Though it won't affect prices for over a decade, and even then barely.
The enviromental costs, and tourisism hit(a big chunk of the economy for many coastal towns) is huge. There is not limited. That's crap. Him agreeing to this is crap. Can't gloss over the idiocy of this stance.
August 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were right the first time, he flipped...now he's trying to come up with a way to say he flipped without another "B.O. Sucks" group starting on his web page.
August 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got my clarification. It is a "softening" on his position. He clarfies here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-attempts.html
“This wasn’t really a new position. What I’m saying is that we can’t drill our way out of the problem,” he told reporters. “And if we can come up with a genuine bi-partisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don’t like, or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don’t like, in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of energy independence, then that is something I am open to.”
...
“I think is a positive step, so there are a whole bunch of good things that have been proposed by this bi-partisan group," Obama said. "I remain skeptical of some of the drilling provisions, but I will give them credit that the way they crafted the drilling positions are about as careful and responsible as you might expect for a drilling agenda.”
Obama said while he is opening the door to a compromise, he will not support a plan that suggests drilling is the answer to the nation’s energy problems.
*****
this is much better than a flip flop in my opinion.
August 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who cannot tell the difference between supporting a thing and saying that you would be willing to accept allowing it as part of a compromise should be denied the franchise.
August 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You buy that bullshit excuse from Obama? Please!
He flip flopped sure as the sun comes up in the east---and he did it for free whereas they had to payoff MCain. The oil execs oughtta love him!
August 4, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I think you're talking about McCain.
August 4, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I was.
I hope he changes, or clarifies, but it looks like a "compromise" flip flop.
August 4, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can see why he has offered a compromise (no not flip-flopped) when looking at the Rasmussen numbers. The majority (slightly) seem to think McCain is better at handling energy now. Probably in large part due to misconceptions about offshore drilling.
I think this thread kind of dispells that notion McCain is better at handling energy issues, wouldn't you say?
Finally, I'd add Obama hasn't flipped on the issue. He still thinks offshore drilling is a BAD IDEA. Rather he is trying to gain some ground on renewable energy options, by offering a compromise.
Ya know compromise? That thing we haven't seen in about 8 years.
August 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's the integrity thing that bugs me I guess.
Compromise is not a golden concept. Perhaps the lack of compromise over the last eight years has you believing that all comprmise is good.
August 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's the lack of integrity, and the fact that no good will come of this "compromise", but environmental degradation which will impact the economies and the health of small coastal towns.
August 4, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your notion of integrity doesn't change the fact that there will be no energy policy without compromise.
August 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So there can be no energy policy unless we allow the oil companies to drill off the coast, cause real harm to the health of our citizens, keep us on oil, and degrade the environment, which will give an economic hit to towns on the coast?
that's bad leadership. That's playing to the polls, regardless of human life, and the environment.
August 4, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid it looks that way. And given the influence of the oil lobby on vast numbers in Congress, I'm not too surprised by that.
I'm not trying to put down your ideals or disagree with your concerns about offshore drilling. If that perspective didn't exist and provide some level of pushback, the compromises we'd be looking at would be even less inspiring. But I agree with Publicola below that the compromise Obama is backing seems pretty reasonable in the context of the current realities of corporate influence and public opinion.
August 4, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many Dems agree with you. Sad, really. The leadership is finally taking a stand, some what. Could be stalled till the numbers shore up in Congress and Obama is elected. Nope, I'd say Obama is kinda leaving them hanging in the wind.
This is a bad move.
August 4, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
By all means, demand purity on this issue. That's your right. Just understand that (1) no drilling is going to occur in the next 3-5 years (the drilling equipment is booked for that time period drilling on existing offshore leases) and (2) the legislative process is about compromise. So for example the bill being floated in the house would create a 50 mile band around the Florida coast line. 50 miles.
And the ultimate issue still would be decided by . . . Florida and the other states. So you give up on something that is not likely to come to past (and if it does it will be severely limited in scope) to get immediate investment in alternative fuels and rollback tax cuts on the oil companies (the 2005 tax cuts and others).
Doesn't sound like a bad compromise to me. But that's me, your mileage may vary.
August 4, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only purity that counts is in pure support of Obama. I get it. I've read your posts before.
August 4, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then clearly you haven't read them very closely. You don't have to support Senator Obama and my unqualified support of him doesn't constitute an endorsement of his every position. I'm not expecting perfection, just competency.
August 4, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to read that.
August 4, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me how still today people use the term ‘flip flopping’ to discredit or insult candidates. The term is so loosely used that it has almost no meaning (not that it had much meaning in the first place). How is changing your opinion on a topic bad? Compromise is something that has to be done in politics to progress; if everyone stood on their high ground and never budged on anything we would never pass any bills.
Every candidate flip flops because none of these issues are simple and they are required to appease a large base of people who know little about the actual issues at hand. I’m pretty sure we all know that these issues only come up during elections and their positions on topics such as off shore drilling during the election often have very little influence on their positions post election.
Either way this discussion has been blown off topic. We should be discussing campaign finance reforms, not off shore drilling policy.
August 4, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I guess you could look at it that way. To my mind, when a politician says "I favor encouraging green technologies" but gives no specifics about which technologies or what precisely he wants to do to encourage them, I take that to mean that the claim is just an empty claim intended to win gullible votes. I guess, based on that same logic, when Obama says that he could see his way to a compromise on off-shore drilling as part of a larger package, without specifying where or how much off-shore drilling, I take that as an empty promise of the same sort in the "green technologies" example. Perhaps I am being gullible for thinking that, but on the other hand, perhaps the Republicans are being gullible in taking him at his word on this point. It is not clear to me, in other words, just who is being shafted in this case.
August 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I was fuond some clarification on this position. I posted a link further up. I don't like the hint of easying the long standing regs on off shore drilling, but I think he made an inartful statement. I feel much better about his clarfication, which seems to say, I'm open lets talk, but in making that statement, he mounts a fair opposition to off shore drilling as well.
August 4, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
that should say, "yeah, I found.."
August 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The oil companies are exploiting the high gas prices in order to prolong their long term business.
I have yet to hear a sufficient answer as to why companies are not exploring in the territories already approved for offshore drilling. There is no reporter who has yet held anyone's feet to the fire over this. Typically, mention is made of the currently available opportunities and that's it.
I bet that oil companies will not even try (in the immediate future) to explore any new land that may be opened up. They are just increasing their inventory of land now, because this is the best chance they have had in many years.
August 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, I thought Obama was the phoney because according to McCain he has received $400,000 from big oil employees during his campaign.....Since last August!!! Now we hear McCain has recieved $285,000 from Big Oil in the last 5 minutes! How about that?!
August 4, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM is probably licking their lips at the thought of not reporting this.
August 4, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Quality Snark!
August 4, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that qualifies as gold standard snark!
August 4, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you tried to make something like this up nobody would believe you because it's too ridiculous. I mean the day after, the day after...
August 4, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Obama reversed himself too. Guess McCain is more trusted.
August 4, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's laughable....
August 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama reversed nothing. But you seem to not let facts get in the way of your troll attempts.
August 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama now favors offshore drilling
A 180° turn that make his head spin like Linda Blair
August 4, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet another reversal;
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/08/obama_tap_nations_oil_reserve.php
August 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He still adamently says, that offshore drilling is a bad idea that will solve little to nothing.
Parse it all you like.
August 4, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Parse this all you want;
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080801/D929PVL00.html
August 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
in a "quid pro quo", you need both a "quid" and a "quo"
you don't understand what i'm saying at all, do you? (sorry to go all furrin on ya, bubba)
August 4, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What your saying is that Obama couldn't close the deal with the oil companies. Sucker!
August 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
or, obama changed his mind cause he thinks it will help him get things into the legislation he wants. mcCain changed his mind cause he was paid to do so. i can see how someone of your moral caliber would prefer the latter.
August 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
at the expense of the health and the economies of coastal towns.
August 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Potentially. Isn't the following:
particularly the inclusion of "drilling decisions based on science and fact", preferable to drilling decisions based on how much money the Hess family is willing to drop into the McCain coffers?
August 4, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
there is potential there. Absolutely.
But why allow such a thing? Especially if you see no benefit. The harm can be tremendous.
If you get a chance look up what offshore drilling does to a community. I was raised all along the Gulf Coast, so this issue is important to me.
August 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that.
August 4, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not againt Obama, just increasingly, his positions. I hate it.
McCain, the MSM says, must invigorate his base. The Dem base, they call the "activist base" and Obama must ignore them. I'm refusing to be ignored, I guess.
August 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
O really? Where along the Gulf Coast did you grow up?
August 4, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Florida to Texas. Born in Houston, living in Austin, but I sdpent my early years around Pensacola and Brewton.
August 4, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
the Brewton/Mobile area. Brewton alone is probably not enough to let you know what state I mean.
August 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always wanted to see Mobile.
Lucky you - if you have to live in Texas, Austin is the place to be - although it's even hotter than Dallas. God Dallas is hot this summer -
God I'm glad I'm not there.
August 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its been super hot this year. The "over 100 degrees" days in a row count started a couple months ago. I think we had a few days under, here and there.
unusually hot!
last year we had so much "unusual" rain in the summer it was a sweetly mild summer. I got spoiled.
August 4, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is the anti-Obama trolling going? Think you are getting any traction?
August 4, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
conspiracy! conspiracy!
If you can't tell the difference between my comments and the comments of the trolls -nevermind, I have no interest in convincing you otherwise.
Luckily, I've been around here long enough where the other good people know I'm not.
August 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
3rd...and I should know...I play one on TV.
August 4, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're my favorite non-troll, continually called a troll troll.
August 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indie Pro is not trolling.
August 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
2nd.
August 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third.
I can even testify to the fact that Indie Pro and I have had some knock-down drag out fights (over what, I can't remember--had to have been FISA) but Indie Pro isn't a troll.
Neither, dare I say, is SFC.
August 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm your fan CT Voter. You got it all. We can agree. We can argue. You're tops!
August 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
: )
August 4, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the differences between McCain and Obama on off shore drilling are subtle. Let me see if I can explain.
Obama's changed position is called Democracy. You know where people with different points of view compromise to accomplish stuff.
McCain's changed position is called bribery. You know, how Republicans have been doing things for years.
August 4, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on now, watch the "Bubba" remarks...we teach latin at UGA...
August 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I’m saying is that we can’t drill our way out of the problem,” he told reporters.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/obama-attempts.html
August 4, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
...that's McCain's position....drilling is just the bridge to increased Atomic/Solar/Clean Coal/Wind/Future technologies...the term is "Comprehensive"
August 4, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand McCain's position is up for auction on e-bay.
August 4, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
i wish I would've read your link earlier. That is the clarification I was looking for.
Thank you!
August 4, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama now favors offshore drilling.
A 180° turn that make his head spin like Linda Blair.
August 4, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
and mcCain's 180? not so much, cause it was paid for by our betters.
August 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
keep on parsing, it doesn't make it any more true.
August 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your world there is no truth...just Obama's word.
Which at this point means nothing at all.
August 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama
At least I use his statements, and not misleading headlines.
You also know very well that I haven't agreed on Obama's every position.
I also believe in times of crisis, compromise is only solution especially when, as Obama points out....
"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."
End the obstruction. Vote Democratic. Vote Obama.
August 4, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So said the guy with the Obama head on a chicken avatar.....
August 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's probably pissed because his pandering failed. McCain got the loot.
August 4, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
are you calling mcCain a whore? that's outrageous; the kind of thing i'd expect to hear from… well, john mcCain.
August 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may be a whore but he's not a pimp.
August 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
care to elaborate? who is obama pimping?
August 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/172/pimpojk3.jpg
August 4, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, a racist stereotype coming from you. i'm shocked.
August 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now what makes that racist?
You're the one thinking racist thoughts here.
August 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're right, i've forgotten all the white politicians who've been photoshopped into a pimp outfit. thank god people like you are dying out.
meanwhile, mcCain's policy has been bought and paid for by the oil industry.
August 4, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The devil you know versus the devil you don't.
Or is that racist too?
August 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I think racism is part of the human condition and people like fogu2 will be with us always. But today, at least, public racism is being increasingly seen as more like public masturbation, and treated as such.
August 4, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really as stupid as you're making yourself sound?
Just wondering.
August 4, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably too dumb to understand the question.
August 4, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fogu2 revived his old avatar. This must have deep meaning.
August 4, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take two aspirin.
August 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
August 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just channeling Joe Pyne.
August 4, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't your pro-claimed candidate of choice pushing the gas tax holiday? And tapping the strategic oil reserves? Oh wait, your just trying to get a rise out of the thinner skinned folks on this thread.
For a second there I was going to call you a hypocrite, but I realized that you'd actually have to hold a position on something. Troll on brave Troll Warrior, troll on....
August 4, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not my candidate.
But he proposed and is standing by those proposals.
Obama opposed them and now he favors them.
Obama cannot be trusted and has no core beliefs.
He is now the official candidate of the Pander Party.
August 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gas tax holiday.
August 4, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but, that $30 a month was going to end our dependance on foreign oil and people could buy milk again!!
August 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
$1000 Energy stimulus check.
August 4, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, Senator Obama has failed to meet the ever changing standards of Troll Warrior. Oh what will he ever do?
Seriously, I was referring to Senator Clinton or have you dropped all pretense of having been an ardent Clinton supporter?
August 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton remains the best and most electable candidate for president.
August 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
DENVER PUMA 08, party of whine, your table is ready.
August 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"agents of intolerance"
August 4, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
John B. Hess looks like the Simpson's Mr. Burns!
August 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Hess: portrait of an oil company CEO, circa 2008, or a pedophile spying a playground full of children?
August 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shocked.
Shocked.
August 4, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big dollars, big coincedence.
...That's not CHANGE you can believe in.
August 4, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lot of money. Wow. From one company's executives, no less.
August 4, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy this stinks. Someone needs to look more closely at these donations. I'd like to know if any of them came out of trusts- cause I happen to know that wealthy GOP supporters sometimes use family trusts to get around the donation limit rules.
And now that you have the picture of Hess up there, Greg - I just have to say that invariably these people look about how I expect these idiots to look. It gets spooky after awhile that they all look suspect.
August 4, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is Obama's short term energy plan? Tap the reserves, tax the oil companies and give everyone a thousand bucks to shut up?
A couple weeks ago the wind fall tax and elimination of tax breaks was supposed finance alternative energy solutions. Now are we just taking from Peter and to give to Paul?
August 4, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, its more like taking from the pricks to benefit all.
August 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how the troll comes in here to try and flood this topic with their drivel in hopes of killing off the discussion because this revelation is so damning to McCain and his campaign.
August 4, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain + Big Money + Big Oil = Bush III + Bleeding the Republic White
August 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so McCain flip flopped for money. What's Obama's excuse?
August 4, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't.
August 4, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he did. And now he's caving in on releasing oil from the nation's reserves. Weak. Very weak. He's leading in the mold of Harry Reid here: cave in first, whine about it later.
August 4, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wanted to give you and your merry band of Troll Warriors something to talk about. Remember, Trolls are people too.
August 4, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where oh where is TrollCritic 3000?
August 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it's a violation of the trustee's fiduciary duty to make political contributions out of a trust without the beneficiary's consent and it's been known to happen.
And I sure would like to see someone look really closely at these donations.
August 4, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain=Bush=Big Oil
Repeat
Repeat
Repeat
August 4, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain=Bush=Big Oil
August 4, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following energy bills have been killed by Republicans:
--Use It or Lose It Bill (demanding oil companies drill on lands they already are leasing).
--Opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (a proven way to reduce fuel costs)
--Renewable Energy and Job Creation Bill
So, we the Democratic Party has to compromise. The Republicans do not want to compromise, they do not want to solve this crisis.
Remember this when you are voting in November.
Democrats- willing to compromise for solutions
Republicans- obstructionists and stone-wallers to the very end.
August 4, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reknewable Energy Bill: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080610/senate-republicans-kill-renewable-energy-and-job-creation-bill-wheres-mccain
August 4, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Use It or Lose It Bill:
http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/view/democrats-plan-for
August 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Petroleum Reserve Bill:
http://wcco.com/politics/oil.stockpiles.GOP.2.779199.html
August 4, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
all in the last TWO MONTHS.
August 4, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yum.
August 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a pretty bad day to post this, given Obama's recent shift in position.
I'd be more impressed with this if they'd given money the day before McCain flipped. Also, if we found out that McCain or people in his campaign had been meeting with and lobbying these individuals then we'd have a pretty strong smoking gun.
The American public is in favor of drilling and McCain made that reversal when it was seen as a popular talking point and he was desperate to make traction against Obama.
Obama has reversed from no-drilling to "drilling as part of a comprehensive plan" and he did that because he could see the way the political winds were blowing. I happen to support Obama and I have long supported this exact position on drilling, so I'm pretty happy with his change.
However if Obama gets contributions from oil people will we say he's in the pocket of the oil execs? Not if we base it on simple circumstantial evidence.
Pretty weak stuff, Greg and Eric. Come back with something solid.
August 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weak? Members of an oil company, from executives to a guy who works for Amtrack and is married to an office manager, each donate the max to GOP's McCain fund?
How is that weak?
August 4, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no meat here that links McCain to these people. It's circumstantial fluff.
August 4, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're dead wrong Robby.
It is quite apparent that the two Hess employees in question were/are in no position to make donations of that size from their personal funds. It is a felony to deliberately evade the source of funds for a federal campaign contribution of that size. While the McCain campaign itslef needn't be directly involved they wouldn't need to be brain surgeons to figure out that these two were not the source of the funds they were donating.
Contrary to what you are saying, this specific instance is a substantial expose of political money laundering that implicates the people who fronted for the actual donor/donors, Hess execs, and the McCain campaign itself.
August 4, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me, but you're dead wrong. My point was that there's no "meat" to the implication that there was a quid-pro-quo for McCain. You are projecting your own hopes and desires to conclude that McCain is involved. Just because Hess had his employees launder money does not instantly link McCain to any impropriety. If it turns out to be illegal and McCain returns it, that's sort of the end of the story now isn't it?
August 5, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain=Bush=Big Oil
Repeat
Repeat
Repeat
McCain received $1.1 million from oil commpaines AFTER he flipped on off-shore drilling.
There isn't anything more damning than that.
August 4, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be more damning if we found out that McCain had been lobbying for the money. Until we know that, then this is nothing more than circumstantial drek and conjecture.
Obama has received over $300k from oil companies prior to his current shift in position. Without true evidence of a quid-pro-quo for McCain, then all we're doing is setting up Obama for the same superficial scrutiny.
August 4, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't make it any less illegal if it turned out that Mrs Office Manager and hubby got a $57,000 bonus.
August 4, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, yes it would. It depends on the timing of the bonus and the amounts. The bonus would not be 57,000 since that amount is post tax compensation. The bonus would be higher in the amount of probably 80,000.
If the bonus you alleged occurred relatively close to or after this donation was made and the bonus equates to the amount of the donation, it is a pretty easy case to prove that these two individuals and the Hess corporation attempted to circumvent federal election laws. Adding in the fact that the individuals never donated to a campaign until this year and you can basically assume that that Alice and her husband are screwed.
If I were them, I would get a lawyer very quickly. They are knee deep in it...
August 4, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's my point. You might not be able to come up with a documented quid pro quo between Hess and the McCain campaign, but using sockpuppets to get around caps is the kind of thing that gets the FEC very interested. Not saying that happened here, but it sets off all sorts of alarms. Big fine, and potentially jail time. But that fun's in the other thread...
August 4, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment/sarcasm. I see we agree.
August 4, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard he got a $50 gas card too...
August 4, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like oil company executives were laundering money to the McCain campaign. Either that, or Hess and Amtrak pay their employees rather handsomely.
August 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. Why wasn't THIS in the Obama ad?
August 4, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
you know, i'm sure the IRS would LOVE to know where that office manager and amtrak employee family came up with $56,000 (or was it $57,000? not sure).
and i hope someone lets them know that you can go to prison for tax evasion.
August 4, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody consider that Obama's "Compromise" on offshore drilling might be that leases will be given offshore, but oil companies have to give up their unused leases on land? This would be a compromise but perhaps the added cost of offshore drilling would have oil companies saying "Thanks but no thanks".
August 4, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg and Eric,
Kudos to you!
Excellent catch on the office manager and her husband! This could turn into something substantial. This sort of thing, of course, goes on all the time, but rarely is it so demonstrably obvious that the donor isn't the actual source of funds.
Congratulations again on a fine catch! Let's hope this cause the RNC and the McCain camp some serious headaches in days to come.
August 4, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Headaches for the McCain camp? They don't have headaches, not with the MSM drooling all over their candidate for some reason. McCain is dangerous. Obama is simply less principled than we had hoped. Which is the lesser of the two evils?
August 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone else grown weary of this whole campaign cycle? I am tired of hearing another "Me too! Count me in!" from Obama on everything from FISA to off-shore drilling and am beginning to wonder whatever happened to his principles, promises and dedication. McCain has shown himself to be a desperately power-hungry man. Obama seems merely to be a man adrift. What a shame. I had high hopes.
August 4, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's doing what so many Dems do, let the Republicans set the agenda. Now he has to defend and follow. Much better to say he has the position of strength and McCain doesn't. Instead he lets McCain attack and lead. He had better shape up, or this won't end well.
August 4, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
go TPM!
August 4, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain's just looking out for the average American and the Little Guy. Just like me, Traitor Joe.
August 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
rachael m. just gave tpm a shout out on 'race for the white house'........... congrats
August 4, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like Johnny Mc is taking a cue from the Susan Harris Campaign Fundraising Booklet, "All Employees on Board. NOW!" Subtle, very subtle.
August 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind hair splitting the "reversal vs. compromise" question, what about the "he started out as a leader and now he's a buckle-under-er" question?
August 4, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great reporting by TPM!
It is REALLY suspicious that someone who makes
Something is really fishy here.
August 4, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well what did we expect from Mc Cain the STRAIGHT TALKER who the media is in love with, he will sell his soul to be president.
August 4, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it odd? When I contribute $25 to the DNC I have to sign a statement that it is my own personal money and that no one is giving me the money to donate. I suppose I should try donating $28,500 next time to see if I still have to sign that statement. I'll do without roasted almonds this week so I can try that next week.
August 4, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oil controls everything this country has done for the past 50 years (at least) and a Democratic win meant (before Obama's adjusted stance) that oil was going to only be a small portion of our country's energy future. So it makes sense that these oil tycoons would continue to contribute big to the party that has supported it by stopping the development of clean energy technology. Exxon announces its biggest quarterly profits ever and Obama suddenly thinks drilling offshore isn't a bad idea after all. You gotta think the Obama camp knew about the Hess donations before the recent energy commercial was finalized, but didn't include it because they're expecting some donations of their own. The political process will forever be controlled by oil until the private sector comes up with clean energy solutions that are widely adapted.
August 4, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, McCain said he'd do anything to be president and I believe he is keeping his promise.
As for the donations .... I've said for years today you buy your way in office. This is evident in city, county, state and federal levels of government. Many well qualified individuals with real integrity to serve with honor cannot because they do not have the financial backing. Pretty sad!
August 4, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is to sad to pass up...
McCain: I'll Come Back To Senate For Oil
On Monday, John McCain lambasted Congress for adjourning without passing an energy bill, saying he'd be willing to "come off the campaign trail" and return to Washington if Democratic leadership would simply "come off of vacation" and go to work on off-shore drilling.
"The Congress, doing nothing, decided to go on a five-week recess,'' said McCain. "Congress should come back into session... and I'm willing to come off the campaign trail."
If he follows through on his threat -- and it seems incredibly unlikely -- it would mean that the promise of more oil did what equal pay for women, greater veterans benefits, and a bevy of environmental and energy issues have not: mainly, persuade McCain to actually return to the Senate. Indeed, by this point in time, the nation's capital is likely foreign land for the presumptive Republican nominee. In all, McCain has missed 63.3% of votes in the 100th Congress: 399 votes all together.
Here are a few of the most notable issues that, unlike off shore drilling, couldn't persuade the Senator into legislative action:
-Medicare Reimbursement Cuts, 7/9/08
-The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 7/9/08
-The New GI Bill, 6/28/08
-A $44 Billion Stimulus Package (McCain was in D.C. at the time) 2/7/08
-Equal Pay Legislation, 2/23/08
-All 15 Key Environmental Votes, according to the League of Conservation Voters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/mccain-ill-come-back-to-s_n_116876.html
August 5, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is almost too obvious to ask:
Why would the Hess family want John McCain to be President?
The simple answer, is that they love their childern, and they want financial security for themselves and their children.
The individuals who lead the oil companies, and who are now contributing very generously to John McCain, are clearly motivated to see off-shore oil leases put up for bid. But why?
Why the heck would the oil companies want to pay for more leases, when they don't seem to want to develop the leases already on their books?
It's a serious question, and whether or not the answer helps us solve all of our problems, it's worth asking because it directly effects what is quickly becoming the biggest un-neccasry burden on the American economy.
Any honest assesment of the current global trends would suggest an increase in the value of oil co-inciding with a decrease in the value of the dollar. Eight years from today, oil could easily be $300/barrel.
Is it possible that the Hess family wants to sign new leases, because the oil companies are projecting $300+ oil.
Companies are valued based on their projected revenues and assets. And executives are rewarded for increasing the value of the company. If Mr Hess (any or all of them), can claim they signed a billion barrel lease, then they can claim to have increased the value of the company by $300 billion. I would expect most companies would reward such an employee handsomely.
The take home message, is this:
If these guys are doing what they are paid to do (increase the stock value of the company), they will simultaneously try to increase the estimate of the oil in potential reserves, and find ways to increase demand (and therefore price) for the oil lease he is signing.
At least in the short term, this will reward his stock holders and himself.
Drilling for oil is an expense with an undefined, delayed reward. An oil exec would have to wait 5 to 10 years to learn whether he would be rewarded for risk he took. Buying leases, on the other hand is like free money. While the cost of the lease is minimal, the asset is immediate. And as we've learned with the mortgage debacle, people are not afraid to over-estimate the value of the product if they think it will make them a buck.
Evil or not, this seems obvious to me.
August 5, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And shall we hear you report it when these or similar energy company executives give to the DNC now that O-blah-blah has decided to give in on off shore oil drilling?
I thought not.
And lest we forget it was the precious one that voted for the egregious Bush Cheny energy bill in the senate not McCain (or Hillary).
When push comes to shove the chosen one always caves.
August 5, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink