WH: Idea that BP Given Special Exemption Because of Campaign Cash to Obama “Silly and Ridiculous”

[ProSense]

White House: Idea that BP Given Special Exemption Because of Campaign Cash to Obama “Silly and Ridiculous”

<...>

UPDATE: Some adminsitration officials got in touch with me about this blog post, to note that the process of BP having received an exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act "is more complicated than the Post story" made it seem.

"There are a lot of layers in the NEPA review process," one administration official said, pointing out that it's a five year process that began for BP in 2004.

In 2004 and 2007 most of the decisions were made regarding the federal government granting the "categorical exclusion."

Then, the official said, "somebody buried deep in MMS made a determination in 2009 that this particular well could qualify for what was already an established routine action."

Officials from the president's Council on Environmental Quality believe that these categorical exclusions may be granted too readily, so in February 2010 they informed agencies "that they need to review how we're issuing categorical exclusions. That guidance is currently out for comment."

more

When will Obama be accused of doing something for his biggest donors: the American people?

The misleading reports about which organization gave how much to the Obama campaign are ridiculous. In 2008, candidate Obama received the most donations from the University of California ($1,591,395), with Harvard ($854,747) and U.S. Government ($494,820) occupying the third and 19th slot, respectively.

The employees of those organizations contributed significantly more than BP employees' $71,000, which is less than the $74,000 in donations from SEIU and the $86,862 from the NEA.

[depakid]

1. Nevertheless, the implication is there

and undermines the legitimacy and integrity of the American political system.

[ProSense]

2. Ridiculous.

It's funny to watch people twisting in the wind over BS spin. Have at it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

23. What's ridicuous is to read spin that ignores a fundamental reality of the American political system

If this were the Bush administration, you and others would be screaming bloody murder (and rightly so).

What this goes to show (once again) is that hyper partisans (and unfortunately, Americans in general) no longer have a sense of ethics- and that may stem from the fact that it's rarely taught or emphasized in schools, or discussed with any sincerity in the corporate media.

What's undeniable here is that the situation creates an appearance of impropriety. Other politicians and candidates have sought to avoid this by not accepting corporate campaign contributions- or in some cases, avoiding placing themselves in a position where there may seems to be a conflict of interest.

[ProSense]

25. "If this were the Bush administration, you and others would be screaming bloody murder ...

(and rightly so)."

Hogwash. Why the hell would anyone scream because a candidate received individual contributions of $71,000 (in hundreds of million)?

What this story shows his how desperate some people have become.

[depakid]

26. I don't expect objectivity from you on this or any point relating (even remotely) to Obama

Nor do I expect you to take the practice of bundling into account- nor to accept the fact that appearances of impropriety will affect how any politician is perceived when similar circumstances arise.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

30. Nor do I expect propriety or much sense of maturity based on the nature of your posts

[ProSense]

33. Don't make me laugh. n/t

[amborin]

40. $76.5 million from elite bundlers is what O got

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

[depakid]

42. That fact alone doesn't prove a point re: allegations of favoritism, etc.

But what it does do is cast a pall around decisions that were made at agencies (and sub agencies) that can in turn be attributed up the hierarchy to elected leaders who received contributions to campaigns.

It's a different sort of corruption than what was alleged with someone like Billy Tauzin for example, who actively sheparded the Medicare Part D scam though Congress, only to turn around and take the top job at PhARMA. Allegations (not followed up on) were that he was in negotiations for a multi-million dollar job as the head of the pharmaceutical lobbying/trade association during the time he was playing his role as a Republican headbanger.

Have a look at the vitae on the wiki entry, and judge for yourself what sort of ethics- or sense of values and beliefs this man may or may not have held:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin

Then compare it with some others who have held true during difficult political times- at some risk to themselves (in financial terms) and their careers.

[branders seine]

3. yes. it is silly and ridiculous that we have a system of governance

funded by bribes delivered by those from whom our government should protect us to those who pretend to be our protectors.

It's as though the Mafia paid the salaries of our cops.

Silly.

Ridiculous.

Neither of which contradicts "true."

[ProSense]

4. "funded by bribes "

Who was bribed?

[branders seine]

5. Every campaign contribution is a bribe.

Otherwise, corporations and their lobbyists wouldn't do it.

[ProSense]

7. "Otherwise, corporations and their lobbyists wouldn't do it. " What?

Corporations do not donate, and the administration did not accept PAC money.

What did Americans and unions get for their "bribes"?

[branders seine]

8. So BP did not donate to Obama?

If that is your position, then argue it.


What did they get?

Much much much less than Goldman Sachs, BP and PHARMA got.

[girl gone mad]

13. Americans kept Republicans out of the WH.

Other than that, we didn't get a whole lot for our bribes.

[rudy23]

11. Yes! Great catch--"silly and ridiculous" does not mean "untrue" nt

[ipaint]

17. It's called bundling.

That is the way industries get around campaign finance laws. Obama had hundreds of them. They are the same as bush's rangers and pioneers.

Unbundled individual donations made up most of obamas donations although bundled donations don't have to be disclosed so who knows what the total was. The bundled money buys favorable policies and ambassadorships.

It is interesting that hundreds of millions of dollars came from folks all around the country and it wasn't enough to buy a watered down version of the public option.

[ProSense]

18. "It's called bundling." $71, 000 in bundling?

What a crock.

[ipaint]

21. I was replying to post 3 about the general system of campaign finance.

Try to keep up.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Nobody mentions Halliburton who was implicated as the cementer of the rig

[HughMoran]

12. Shhhhh

BP is the 'big name', ignore Transocean and Halliburton!

[underpants]

20. Of course not

it is bad for business and who wants THAT?

[still_one]

9. What pisses me off is that some people on DU propogate those misleading reports

in threads without describing the full story

[SidDithers]

41. +1...nt

Sid

[WCGreen]

14. He raised what 100's of millions and he is going to be swayed

by 71,000 from BP Employees...

[ProSense]

15. It's a special $71,000

worth more than the other $778.9 million in contributions. Without that $71,000, he couldn't possibly win the election.

People are ridiculous.

[hulka38]

27. You are implying that it's BPs $71K against $779 million in other contributions as if

that $779 mil is a monolithic sum working in the opposite direction of BP. That huge sum of money represents nearly every issue imaginable. Much of it represents no issue specifically. Almost none of it represents the opposite of what BPs $71K represents.

$71,000 buys you some favor in any administration. And that $71,000 is specifically targeted. It says, "when the time comes, favor us."

No one is saying the President needed $71,000 to win the election.

[ProSense]

29. "$71,000 buys you some favor in any administration." What?

Buys who favors, the individual employees?

This is ridiculous.

[hulka38]

31. $71K from any group

is a good sized political contribution and will be noticed by the receiver of that contribution.


Wha, what do you mean? This is preposterous.

[ProSense]

32. Group? Employees do not donate as a group.

I donate, it's listed with the industry and employer. Why is this a hard concept to grasp?

[hulka38]

34. Maybe he's not aware that BP employees donated a good chunk of cash to him.

I'd bet he does. Whether that means he gets BP off the hook because of it is a stretch but that wasn't my point in post #27.

[WCGreen]

35. You really think that he is that Venal, that for the cost of one modest

media buy in a place like Fort Wayne would be enough for him to cede favor?

You are so very cynical.

[Marr]

37. It's actually hilarious to watch you arguing that money from big business

plays no role in politics.

Maybe when you're done you can tell us all about the Moon and how it's made of delicious cheese.

[ipaint]

16. Who is number 2? nt

[ProSense]

19. Goldman Sachs

Again, the money came from their employees. Are you implying that the money bought them an investigation?

[ipaint]

22. It certainly bought them a few positions in the administration.

In the end Goldmans sachs will walk away with a slap on the wrist and maybe a couple mid level convictions. Minor irritations for them.

And yes that was a bundled contribution and exactly the way corporations get around donation limits. Bush did the exact same thing.

And the amount is what was disclosed. There is no law requiring full disclosure.

This is a major flaw in campaign financing and was protested though the bush terms as such. It's bribery.

[Marr]

38. Oh, yes-- the Obama Administration has been very hard on Goldman Sachs.

They've even stolen a lot of their employees.

This is almost comedic.

[Arkana]

24. I don't understand this. By some DUers' logic, if you have a job

at a large insurance company, a defense contractor, a pharmaceutical firm or any publicly traded outfit, you cannot donate to a Democrat because your money is "dirty".

I donated over $1,000 to Obama. There were over 20K employees in the company I worked for at the time and I'm sure a fair number of them did too. The company I worked for was one of the largest insurance companies in the Northeast.

Does that put Obama in the pocket of Big Insurance?

[girl gone mad]

36. Was your contribution bundled or not?

There is a reason corporations bundle. To pretend otherwise is naive.

[amborin]

39. Obama got $76,500,000 or $76.5 million from elite bundlers

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638