Oil Companies

You're not going to believe this, but Sen. Roy Blunt voted to protect obscene tax giveaways for the biggest five oil companies on the planet yesterday. 

In unrelated news, Blunt has accepted more than $1M in campaign contributions from Big Oil and other energy interests since heading to Washington.

More on the GOP plan to protect Big Oil as they pretend to care about federal deficits:

No one could have predicted that Roy Blunt would oppose restricting the billions of taxpayer dollars handed out to the five biggest oil companies.  

Meanwhile, oil company profits are at record highs, and very few Americans are on board with Blunt's plan to protect the most profitable companies on the planet.  Key facts:

• More than 70% of Americans want to get rid of subsidies for Big Oil, and nearly 75% support increased federal funding for clean energy innovation.
• Oil and gas companies spent $16 million last year to elect Republicans, and $146 million on lobbying in 2010 alone.
• This week, Senate Democrats -- including our own Claire McCaskill -- unveiled a plan to save more than $20 billion by eliminating tax giveaways for oil companies.
• High gas prices mean massive profits for oil companies - Exxon's profits jumped nearly 70%as they raked in over $10 billion since January alone.

Following up on last week's post about how Jefferson City's own Adam Smith Foundation has funneled $498,000 into a California campaign to suspend California's greenhouse gas reduction law, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the money came from "about 10 individuals," and not from corporations or industry groups.  But incredibly, Foundation president John Elliott previously told reporters that "he did not recall who contributed the money or who had argued for spending the money on California's Prop. 23."

The Chronicle breaks down the legal questions surrounding the huge cash transfers, and notes that "neither the spokeswoman for the campaign to pass Prop. 23 nor a lawmaker leading the effort said they had contact with the group, and they did not know any of its leaders."

So far, the other major contributors to the campaign to pass Prop. 23 are the Valero and Tesoro oil companies, which have spent $5.025 million on the campaign. Valero donated $3 million Friday, bringing its total contributions to $4.5 million. Some of the largest U.S. coal companies are headquartered in Missouri.

The legal issue is whether the foundation, which is named for the 18th century economist, violated its status as a 501(c)4 organization under IRS rules. Such nonprofits are supposed to exist "only to promote social welfare," but they can have some political involvement, according to the IRS.

However, the IRS guide for such states, "in order to retain tax-exempt status ... an organization must ensure that its political campaign activities do not constitute the organization's primary activity."

The foundation, created in 2007, has received $93,500 in contributions over the past three years, according to its tax filings. It has made some small donations to conservative groups in Missouri during that time. It consists of a president, treasurer, two directors and an unpaid executive director, Elliott said. He said the group meets either monthly or quarterly.

When first contacted by The Chronicle, Elliott said he did not recall who contributed the money or who had argued for spending the money on California's Prop. 23.

A new ad from the League of Conservation Voters was posted to their YouTube account last night.

The ad features footage from this KSPR interview conducted last November during which Roy Blunt made the absurd claim that this sort of television ad was "a way to violate – it's a way to get around the campaign finance laws." It's worth remembering Blunt's disgust and outrage with all third-party advertisements as we prepare for the big media buys to come.

Roy Blunt, one of the all-time top ten recipients of BP campaign contributions, this morning happily agreed with the notion that "President Obama could wind up doing more damage down in the Gulf than BP ever did" with a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. FM NewsTalk 97.1 personality Jamie Allman made charge, to which Blunt said, "Well, that's right."

ALLMAN: Isn't it weird how President Obama could wind up doing more damage down in the Gulf than BP ever did? I mean, you know, honestly, in terms of the job loss. And again, we see another example, where the President, despite a federal court case or whatever, is going to figure out a way to get around it. So that no matter what the federal court might decide on this moratorium, he's already been able to finesse the ability to stop drilling down there.

BLUNT: Well, that's right.  And he had, he's had two choices, two chances to walk away and say, "Well, we've got to look at this again. The courts have ruled, let's try to keep these jobs here."

Listen to the full interview -- the excerpt above picks up at the 4:05 mark: 

The Star: "[Joe] Barton's remarks have been a public relations disaster for the GOP and a campaign gift to the Democrats.  Asked for their reaction, only Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas among local GOP House members said that Barton 'was wrong.' Rep. Sam Graves sidestepped the question and stated what he said was the obvious: 'Obviously, our first priority must be to stop the leak. Then we have to find out exactly what went wrong so it doesn’t happen again.' Then Graves criticized Obama for 'looking for people to blame.' But not a word about Barton."

Graves is also a member of the House Republican Study Committee, which called the $20B BP escrow fund a "Chicago-Style Political Shakedown."

Sam Graves, Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer are all members of the Republican Study Committee, which called the $20B BP escrow fund a "Chicago-Style Political Shakedown." And Roy Blunt says he “really didn’t have a reaction” when his buddy Joe Barton apologized to BP and called the fund a "shakedown."  Nice work, team.

The Star:

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri said today that he “really didn’t have a reaction” to one of his Republican House colleague’s remark that President Obama was extorting money out of oil giant BP to compensate victims of the gulf oil spill.

Joe Barton apologizes to BP for the creation a fund to help oil spill victims, and Blunt "didn't have a reaction." He can't even pretend to be disgusted? Yikes.

Whatever the explanation, I'm confident that it has nothing to do with the fact that both men are  among "the all-time top 10 recipients of BP money in the House." Or the $5,000 Barton's PAC gave to Blunt this cycle.

The Associated Press has posted a new analysis of oil and gas interest contributions to members of the the House Energy and Commerce Committee for 2009-2010.

Who's #1?  Roy Blunt, toping even Joe Barton (R-TX). 

Blunt has received $133,100, and Barton has received $100,470. No one else was in the six figures; the average total for members of the committee is $25,040.

The Republican Study Committee -- of which Sam Graves, Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer are members -- is calling the new $20B BP escrow fund a "Chicago-Style Political Shakedown."

Really?   Are Graves, Akin and Luetkemeyer down with this silliness?

Forbes' Business in the Beltway blog looks at the Washington lawmakers who are "friendly with Big Oil" and have accepted the most oil and gas industry. 

Guess who is second biggest recipient in the entire House?  Roy Blunt.

How does a congressman from Southwest Missouri earn "Big Oil's Six-Figure Love," and get oil company PACs to hold downtown DC fundraisers just for you and become one of the all time Top 10 recipients of BP oil money?   Probably by standing up for consumer doing whatever the oil companies want.

Roy Blunt would like to remind everyone that federal law prohibits corporations from writing checks directly to federal candidates. Please remember that "Big Oil's Six-Figure Love" for Blunt comes from oil company executives, oil company PACs and fundraisers organized by oil company lobbyists in Washington. And his status as one of the all time Top 10 recipients of BP oil money?  That's just from executives and lobbyists for BP -- not the company itself.

That's essentially Blunt's response to questions from KY3's Steve Grant about what voters should think when they learn of his enormous oil company support.  Watch:

OpenSecrets.org writes today about "Big Oil's Six-Figure Love" for 2010 candidates, including one Roy Blunt. Blunt happens to be a member of an exclusive "six-figure club" for his many oil and gas campaign contributions.

In fact, Blunt has received more oil and gas money than all but five candidates in the country this cycle; he's already accepted $133,100 for 2010.

Another recent analysis from the Center for Repsonsive Politics shows that Blunt is one of "the all-time top 10 recipients of BP money in the House."

Politico:

As Congress investigated its role in the doomed Deep Horizon oil rig, Halliburton donated $17,000 to candidates running for federal office, giving money to several lawmakers on committees that have launched inquiries into the massive spill.

The Texas-based oil giant’s political action committee made 14 contributions during the month of May, according to a federal campaign report filed Wednesday – 13 to Republicans and one to a Democrat. It was the busiest donation month for Halliburton’s PAC since Sept. 2008.

Of the 10 current members of Congress who got money from Halliburton in May, seven are on committees with oversight of the oil spill and its aftermath.

Which House committees have launched inquiries?  The Energy and Commerce committee is one of them.

Who sits on the Energy and Commerce committee?  Roy Blunt.

And did Roy Blunt benefit from Halliburton's conspicuous giving spree?  Of course he did.

The Prime Buzz:

Rep. Roy Blunt says he'll offer a bill expanding the liability caps oil companies can obtain when drilling  offshore.

The Blunt bill mirrors the Senate proposal Prime Buzz reported earlier in the week -- a liability cap of $150 million or a year of profits, whichever is higher.

Democrats want to raise the cap to a flat $10 billion.  The current cap is $75 million.

Blunt's announcement comes after his campaign repeatedly failed to clarify his views on paying for clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. (emphasis added)

UPDATE: Meanwhile, The Star's Dave Helling notes Blunt's "puzzling" reluctance to let people know what he thinks about legislation to expand the cap on oil company damage liability, despite "several requests for comment."

The Post-Dispatch's Jake Wagman reports from today's St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association meeting:

On the spill, [Roy] Blunt cautioned against overreacting— increasing penalties for companies that spill oil, he said, will decrease competition and ensure only large companies access to deep-sea reserves. (Are there small companies with ocean drilling platforms?)

I think Wagman asks a reasonable question here: How many "small" companies can finance a deep sea drilling rig?  And why shouldn't we expect the responsible parties to give up some of their obscene profits if taxpayers are required to pay for all or part of  the problems they caused? 

In completely unrelated news, Blunt is one of the "the all-time Top 10 recipients" of BP oil money in the House, and happens to be a "Washington Superstar" when he appears at a DC gala sponsored by Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and ConocoPhillips.

Rep. Sam Graves has been thinkin' real hard about the oil gushing into Gulf of Mexico, and has found the root cause of the disaster: We're not drilling in ANWR.  No, seriously. 

Like many of you, I’ve been following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This tragic environmental disaster is partly the result of America’s unworkable energy plan. We wouldn’t need to drill hundreds of miles off the coast, in thousands of feet of water if we had access to fossil fuel deposits located onshore in the United States.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is a perfect example of how we can drill safely and in an environmentally responsibly way on land we already control...

Because of self-imposed onshore drilling limitations, America is more dependent than ever on foreign sources of energy. The only way we can become less dependent on overseas oil is to develop American sources of energy, like ANWR and our massive reserves of oil shale in other western states. 

Huh?

Is Graves really saying that we should abandon all offshore drilling because it's too dangerous, and instead we could get all the oil we need from the in-no-way-risky ANWR and oil shale mining?  I doubt it.  Say what you will about the merits and dangers of ANWR drilling, but this is a rather pathetic attempt to use the Deepwater Horizon disaster to advance a completely unrelated issue. 

Oh, and there are other ways to become less depended on foreign sources of oil, such as using less oil.

h/t MPNblog.com

Image credit: IBTimes

OpenSecrets.org:

If BP faces heavy federal scrutiny, it's well-positioned to fight back: The London-based company has consistently spent top dollar to influence legislative and regulatory activity in Washington, D.C., the Center for Responsive Politics finds...

In 2009, individuals and political action committees associated with BP donated $16,000 to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

In addition, five of the all-time top 10 recipients of BP money in the House of Representatives sit on the House Energy Committee: John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) Joe Barton(R-Tex.), Ralph M. Hall (R-Tex.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Fred Upton, (R-Mich.).

All have received upward of $13,000 from BP-related individuals and political action committees during the past two decades.

What did you do last night?  If your name is Roy Blunt, you were among the "Washington superstars" rubbing elbows with executives from Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Marathon, Valero and other corporations on Embassy Row in Washington, DC. 

The Washington Times reports today that Blunt was among the VIPs at the 2010 Kuwait-America Foundation Gala Dinner that "rivaled the Academy Awards celebration going on at the same time." The Hill paints us a picture:

The 144 guests at the intimate affair were also treated to musical selections by Motown singer-songwriter duo Ashford and Simpson, singing hits like “Solid as a Rock” and “You’re All I Need to Get By.” They ended their set with “Aint’ No Mountain High Enough,” which got the normally serious Washington crowd bobbing their heads and singing along.

Dr. Fareed Zakaria served as master of ceremonies during the four-course meal, which included: smoked salmon and sevruga caviar, a wild mushroom and foie gras terrine, New York sirloin strip steak, asparagus spears and wasabi mashed potatoes, salted caramel ice cream with chocolate crunch cake, and traditional Arabic coffee and sweets.