Well, not exactly Phil. Here what an Associated Press Fact Check has to say on the issue. It is true, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No one does - it's illegal. It's sort of like Obama saying "I don't rob banks to finance my campaign" - that would be illegal too. But he also does not take money from oil company political action committees (PACs) or lobbyists.
But boy, he sure does take money from people who work for oil companies. A lot of money. Not as much, however, as Clinton and Sen. John McCain do.
"As of Feb. 29, Obama's presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center's totals."
But then in the comments, one "Philip" added,
Tom, Please condsider two points in your further reporting on this subject.
1. The essential question is whether there is a meaningful difference between taking PAC money and taking individual contributions from people who work for a company. I would argue there is a significant difference. NPR might conclude they are not different and opt to blur the differences Obama is seeking to make. Whatever you conclude, perhaps NPR could explain its approach and not simply report it one way. A few days ago, a seperate story confused the subject by reporting on each candidates' contributions from "investment banks and their PACs" or something similar, when in fact, Sen. Obama does not take PAC money. To use that phraseology is to take a clear position on the question without clearly saying so.
2. On this specific story, taking money from a company PAC is much closer to taking money from a company than taking money from its individual employees is like taking money from the company. The WHOLE POINT of a PAC is to aggregate contributions so that they can be delivered with a "company message." Again, perhaps this could be explored in a NPR story. I would be interested to hear about how major US corporations handle contributions -- from PACs and individuals. My experience is that a company CEO or head of government relations schedules a lunch with the candidate or attends a small fundraiser and hands the candidate a check for $10,000 while asking the candidate to support some company-related project or request. When individuals give, they often do not deliver a company message but rather deliver a personal message.
Sent by Philip | 11:55 AM ET | 04-01-2008 [emph mine]
And what if that "personal message" is part and parcel of the company message? If the individual's financial interests are wholly wrapped up in the company's interests, what then is the "significant difference" that Philip mentions?
That is so completely disingenuous! You know good and well if McCain received money say, from some big wig at Haliburton, the Left would have IMMEDIATELY pounced on the association but Obama hyped followers cannot bring themselves to face the obvious: Obama is just a run-of-the-mill politician like EVERYONE HE DECRIES.