The Associated Press has an "Obama fact check" on the campaign's claims that he doesn't accept money from oil companies. Here are the most damning stats they could produce on either candidate:
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....
In January and February alone, Obama received nearly $18,000 from
Exxon Mobil workers, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Most of the donations were of $250 or less; the money came from
workers ranging from executives to engineers to geologists to shift
supervisors. Overall, he has raised about $34,000 from Exxon Mobil
workers since the beginning of his campaign. Exxon Mobil employees
have given Clinton about $16,000 since the beginning of last year.
Saying you don't accept money from oil companies when such direct donations are illegal is spin-tastic. The amounts cited are piddling, though, when both Obama and Clinton are taking in between $20 million and $55 million monthly - largely from individual donors. Are we really contending that $18k from the employees of Exxon Mobile during Primary season is going to impede either candidate's energy policies? These are both people-powered candidates. We Democrats should be immensely proud of that.
AP appeared to source most of its reporting from Open Secrets, run by the Center for Responsive Politics. There's some interesting data there on both Clinton and Obama. Clinton has received a paltry 1% from PACs - but that still amounts to $1.15 million this election cycle. Obama, by contrast, has received close to 0 percent of his funding from PACs, with the totals coming under $14,000. Obama continues to set huge fundraising records, built largely off of contributions from small donors.
What's most disturbing, though, is that both campaigns have large amounts of "undisclosed" money. Clinton leads here, with over $13 million undisclosed - a greater percentage of her total haul than Obama, who has over $8 million undisclosed. This is disappointing in Obama's case (who are these donors?), but even more surprising in Clinton's case: her 2004 Senate bid shows she only had $263,180 (3.4%) in undisclosed contributions.
Obama's disclosure rating from the Center for Responsive Politics is better than Clinton's, to be sure. Clinton's ranking is marginally worse than John McCain's, for crying out loud. And Clinton has a mounting problem in the form of her enormous debt load - close to $9 million, according to the February 2008 report. Clinton's unpaid debts have caught media flack lately. As well they should. How can a candidate for the people continue stiff-arming small vendors who depend upon speedy turnaround of invoices?
But the larger question remains: why aren't both candidates at 100% campaign finance disclosure? Why aren't we demanding full disclosure from all of our candidates? What mysterious reason is there for keeping millions in campaign contributions under lock and key from the electorate?