Interesting analysis from the Rachel Maddow Show in an article titled “Money From Big Oil Isn’t Always What It Appears To Be”. The information presented ran VERY CONTRARY to the information Bernie, his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters are perpetuating. I find this source very credible, as Steve Benen is an Emmy Nominated political writer for The Rachel Maddow Show and an extremely respected political journalist. Some of the highlights:
www.msnbc.com/...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For its part, the Sanders campaign highlighted the encounter and insisted that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry.” This morning, the senator himself repeated the charge, arguing, “The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.”
The point of the criticisms is hardly subtle: Sanders and his supporters want Democrats to see Clinton as someone who may not follow through on her energy and environmental commitments because of the money she’s received from Big Oil.
So, is that fair? Let’s unwrap this a bit.
The Washington Post published a report today, relying on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which drew an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: technically, both Clinton and Sanders have received money from “the oil and gas industry.”
The total for Clinton’s campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders’s, it’s about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer.
If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that’s counted as “oil and gas industry” money.
It would be ridiculous, of course, to suggest the Sanders has been corrupted because that guy, “feeling the Bern,” chipped in $27. But because of the way contributions are categorized, money from an oil company CEO and a donation from a gas-station janitor are both counted the exact same way: it’s technically money from the “oil and gas industry.”
MSNBC’s report noted that Clinton has not “taken any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry, or companies themselves.” Lobbyists with at least some connection to the industry have made contributions, but the bulk of that money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
So my question is… Why, if there is so little air between Hillary and Sanders, is his campaign pushing a weak, if not completely untrue narrative about Hillary? Desperation? Swinging maliciously to tear down the front runner? It seems to me if this is untruthful… Bernie is damaging Hillary and creating a false narrative that is unfairly damaging her standing with voters who hold the environment as one of their top issues. Maybe it would be more honest to look at Hillary’s positions and voting record on this very important issue.
So let’s unpack Hillary’s VOTING record on oil and gas:
- Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
- Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
- Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
- Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
- Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
- Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
- Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
- Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
- Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
- Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
- Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
- Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
- Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
- Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
- Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
- Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
- Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
- Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
- Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)
And let's unpack her positions on oil and gas:
- We need a bridge from coal to natural gas to clean energy. (Mar 2016)
- Half a billion solar panels in first 4 years. (Feb 2016)
- Opposes Keystone, Withheld opinion at first. (Oct 2015)
- Get tough with energy speculators and with OPEC cartel. (May 2008)
- Gas tax holiday, paid for by windfall oil tax. (May 2008)
- GovWatch: Gas tax holiday saves $8B; but that’s 64 cents/day. (May 2008)
- Investigate gas price manipulation; add windfall profits tax. (Apr 2008)
- FactCheck: Yes, FTC is investigating gas price manipulation. (Apr 2008)
- $650 for help with energy bills to those who can’t afford it. (Jan 2008)
- FactCheck: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final 2005 Bill. (Jan 2008)
- Investigate & move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Oct 2007)
- Opposes Yucca Mountain; earthquake fault goes under it. (Sep 2007)
- Invest in alternative energy; jobs that won’t be outsourced. (Aug 2007)
- End Big Oil tax break; $50 billion for strategic energy fund. (Jul 2007)
- Agnostic about nuclear power until waste & cost issue solved. (Jul 2007)
- Energy Independence 2020: $50B for Strategic Energy Fund. (Jun 2007)
- Extensive funding into alternative energy. (Jun 2007)
- Will make big oil fund alternative energy research. (Feb 2007)
- $50B strategic energy fund from taxing oil companies. (Oct 2006)
- Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us. (Jun 2006)
- Need to move toward energy efficiency and conservation. (Jan 2006)
- Supports oil reserve release & fund conservation. (Oct 2000)
www.ontheissues.org/...
These are not the positions, actions and votes of a person who has been “bought” by the oil and gas industry and to further that notion is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst. It’s time for people to stop pushing this false narrative. As my grandpa used to say, “You might as well leave Rover at home, because that dog just won’t hunt!"
