Did Obama Get “Too Much” Money from B.P.?

For the past two weeks, B.P. has been spreading its oil in the Gulf of Mexico and can’t earn any more “moolah” off that offshore drilling site. “Moolah” in politics is inevitably a big topic in America, and the media is trying to analyze the Prez’s attitudes and his true firmness with regard to the polluting party. Is the 44th tainted?

It’s pretty healthy, a priori, that a country’s media make speedy inquiries into the capacity of their elected officials to speak and act freely in a system where big business plays a major role in financing elections.

The black tide in the Gulf of Mexico and the definitive comments of Barack Obama, that “B.P. will be paying the bill,” is a practical exercise. This is, moreover, what B.P. affirmed since day one. “Politico” monitors this closely and sees a sharp drop in donations to the 44th and his party from the oil company. In the past 20 years, B.P. and its employees have donated in excess of $3.5 million to candidates running for federal office. These come from two sources: primarily gifts from individuals amounting to $638,000 and donations from employees and political action committees (PACs) equivalent to $2.89 million. Nice sums, to sum it up.

Barack Obama is the first target of questions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, it would be he who would have received the lion’s share of the funds. Nothing surprising here, seeing as the latest president elected has been the best funded ever. But a spokesperson for the 44th refutes all such accusations and assures that he didn’t accept a dime from corporate committees or lobbyists during his presidential campaign. Moreover, as a sign of the popularity of his candidacy, he raised upwards of $750 million in campaign funds. By asking every American who supported him to donate a few dollars, he mobilized all who had a stake in the outcome of the election. Well played! During his time as senator and his run for the presidency, Obama received $77,051, putting him at the head of the pack of those benefiting from B.P. (individual and PAC donations). Nothing extravagant there.

The spokesperson, Ben LaBolt, moreover, added that since Obama’s election, he has been tough with oil companies and gas (taxes); he took a courageous position with the G-20 to reduce assistance to the petroleum industry and engaged America in a political dialogue of historic proportions to further invest in its own energy resources. End of story.

So criticism of Democrats who tried to impede discussion and debate has ramped up. For example, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) doesn’t want the 44th to be assailed for his decision to expand offshore drilling because of the ongoing disaster.

She has been the target of ecologists who see her as part of a corrupt system. There aren’t enough figures, lobbyists and job creations cited against her. Her role as a lightning rod is obvious.

Opening the books on the relationships between elected officials and oil companies is necessary and reveals that Republicans are also on the financial receiving end. “B.P. ranks among the most powerful corporate forces in U.S. politics,” said Dave Levinthal of the Center for Responsive Politics. In the year 2000, they invested in Republicans. In 2008, they financed the Democrats and Republicans equally.

In summary, two incontestable facts are evident: Between 1999 and 2008, the amount devoted to financing politics has risen from $5.7 to $15.9 million. And the decision of the Supreme Court to allow corporations to spend as much as they want on financing politics will not curb their appetite to control political power.