tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post8559811679645341150..comments2023-07-02T06:58:33.737-05:00Comments on WebberEnergyBlog: Energy Campiagn ContributionsMichael E. Webber, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/12416546342365493633noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post-50604977189932963992008-03-05T12:45:00.000-06:002008-03-05T12:45:00.000-06:00Treehugger.com reports the Big Oil contribution br...<A HREF="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/big-oil-executives-spread-presidential-bets.php" REL="nofollow">Treehugger.com</A> reports the Big Oil contribution breakdown as follows:<BR/><BR/>Clinton - $267, 150<BR/>McCain - $229, 685<BR/>Obama - $128,290<BR/><BR/>It makes sense, I suppose, that it breaks down this way, given Obama's rhetoric of trimming tax relief for oil companies and McCain's long-standing campaign finance reform platform. However, both candidates may find themselves eating their words, if they haven't already.<BR/><BR/>As reported in a <A HREF="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/28/fundraising/index.html" REL="nofollow">Salon.com article</A> (subscription required), Obama, who is swimming in a sea of private donations, is distancing himself from an earlier pledge he made in Feb. 2007 about relying exclusively on the $85 million the federal public financing system provides candidates. McCain has also apparently backtracked after making a similar pledge. Clinton has been fairly quiet on the subject, owing either to her praise ("experience"/pragmatism) or criticism ("old politics"/regressivism).<BR/><BR/>Naturally, both the Obama and McCain camps have slung mud, crying hypocrisy on the part of the other. But, as Treehugger points out, at least we can't say the Big Oil contributions will dictate the outcome of the election -- at least not at the going rate.Ross Tomlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00125305499103733741noreply@blogger.com