Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Who is, or was, Big Oil's candidate?
Clinton beats Obama and McCain. But nobody currently running for president comes close to the real winner.
Andrew Leonard [2008-03-03]
The letters thread is now closed.

  • Nah...

    That's just pocket change. Small coinage like that would only get in the way.

    -- Etrigone
    [Read Etrigone's other letters]
    Monday, March 3, 2008 11:07 AM

  • Propping up Big Oil

    Looks like Romney and Giuliani (who were some of the most strident supporters of continued US military action in the Mid-east) had ulterior motives for their "national security interests". I wonder when we're all going to realize that "cheap" access to oil ends up costing a hell of a lot more than we think it does.

    -- jedimaster
    [Read jedimaster's other letters]
    Monday, March 3, 2008 11:09 AM

  • So does Democracy work?

    The two most paid-for candidates drop out; sounds like Lincoln's old saying about fooling ALL the People ALL the time still applies. SOME people have woken up, and it looks like those people were enough to nudge things in a different direction.

    I guess the fact that Romney and Giuliani were front-runners for a while gives creedence to the idea that SOME of the People could still be fooled ALL of the time.

    -- David Larry D
    [Read David Larry D's other letters]
    Monday, March 3, 2008 11:25 AM

  • I don't get it...someone help me out here.

    Am I missing something? Sure, the numbers that appear here are not insignificant, but when you dig deeper the totals are really "just" the sum of smaller contributions from individuals who happen to work for the companies. Is it right to assume that these sums reflect the influence of big oil?

    If I were to make a contribution to a campaign I would need to disclose the name of my employer. Would this increase the political influence/weight my employer has over a particular politician?

    I just don't get it. I understand that corporate interests have huge influence in politics but I can't imagine that it's the result of some of their employees making individual contributions of up to $2,300. And I'm sure this influence is wielded in ways that make these contributions seem pretty benign.

    -- sethgoldman
    [Read sethgoldman's other letters]
    Monday, March 3, 2008 11:30 AM

  • No heart in it

    Andrew Leonard's link provides a neater insight into oil politics than one usually gets. But to my mind the broader picture is that Big Oil just doesn't have its heart in this race.

    Maybe they're focusing more on Congress. Or maybe they've finally decided that repositioning themselves in the green energy market is a cheaper proposition than trying to sustain last century's legislative agenda.

    Here's hoping.

    -- Amity
    [Read Amity's other letters]
    Monday, March 3, 2008 12:05 PM

  • Why should they bother?

    Big oil's contributtions are paltry because they have already won the war (on the environment). Americans are as committed as ever to wasting every last drop of oil driving around and purchasing imported consumables. There are no threats to fossil-fool companies on the political horizon like, say, individual carbon quotas.

    In fact, we can't even get our traffic laws enforced in a manner that would make our roads safe enough to walk and cycle on. Based on hundreds of interviews that I have conducted, a lack of safety is the number one reason most people give for refusing to walk/cycle locally. Twenty-five percent of all trips are less than one mile but seventy-five percent of these trips are done by fossil-fool powered wheelchairs.

    -- human power
    [Read human power's other letters]
    Monday, March 3, 2008 12:15 PM

  • How did Ron Paul get any money from Big Oil?

    I think SethGoldman is right to question: "Is it right to assume that these sums reflect the influence of big oil?"

    Ron Paul's agenda is quite antagonistic to big oil. He wants to remove their extensive subsidies, and probably would delegate much regulation to the states--decentralized political power is a real hassle for centralized corporations (where each state has different regulations).

    Maybe Big Oil would benefit from some relaxation of Federal environmental law, as well as the elimination of the paltry mandates for alternative energy use...but I think they would clearly lose out on a Ron Paul Presidency...without even mentioning the effect of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

    So yeah, along the lines of Seth's thoughts, I think this reflects the fact that Big Oil is concentrated in Texas (Ron Paul's home) and other conservative-libertarian bastions.

    -- Adam Ricketson
    [Read Adam Ricketson's other letters]
    Monday, March 3, 2008 01:05 PM

  • Democrats and big Oil?

    I am surprised that "Big Oil contributes to any Democrat considering the scorched earth mentality of most of the tree huggers.

    In that donations are made by "employees" of big oil, the only thing this articles says is that there are more republican oil employees than democrat employees.

    Kinda blows your insinuations, doesn't it?

    -- hosers2
    [Read hosers2's other letters]
    Tuesday, March 4, 2008 10:11 AM

Letters Help