Obama and BP: Change You Can Believe In!

If you were wondering why it took President Obama so long to do anything about the oil spill in the Gulf, look no further than his relationship with BP, the owner of the spewing well. Apparently, Barack Obama has been the biggest recipient of BP money.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

Now, there's nothing wrong, to me, with Barack Obama getting campaign contributions from PACs and individuals. After all, that's the way the law is. But the Luny Left should be furious that Teh One has pocketed more corporate cash from an eeeeeevillll oil company than those evil Republicans who are supposedly in the pockets of the oil industry. Instead, we have the nutbags trying to blame Dick Cheney for the oil spill. Ah, it must be tough to be a leftwinger these days when you have to dig back years to blame someone other than the guy you elected president.

About Obama's Fundraising

Jeromy Brown has tried to spin Obama's lying about campaign finance into some sort of asset, claiming that Obama's just gotten so many $25 checks from dolts like him that it really is public financing.

Well, not so fast. David Brooks has the real figures from the Obama campaign, and it isn't really a bunch of starry-eyed kids donating their lunch money to the Obamanator.

As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org.

People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.

Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.

Hmm. Lawyers, investment bankers, hedge fund operators. Yeah, those are the blue collar folks Democrats always sell their sappy lines to, right? But wait, there'smore!

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

Goldman Sachs?! Goldman Sachs??!! Well, I guess we're talking about the data entry clerks or the receptionists, right? Though Obama crows that his campaign is made up of "little donations" (those under $200), Brooks notes that only about 45% of Obama's money comes from there. The rest is from liberals in the information industry. You know, guys like Bill Gates who made a fortune then decried the capitalism that made it possible. The real advantage for Democrats is in raising an army of little Eichmans--er, moonbats--er, progressives who agree with Democrats' tax-the-rich strategy, not realizing they are the rich who will be taxed.

Supreme Court Revisits Campaign Finance Law

According to this law.com article, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the latest campaign finance case and they may be willing to flush the abominable McCain-Feingold law.

The Supreme Court's three-year embrace of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law seemed to loosen Wednesday, as justices debated a First Amendment challenge to the law's provision that bars certain types of issue advertisements in the run-up to elections.

A majority of justices questioned one or another aspect of the provision during hourlong arguments in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. The case is an "as-applied" challenge to the ban on "electioneering communications" directly funded by corporations and unions 30 days before primary and 60 days before general elections. The Court, with now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the majority, upheld the law on its face more than three years ago in McConnell v. FEC, but the justices left the door open to challenges once the law took effect.

I sincerely hope they overturn this terrible restriction on free speech. Patterico hopes so, too.

With O'Connor gone from the Court, free speech might have a chance this time.