Tweet
Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog
The Other 98% and Oil Change International consider the inauguration.
President Barack Obama will be publicly sworn in today – on Martin Luther King Jr. Day – to serve his second term as the 44th President of the United States.
Today is also the three-year anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that – in a 5-4 decision – deemed that corporations are “people” under the law. Former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) – who now runs Progressives United (a rhetorical spin-off of Citizens United) - said in Feb. 2012 that the decision “opened floodgates of corruption” in the U.S. political system.
Unlike for his first Inauguration, Obama has chosen to allow unlimited corporate contributions to fill the fund-raising coffers of the entity legally known as the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Last time around the block, Obama refused corporate contributions for the Inauguration Ceremony as “a commitment to change business as usual in Washington.”
But not this time. With a fundraising goal of $50 million in its sights, the Obama Administration has “opened floodgates” itself for corporate influence-peddling at the 57th Inaugural Ceremony.
A case in point: the Obama Administration’s corporate backers for the Inaurguation have spent over $283 million on lobbying since 2009, the Center for Public Integrity explained in a recent report.
This has perturbed some.
“It’s a deeply disturbing move, and a reversal from the positive steps they took in 2009,” Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen told Roll Call. “Corporations make donations to events like the inaugural festivities because they get something back in return.”
One of the biggest givers so far is none other than what Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Steve Coll calls a “Private Empire” – ExxonMobil.
ExxonMobil: Over $260,000 to Obama’s Inauguration Committee
According to a scoop by The Hill, ExxonMobil contributed $250,000 to the Inaugural Committee. Additionally, ExxonMobil attorney Judith Batty has given the Committee $10,750, according to the Center for Responsive Politics‘ OpenSecrets.org. Thus, ExxonMobil has given the Committee a grand total of over $260,000.
ExxonMobil earned a profit of $41.1 billion in 2011 and in the first three quarters of 2012 earned a profit of $34.92 billion, well on pace to surpass its 2011 profit margin.
Some mathematical context is warranted. This means ExxonMobil earned $9,935 per minute in the first three quarters of 2012, $596,107 per hour and $14.3 million per day in profits.
Despite these oligarchic-type bottom lines, ExxonMobil doesn’t even pay its fair share in taxes, as ThinkProgress explained in a March 2012 article:
Citizens for Tax Justice reported Exxon paid only 17.6 percent taxes in 2010, lower than the average American, and a Reuters analysis using the same criteria estimates that Exxon will pay only 13 percent in effective taxes for 2011. Exxon paid zero taxes to the federal government in 2009.
In practice, this means that ExxonMobil actually pays less in taxes by percentage than an average Middle Class American family.
For a corporation with financial wealth of this magitude and one that, to boot, evades paying taxes, $260,000 is truly a “drop in the bucket.” And yet in a political system favoring those who can “pay to play,” it’s a true game-changer in terms of gaining direct access to the Administration.
Obama Administration Responds…Sort Of
Critics say it’s more of the same out of an Obama Administration that in the first term had a cozy relationship with corporate patrons.
“It fits into a pattern of not treating this campaign-finance issue with concern when in fact it is of great concern to the integrity of the political process and our democratic system,” Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, told The Hill.
The Obama team’s response? According to them, they are champions of campaign-finance reform and anti-corruption measures.
“This president has done more to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington than any administration in history,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told The Hill.
It looks as if Oil Change International has hit the nail on the head in framing this one, asking and answering the following question with an accompanying graphic co-created with The Other 98%.
32 Comments
Hey, lighten up. He’s just invited all the stake-holders (read: Pigs) to the table to celebrate (read: Dine) while the little people watch on TV.
“And the lion shall lay down with the lamb.”
Lambs are soooo stupid.
I heard on burnt orange his speech contained the phrase “end the tyranny of oil”. Didn’t and won’t watch it but obvious he is the servant and paid extraordinarily well as will be Hillary or whoever the next President of the Kabuki States of America is. (As Winston Churchill said ” A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.”)
This is news?
Only $260,000? Misers, lol!
Fun stuff: the link to that went to the web page that exhibits exactly how much the O-force is suggesting for donations…says “Sorry; no tickets left”. Fook me, ya gotta love the corruption. They don’t even *try* to hide a lot of it any more. Yikers!
Taking money from these people is immoral. These are some of the people that are slowly parboiling the planet. Shame on BO and his party.
Wendy, I think you’re being a little hard on Obama. This is his LAST time to extort meoney from his contributors.
“Imoral, IMMORAL? There’s no immoral in politics.”
“Imoral, IMMORAL? There’s no immoral in politics.”
I did not post that twice. But, OTOH, it deserves repeating.
This is just the “true” Emperor 0 that all the LOTE voters assured us was there and waiting to be freed from elections (and accountability) to show his true agenda.
Narcissists have no shame and the .1%ers have a way of identifying them early on in their political careers it seems.
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Timothy Geithner, Financial Crisis, White House, The Bailouts, Citibank, Robert Rubin, Treasury Department, Deregulation ,Jack Lew, ExxonMobil, money, they all go together.
I’m so sorry. But I did apologize to him a li’l bit on my diary yesterday, so…at least there’s that.
I expect not even trying to hide it anymore will be one of the hallmarks of the second term.
I fool you once: shame on you.
I fool you twice: no need to bother fooling no more because I gotcha, Suckers!
Let us all give thanks to the American Left for FOUR MORE YEARS
Well, we’ve got four long years to make some progress: to hammer home the message, every time this president enacts some horrible new policy or reinforces an old one, that the Democratic Party has abandoned its principles.
This will be for the pipeline approval
That’s fracking wonderful!
“we’ve got four MORE long years to…”
Fixed it for you. Try not to dwell on how the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Not really if he does a good job as their puppet he and wife will be rewarded like big dog and hillybilly were when the walked away from screwing over Main Street. Life good for the elite but for us on Main Street not so much.
Try again: what I said was “we’ve got four long years to make some progress.”
My obvious implication was that there’s been no progress during the LAST four years and what the future holds is four MORE of the same.
For those who dont’ get implications I even spelled it out: best predictor of future behavior yada, yada.
You’re free to disagree with that: all you have to do is hope for change. How’d that work out for you last time?
Apparently, his idea of ending the tyranny of oil is giving millions of taxpayer dollars to so called green companies who employ his campaign donors, then watching them go bankrupt.
Solyndra was not the only one. I think there have been three so far.
Please remind me how we’ve been hammering home the message during the last four year, and to whom and to what effect.
READ what I said before attacking my position as antithetical to yours, dimwit.
If you think I’m claiming any great successes, you’re mistaken–nor do I believe that we’re going to turn the tide any time soon. But what are we supposed to do other than keep plugging away?
That’s MISTER Dimwit to you, Jon.
I got your damn message: spend the next four years “hammering home” “that the Democratic Party has abandoned its principles”.
Did you get my message? That you’ve already been doing that for at least two years and your “message” doesn’t seem to be getting through to the voters? Keep plugging away if you like just don’t expect different results unless you do something different.
So you expected what, exactly? That the entire Democratic voting base would abandon the party in 2012 and vote Green or SEP? People aren’t depropagandized overnight, substantive change doesn’t materialize in two years, and indiscriminately attacking other posters who obviously share your disillusionment makes you look like a shrieking idiot.
Emphasizing that you’re talking about “more of the same” rather than something new is an attack? Unlike dimwit and shrieking idiot which certainly should not be considered attacks, right?
What did I expect? A Primary challenger to Obama would have been good.
Again, this indicates a misreading of my original post. When I point out to people that the Democratic Party has abandoned its principles, I’m urging them away from the party. I don’t expect change from within a corporate-controlled entity and I don’t believe they should, either. In all probability, a third party candidate will not be viable in 2016, 2020 or even in my lifetime, but there just might be hope for future generations if we get the ball rolling now. But in a country where a substantial number of people (substantial enough to reelect a president with a plainly abysmal track record) still believe that the Democratic Party is fighting for jobs and Social Security and civil liberties, we can hope for only very modest victories at the moment…if we can hope for victories at all. Jill Stein received nearly half a million votes in 2012. That’s not bad, but we have a long, long way to go.
Once upon a time I was saying get the ball rolling now and there might be a shot in 2012, but apparently nobody had balls to roll. No: I don’t mean you, personally.
If you want to sprint then get a fast start. A social media driven grassroots populist-themed movement that is simple, easy, free, and from the protesters point of view has no downside. You want millions of people to do something? Make it simple, easy, free and emotionally satisfying. If you can, go for stylish, also.
Just ask everyone to cancel any -R or -D Party memberships and register Independent. You can still give money and time and your vote to whoever you prefer so nothing’s really changed, but wouldn’t you love to send that message to the Party hacks?
Give this a cool name, a cool slogan (how about WE QUIT!), twitter, facebook, youtube: it could be a “phenomenon”
I think you’ll find more people willing to make this small degree of effort than we’ve seen sleeping on sidewalks and worrying about tear gas at Occupy sites, and that’s no small number right there.
If you want millions or more, keep it simple, easy, free. You see how I’m making it a point to not ask for very much? This time?
There will be hard stuff later, but don’t tell that to the crowd. Right now they’re angry and this social network craze lets them make an angry gesture without noticeable effort or consequence. I think it could have mass appeal. I think it could go viral. I think it counts as plugging away, at least.
You want to urge people away from the party? Don’t get all complicated, just tell them to quit in order to shake up the bastards in Washington. Our votes are NOT in your pocket, Mr. Congressman!