Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has received more campaign money from the oil industry than any other member of Congress. He is also the ranking minority member of the committee that regulates the industry. If the Republicans retake control of the House, he will chair the committee. That's not to say that Democrats don't also take money from the oil industry; it's just that Republicans are worse at giving back in return (or better, from BP's point of view).
Last week, Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for Obama's "shakedown" tactics. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) had used similar words in commenting to the press as the chair of the House Republican Study Committee.
Within hours, the GOP leaders saw the PR damage and forced Barton to apologize for his apology. Yesterday, Barton's official web site posted a conservative publication saying that Barton had been right but that he had been forced to back down because of fear that the Democrats "would use it to tie Republicans to an unpopular company."
Damn right, we did and will. Why not? It's obvious: Barton spoke what they really believe. It just wasn't politically expedient to say it out loud. Isn't the tie pretty obvious? Didn't oil money buy its favoritism? Shouldn't those who then vote against the public's interest and in favor of the oil industry be held accountable for those votes? Why not?
Now more evidence of what money can buy.
In today's New York Times is the story of a new BP drill site that's ready to start operation. Despite being 3 miles off the mainland in Alaska's Beaufort Sea, it doesn't come under the moratorium on offshore drilling. Why?
BP got around having to meet the extra safety requirements for off shore drilling by constructing a 31 acre artificial island made of gravel in the midst of 32 feet of water all around it. Hence, it qualifies as an "on shore" site. Technically they won't be drilling through water. But suppose these is a leak. It won't take much oil to spill over the boundaries of 31 acres of gravel -- right into the sea.
Ah, what money will buy.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is oil money also contaminating the judicial process? The judge who overturned Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling is said to have investments in oil companies.
ReplyDeleteThe article didn't specify how much. It could be that he has mutual funds that include oil some stocks. Or he could be an individual investor and have lots a stake in their profits.
We just don't know. But now that he has even refused to order a stay of his order pending appeal, it makes one wonder about a conflict of interest that should have led to his recusal.
"BP got around having to meet the extra safety requirements for off shore drilling by constructing a 31 acre artificial island made of gravel..."
ReplyDeleteI'm dumbfounded by this.
And in addition to allowing such a charade the NYT article mentions that "federal regulators, in a break from usual practice, allowed BP in 2007 to write its own environmental review for the project as well as its own consultation documents relating to the Endangered Species Act."
Not to mention the fact that the technology they're about to use is once again untested, and is in a crucial habitat area.
Corporate sliminess is apparently a given these days and that's very disheartening. But what's truly broken is the system meant to keep it in check. That this project meets our criteria for approved drilling is what I find most distressing.
Barbara
Yep, you're right, Barbara. As I read it, the Obama administration has been on the task of cleaning up the regulatory division, but the people and the industry influences were so entrenched that it hadn't gotten very far.
ReplyDeleteObviously, they needed to have gone in and cleaned house on day 1 -- but you just can't do everything needed all at once. Suppose you fire everyone on day 1, and there's no body who even knows how things work?
Still, it's Salazar's and Obama's responsibility now.