Blunt's "Big Oil Bailout"

The TV ads for the upcoming Senate election have begun and the majority of them are extremely negative. They include statements from Carnahan accusing Blunt of being “the very worst in Washington” and Blunt nicknaming Carnahan “Rubberstamp Robin”, accusing her of doing whatever Obama does. However, with all these accusations flying around toward the end of the campaigns, it’s important to make sure what they’re saying is true. This blog looks to focus specifically on the ads by Democrats, in this case Carnahan, in Missouri.

On May 20, Robin Carnahan released her first TV commercial directly attacking her opponent for the U.S. Senate, Roy Blunt. In her extremely negative ad, Carnahan attacks Blunt for (1) supposedly putting the burden of the oil cleanup (99.6% of it) on the general public and (2) for accepting large amounts of money from the oil and gas industries.

1. Her first claim specifically attacks a sound bite of Blunt stating that BP shouldn’t have to pay more than the current cap of $75 million in fines for the oil spill. Carnahan is implying that Blunt thinks that the cost of cleanup should not be held by the oil company, but rather by the American taxpayers. However, Carnahan neglects to mention that Blunt was stating the cap that was put in place by legislation (the Oil Pollution Act of 1990) and that the legislation also makes the oil company liable for paying clean up fees as well! In other words, while the “fine” that BP has to pay is only approximately 0.4% of the total cost of the spill, they are also responsible for the billions of dollars in clean up fees as well (See section 1004.a.3 and 1004.c.3 of the act). Additionally, Blunt has recently helped sponsor a bill that seeks to increase the fees for oil companies in the event of an oil spill to $150 million plus cleanup costs (See H.R.5356, sec. 102).
2. Her second main claim has much more truth to it than the first. Carnahan says that Blunt has received over $1 million in campaign contributions from oil and energy interests! Opensecrets.org reports that Blunt has in fact received approximately $1.4 million from the energy and natural resources sector. However, of that sector a little less than $600,000 is actually from oil and gas, rather than other energy interests such as electric utilities (powered by coal, not oil) who gave a little under $450,000. While that is indeed still a high number, it does exaggerate the amount from oil interests to include the entire energy sector as well.

          There seems to be some serious exaggerations and words taken out of context for this advertisement. We find that although it’s entirely probable that Blunt does seek to avoid making the oil companies too poor off because of the amount he receives from them in campaign contributions, the attacks that he wishes to place the burden on the American public is unfounded and the amount he receives from oil companies is exaggerated. 

Consulted with Factcheck.org