Home Energy and Environment DPVA: Allen Continues to Support “showering big oil with tax dollars”

DPVA: Allen Continues to Support “showering big oil with tax dollars”


The following press release is from the Democratic Party of Virginia. I would just add a link to this article, which notes that Allen “was one of the largest recipients of oil industry campaign contributions” when he was in the Senate, “feted by oil billionaire Charles Koch at the 2005 secret planning meeting Koch Industries organizes to coordinate conservative and corporate influence,” and funded/paid off by “oil and polluter industry fronts” since he was defeated in 2006. Can we say “100% bought and paid for?”

Allen continues to support taxpayer handouts to big oil

Former Senator’s campaign confirms his continuing support for showering big oil with tax dollars

Richmond, VA – As Democrats around the Commonwealth called him to account for spending years in the U.S. Senate doling out taxpayer dollars to highly profitable oil companies, former Senator George Allen’s campaign confirmed yesterday what Virginians had good reason to suspect: if elected, he would continue to force Virginia taxpayers to subsidize the big oil companies that are filling his campaign coffers.

Yesterday the Virginian-Pilot reported that Allen spokeswoman Katie Wright responded to Democratic pressure by defending the taxpayer subsidies for oil companies that don’t need them, even as Americans pay more and more at the pump.

“As big oil companies reap huge profits on rising gas prices, George Allen is running for reelection on the promise that he will continue to shower billions of taxpayer dollars on those highly profitable companies,” said DPVA Executive Director David Mills. “By defending these subsidies, George Allen sent a clear message to Virginians who want to stop funding big oil both at the pump and with their tax dollars: ‘Don’t vote for me.’

“Virginia families deserve a Senator who supports developing all of our energy resources, not one who puts his thumb on the scale to benefit his campaign contributors and block the development of clean energy and the jobs that come with it.”

P.S. On this same subject, check out the video of our own Miles Grant talking about the absurdity of taxpayer subsidies for super-rich Big Oil companies.

  • By the way, Terron Sims is not even close to correct that 90% of the money we spend to purchase crude oil goes to nations that aren’t our friends. In fact, of U.S. oil consumption of 18+ million barrels per day, we produce about 8 million bbl/d (44%) ourselves, with close to 7 million bbl/d (39%) coming from non-OPEC nations like Canada and Mexico (and only 4.5 million bbl/d from OPEC countries, most of which are at least ostensibly not our enemies). Still, it would be smart from a national security perspective – for a large # of reasons (e.g., how it distorts our foreign policy) –  as well as for economic and environmental reasons for us to slash our reliance on oil, including from unfriendly and/or unstable nations.  What are we waiting for?

  • Peter Rousselot

    Big oil just cares about money–it doesn’t care out of what country’s ground the oil comes–so long as it owns a stake in that oil. Big oil is happy to get as many U.S. tax dollar subsidies as it can–and if those subsidies encourage U.S. domestic oil production, that’s fine as far as big oil is concerned, but no more nor less fine than subsidies that encourage production outside the U.S. The only “foreign policy” big oil cares about is a policy that keeps the money flowing to big oil. All the really big oil companies have investments in oil production all over the world–in countries like Canada that are friendly, and in countries in the middle east that may be less so. Focusing only on shifting our oil consumption from unfriendly countries to friendlier ones, or to the U.S. itself, on the grounds of our “national security” misses the larger problem of our dependence on fossil fuels–regardless of their source. Terron’s ignorance of the facts about the sources of U.S. oil consumption is disappointing, but the entire “domestic security argument” distracts from our lack of a comprehensive energy strategy to lessen our dependence on oil–period.