Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Smeared with oil

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Bob Schaffer

Photo by Ken Papaleo/ Rocky Mountain News

Bob Schaffer

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Has it really come to this: that working for an energy company is now a liability - an actual badge of shame - for a candidate for public office in Colorado?

It's hard to believe most voters are so unsophisticated - about economics and the price of gasoline, among other things. In fact, I don't believe they are. But some people do.

The left-wing activists over at ProgressNowAction recently took out an ad on the Rocky Web site trumpeting the claim that GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is actually "Big Oil Bob," a fellow somehow complicit not only in escalating gas prices but also in war profiteering in Iraq. And these sleazy themes may well become a staple promoted by independent political groups as we approach Election Day.

After Schaffer left Congress in early 2003, he did indeed go to work for Denver-based Aspect Energy. But far from being a member in good standing of Big Oil (not that it would be damning anyway), Aspect Energy is a medium-sized independent. It's an aggressively entrepreneurial outfit whose current hydrocarbon production, moreover, is 80 percent in natural gas, according to its Web site.

At first, Schaffer worked mostly on Aspect's charitable efforts, which focus heavily on education. Eventually he shifted to the business side, where he ended up, he told me, as vice president for business development.

ProgressNowAction professes outrage (it's always hard to tell if a political hit squad's indignation is sincere) because Schaffer "voted for over $33 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil" in 2001, naturally neglecting to mention that the price of oil averaged $23 a barrel that year, as opposed to the stratospheric level of today.

The tax-break charge is child's play, however, compared to the vile accusation leveled at Schaffer for his role in a deal that Aspect Energy reached with the Kurds in northern Iraq. "Would you support a candidate who voted to go to war in Iraq and then profited from Iraq oil contracts after he left office?" ProgressNowAction ominously asks in a short video on its site.

Maybe activists on the left believe working to boost Iraqi oil production is a bad thing. But as Aspect Energy Chairman Alex Cranberg told me, "If we're going to be successful over there we've got to do more than send bullets."

After decades of neglect and exploitation by Baghdad, the Kurds want to develop their own resources and aren't willing to wait for the central government to get its act together. So last year the Kurdistan Regional Government began to cut independent deals with foreign companies, beginning with Hunt Oil Co. and followed by several others, including one with Aspect.

"We signed a deal," Cranberg said. "We have a wildcat exploration block with no wells or production on it. We're years and years from making a profit."

Not that Cranberg downplays the potential long-term significance of energy in northern Iraq. He believes Kurdistan sits atop enough oil "to make a material impact on world production."

So Schaffer, who took part in a trip by Aspect executives to Kurdistan, may have helped in a small way to alleviate the world's energy supply squeeze.

Such a terrible, terrible fellow.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • April 30, 2008

    5:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    a_watcher writes:

    Good Editorial.

    This brings up a question I've been meaning to ask. Lynn Bartels uses Michael Huttner of PNA as her go to source for quotes on Bob Schaffer. Does the fact that PNA is now in the political advertising business put him off limits as a legitimate source?

    I would think so. It is something that the Rocky editors might want to discuss with her and with the public before she uses him again.

  • April 30, 2008

    6:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    Is everyone automatically a liar?

    If someone is pro or anti, they will keep records. And be suspect. If someone doesn't care, they won't be a source.

  • April 30, 2008

    8:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Populist propaganda. Blame big oil, blame the car makers, blame big business in general, blame anyone they can instead of the painful reality that a world market drives economies and we aren't competing as well as we can. But, if the government stops putting roadblocks in the way, we can compete very well. Most people don't care to think for themselves; they want slogans that they can follow. How about this one: "Socialism Sucks".

  • April 30, 2008

    9:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    Nice to see how you convieniently leave out his arrogant omission of human rights and labor abuses in the Marianas Islands Mr. Carroll. I am with you on the Oil thing. Simply working for an oil company does not tie you to some oil conspiracy.

  • April 30, 2008

    11:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    stuckiniowa writes:

    Marshdale -- Since the column was specifically about an ad that attacked him specifically about his involvement in oil - it really isnt an ommission of the Marianas islands. It wasnt relevant to THIS story.

  • April 30, 2008

    11:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    Well thanks for preemptive apology for Big Oil Bob, Vince.

    "To the liberal eco-hysterical enviro-phobic trolls, economic growth is dirty, new jobs are dirty, incomes are dirty and national security is dirty."

    Holy Strawman Batman

  • April 30, 2008

    2:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Buff4Life writes:

    "Maybe activists on the left believe working to boost Iraqi oil production is a bad thing."

    No. That's not what the BigOilBob website and group state. And if they do state exactly this, please show me where. Get your facts sttraight, Vince.

    What they have a problem with is someone who voted to give a group $33 billion in tax breaks then goes and makes $900K/year for that same group. That's disturbing. This scenario is a bit different than independently working for an energy production company and then running for office. Bob stinks of a shady quid-pro-quo arrangment and is correctly being vilified for it. Furthermore, it is likely, given that he has made so much money with energy production in the past and would likely want to in the future, we can expect more of these same tax breaks from Bob if he were elected. Expecting otherwise is denying the facts and well, you'd simply be lying to yourself.

    I love attempts to get Republicans elected this year. Essentially, you have this as your argument: "Republicans have been so great these last 8 years in the White House and stopping any sort of attempt for Congress to pass a progressive bill. We need more of them in office." Hmm, yeah, pass.

  • April 30, 2008

    9:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sweetpickle writes:

    And no media in Colorado has done more to turn molehills into political mountains than RMN.
    This isn't a complaint about honesty, it's about spinning things to the RMN viewpoint.

  • May 1, 2008

    9:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    There was a time when it would be called "war profiteering" and "graft" if you voted to go to war in an oil rich country, then went to work for a company who you helped secure contracts for in that country. Especially when you had no prior experience in the energy industry. (I believe Schaffer formerly ran a marketing and web development company.)

    Are we so morally bankrupt now that we will interpret such behavior in the manner Carroll does? Our forefathers must be rolling over in their graves, who made no provisions in the Constitution for such unchecked power for artificial entities like corporations.

  • May 1, 2008

    9:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    By the way, for someone who is so insistently anti-government, why does Schaffer keep running for office? Can the man just not make a go of it in the private sector?

    As a "business development" executive for Aspect Energy, was he unable to cut any more deals for the company other than the one in Kurdistan, which the CEO admits involves no actual production (and that Carroll amusingly tells us will help a worldwide energy squeeze)?

    Speaking of Aspect's CEO, I don't see any particularly glowing comments from him about Schaffer's performance as a businessman, either. In fact, even conservative politicians who have worked with Schaffer are hard pressed to come up with any significant achievements the man made as a politician.

    This is a classic example of someone whose success isn't based on any notable accomplishments, but rather, his remarkable willingness to be a pawn for corporate benefactors.

  • May 1, 2008

    10:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Roni writes:

    Thank YOU Vince Carroll - for being one amongst few, who has the backbone to charge forward with truth and facts.
    Not easy in this day of the popular, "My "feelings" about bears, oil and wolves, make me a true believer/follower of Al Gore, and I "feel" resource producers to go to hell," fad.
    When I read about enviro groups giving millions to Mark Udall, that was all it took to cinch my support of Bob Schaffer.
    Do you know if the Nature Conservancy gives any of the $101,000,000 they received in federal welfare 2006 (YOUR tax dollars!) to political candidates? How do you suppose they keep those bucks separated?
    FYI bloggers, global warming is in reversal. No alarm. No scare.
    Polar bear does not need listing. No alarm. No scare. Its numbers have increased dramatically.
    These are facts based on thousands of pages of documented data, by some of the world's brightest scientists.
    Additionally - they have thus far factually/scientifically proven out 35 errors in Inconvenient Truth.
    These scientists work with facts - not "feelings" or "emotion."
    And I "feel" very good about knowing someone out there stands on solid ground with truth and facts!!!
    Therefore, I "feel" very good about Vince Carroll.

  • May 1, 2008

    10:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Roni, it is illegal for 501(c) non-profits to donate cash to political candidates. Which 501(c) environmental groups are you aware of who have given cash to Udall? Can you provide proof?

    I'm not saying the illegality of the practice means no 501(c) non profits engage in it, of course. It was a rampant problem in the 2004 election - including numerous churches and the political arms of rightwing religious organizations. If you're interested in the subject, here is a report from the IRS about what they discovered: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/...

  • May 1, 2008

    10:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    PajamaPulitzer: "Also, if a foreign laborer shows up to work for a dollar a day we can assume they really need the dollar. Folks like you want to close the plant meaning the poor laborer doesn't even have the dollar. That's love?"

    I imagine this is a similar rationalization Sweatshop Schaffer puts forth about the labor practices in the Mariana Islands. Which is a subject I can't wait to see Carroll attempt to defend in a subsequent column.

  • May 1, 2008

    11:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Roni writes:

    mytwosense,
    You're correct. It is illegal. I made an error in the way I stated it, and stand corrected.
    More accurately, I meant, enviro groups give millions towards AD campaigns. Sorry.
    Proof? I was simply expanding on a recent RMN article about such.
    Thank you for the report.
    Campaign finance reform needs to be:
    Identification (full disclosure) of an individuals contributions - whether through pacs, groups, corporate whatever (i.e. can't be hidden), and a running total maintained whereas their cumulative contribution to one candidate cannot exceed X number of dollars (i.e. a ceiling).
    Activated, this would clean up the whole campaign finance mess overnight. The late Sue O'Brien and the late Jack Kisling both liked this simple, straight forward concept.
    How about it political candidates? Who would be bold enough to bring this forth?

  • May 1, 2008

    11:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Roni, I wholeheartedly agree that political campaign funding should be transparent for the average citizen to understand. As it is now, one practically has to have a deep understanding of contract & financial law to make sense of the money flow. And I personally believe funds should be limited to the individual, although I am open to hearing opposing views.

    By the way, forgive my ignorance, but what is an "AD" campaign? Do you mean advertising? If so, I will have to do some more research on the subject, because I would not understand why that would be considered legal for 501(c) organizations to do, too, if those are political ad campaigns. Again, this is where it gets confusing unless you are sophisticated enough to make sense of the money flows to political campaigns - and I'm not.

  • May 1, 2008

    1:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, but I don't buy the argument that if someone gives money to a politician, that politician becomes a shill for the donor. Maybe Schaeffer received oil contributions because he was already a supporter of theirs, not the other way around.
    Lyndon Baines Johnson, a professional politician to the very tips of his toes, and very blunt spoken, once said something like "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their fine whiskey, sleep with the escorts they provide, and vote against their bill, you have no business being in Congress."
    Also, and I think Roni was saying something similar, I think the best campaign reform would do away with attempts to limit money, and go the direction of requiring quick and full disclosaure of all campaign donations from any source. Make it all open. Repeal efforts to try to limit contributions to parties or candidates. Those limitations simply don't work. We now have independent organizations, both liberal and conservative, accountable to no party or candidate. Allow contributions to parties and candidates, with quick disclosure. That way, the parties and candidates are responsible for the ads that get run. And by knowing who is getting what money, people can decide whether that's a factor or not.

  • May 1, 2008

    1:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    Much to Vinnie's apparent chagrin, Bob is still getting some bad press:

    http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/04/cn...

  • May 1, 2008

    2:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    peterpi, if LBJ really said that, doesn't the idea of unlimited monetary contributions scare you? Who do you think a politician is going to listen to...the $50 contributor or the $50,000 contributor?

    Also, unlimited monetary contributions probably helps to increase the cost of running for office, effectively shutting out a lot of better candidates.

  • May 1, 2008

    2:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Roni writes:

    mytwosense,

    ad -
    Please let me know what you find. I'd be interested too.
    Thank you.

  • May 1, 2008

    8:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MilesIgnatius writes:

    Vincent always does a nice job on pointing out the foibles and weaknesses of those in power and who ultimately succumb to the overuse of that power. But the Schaffer-oil story is a red herring compared to the Schaffer-Jack Abramoff- Marianas junket story which has been well covered in the Post but only slightly touched on in the Rocky.
    Maybe a call by Wadhams to the RNC is necessary to find out how to diffuse this malady before we all shout in unison "Thanks, Bob!"

  • May 1, 2008

    10:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jonah writes:

    Thank you, mytwosense for stating: "This is a classic example of someone whose success isn't based on any notable accomplishments, but rather, his remarkable willingness to be a pawn for corporate benefactors." BINGO! Schaffer is another drone for big money, just like his hero, Bush.