Who's likely to win has little to do with it. Have you heard Obama railing against Exxon-Mobil? Tax the crap out of the oil bigs and give to the poor in all countries.

I don't get it. The figures in the graphic above and the figures for Exxon donations don't make sense, unless all of Clinton and McCain's donations come from Exxon, and all but $15,000 of Obama's come from someone else.

=== author's response follows ===
OilChange does an excellent job of organizing their information base in hierarchal manner. Suggest you go to the link and the numbers will make sense.

Several petroleum companies gave amounts to each candidate. However, the donations are not corporate donations per.se. but rather checks written by individual executives. Typically, an individual listing their place of employment only donates to one candidate. It is entirely possible that an executive only knows what his/her workplace peers gave and to whom if they look on a site like OilChange - although coordinated donations to "spread the good will" also are possible, which is what the headline teasingly hints at.

Anyway, don't try to reconcile the number here: go to Oil Change.

Well Exxon Mobile already pays around %40 taxes. The profit they do have either gets invested in capital projects or paid out in dividends. Exxon is owned by the public, in fact it is owned by many of the people the democrats cater to, those who want to rob peter to pay paul, such as unions. And to top it all off Exxon has no control over actual pricing.

I don't get it. The figures in the graphic above and the figures for Exxon donations don't make sense, unless all of Clinton and McCain's donations come from Exxon, and all but $15,000 of Obama's come from someone else.
== author's response follows ===
The wrong figures were pasted into the last sentence when the post went up an hour ago. I have made the necessary corrections and re-posted.

Thank you for pointing it out!

Exxon doesn't pay that much in taxes. Keep in mind the first corporate taxes China set up at the behest of the Nixon administration was to benefit oil companies so they could pay a lower tax rate than they would have to in America. Multinational companies have the benefit of borrowing money in America, investing it in overseas banks, and drawing tax free interest.

Any taxes the oil companies do make (and it isn't hurting their bottom line) is paid back by taxpayer payments in infrastructure. It's the highways that give us roads to drive our cars on which are fueled by, you guessed it, Exxon. The asphalt put down is created using oil by, shocker, Exxon. The taxes that pay for oil subsidies benefit, OMG, Exxon. The taxes which go to the military to protect oil interests also benefits, you guessed it, Exxon. So they get back what they pay in taxes so don't feel as if you are hurting them by actually making them pay taxes.

What about Ron Paul?! Come on, stop ignoring him. I know he doesn't have much of a plan for energy, but I think he would stir up enough s*** to fix quite a few things... but that's unrelated to treehugger really.

I'm glad Obama hasn't accepted more though... It is indeed interesting.
=== author's response follows ===
I admit to probably having a bias toward RP, probably because I am as uncomfortable with the "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution as I am with the "literalist" interpretation of the Bible.

Jikki,
It's pretty clear RP has no chance of winning. And His environmental policy (correct me if I'm wrong) is mostly "let the market sort it out" right? So let big companies duke it out, neuter the EPA and hope the one in the lead promotes real green practices?

Also I'm unclear as to how "stirring s*** up" is good.

Sorry if I come off harsh. I like RP as a person, I really do. But so much of his policy seems so hard to stomach, and his supporters all run off the same talking points.

Your new sums, and the graphic that you are still using are very, very different. I would like to see the graphic removed, so 'headline readers' don't jump to conclusions and spread even more inaccurate information than there already is in this campaign.

"the sums below, and narrative above, are corrected" is not very acceptable in reporting.

Otherwise, thank you for your seeking the information that is important to us.

Jonathan.
I think the numbers in the graphic are correct. The graphic shows total oil contributions, while the article and numbers below are just about Exxon.

When Exxon is in the title of the article it's hard to post a civil comment.

Galls: "Exxon is owned by the public" -- that's funny, i don't remember owning Exxon.

and Ron Paul? come on people, if anything is bad for the environment, its a libertarian and the free market.

@brandon: if you don't remember owning Exxon, then you haven't bought their stock. Want to own part of Exxon? Buy a share or two.. you'll be part owner.. easy as that.

Personally, I don't buy XOM, primarily after reading that one of their top people some time ago said they're not interested in alternative energy research because at this time it's not profitable. I'll spend my money with the oil companies that do spend part of their profits in alternative energy, such as BP, Shell, and Chevron.