Announcements

Shaw Campaign Funded by Big Oil

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Lindsay Waits
October 8, 2008 (334) 262-2221

Accepted a Quarter of a Million Dollars from ExxonMobil Lobbyist Groups and Attorneys

Montgomery, AL - Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham this morning seized on Supreme Court Candidate Judge Greg Shaw's campaign's assertion that his campaign is not funded by big oil.
"Judge Greg Shaw has taken a grand total of a quarter of a million dollars from big oil. This money has come directly from ExxonMobil's registered lobbyists and its top Alabama law firm," said Turnham. "Greg Shaw was right when he told the Huntsville Times a couple months ago that he was "sure there may be some individuals that have connections to Exxon Mobil" giving him campaign contributions"

These contributions include:
ExxonMobil Lobbyist Bob Geddie's group ACJRC $215,500.00
ExxonMobil Lobbyist Stephen Bradley's PACS $32,500.00
ExxonMobil's Attorneys (Lightfoot, Franklin & White) $2,000.00
TOTAL:$250,000.00


THE FACTS:

Shaw took $215,500 directly from ExxonMobil Lobbyist Bob Geddie's group, ACJRC.

07/29/08 ACJRC $5,500.00

08/09/08 ACJRC $25,000.00

09/02/08 ACJRC $100,000.00

09/05/08 ACJRC $85,000.00

Shaw took $32,500 directly from ExxonMobil Lobbyist Stephen Bradley's PACs.

01/25/08 VPAC $9,000.00

01/25/08 ALA BIZ PAC$7,000.00

01/25/08 Horizon PAC $9,000.00

04/12/08 Highland PAC $7,500.00

Shaw took $2,000 directly from ExxonMobil's attorneys.

7/07/08 Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC $2,000.00

FROM THE HUNTSVILLE TIMES:

Exxon decision may re-emerge in court contest
Sunday, June 29, 2008
By BOB LOWRY
Times Staff Writer bob.lowry@htimes.com


Shaw-Paseur race again puts focus on contributors
MONTGOMERY - The source of campaign money could turn out to be an issue in the only state Supreme Court race on the ballot this fall.

All but $2,296 of the $123,796 raised so far for the campaign of Republican Supreme Court candidate Greg Shaw has come from political action committees run by pro-business lobbyists, according to campaign finance reports.

Shaw's Democratic opponent in the Nov. 4 general election, Lauderdale County District Judge Deborah Bell Paseur, has received much of her $95,834 in contributions from law firms, individual attorneys and individuals. She has received no money from PACs so far, but lawyers have given her more than $37,500.

Interest groups put money in judicial campaigns "because they see it as an investment, and they want results," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of The Justice at Stake Campaign, a Washington, D.C., watchdog group that has monitored judicial campaign spending since 1993.

Alabama is one of eight states that elect Supreme Court justices in partisan elections.
Interest in Alabama Supreme Court politics may have risen since the court ruled 8-1 in November to throw out a $3.6 billion jury award the state won in a dispute with Exxon Mobil Corp. over royalties from natural gas wells. The dissenter was Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the court's only Democrat.

Roughly $54 million has been spent on Alabama Supreme Court races since 1993, making it No. 1 in the nation, according to Justice at Stake. Texas comes in a distant second at $30 million.

Joe Turnham, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said Alabamians should be concerned. "People lamented 10 to 15 years ago about tort hell in Alabama," he said. "It's now consumer hell. Big corporations and big oil have bought control of the Supreme Court."
Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, called Turnham's comments "a typical response from Democrats because that's the way they want to do business."

"They remember the days when trial lawyers did business when Alabama was tort hell," he said. "We want a friendly business climate in Alabama."

The justices who ruled in Exxon Mobil's favor have received millions from business-oriented PACs since 2000. Two of the pro-business PAC operators are registered lobbyists for Exxon Mobil,according to the Alabama Ethics Commission.

But Bob Geddie of the Montgomery lobbying firm of Fine Geddie & Associates, a registered lobbyist for Exxon Mobil, said he doesn't believe the company contributes to PACs in Supreme Court races.

"I know that allegation was made in last year's (2006) campaign, but as far as I know, Exxon Mobil does not make any contributions to candidates running for the Supreme Court in Alabama," he said.

Seven PACs controlled by Fine Geddie made $293,000 in direct campaign contributions to the justices.

Tom Dart, lobbyist for the Automobile Dealers Association of Alabama, gave Shaw $40,000 from his PACs. But Dart said to his knowledge, his PACs have never received money from Exxon Mobil or any other oil company.

Dart is also chairman of the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, which has donated more than $1 million to Supreme Court justices during and between their campaigns.
Niko Corley, spokesman for the Alabama Association for Justice, formerly the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association, said it's hard to prove where PAC money comes from "since PAC money gets washed around."

"Some major corporations say they don't contribute, but it's almost impossible to disprove that," he said. "Since corporations are capped (for direct contributions at $500), PACs are their way to flood money into a campaign."

PAC-to-PAC transfers and the fact that lobbyists do not report payments from their clients makes it impossible in Alabama to track contributions when a donor - a corporation, individual or trial lawyer - wants to hide the source.

Shaw said he was not fully aware of who his financial supporters were in an April 15 filing with the Alabama secretary of state's office, but he added, "I'm sure there may be some individuals that have connections to Exxon Mobil."

Shaw said he expects Paseur to use the Supreme Court's 2007 Exxon Mobil ruling as an issue. Paseur, who declined comment through her campaign manager, Marion Steinfels, has reported no contributions from PACs so far.

William Stewart, a retired political science professor at the University of Alabama, said the court's 2007 Exxon Mobil ruling is a ready-made issue for Paseur, especially with motorists upset over high gas prices.

"To the extent that it can be shown that Republicans are responsible for the State of Alabama getting less money than it would have gotten if it (court's ruling) had gone the other way, it could be a good issue," he said.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear another Exxon Mobil case.

Alabama could be forced to refund more than $83 million in oil and gas severance taxes if a judge's ruling survives an appeal in Mobile County Circuit Court. The state had denied requests from Exxon Mobil for about $41 million in refunds, plus interest, based on additional costs.

An administrative law judge earlier ruled in the company's favor in a case that centered on where and how natural gas should be taxed, but the state Revenue Department is appealing.
Shaw said he understands the perception that Alabama voters may have formed about Supreme Court races because of the amount of money spent in earlier campaigns.

"There is a perception in Alabama that justice is for sale in this state," he said. "That strikes at the very heart of the confidence level that Alabamians have in the Supreme Court."
Shaw said he decided at the outset of his campaign to make full disclosures and "to run a campaign that was fully transparent."

"We are very early in our campaign," he said. "I'm sure we're getting support from business, and I'm very proud of it."

Brandenburg of Justice at Stake said polls show the public believes campaign contributions influence the outcome of court opinions. And a poll by the National Center for State Courts showed one in four state judges had the same opinion.

"When the insiders feel like money is making a difference," he said, "that's pretty scary."


###