News > Featured, Homepage Feature, News

Energy Company’s Convention Ties Highlight Obama’s Influence Industry Quagmire

President tries to balance fundraising needs with commitment to ending lobbying influence

This year's Democratic convention, unlike its 2008 Denver counterpart, has been singled out for its ties to special interests.

Duke Energy’s chief executive James E. Rogers was the “lead cheerleader” for Charlotte, the energy company’s hometown, to host the Democratic convention this year, the New York Times reports. He solicited donations, had his company donate office space, and guaranteed a loan to the convention committee:

He cited local pride as motivation, but Duke Energy, which became the nation’s largest utility with its recent merger, also had a business incentive. The company, which has supported the energy initiatives ofPresident Obama and Congressional Democrats, has received federal economic stimulus money and alternative-energy grants. Its financial future stands to be greatly influenced by the sorts of environmental proposals the president’s party has vowed to pursue.

The intersection of Duke Energy’s interests and its support for the convention is testing Mr. Obama’s pledge to free the party’s gathering from business and lobbyist support.

The Times writes that this particular instance is a “microcosm of a larger issue that Mr. Obama’s campaign has faced” in attempting to balance the president’s pledge to reduce special interests in politics with the need to raise money to compete in what’s likely to be the most expensive presidential race in history, thanks to Republicans’ skilled use of super PACs.


Suzanne Merkelson is the Associate Web Editor for United Republic, where she curates and comments on the day’s top money-in-politics news. She previously produced web content for Foreign Policy magazine and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic, among others.

Get Involved

Comments

  • David Dickinson

    I came to read this article because I needed help parsing its title. However, once I read it, I was disappointed. The Times’ article left the impression that Obama wants to end corruption and the influence of money in politics, even though he went back on his pledge to not allow lobbyists to serve shortly after he took the oath of office. He’s kept open all those revolving doors that allow regulators to go to work for companies that they regulated when they leave government service, and he caters to contributors no less than any other corrupt member of Congress.

    We need to stop calling it “the need to raise money” and call it what it is: Influence peddling, bribery, and corruption of the worst kind.

Take Action

Donate

Republic Forum

Follow us

Join the Republic
continue to United Republic »