Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Halliburton Gave Politicians $4million & Received 600% Return Since 2000

CONTACT: Halliburton Watch Jim Donahue, 213-725-3645Halliburton Gave $4 Million to Politicians and Received 600 Percent Gain on Contracts Since 2000, HalliburtonWatch Says

WASHINGTON – September 26 – Halliburton spent $4.6 million since 2000, buying influence in Washington via campaign donations and lobbying, a HalliburtonWatch analysis reveals.
The board of directors and their spouses personally gave $828,701 to candidates for Congress and the presidency while Halliburton’s political action committees gave $1.2 million, most of it donated to Republicans and political organizations with strong Republican ties, according to the analysis.

The company spent an additional $2.6 million lobbying members of Congress, the White House and federal agencies.

Conclusion: Halliburton’s $4.6 million in political arm- twisting since 2000 has paid-off magnificently as the company’s government contracts ballooned by over 600 percent in value by the end of 2005, mostly because of the war in Iraq. Web: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/waxman0606.pdf

In 2000, Halliburton was the 20th largest federal contractor, receiving $763 million in federal contracts. By 2005, Halliburton had grown to become the sixth largest federal contractor, receiving nearly $6 billion in federal contracts during that year.

Between March 2003 and June 30, 2006, Halliburton received $18.5 billion in revenue from the federal government for the war in Iraq.

The company has seen its profits in government contracting almost quadruple to $330 million in 2005 compared to $84 million in 2004.

During one quarter in 2005, Halliburton’s war profits skyrocketed by 284 percent. Web: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html

War contracts, intensified violence in the Middle East and record oil prices helped quadruple the stock price between the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and March 2006. As a result, the board of directors together saw the value of their stock holdings in the company increase by over $100 million. Web: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/houston2006.pdf

CEO David Lesar holds the largest number of shares of any Halliburton official, owning 844,928 common shares and share options as of March 1, 2006. The shares were worth $17.3 million as the troops first rolled into Baghdad in 2003. Three years later, on April 10, 2006, the shares were worth $66.8 million, for a $49.5 million gain. Lesar sold an additional 631,071 shares during the war at various stock prices for gross amounts totaling between $12.9 million on March 20, 2003, and $49.9 million on March 1, 2006. Web: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/houston2006.pdf

More Information is available at http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/halpolmoney.html.
Email list subscription: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ealert.html


September 26, 2006 - Posted by | U.S. politics


  1. “Halliburton Gave $4 Million to Politicians and Received 600 Percent Gain on Contracts Since 2000, HalliburtonWatch Says”

    Then, according to the Religion of Capitalism, Halliburton should be up for Sainthood. They, after all, have a moral and legal responsibility to get as much profit for their shareholders as possible, and it seems they’re succeeding.

    All Praise the Dollar, George is His Name.

    Comment by Dan Trabue | September 27, 2006

  2. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. The nature of military spending has also changed dastically since 2000, moving towards logistics and rebuilding for what is happening in the Middle East. This is more of Halliburton’s specialty.

    Comment by Looney | September 28, 2006

  3. C’mon, Looney. I never said they caused these wars. But the no-bid contracts suggest that the correlation is more than coincidental or their specialty.

    Also, millions, maybe billions, of dollars that is supposed to have gone to reconstruction in Iraq has disappeared and there has been little investigation of Halliburton becasue of its crony-capitalist, near-incestuous relationship with this admin.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | September 28, 2006

  4. Just in general, any time you have big government, big corruption is sure to follow. My main objection to nuclear power, for example, is that the projects are so large that megascale corruption is sure to follow. I sort of agree that corruption is in the Halliburton contracting loop, but the same applies to the public schools.

    Comment by Looney | September 29, 2006

  5. There was less thean 1/10 of 1% corruption in the programs of the New Deal which saved my family during the Depression. Bureacracy makes it easier for corruption to exist, but not necessary.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | September 29, 2006

  6. I find it interesting that those who are supposedly most distrustful of gov’t – especially big gov’t – are oftentimes one in the same as the ones who support giving our gov’t a military machine larger than the next 25 countries combined along with unimaginable weapons of mass destruction.

    I agree that oftentimes with big gov’t comes big corruption and our military is our biggest cash cow, so what does that lead us to think?

    Comment by Dan Trabue | September 29, 2006

  7. Looney said, “I sort of agree that corruption is in the Halliburton contracting loop, but the same applies to the public schools.”

    I’m going to need examples of the latter to know what you mean. In any case, war profiteering is illegal and companies were tried for it in previous wars–including Prescott Bush’s company during WWII. So, the kind of corruption we are seeing here is not just “run of the mill,” nor an inevitable part of “big government,” but a result of an ideology–this admin. is riddled with it–that sees governmental office not as public service, but as an opportunity to make one’s rich friends richer so that they, in turn, can give you lucrative jobs when you are no longer in office. The “new way” of war is to privatize almost everything and to see war not as a last resort and a saving of the nation (as, arguably, it was viewed in the past), but as an opportunity to make even more money.

    It is the sign of a degenerate society.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | September 29, 2006

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: