When it comes to the money that fuels our political system, there is no shortage from oil companies seeking to influence U.S. business and energy policy. But what does this high-octane assistance flowing from the energy industry to politicians say about each company's politics?

We analyzed the contribution patterns of the industry's major players to campaigns since 1980 and found that while most veer towards the conservative end of the spectrum, there is plenty of political petrol pumping on both sides of the aisle.

Texas-based Exxon Mobil earned the most conservative Crowdpac score of 4.3C, placing it squarely in the middle of the right end of the spectrum. Meanwhile ConocoPhillips and San Francisco Bay Area - based Chevron received the most moderate ratings of 1.9 C and 2.2 C, showing that support from big oil has a way of finding its way to candidates on both sides of the aisle.

And while Congress may be a well-oiled machine thanks to effective lobbying and advocacy tactics of groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, Crowdpac aims to be YOUR political machine. We provide the information and tools you need to find candidates who champion your issues and values.

Check out our issues section to explore and support candidates who share your views on energy policy today!

It's clear that powerful industries in America, such as the oil giants above, exert significant influence over Congress. But what about the 2016 presidential hopefuls? Who gives Clinton money? What about Walker? How does Martin O'Malley compare to Jeb Bush? Get all the information you need in our exclusive guide to the 2016 presidential elections.

Check it out

Sign up