Obama's ban on lobbyist cash not so broad

[wyldwolf]

While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital.

Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, D.C., Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating he takes no donations from "federal lobbyists." His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

But the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobby operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in state capitals including Springfield, Ill., Tallahassee, Fla., and Sacramento, Calif., although some deal with national clients and issues.

"Clearly, the distinction is not that significant," said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a think tank that focuses on campaign issues. "Overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/60617.html

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/60617.html

[papau]

1. Obama returned $50,000 from registered lobbyist and I guess told them to do it the right

way next time - one must influence - or try to influence - in the manner the candidate deems gets the best PR for the candidate.

I doubt this will change the mind of many Obama supporters! :-)

[Missy M]

2. I always suspected he didn't raise all that money....

from the little guy sending in $5.

[Bullet1987]

3. Some people just look for things to complain about...

[Missy M]

4. They sure do....

just take a look at what is said about Hillary Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

5. Hillary + corporate money = whore. Obama + corporate money = It's OK! It's alright!

[Missy M]

7. I know, that is what I was trying to imply....

thank you. With Hillary she is a nasty corporatist but with Obama it's considered A-OK, he's still pure.

[Double T]

6. ....and SOME PEOPLE want to know the REAL TRUTH about the candidates.........

and where their campaign contributions are coming from......corporate lawyer lobbyists!!

[msongs]

8. some people just like to launder money nt

[wyldwolf]

9. it does sound a bit like laundering.

[Ethelk2044]

16. How much money did Hillary Return?

[rinsd]

19. Hillary wasn't the one who said she wasn't taking lobbyist dough.

She was not the one to make a big stink about her purity in terms of lobbyist cash only to raise it in an underhanded fashion.

Her lobbyist money amounts to barely one half of a percentage point of her campaign funding.

[rinsd]

15. The percentages of money raised by any of our candidates from lobbyists is paltry

Hillary Clinton who is supposedly "owned" by lobbyists for taking their contributions took in all of a half a percent of her 1st Q haul from lobbyists or lobbyist related contributions.

[BeyondGeography]

10. HRC ban on lobbyist cash non-existent

[wyldwolf]

11. So because HRC tooks such money, it's OK that Obama did, too? Even though he said he wouldn't?

[BeyondGeography]

12. He has conditions which have led to the return of some contributions

She has none.

Obama has consistently supported publicly-financed elections; HRC says she's in favor of same but there's nothing in her behavior to suggest she believes it.

Obama has the edge in this conversation. In the meantime, he's trying to be elected President in a privatized environment. Most people understand who would be more serious about election reform between Obama and HRC, "fine line" notwithstanding.

[wyldwolf]

13. So. because he returned some, BUT KEPT SOME.. and she had not returned any... it's OK?

And remember - this thread isn't about ANYTHING ELSE but corporate and lobbyist money.

[rinsd]

14. "Obama has the edge in this conversation"

How so? Creating an air where you are perceived as lobbyist free while taking lobbyist money under self defined technicalities is fucking stupid. If his campaign were smart (and they have been so far) they would refuse all lobbyist dollars when they say they are refusing lobbyist dollars.

All this does is make him look untrustworthy for what amounts to very little in the way of cmapaign contributions.


"
Obama has consistently supported publicly-financed elections;"

How so? Was there a vote I missed? Isn't he opting out of federal spending limits?

"HRC says she's in favor of same but there's nothing in her behavior to suggest she believes it. "

Well hoppefully Clinton's stance on publically financed elections isn't like Obama's lobbyist ban.

[Ethelk2044]

17. She needs to show me the money.

In other words return the money then we can talk about Obama.

[rinsd]

21. Why should she return the money?

Where did she promise not to accept lobbyist dough?

Why does 0.5% of a candidate's camapign cash in lobbyist dough even matter?

The only reason this matters is because Obama and Edwards made a poltiical calculation to look cleaner than they actually are.

Much like the "I will not be the 1st to go negative" ploy in poltiics, it was alot of grandstanding with no real connection to reality.

But in response to your deamnds, I suppose Clinton could pull an Obama and return obvious lobbyist cash while keeping their spouses' money, unregistered lobbyist money and state lobbyist money. Since you seem untroubled by what Obama has done, I guess she would be ok with you then.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Here, so that you may be better informed

<But there is still a slim hope that the 2008 presidential race won't become merely an endless cash scramble. Obama and McCain have pledged to accept public finance limits for the general election, providing that their opponent agrees.

Despite her stated intention to shun public financing, Clinton still could opt for a saner general election if she wins the nomination. Romney, Giuliani and Edwards haven't promised to take matching funds.>

<...In a first, Clinton has turned down matching funds for both the primary and general, allowing her to raise money for both campaigns now. She could still return the money raised for the general election if she accepts public financing. All the candidates should make the pledge that Obama and McCain have taken, and save what's left of a valuable system.>

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070417_Editorial___Public_Campaign_Financing.html

[rinsd]

23. Better informed? Here's my candidate's grandstading pledge?

"Obama and McCain have pledged to accept public finance limits for the general election, providing that their opponent agrees"

Why not just post on which one states they will not be the 1st to go negative? Its meaningless grandstanding on which Obama has kept his options open, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17043002/, to not accept public funding.

It should also be noted that although she is opting out for her run she is supportive of them, http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2007/04/02/clinton-supports-public-financing

Side Note: This forum isn't just for us various supporters to wage war on each other but to learn and frame arguments. The above is an easy dismissal of what you have written.

What I would have written would have been "Obama has been supportive of publically financed elections at the fed level for years. He has spoken glowingly, http://www.campaignmoney.org/files/flash/clip/obama-on-his-support-for-public-financing, about the bill from Durbin and Specter, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.936:

And the end of the day, its not gonna be Hillary supporters vs. Obama supporters but supporters of the Demcoratic nominee vs. the GOP. We have to start learning the best counter-arguments not only for our own candidates bu the others on the Democratic slate.

[BeyondGeography]

24. So HRC can't even bring herself to "meaningless grandstanding"

That's a classic bit of Clinton-speak, isn't it:

<Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has announced her support for public financing of federal elections on the same day she broke records for first quarter fundraising the presidential race, taking in $26 million. Although she opted out of public financing for her White House bid, she does believe it's the ultimate reform to pursue.>

Look, no need for lectures on good behavior. How did this thread start out? A Clinton supporter poking fun at Obama's symbolic approach to taking lobbyist dollars. She can't even bring herself to take symbolic stances on protecting public financing in this election cycle, hence the statement that Obama has the edge in this conversation. Which he does, symbolic though it may be.

[rinsd]

26. This was no lecture on good behavior. Its about winning arguments.

And you are not winning the argument(which at this point is Obama's support of publically financed elections) by whining about what Hillary has done or not done. You win the argument by pointing out Durbin's bill and Obama's emphatic support for it. You point out the times Obama has spoken about money in elections.

Obama claimed he would not take money from lobbyists when he did just that. It was a political calculation and one that may end up costing him a little if he doesn't remove the technicalities under which his campaign has stated he will accept lobbyist money.

It is very similar to when the candidate in the lead proclaims that he/she will not be the 1st to go negative. Its a great political manuveur putting your opponents into an uncomfortable position. How does one gain ground without negative advertising? Well that fantastic manuveur could become a boomerang weapon if negative ads come out about your opponent and you weakly claim it wasn't your camapign but rather an ally who did so without your permission.

If you want to bash your candidate because he has a reputation as a womanizer, you better make sure as shit you never, ever cheated on your wife.

This is politics 101.

"Obama's symbolic approach to taking lobbyist dollars."

Speaking of so-called Clinton-speak. ;-)

[BeyondGeography]

28. Pot, meet kettle

I guess we both flunked Politics 101 because your arguments on behalf of Clinton are measurably weaker than what I intially served up on Obama.

Thanks for making my point, though. ;)

[rinsd]

29. Your argument was a non-sequitar

That Clinton has not issued a no lobbyist money pledge.

So what? Was Clinton mentioned by the OP? Its a poor argument.

You then made a statement about publically financed elections something both candidates are supportive of.

The difference is Obama is making a political calculation in terms of his pledge for public financing in the general.

Here is why that pledge is essentially meaningless.

If the GOP candidate is behind in the polls, no freaking way do they accept public financing limits. Obama can raise up his hands and say he tried.

If Obama is losing(nightmare scenario that I hope will not be the case), he looks at the lesson of 2004 and decides that winning is far more important that sticking to a pledge that most people will not even be aware of.

[Forkboy]

18. At the rate we're going I wont like anyone by election time!

:thumbsup:

[MGKrebs]

22. I don't see an issue here.

After all, this is more of a symbolic gesture than anything else, and it's unrealistic to also ban any money that is in any way connected to lobbyists. Hell, I'm connected to lobbyists myself, the ACLU, Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, etc.

I'm guessing the point is that he wants to avoid some kind of conflict of interest appearance, and while that may be a bit naive and futile in reality, I think it is admirable in principle.

[skipos]

25. I'll still take him over Hillary anyday. nt

[Bitwit1234]

27. I knew he was too good to be true

Obama and his ethics started out like a house afire...now we find from a post on HuffingtonPost that he is an associate of a Chicago mob guy. He accepts money and has right along from this guy. The man owns slums in Chicago. And according to the article in 1997, for instance, the slum lord said he could not come up with the money to pay for the heat in his apartments, but managed to donate to Obama during and after his election to state senator. And he is still a close associate of Obama, and contributes money to his campaign. I really can't believe this. Obama says he is not into dirty politics and is con stanly berating Hillary Clinton. He hasn't started on Edwards, maybe he thinks Edwards is not to be reckoned with and Hillary is. Shame === you don't see Hillary smearing Obama. One thing she doesn't run a dirty tricks campaign.