When Edwards condemns lobbyists, is he including Clark?

John Edwards made some good points last night about corporate/lobbying influence in Washington during the debate last night. I wonder if those who agree with him find Clark's work as a lobbyist troubling.


Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7380-2003Sep26?language=printer

do we include Edwards?

Our candidates are natural rivals, since they draw much of their intended support from the same base.

You can call Edwards many things, but he's not a sell-out. By what possible logic do you arrive at that tidy little dismissal?

What do you mean by that?

...everyone else who voted for the IWR when posters on DU point out Democrat "sell-outs"

I'm not sure if this is fair or not, but it definitely seems like Edwards doesn't get off the hook, atleast at DU.

All he was trying to do is remind people that he's been in politics for a shorter period of time than Howard Dean and that if you're really looking for someone to take on the corporations, he's been doing it his whole life. It's not a condemnation against another candidate, it's identifying who he is.

Seems to me that Clark would be a very good person to be looking into this sort of thing, given his background. I'd rather have someone of his character and patriotism involved with it rather than say, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Boykin.

I also think it would be appropriate for whomever creates posts like this that pose a question and invite others to comment should declare their bias (if they are honestly aware that they have one)... sort of like on CNBC when financial analysts are required to disclose if they own any shares in a company that they are recommending.

kind of stuff. Advising companies on winning contracts is different from being a (registered) political lobbyist. The U.S. administration needs to find people to fulfil the tasks that are ALREADY designated to it by the executive or the legislative branch. Consulting with a company to win these already existing contracts doesn't count as political lobbying.

Lobbyists, on the other hand, try to influence policy making in a manner that benefits corporate or group interests, whether by creating NEW tasks (and therefore new contracts) or by changing regulations or laws or their application to make them more favorable to these interests.

The latter are the lobbyists that Edwards was talking about--they actually affect the shape of policy. The former are consultants--they help companies win procurement contracts that the government has already created. Can these two roles intersect? Yes. Did they in Clark's case? No, at least not according to the information you have cited--the U.S. government clearly decided to do this on its own before asking Axciom to carry this out.

EDWARDS: And the other thing I'm certain of is we're not going to have a coronation.

The Republicans have coronations. We have campaigns, we have elections. And that's exactly what's going to happen in this particular case.

... not only would he like to have Bush spend a day doing what he does (which is, going around the US listening to people tell him how they really experience America), but he would like the people in his audience go around DC with him for a day to see how it's the lobbyists who make a ton of money who really make things happen in our gov't for people who already have a lot of money and power.

If that's what Clark was doing, that's who Edwards is talking about. If that's NOT what Clark did, then Edwards isn't talking about him.

tell Americans how much he's costing them by doing what the lobbyists ask him to do.

He says that Bush is married to big corporate interests. There's no divide.

One is that while the problem of government corruption and favors is huge, it is also difficult to weed out the bad actors. And everyone must face the fact, that business does have some role to play in our society and government. Lobbying itself is not the problem, we do need controls to prevent politicians from being swayed by personal gifts or other inducements.

Two is that if you read the article you will find that Clark was described this way:

"Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts."

Why does that NOT surprise me. I just think Clark is one of the good ones.

...but with the politicians that are swayed by lobbyists.

It's easier for the rhetoric to spout "special interests" and lobbyists having too much power, but his criticism is almost exclusive focused on the Bush administration being in bed with the energy industry and with Halliburton.

It was probably the only time in Clark's life he made any kind of money. And then he goes and gives it up to try and save the country by running for president. What ails the man, I ask?

He must be some kind of :hippie:

There are legitimate concerns about Clark, but painting him as a corporate lobbyist is desperation.

...been to the "Clark is a evil corporate lobbyist" well one time too many and the charge has lost what little sting it had - thanks to a few logical and intelligent responses.

;-) Flamebaiters club.