Talk Left: Obama's, Edwards' Position On Lobbyists "Disingenuous."

TPM does a very good interview with Ron Fournier of the AP on the "lobbyist" issue that became the headline of yesterday's YKos Presidential Forum...

<--- youtube video--->

As Fournier suggests, the way the issue was portrayed in the forum was, to say the least artificial. Blasting lobbyists while taking money from state lobbyists and the spouses of lobbyists, as Obama does, or from certain principals like hedge fund managers, as Edwards does, is certainly disingenuous. The question is how come that does not make most stories? To Fournier's great credit, it did make his:



http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/5/155352/1155

Obama just can't catch a break. Like his supporters he wouldn't know the damn truth if it jumped out and bit him on the nose. :eyes:

ON EDIT: Or he does know the truth and...

That would be... ordinary citizen.

Any other reading is so insanely byzantine that it should be rejected out of hand.

...they send a state lobbyist.

Or a lawbreaker, but that's another story.

I'm just saying, isn't it odd that Fournier insists that it's hypocritical for Obama to accept money only from the lobbyists who aren't actually lobbying him in his capacity as a US Senator?... Like, wha?...

...of a state.

A state-run power company will lobby the state's Senators and congressmen on legislation favorable to that state-run entity.

A non federal lobbyist cannot lobby a US Senator (examples: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Trent Lott) without being in heavy breach of the law, whether or not this person is employed as a state lobbyist. Therefore, for that person to legally lobby Obama, that person has to be, for the purposes of the law, and therefore, for the purposes of Obama's pledge, a federal lobbyist. (literally, a lobbyist of members of the federal government, in this case, the legislative branch.)

So what is this "not necessarily" business? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

State-run entities (utility companies, etc.) employ lobbyists to lobby their Senators and congressmen. "Illinois Light and Gas" (if that is their name) will lobby Obama on legislation friendly to utility companies in general or for pork aimed directly at the state.

Can you quote me a source for the lobbying laws you're talking about?

I don't recall the name of the latest greatest law passed relating to lobbyist registration but, to put it in very simple terms, if you lobby the federal government as a lobbyist, you must register as a federal lobbyist. My head wasn't buried in the sand during the last 4 or 5 campaign finance reform debates. You can look up the law on your own just fine.

Having said that, you are confusing two separate things and making them into one.

- State entities employing lobbyists to lobby Obama.

- Obama accepting or refusing campaign contribution from the same lobbyists that lobby him in his capacity as federal Senator.

You're trying (like Fournier) to make it sound like these are one in the same; they are not. Any state entity employed lobbyist lobbying a US Senator is either a lawfully registered federal lobbyist or a crook and a criminal who should be reported.

Many jurisdictions, in response to concerns of corruption, require the formal registration of lobbyists who come in contact with government representatives. Since 1995, under the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), most persons who are paid to make direct "lobbying contacts" with members of Congress and officials of the federal executive branch are required to register and file reports twice a year.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying )

(Contains link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States )

In other words, even lobbyists employed by state entities who lobby members of Congress (which includes the House and the Senate) must register with the FEDERAL government and file reports twice a year, which makes them FEDERAL lobbyists, which means that Obama would not be accepting their money because they are actually lobbying him rather than simply supporting him as private citizens.

I do not see why this is complicated.

accepting lobbyists money is one of Hillary's weak points. To counter that, her supporters try and make it seem like all the others are doing it too. It's an obvious ploy to project her soft spot onto her opposition.

You did a great job exposing this issue for what it is - a diversion.


All that being said, I don't think Hillary is in the pocket of the lobbyists that donate to her. But I would prefer those influences to be neutralized or at least minimized as Obama and Edwards has done.

That no one seriously believed that she's influenced by lobbyists... after saying that many lobbyists are wonderful people with important causes representing the common people. ...If that's the case, why is Hillary's heart Pharaoh-like hard to their concerns? Why shouldn't she be in the pocket of such good, virtuous people? That doesn't make sense to me. But I'm not expecting it to, so that's ok. She's free to hold that position.

We have a sick system, unfortunately change will have to come incrementally and from people within that system. If you think a 100% pure candidate will magically rise from nowhere and totally reform the process, you are out of touch with reality.

Leave it to Hillary supporters to try to state otherwise. They know her stance is wrong. All she is worried about is lining her pockets with money. She should be there to care about the people instead of the lobbyist. I thought that was what the Senators were there to do (carry out the mission of the people). However, I guess Edwards and Obama have it wrong. It should be to carry out the mission of the Lobbyist to hear Hillary and her supporters tell it.

Think about what Hillary said:
There is the NEA...teacher's union. There is a nurse's union, the AFL-CIO. All of these lobbyists represent ordinary people. Hillary is correct.

I don't like the idea of lobbyists at all, and I agree that no one should be paying off our legislators. Until the system is fixed, let's not ban those who lobby for the people.
It seems to me there is a vast difference between a lobbyist for Halliburton and a lobbyist for the nurse's union.

I wonder if Obama and Edwards are just being opportunists or if they do not see the difference.

Why we have had so much corruption in government lately. This will not wash with the people (voters) that is for sure. I am sick of people pretending to be for the people and in the process lining their pockets. Enough is Enough.

Boy, you must be in a quandary.

Try to spin another way because it is not working.

Everyone in their right mind know Lobbyist is wrong.

I represent clients on Capitol Hill. I set up meetings for them on Capitol Hill with legislators and legislative staff. I advise my clients about pending legislation and help draft talking points so that they can make their case for or against a particular bill or provision of a bill. Staffers also contact me to get information so that they can better advise their bosses about specific factual matters.

I have done this job for a wide range of clients, including environmental groups, etc. Exactly what is "wrong" with someone lobbying for, NARAL, or the National Resources Defense Council?

than anything else.

So much for the claim that "she's always on her game."

From Rupert Murdoch...

It's what losing campaigns do to generate some heat...

Stay in Iraq as long as it takes, incremental gains on health care (maybe), continued coddling of trading partners, minimal to no ethics and lobbying reform, etc., etc.

Can't you just feel the lack of inspiration?

'they represent real people' is one of the most absurd comments from a serious candidat ever.

hedge funds, whether you think they should donate or not, are NOT lobbyists. why muddy the waters?

to hell with lobbyists.

to hell with pretending they do any good whatsoever.

to hell with muddying the clear waters.

If Edwards or Obama accept contributions from the AFL-CIO, then they're taking money from an organization with "lobbying operations." Virtually every industry in America has lobbying operations, so taking a comtribution from a hedge fund manager (as Edwards has done) does not create a direct link to K Street.

This is similar to Michael Moore's allegation that all the candidates are taking money from "the healthcare industry" without differentiating between associations of healthcare professionals (who are in favor of single-payer) and pharmaceutical company lobbyists.

I think if the candidates choose to try to put a wedge between themselves and the other candidates, they better make damn sure their hands are clean and they are beyond reproach.

The problem is none of them are pristine.

Were they weighing in on the debate, bashing the right wing candidates? Of course not. They were bashing Dems, like they do24/7. So maybe talkleft will get their wish and we can live with President Willard for 8 years. Wouldn't that be great?

think it is OK to accept federal lobbyist money. Simply because the candidate they support accepts that money.