2007: Obama worked on behalf of Pharma and Chemical lobbies.

Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests

July 16, 2007 8:00 AM

Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.


In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who "have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."


"It's an entire culture in Washington -- some of it legal, some of it not," the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.


But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm's U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.


Nufarm wasn't the only beneficiary of Obama's efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.


The lobbyists' task? "Introduce legislation to temporarily suspend customs duties for the importation of a pharmaceutical ingredient," they wrote on their lobbying forms. Less than three weeks later, the men had earned their $20,000 fee, thanks to Obama.

On May 26, he introduced S. 3155, a bill specifically exempting Astellas' key ingredient from tariff payments. The bill cost the federal government more than $1 million in lost revenue, according to government estimates.


Together, Obama's obscure measures -- known as tariff suspensions -- steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers, according to government estimates.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html






So working to exempt Illinois-based chemical and pharmaceutical companies from import taxes is reducing corporate lobby influence in Washington?

Anyone care to respond?

E_D_?

Wouldn't THAT be the best way to get ALL issues dealt with?

Why complain about the system we have when YOU support those who MAKE SURE government is closed to the people?



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


Show concern that REALLY MATTERS.

Obama supporters are covering their eyes and frantically trying to figure out ways to spin it!

to continue as it has for decades and spin is ALL you deserve from the Bush-Clinton crowd.

Why even PRETEND that closed government isn't what causes spin on EVERY ISSUE?

THE CLINTON MACHINE IS CIRCLING THE DRAIN, MUST GO INTO FULL SPIN CYCLE.

You know the answer but you have invested yourself in something that you know deepdown DOESN'T EXIST. The Clintons are not FOR us. They were set up FOR Poppy Bush and Jackson Stephens and Dubai and Saudi royals.....not FOR us.

Also, "doing the same things" is completely against Obama's platform of "change."

I'm not attacking Obama. I've donated to his campaign and followed him for four years.

I don't like being told that a candidate is trying to "change" Washington by reducing lobbyist influence, yet has a campaign full of lobbyist advisors

while Clinton's campaign

do the bidding of the worst of them.

He's surrounding himself with advisors I KNOW to be concerned advocates for open government, and Hillary is surrounded by those I know have protected the FULL-ON FASCISTS of the BFEE.

The OP is counting on people to be gullible enough not to read the entire article.

Meanwhile, Hillary is

Washington Insider. Being a fresh face on the scene has it's positives but he's just another suit. If people really wanted a candidate that goes against "the grain of Washington Politics" they would have voted for Kucinich.

I convinced one person at least, I think. My job is not to ask people to support Hillary, my job is to ask people to learn about the facts of their candidates. Some people are so blind and so passionate and so ignorant that they will close their eyes in the face of truths. That is dangerous.

Well if she does it too, why bring it up like she is all alone in this?

Hypocrisy.

Huh?

:hi:

:hi:

No wonder Edwards was shown the door early.

Hillary is open about her lobbyist connections. She doesn't campaign against lobbyists, or claim to be the champion of reducing lobbyist influence in Washington.

Obama does. Which is why his campaign being full of corporate lobbyist advisors for companies like Pfizer, Carlyle Group, Verizon, and others is an issue.

"You've got to have a president in the White House who is not simply subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists"

I am not getting excited yet.

I don't see a way to spin this in favor of either candidate.

Talking to people in the industry and taking money from lobbyist are not one in the same. There is no appearance of impropriety. The article makes no mention of how and why Obama made his decision. This is just a BS piece trying to create the impression that something unseemly happened.

lobbyist INFLUENCE on policy in general.

This is a clear issue of living up to his rhetoric. He claims to be against corporate lobbyist influence in Washington, yet he has lobbyists for every major corporate industry in America running his campaign.

"You've got to have a president in the White House who is not simply subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists" - Barack Obama

The Hillary machine is counting on people to be too lazy to read the entire article.

There is nothing in this article that suggests Obama made his decision based on the "whims of corporate lobbyist."

One thing for certain, he isn't influenced by their money!

again

This is a clear issue of living up to his rhetoric. He claims to be against corporate lobbyist influence in Washington, yet he has lobbyists for every major corporate industry in America running his campaign.

"You've got to have a president in the White House who is not simply subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists" - Barack Obama

These are companies in his district, perhaps major employers.
Were there jobs at stake? Were these companies talking about moving overseas if they couldn't be economically competitive here? This is the sort of argument legislators sometimes hear that will sway even someone like Barack with the most liberal record in the Senate last year.

Did Barack take money from these companies? Or just provide legislative help because he thought it would provide economic benefits in his district?

Not to say the vote was correct, but this could be a case of weighing lesser ot two evils.

You have to look at the totality of someone's record. There is no perfect politician.

I would still prefer Barack to Hilary, who has taken money from Fox News mogul Rupert Murdock, sat on the board of Wal-Mart, and actually represented many large corporations as a corporate lawyer for so many years. Not to say she won't do some good things if elected, I believe she can and she will. But her voting record is more conservative overall in the Senate, she voted for the war, and her corporate backing over the years is more extensive than Barack's.

Or are you just using YOUR subject line to deliberately mislead the readers?



Would you like to try to imply "bundling" by employees of a subsidiary of Nufarm to the total of
$1,100????

When you say things like this:

"You've got to have a president in the White House who is not simply subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists" (Barack Obama)

But have lobbyists for Pfizer, Carlyle Group, Verizon, etc. etc. running your campaign, that makes you dishonest.

Combined with lobbyists referring to him as one of the shape-shifters in Congress, it makes me reluctant to believe he will be much of an improvement.

He's ripe for scandal and conflict of interest entaglements.

With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic. Sen. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., has introduced none, although she has co-sponsored 19 that were introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Seven were to benefit the Honeywell Corporation, whose lobbyist has contributed $6,500 to Clinton since 2005. Sen. Joseph Biden, Del., has introduced none.


read- hill did the same, just made sure she was hidden behind chuckie.

personally, i would like to know what these products are. are they ingredients in aids drugs? are they things that farmers need?
and if influence comes for $1,100 in campaign contributions, i think i should be in line for a little government work.

this ought to tell people just how little there is there in the clinton camp attacks. maybe you should check in with the mothership, ed, before you post too many more links that contain info about your own candidate that is as bad or worse.

or claim to be the champion of reducing lobbyist influence in Washington.

Obama does. Which is why his campaign being full of corporate lobbyist advisor's for companies like Pfizer, Carlyle Group, Verizon, and others is an issue.+



and again, this thread isn't about Hillary