OBAMA’S CORPORATE CASH AND POLICY NEXUS

Foreign policy is not the only area in which Obama contradicts the noble principles, elders and values he invokes. Take campaign finance. The junior Senator from Illinois denounces the corrosive influence of private political cash on U.S. democracy while cozying up to Chicago’s corrupt Big Money Mayor Richard M. Daley (with whom he shares the same high-priced campaign consultant ) and raking in campaign largesse from the commanding heights of the capitalist class. His top career sponsors include Goldman Sachs, Exelon (a leading Midwestern utility and the world’s leading nuclear plant operator), Soros Fund Management, J.P Morgan Chase & Co., a number of leading corporate law and lobbying firms (including Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden Arps, and Sidley Austin LLP), top Chicago investment interests (including Henry Crown & Co and Aerial Capital Management) and the like (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

“Tort Reform”



Obama’s reliance on such deep-pockets supporters helps explain why he voted for a business-driven federal “tort reform” bill that rolled back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations (Sirota 2006; Silverstein 2006). It is certainly part of why he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent (Sirota 2006).



It is undoubtedly related to his vote against a bill that would have killed an amendment to the 2005 energy bill that Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste called “one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation.” Under the amendment, which passed with Obama’s help, U.S. taxpayers are providing millions of dollars in loan guarantees to power plant operators. They “risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default” (Silverstein 2006).



One day after Obama denounced Big Money control of U.S. politics in Iowa City, the Los Angeles Times reported that 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.” Campaign finance expert Stephen Weissman observes that this raises troubling questions about the practical relevance of Obama’s much-ballyhooed pledge to turn down donations from “federal lobbyists.” As reporter Dan Morain explains, “some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama’s ban does not cover such individuals” (Morain 2007).



Thus, to give one example, Obama received $33,000 in the first quarter of 2007 from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird, which maintains a large lobbying division in Washington. Obama’s $33,000 came bundled from a number of “consultants” employed by the firm.



Also deleted from Obama’s “lobbyist ban” are state lobbyists. Obama took $2000 from two Springfield, Illinois lobbyists for Exelon, which spent $500,000 to influence policy in Washington last year and gave $160,000 directly to Obama.



Obama has also received $170,000 so far this year from financial giants Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, who together spent $4.6 million on federal lobbying in 2006 (Morain 2007).





BIG (DECEPTIVE) TALK ABOUT “SMALL DONATIONS”



Morain also reports that Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising total “from donations of $1000 or more.” Obama has “played up populist themes of reform,” trumpeting his “large number of small donations” and claiming (in the Senator’s words) to be “launcha fundraising drive that isn’t about dollars” (Morain 2007). But his astonishing first-quarter campaign finance haul of $25.7 million included $17.5 million from “big donors” ($1000 and up) – a sum higher than the much more genuinely populist John Edwards’ (Curry 2007) total take ($14 million) from all donors (Campaign Finance Institute 2007). According to Chicago Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet (Sweet 2007b):



“Obama talks about transforming politics and touts the donations of ‘ordinary’ people to his campaign, but a network of more than 100 elite Democratic ‘bundlers’ is raising millions of dollars for his White House bid. The Obama campaign prefers the emphasis to be on the army of small donors who are giving -- and raising -- money for Obama. In truth, though, there are two parallel narratives -- and the other is that Obama is also heavily reliant on wealthy and well-connected Democrats. ‘Bundlers’ are people who solicit their networks for donations and, at the elite giving levels, often get some assistance from campaign fund-raising professionals. Each of the 138 Obama bundlers promised to raise at least $50,000, and many are from Chicago, not surprising since Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker is the national finance chairwoman. Among those from the city are major Democratic donors Lou Sussman, who was John Kerry's chief of fund-raising in 2004; Betty Lu Saltzman, one of Obama's biggest boosters; personal-injury attorney Bob Clifford; Capri Capital CEO Quintin Primo; activists Marilyn Katz and Michael Bauer, Ariel Capital's John Rogers and Mellody Hobson. Hollywood moguls David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg; a string of Harvard Law School friends; Broadway producer Margo Lion, and Bill Kennard, managing director of the Carlyle Group, are among the other bundlers.”



The hypocrisy is many-sided. Last week Sweet reported that Obama had received large donations from at least eight executives at Island Def Jam, a hip-hop recording firm that markets rap artists Obama has accused of “degrading their sisters” with sexist slurs (Sweet 2007c).



For what it’s worth, his wife received $51,200 in 2006 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm where she was made a director after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate (Sweet 2007a). The granting of high-pay and do-little board posts to the spouses of politicians is a longstanding tool of the “old,” corporate-dominated politics that Senator Obama claims to reject. TreeHouse Foods has not responded to my queries regarding Michelle Obama’s qualifications for her position on the company’s board and the timing of her elevation to that position.



http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687

As we old farts who have been around the political block a time or three have been trying to tell you starry-eyed Obama's boys, Obama has been getting a FREE ride in the press because the MSM wants him to knock off Hillary -- whose baggage has all been opened, inspected, reopened, reinspected and reluctantly accepted as crime- and scandal-free. (I mean 'real' scandals, not made-up ones.)

The press will not take a good look at Obama until he is safely the nominee. The media -- which has finally come out and admitting to hating Hillary -- will not do anything to jeopardize the Golden Child's ascent to the Party leadership.

But then, just as they did in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, (their help wasn't needed in 1984) 1980 etc,. once the conventions are over, the corporate press will rise up, unsheath its claws, and tear into BO the same way it has been tearing into Hllary the last three months.

Obama will not be able to survive the sudden assault of bad news stories about him.

Hillary already HAS survived them.

That he takes clean contributions from employees of large firms? So does every other candidate. Clinton's taken even more.

When did she organize his campaign? How many operatives did she hire under one of her corporate names? We all know she did this but it's never discussed. Millions and millions of dollars were soaked into the making of his Campaign before he announced and filed....Thus FEC knows or requires nothing.

At least we know she started in November o4. She just as much told us this in her O Magazine.

http://www2.oprah.com/omagazine/200411/omag_200411_ocut.jhtml

OPRAH'S CUT WITH BARACK OBAMA

He electrified the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He's prompted cries of "first black president". He's Barack Obama, the United States Senator from Illinois. Surrounded by his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters, he takes a rare break from his 16-hour workday to sit down with Oprah at his Chicago home. Listen in.

"I don't consider myself political and I seldom interview politicians. So when I decided to talk with you , people around me were like, 'What's happened to you?' I said, 'I think this is beyond and above politics.' It feels like something new." — Oprah

He doesn't appear to be very progressive. He seems to be more right leaning then we originally thought.

without reactionary responses.

Of course Hillary does this but let's look at the system and how Obama too is a company man.

Thanks for posting.

K&R

Where did Obama make his millions at such an early age?

Yeah, that'll bring attention to the latest round of Clintonian smears...

it should be pointed out by careful analysis and documented refutation.

Otherwise it appears to be only a reactionary response to a detailed OP.

:shrug:

They've already voted with their checkbooks.

I wonder what they're getting out of the deal?

now I've seen everything.

:evilgrin:

"The many Z projects have played an enormously important role in connecting thousands of people outside the traditional channels of communication, bypassing the major media. and introducing into the marketplace of ideas original and provocative ideas and significant information that otherwise would be lost. It has always struggled financially, as befits a bold and dissident organization, and so deserves all the help we can possibly give it. I hope people will come through at this critical time, when Z's work is especially crucial to the nation."

Howard Zinn

U.S.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/curTOC.htm

:shrug:

Go figure.

A Personal Message
From Noam Chomsky

We live in an era of media concentration, vast efforts on many fronts (political, economic, military, ideological) to insulate state and private power from critical discussion or even popular awareness, and to reduce citizens to isolated atomized creatures restricted to satisfying personal 'created wants.' This massive and coordinated campaign has been partially successful, but only in a limited way.

The range and scope and dedication of popular activism has also increased, all over the world, reaching a level of international solidarity and mutual support that has never been seen before. The basic conflicts are very old, but they have taken quite dramatic and significant new forms, and the stakes are far higher than ever before. It is, regrettably, no exaggeration to say that the survival of the species is at risk -- and many others with it. We all know why.

The popular movements are the hope for a decent future. They of course have to have access to information and modes of interaction. In addition to alternative print and video, to a very large extent they have relied on the internet, which allows people to escape from the constraints of the doctrinal systems, to explore and investigate and discuss crucial issues with one another, to plan and organize.

Z Magazine and ZNet have played a crucial role in serving all of these functions. I see that every day. I travel and speak constantly, in the U.S. and abroad, and spend many hours a day just responding to inquiries and comments. I constantly discover that the people and organizations I come in contact with are relying very substantially on Z projects for information, discussion, and opportunities for interaction and organizing, to an extent that is quite remarkable. Z is also an invaluable resource for me personally, in all of these respects, and also in my case for providing a forum for intense and very constructive discussion, the only one I regularly participate in. And for posting articles, interviews, commentaries, etc., of mine. I know that many others have very much the same experience.

It is of inestimable importance, in my judgment, that Z and ZNet, now composing the new ZCom with their various other projects such as their growing video efforts and incomparable summer school, arguably the most exciting and instructive I have ever encountered.

Again, I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the stakes. I hope that all of us who are committed to resisting and reversing the powerful currents of reaction and oppression and violence, and showing that another world is indeed possible, will contribute as best we can to ensure that the remarkable achievements of Z and ZNet will be carried forward.

Noam Chomsky
U.S.



http://zmagsite.zmag.org/curTOC.htm

... before the Hillary-hating media takes off their BamaBlinders and really starts taking a good look at the man who would be king.

in support of Clinton, considering, especially, that I doubt seriously the author of the piece you posted is a Clinton supporter for obvious reasons.

In keeping with the spirit of Znet/Zmag, while the same author did not write the following, others at the website have similar criticisms of Clinton:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16275

Seems like many of the editorials at Znet are critical of both Clinton and Obama, for obvious reasons.

He bought the media with collected welfare checks and money from selling drugs.

I want to know how long Bigfoot's been running his campaign.

CLINTON:

DLA Piper $471,750
Goldman Sachs $413,361
Morgan Stanley $362,700
Citigroup Inc $350,895
Lehman Brothers $241,870
JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880
EMILY's List $213,266
National Amusements Inc $210,010
Kirkland & Ellis $179,676
Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800
Skadden, Arps et al $167,796
Merrill Lynch $165,042
Cablevision Systems $145,313
Time Warner $144,977
Microsoft Corp $143,459
Bear Stearns $141,835
Latham & Watkins $138,598
Patton Boggs $137,200
Ernst & Young $126,865
PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939


OBAMA
Goldman Sachs $430,578
UBS AG $286,480
JP Morgan Chase & Co $274,359
Exelon Corp $269,100
Kirkland & Ellis $256,089
University of Chicago $252,556
Lehman Brothers $248,190
Sidley Austin LLP $243,025
National Amusements Inc $224,950
Citigroup Inc $209,437
Skadden, Arps et al $206,166
Jenner & Block $186,629
Harvard University $184,600
Citadel Investment Group $168,900
Mayer Brown $168,056
Time Warner $162,218
Jones Day $158,400
University of California $137,272
Morgan Stanley $127,675
Credit Suisse Group $125,950

Seriously, what's the difference?

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 advisor's 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" Barack Obama

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


Obama is a wolf in sheeps clothes....

Why would they need to give money when they WORK FOR HIS CAMPAIGN?

Moses Mercado joined the Barack Obama presidential campaign team and already he's making waves.

The waves are being generated by Mercado's other line of work -- as a lobbyist with Ogilvy Government Relations who is registered to represent several dozen big-name clients, including the National Rifle Association, the Carlyle Group, the Blackstone Group, Monsanto, Pfizer Inc., United Health Group, Sempra Energy and Constellation Energy.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/28/mer...

Hmmm.. Obama has lobbyists for big Pharma, energy and the NRA working on his campaign.

Obama Brings on Top Lobbyist



Obama and Hillary Clinton discussed the influence of health care lobbyists at an August forum. (AP).

Former Dick Gephardt presidential campaign adviser Moses Mercado hasn't even joined the Barack Obama presidential campaign team and already he's making waves.

Mercado, a veteran field man who organized Gephardt's primary operations in Arizona and New Mexico, and later John Kerry's general election operations there, confirmed he is finalizing plans to serve as a senior adviser to the Obama campaign.

The waves are being generated by Mercado's other line of work -- as a lobbyist with Ogilvy Government Relations who is registered to represent several dozen big-name clients, including the National Rifle Association, the Carlyle Group, the Blackstone Group, Monsanto, Pfizer Inc., United Health Group, Sempra Energy and Constellation Energy.

His resume seems to contradict one of Obama's central themes on the campaign trail -- that as an outsider he can fend of the powerful business interests that he has argued have contributed to the income gap between rich and poor and has frustrated attempts to address issues such as high prescription drug costs and global warming.

In a speech he gave in New Hampshire back in June, Obama singled out the role of lobbyists in the process. As the Chicago Tribune reported at the time, Obama "sought to make the case that the culture of influence in Washington affects the pocketbooks of Americans in myriad ways, from drug prices to student-loan interest rates -- both of which, he argued, are inflated through industry manipulation of public policy."

The story went on to quote Obama, saying: "What's most outrageous is not the morally offensive conduct on behalf of these lobbyists and legislators, but the morally offensive laws and decisions that get made as a result."

The Obama campaign said they have not settled on exactly what role Mercado will play, but he will not take on any job until he has ceased his lobbying work. Obama aides said yesterday no one can work on the campaign and still be registered on behalf of clients as a lobbyist, and Mercado will not be exempted from that requirement.

Mercado, who is close with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, said his recent work as a lobbyist will not impede his ability to participate in a presidential campaign. He confirmed he would be taking a leave from Ogilvy, though the timing and temrs have not yet been ironed out.

"First and foremost, I'm an American and I participate in the process," he said. "That's the most important thing. I've always been involved in the process. That's why I'm going to be leaving , so that there isn't any question."

He said he was surprised anyone would take issue with his involvement. "I'm kind of honored that people are worried that I'm going to go work for Obama. It's good for the ego, I guess."

Upon being caught in a weasel move, ED informs her opponent that he "looses."

:rofl:

ass kicking, his fans will find out he's a wolf in lamb's clothing. I wonder how he plans to get those 650,000 extra troops he wants as revealed in his Renewing American Leadership essay....sweet talk them into joining?


I'll be writing in Hillary's name in the G.E. if he is the nominee.

money from lobbyists: Edwards, Clinton, and Obama debate about Lobbyist

Obama doesn't



Don't forget to actually check the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database



more

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"

since Lee Hamilton.

Funny set of standards you now use, E_D_. What happened?

(http://www.fec.gov/) for 2007, 30.3% of his funds come from $200 or less donors as opposed to Clinton's 12.2%. From donors giving $1000 or more, Clinton receives 71.7% of her funds, compared to Obama's 57.0% Maybe you can refresh me on who has more Prius driving, latte sippers.