# "Lobbyists Won't Find A Job in My White House!" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573 "2009-01-29T16:49:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/21 "2009-01-29T18:28:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, here’s my take: it was a foolish promise, made (I assume) without any actual experience in the reality of staffing the hundreds of political appointee jobs. As someone said in this thread, reality happened. > > Here’s what bugs me: why can’t we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? Perhaps because the people now working there spent the last two years arguing that experience isn’t really important… ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/22 "2009-01-29T18:29:27Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > [Remarks of Senator Obama in Spartanburg, SC, 11/3/07](http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php) > [@](#): > > “They won’t work in my White House!” Obama has said repeatedly this week on his Iowa bus tour. > > The line — a standard in his 25-minute stump speech — draws some of his loudest applause. > > The problem is that the pledge is not as definitive as it sounds. > > After reporters sought an explanation from campaign staff Saturday of how he could hold to such a pledge, Obama revised it at the next campaign stop. > > “They are not going to dominate my White House,” Obama said at a rally in this town northeast of Des Moines. > > “All right!” a woman shouted from the audience, showing the softer approach still worked. > [@](#): > > **Lobbyists can work in an Obama administration — just not for two years in an area related to their work as lobbyists, according to the candidate’s proposal released earlier this year.** > > For example, a Sierra Club lobbyist could not move directly into the Environmental Protection Agency, but might be able to do so after two years of working elsewhere in the administration. > [@](#): > > “You will not be able to go lobby for an industry that you regulated, and I won’t hire somebody into my administration regulating the industry he or she worked for,” Obama said. > > After being questioned Saturday by reporters — first through campaign manager David Plouffe, then directly at a press conference — Obama took pains to be more explanatory. And a bit less specific. > > “They are not going to run my White House,” Obama said in New Hampton. “And they won’t drown out the voices of the American people.” [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html) (From December of '07). I submit that the counselor hasn’t quite proven his case. At worst, Obama is guilty of overstating his case in a speech 12 months before the election. A statement which he clarified shortly after, and stopped using (according to the article, I haven’t checked) a full 10 months before the election. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/23 "2009-01-29T18:31:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > it was a foolish promise, made (I assume) without any actual experience in the reality of staffing the hundreds of political appointee jobs. But he needed another dig at Hillary Clinton. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/24 "2009-01-29T18:33:09Z")
I said it when Bush was President and I’ll say it now that Obama is President. Apologizing serves no purpose when you’re President of the United States. All the really matters is what you **actually do**. Most smart people know you’re going to do whatever it takes to get your ideas through Congress and you’ll do whatever it takes to get elected (hopefully short of outright criminality.) The ones who don’t know that are probably too uninformed to ever catch you in anything in any case. All apologizing does is give more ammunition for the opposition, who will never take the apology at face value. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/25 "2009-01-29T18:33:58Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Mona Sutphen was a lobbyist in 2003. How does that go against the policy? I only looked into her background (from the list) because I don’t want to waste my time researching them all if you’re not going to admit it when you’re wrong. So, is your objection to her gone or not? > > [Cite](http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128). > > Also, that chick is wicked hot. Yeah, based on that, my objection to her is gone. While Obama’s literal words don’t include a time limit, even at the time I didn’t think he meant “forever.” And five years is more than enough time. I think anyone who was lobbying in 2007 or 2008 should need a strongly justified exemption, but someone whose most recent lobbying was 2003 is a _de minimis_\* violation of the promise. And again – I think it’s wise to violate the promise in any event. My gripe is the refusal to admit that the promise is being junked, not the fact of its junking. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/26 "2009-01-29T18:35:21Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In fairness, the quote that **Mr. Moto** provided seems to specify _corporate_ lobbyists, which would exclude people who worked on behalf of the ACLU or La Raza. Doesn’t excuse hiring the guys who worked for Raytheon, or San Diego Gas and Electric, but it does trim the list down quite a bit. The problem is, of course, that corporations have interests they may lobby the government to address, just as the ACLU or La Raza might. Given how all of the things we discuss are just conglomerations of people and capital, barring hiring from one set while permitting hiring from the other introduces a clear bias in favor of the second set. Regulations on lobbying across the board would then be the way to go - assuming, of course, that it is across the board and that certain groups don’t more easily slip past the guidelines. Are Obama’s policies structured in that way? He has certainly invited questions of the whole process by clearly retreating from a campaign promise. ---
**Author:** ![emmaliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7bcc69/32.png) [@emmaliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emmaliminal)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/27 "2009-01-29T18:36:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s what bugs me: why can’t we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? I don’t mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. But I do mind the refusal to admit that this is what happened. Many posters in this thread have no trouble saying, in effect, “Hey - promise was made, but it’s now clearly unworkable.” Why won’t the White House say something similar? Speaking as an Obama supporter, I completely agree with you. I know presidential politics tends not to work that way, but I wish we’d change it so it did. ETA: I don’t think of that as an apology, but as an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/28 "2009-01-29T18:43:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Lobbyists can work in an Obama administration — just not for two years in an area related to their work as lobbyists, according to the candidate’s proposal released earlier this year. > > > > For example, a Sierra Club lobbyist could not move directly into the Environmental Protection Agency, but might be able to do so after two years of working elsewhere in the administration. > > [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html) (From December of '07). > > I submit that the counselor hasn’t quite proven his case. At worst, Obama is guilty of overstating his case in a speech 12 months before the election. A statement which he clarified shortly after, and stopped using (according to the article, I haven’t checked) a full 10 months before the election. The main objection raised so far is over Bill Lynn, who very recently left Raytheon. He is moving into an administration job as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Does that sound like working somewhere else in the administration to you? I know he has received his waiver - that hasn’t stopped the questions from coming even from senior congressional Democrats like Carl Levin. Nor should it. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/29 "2009-01-29T18:49:04Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > The main objection raised so far is over Bill Lynn, who very recently left Raytheon. He is moving into an administration job as Deputy Secretary of Defense. > > Does that sound like working somewhere else in the administration to you? > > I know he has received his waiver - that hasn’t stopped the questions from coming even from senior congressional Democrats like Carl Levin. Nor should it. As I said, I think that **Bricker** needs to prove the crucial point to his debate before moving any further. I reject the “throw some shit out there” style of debate. If he wants to debate Bill Lynn then he needs to accurately describe Obama’s policy, and then describe why Bill Lynn violates that. Then we can discuss the implications of this. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/30 "2009-01-29T18:54:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s what bugs me: why can’t we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? Because no one is requiring it of him. Obviously, if McCain had been elected and had done anything remotely similar, the servers at the SDMB would labor under the strain of the eight million threads all screaming “Liar!” To be fair, a comparably right-wing board would react as the Dope does - a regretful shrug. But forget that. > [@](#): > > I don’t mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. He issued the executive order on his first day in office. So apparently he believed, or wanted us to believe, that it was workable then. Now, within a few days, he apparently believes that it isn’t. I don’t buy that. If he is so all-fired smart, he would have known back when he made the promise, or at least after he had done the work he did before the inauguration picking out his staff, that it was unworkable. But, he went ahead anyway. _:shrugs:_ One wonders what else Mr. Squeaky Clean, the outsider with no experience who was going to sweep all the entrenched Beltway culture away in a tide of righteousness, had his fingers crossed when he said it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/31 "2009-01-29T18:55:06Z")
> [@treis](#): > > As I said, I think that **Bricker** needs to prove the crucial point to his debate before moving any further. I reject the “throw some shit out there” style of debate. If he wants to debate Bill Lynn then he needs to accurately describe Obama’s policy, and then describe why Bill Lynn violates that. Then we can discuss the implications of this. You’re not a moderator here - you may believe what you wish, but you can’t set the terms of the debate. And even if you could, your terms don’t make sense because they fail to account for very public promises made during the campaign. As I see it, the actual executive order violates the original promise to a slight degree, and by relying on waivers in certain high profile cases the administration is violating the implicit promise of the order, and winding up even further afield of campaign rhetoric. Now, it might not be a big issue to you - but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue - moreover, one Obama should address better than he has to date. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/32 "2009-01-29T19:01:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Obviously, if McCain had been elected and had done anything remotely similar, the servers at the SDMB would labor under the strain of the eight million threads all screaming “Liar!” To be fair, a comparably right-wing board would react as the Dope does - a regretful shrug. I don’t think that’s obvious at all. Although our servers are probably laboring under the strain of pulling up the smiley at the end of this sentence. 😃 > [@](#): > > But forget that. He issued the executive order on his first day in office. So apparently he believed, or wanted us to believe, that it was workable then. Now, within a few days, he apparently believes that it isn’t. Wrong. The order included the provision for waivers. So he apparently believes exactly as he did on day one. Can I trust you’ll revise your stance on that? > [@](#): > > I don’t buy that. If he is so all-fired smart, he would have known back when he made the promise, or at least after he had done the work he did before the inauguration picking out his staff, that it was unworkable. But, he went ahead anyway. 8000 people hired and how many given waivers? > [@](#): > > One wonders what else Mr. Squeaky Clean, the outsider with no experience who was going to sweep all the entrenched Beltway culture away in a tide of righteousness, had his fingers crossed when he said it. One wonders if you are actually thinking about your stances or reflexively taking them regardless of what Obama does. Three snaps in “Z” formation, Lobohan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/33 "2009-01-29T19:26:10Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Perhaps because the people now working there spent the last two years arguing that experience isn’t really important… Following the people working there the previous eight years arguing that knowledge and ability aren’t really important, either … Is there a real conflict of interest that any of you Bush diehards, loyal to the grave, would like to present for us that isn’t exposed to the sunlight by the waiver process? Any way you can point to in which government policies will be available to the highest bidder in a way comparable to the previous administration? Any way in which you can say the spirit of Obama’s promise (not the letter) is violated? Or is this really all just sour grapes and crocodile tears? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/34 "2009-01-29T19:29:24Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > You’re not a moderator here - you may believe what you wish, but you can’t set the terms of the debate. And even if you could, your terms don’t make sense because they fail to account for very public promises made during the campaign. > > As I see it, the actual executive order violates the original promise to a slight degree, and by relying on waivers in certain high profile cases the administration is violating the implicit promise of the order, and winding up even further afield of campaign rhetoric. > > Now, it might not be a big issue to you - but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue - moreover, one Obama should address better than he has to date. I never said it wasn’t a big issue. What I am saying is that stating the crucial fact to your debate in the form of a question isn’t the proper way to frame a debate (especially when the answer is in the negative). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/35 "2009-01-29T19:29:53Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > The problem is, of course, that corporations have interests they may lobby the government to address, just as the ACLU or La Raza might. Given how all of the things we discuss are just conglomerations of people and capital, barring hiring from one set while permitting hiring from the other introduces a clear bias in favor of the second set. No, the problem, as defined by the OP, is that Obama appears to be going back on his promise not to hire lobbyists. However, it appears that he specifically meant corporate lobbyists. The issue of whether this creates a bias (or if that bias is undesirable) is entirely separate from that raised by the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/36 "2009-01-29T19:35:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Didn’t then-Senator Obama promise that no lobbyists would find a job in the White House if we elected him President? > > Now: > > Tom Vilsack was registered to lobby last year on behalf of the National Education Association. Just hunting and pecking here, going through the list for my own edification. Tom Vilsack was a lobbyist for a teacher’s union and was chosen for Secretary of Agriculture. Can we safely assume you’ll remove him from the list of objectionable choices as well? According to the EO they don’t want lobbyists from the same field they’re being chosen for. Since education and agriculture aren’t the same it seems like there is no reasonable objection to him, right? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/37 "2009-01-29T20:12:10Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, the problem, as defined by the OP, is that Obama appears to be going back on his promise not to hire lobbyists. However, it appears that he specifically meant corporate lobbyists. The issue of whether this creates a bias (or if that bias is undesirable) is entirely separate from that raised by the OP. I don’t know how you can make this distinction - federal law doesn’t seem to recognize it. The executive order mentioned referred to definitions contained in Title 2, section 1602 USC. I looked that up and nowhere are corporate and noncorporate lobbyists delineated - the act of lobbying to influence legislation is defined and all regulations derive from that. Obama may have wished to place more strict controls on corporate lobbyists - the plain fact, though, is that he cannot do so without those same rules applying to the NRA, or AARP, or teachers unions. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/38 "2009-01-29T20:17:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Just hunting and pecking here, going through the list for my own edification. Tom Vilsack was a lobbyist for a teacher’s union and was chosen for Secretary of Agriculture. Can we safely assume you’ll remove him from the list of objectionable choices as well? > > According to the EO they don’t want lobbyists from the same field they’re being chosen for. Since education and agriculture aren’t the same it seems like there is no reasonable objection to him, right? That’s fair - but you’re hunting and not pecking. William Corr was very recently director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids - where he lobbied and was a registered lobbyist. He’s going to HHS as a deputy director. Now, the Obama people are saying he won’t work on tobacco related issues, which seems fair - except that tobacco issues are a pretty important part of what HHS does. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/39 "2009-01-29T20:22:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Can you even swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting a lobbyist? Sure, but you’re risking the wrath of Dead Cats For a Better America. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/40 "2009-01-29T20:26:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Just hunting and pecking here, going through the list for my own edification. Tom Vilsack was a lobbyist for a teacher’s union and was chosen for Secretary of Agriculture. Can we safely assume you’ll remove him from the list of objectionable choices as well? > > According to the EO they don’t want lobbyists from the same field they’re being chosen for. Since education and agriculture aren’t the same it seems like there is no reasonable objection to him, right? Yes… when I first saw that list, the distinction about “not in the same area” wasn’t clear to me. I remembered Obama’s promise as more sweeping. But I agree - SecAg is not the place where you’d think teachers’ union issues would hold large sway. I assume he’ll take pains to rescue himself from any critical farming education issues, should any arise. Seriously – that appointment is off the radar. Looking at the list with this info, in fact, I’d say the objectionable ones are: Bill Lynn, new deputy defense secretary, who was a lobbyist last year for Raytheon, a company that owes its revenue stream to the Defense Department. William Corr, new HHS deputy, lobbyist last year for tobacco-free nonprofit. Mark Patterson, chief of staff at Treasury, last year a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Cecilia Muñoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, and last year a lobbyist for La Raza. (Here I’ll withdraw objection if it becomes clearer that “intergovernmental affairs” has no policy or regulatory roles in Hispanic-specific interests). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573.md?page=3)