# "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:** 3
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/41 "2009-01-29T20:27:42Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I don’t know how you can make this distinction - federal law doesn’t seem to recognize it. I didn’t make it. Obama did, in the campaign promise that he’s accused of breaking. > [@](#): > > 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. So what? He still picks who he offers jobs to. What the law says has no bearing on the subject. If he only offered jobs to people who had worked as non-corporate lobbyists, then he wouldn’t have broken his promise. Of course, he didn’t do that: there are several corporate lobbyists listed in the OP. But most of them are from non-profit organizations, so most of them do not represent violations of his campaign promise. ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/42 "2009-01-29T20:45:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > Lynn’s responsibilities include company liaison with the > executive and legislative branches of the federal govern- > ment, as well as state and local government relations. > He also directs the corporate strategy office, where he > is responsible for the development of companywide > strategic plans [link](http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:IilBHHZIGroJ:www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/rtnwcm/groups/public/documents/content/bio_lynn.pdf+Bill+Lynn&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a) That appears to match the general description of a lobbyist, and his hiring does violate Obama’s pledge. > [@Bricker](#): > > William Corr, new HHS deputy, lobbyist last year for tobacco-free nonprofit. William Corr was the director of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. He may have done lobbying in it’s broadest definition, but to call him a lobbyist is inaccurate. He was a director, and that job (presumably) had a lot more to do with directing the organization than direct lobbying. I don’t think a reasonable person would read Obama’s campaign promise to exclude lobbyists as including directors of public health organizations. > [@Bricker](#): > > Mark Patterson, chief of staff at Treasury, last year a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Another person who was a lobbyist. According to news reports, Patterson stopped lobbying for Sachs 20 months ago. 4 months under the required time to fulfill Obama’s pledge. If this is all of the violations, well, that’s not good, but I think if Obama comes this close to fulfilling all of his other pledges, he will have done pretty good. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/43 "2009-01-29T20:54:26Z")
> [@treis](#): > > William Corr was the director of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. He may have done lobbying in it’s broadest definition, but to call him a lobbyist is inaccurate. He was a director, and that job (presumably) had a lot more to do with directing the organization than direct lobbying. I don’t think a reasonable person would read Obama’s campaign promise to exclude lobbyists as including directors of public health organizations. The organization was devoted to lobbying for tobacco regulation and he was a registered lobbyist. Fits the definition to me - which is why, presumably, the administration was at pains to say he wouldn’t be deciding tobacco issues. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/44 "2009-01-29T20:55:53Z")
The reason he signed the order, including the waiver provision, right off the bat was to play into his theme of transparency. Even if he is going back on his promise (which happens), everyone has access to know just who in the administration is an exception to the rule, and the public can hold the president accountable for the actions of that lobbyist if there seem to be shady doings a-transpiring. I think the existence of this thread is a good thing, and I imagine President Obama would agree. ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/45 "2009-01-29T21:00:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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). I’d add Patrick Gaspard - lead lobbyist for a healthcare union. Unless the White House doesn’t indeed intend to make healthcare a priority. ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/46 "2009-01-29T21:04:03Z")
Also David Hayes - utilities and the Interior Department are not sufficiently removed. Unless, of course, Obama wants to address the issue of transparency a different way. Right now he’s saying there are conflicts but the waiver covers it, by making this public. But it doesn’t do that - it just justifies the appointment and then decisions are made as before. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/47 "2009-01-29T21:08:53Z")
> [@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? Did it bug you when previous presidents (dem or repub) did similar things? I don’t know if you are generally a repub or demo but with so many opportunities to be bugged in the past 16 years (Bush and Clinton), why is this the one where it bugs you that the white house doesn’t admit error? (If you’re wondering about my motivation for this post, it’s this: Let’s call a spade a spade. I could be wrong and apologize in advance if so, but it seems that this is about more than simply bi-partisan white house accountability). ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/48 "2009-01-29T21:21:28Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I could be wrong and apologize in advance if so, but it seems that this is about more than simply bi-partisan white house accountability). Maybe, but who cares? The politicians who comprise the government needs concerned individuals to hold it accountable for the promises made and their actions. I don’t care if they supported the politician or didn’t as long as their criticisms are fact-based and objectively verifiable. Also the critics should be amenable to reasonable addressing of their criticisms. A waiver for this executive order because of a dearth of qualified candidates in a time of war and economic crisis is eminently reasonable and should be acceptable barring a strong counterargument. Things like “Clinton’s were responsible for this guy’s suicide” are pretty dubious. Saying “I won’t hire lobbyists” and putting it in writing that he won’t hire lobbyists within two years of their time as a lobbyist, and then hiring lobbyists is a different thing. It’s objectively verifiable, and should be verified. Enjoy, Steven ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/49 "2009-01-29T21:22:49Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I’d add Patrick Gaspard - lead lobbyist for a healthcare union. Unless the White House doesn’t indeed intend to make healthcare a priority. The Office of Political Affairs doesn’t set policy. Do you think he’s going to be controlling healthcare? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/50 "2009-01-29T21:32:23Z")
> [@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. Gah, the sting of stolen thunder–that’s exactly what I was going to say. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/51 "2009-01-29T21:35:43Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Maybe, but who cares? The politicians who comprise the government needs concerned individuals to hold it accountable for the promises made and their actions. Agreed. The issue is valid regardless. My gut feel says **Bricker’s** problem is with more than purely bi-partisan white house accountability and if so why not be open and up front with that? Again, I could be inferring something that isn’t there. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/52 "2009-01-29T21:43:37Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Did it bug you when previous presidents (dem or repub) did similar things? Don’t expect an answer from him, but any longtime GD’er can tell you anyway: No, it didn’t. > [@](#): > > it seems that this is about more than simply bi-partisan white house accountability). Exactly, it’s about lining up _tu quoques_. ---
**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, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/53 "2009-01-29T22:04:35Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Agreed. The issue is valid regardless. My gut feel says **Bricker’s** problem is with more than purely bi-partisan white house accountability and if so why not be open and up front with that? Again, I could be inferring something that isn’t there. This is argument ad hominem. What does it matter? Suppose I tell you that I voted for Obama. DOes that make my observations here more valid? Very well: I voted for Obama. Now care to address the merits? ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/54 "2009-01-29T22:10:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is argument ad hominem. What does it matter? > > Suppose I tell you that I voted for Obama. DOes that make my observations here more valid? > > Very well: I voted for Obama. > > Now care to address the merits? Well you dropped the ones you have a problem with down to 4 individuals. Even if they were all lobbyists recently. Is waivering 4 people out of 8000 really such an outrage? They put the provisions there for the odd case where they’d need to hire someone who would normally be excluded. 4 people ain’t that bad. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/55 "2009-01-29T22:16:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well you dropped the ones you have a problem with down to 4 individuals. Even if they were all lobbyists recently. Is waivering 4 people out of 8000 really such an outrage? They put the provisions there for the odd case where they’d need to hire someone who would normally be excluded. 4 people ain’t that bad. No, it isn’t. It’s a perfectly reasonable record. What I object to is not the specific tiny percentage of four out of 8000. I object to the unwillingness to acknowledge that there was a promise not to do it, period. Did you even read my earlier posts in this thread? I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Did you read that post? Did you forget its contents at some point before you posted your question? ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/56 "2009-01-29T22:16:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > They put the provisions there for the odd case where they’d need to hire someone who would normally be excluded. 4 people ain’t that bad. This is assuming that these are the only ones that have come to light - I can’t make that assumption yet - especially as there are more jobs to fill. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/57 "2009-01-29T22:22:13Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Did it bug you when previous presidents (dem or repub) did similar things? I don’t know if you are generally a repub or demo but with so many opportunities to be bugged in the past 16 years (Bush and Clinton), why is this the one where it bugs you that the white house doesn’t admit error? Yes, but not to this degree. This president is unique, in my memory, for his ability to capture the imaginations and support of people, and for his willingness to be specific about his promises. Sure, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all had campaign promises that they broke… but with one other exception, none bugged me, because they were empty, unspecific promises. “Restore ethics to the White House!” That means very little, unless you can rigorously define ethics. But there has been an earlier case: “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Now, that’s a very specific promise. People vote for you because you made that specific promise. And then in the White House, you break it. That bugged me greatly. Now we have this promise – again, very specific. I don’t debate the wisdom of the change, just as I don’t debate whether George HW was wise to renege and raise taxes. But when you change your position, on a promise made with the level of specificity, you need to acknowledge your change. Obama should man up and say, “Yes, I said that - and now I have learned that it was unworkable.” ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/58 "2009-01-29T22:26:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is argument ad hominem. What does it matter? > > Suppose I tell you that I voted for Obama. DOes that make my observations here more valid? > > Very well: I voted for Obama. > > Now care to address the merits? It doesn’t matter in the context of the debate regarding this specific issue. In addition, I view it as dis-honest to campaign one way and then act differently once elected, although I expect that from politicians. For me, your motives matter because I detected (rightly or wrongly) that there is a slightly different issue you are getting at. In other words, it seemed to me that it wasn’t that it bothers you in general when a president doesn’t admit error, but rather that it does bother you that this particular president isn’t admitting error (or what seemed less likely to me, that it bugs you this particular president won’t admit error on this specific issue). If it’s true that you aren’t bugged by other presidents not admitting error, then it seems the issue you are truly concerned with is slightly different than what can be read into the actual text you typed in that post, which would alter responses. That’s why I said call a spade a spade. Or not. ---
**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, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/59 "2009-01-29T22:50:40Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > If it’s true that you aren’t bugged by other presidents not admitting error, then it seems the issue you are truly concerned with is slightly different than what can be read into the actual text you typed in that post, which would alter responses. That’s why I said call a spade a spade. OK. Now factor in that I was similarly bugged by Bush 41’s “Read my lips” broken pledge. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/60 "2009-01-29T22:57:30Z")
> [@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. I’d submit that there are at least three politically-neutral reasons to distinguish corporate lobbyists from ACLU lobbyists (and the like). First, the interests represented by corporate lobbyists stand to financially gain from favorable government policies, which creates a feedback loop in which more favorable policies lead to more lobbying money which leads to more favorable policies. We’ve seen that recently with the financial bailout. For obvious reasons, that doesn’t exist with the ACLU. In fact, the reverse is usually true. If the ACLU wins an issue–like ending torture–they lose a very successful means of fundraising. Second, corporate lobbyists have a more distorting effect than the Human Rights Campaign and similar organizations because of the source of their funds. Suppose I own an oil well and can afford to hire myself a lobbyist. I give him $10,000 from my oil profits to convince Congress not to institute a carbon tax. Suppose that the Sierra Club gets 1,000 concerned citizens to donate $10, and gives $10,000 to their lobbyist to argue for a carbon tax. Consequently, one man’s voice is having the same lobbying effect as 100 peoples’. Finally, part of the concern with lobbyists is the dynamic in which people rotate from high-pay lobbying jobs to government jobs and back. It makes them more beholden to the lobbying interest while in the government job, because they want the lucrative lobbyist job back when they get out. That situation is much worse with corporate lobbyists because the positions pay much much more. I can tell you that no one is working as an NRDC lobbyist for the cash. So if one’s goal is to limit the undue influence of lobbyists, it makes sense to treat corporate lobbyists more strictly than othes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573.md?page=4)