Doesn’t look like disarmament; it looks like hair-splitting. Obama accepts money from lobbyist’s spouses and families. He accepts money from lobbyists who don’t do business with the federal government. He hires lobbyists to work for him. They advise him on his campaign. (Cite.) Gosh, how inspiring.
Maybe he’s learned something from the conviction of one of his major fund raisers. (Cite, as if one were needed.)
Regards,
Shodan
It’s amazing what you can get away with when you brand something with a different name.
It’s funny that Obama’s supporters are always described as “fanatics” and “worshippers”, when it’s his opponents who are expecting him to be perfect.
There’s a strawman-check at the door. Don’t lose your ticket.
Didn’t know Rove had been a lobbyist. In any case, Axelrod is not as evil as Rove and Obama is not as dumb as Bush.
He’s obviously not perfect, but he is supposedly different. I just don’t see in what significant way he is.
He’s claiming that McCain is excessively influenced by lobbyists, while simultaneously accepting money from lobbyist’s spouses, and lobbyists themselves, and lobbying firms. Obama claims that accepting PAC money is bad, but he isn’t going to give any of it back. (Again, cite, as if it were needed.)
I agree with the woman from the Center for Responsive Politics -
It doesn’t cost him much, and therefore doesn’t mean much either.
Regards,
Shodan
Were I to participate in such foolishness, you are free to remember what you like.
Your cite says that Obama does not accept any money from people who are registered as lobbyists. That’s what differentiates him from McCain. As far as ties to lobbyists through wives and children and whatnot, Obama claims nothing more than "“fewer strings attached to me … than any candidate in a very long time.” That’s from your cite, too. He stipulates that his policy isn’t perfect, but the reason it isn’t is that lobbyists aren’t isolated humanoids living in caves without interaction of any kind with their own species. Otherwise, they’d have to marry cats and eat lunch with dogs.
You ever get the feeling that Republicans (or at least those who knee-jerkedly defend them), never really learned the “two wrongs don’t make a right” lesson?
Not too long ago, any Pub wrongdoing was defended with stuttering cries of “b-b-but Clinton…”, and now it’s “b-b-but Obama still takes SOME lobbyist money!”… as if that defends their guy taking even MORE lobbyist money.
It’s wrong to take any amount of lobbyist money, in my book. However, it’s even MORE wrong to take as much as you can get. The less lobbyists-for-hire affect policy, the better, as far as I’m concerned.
What is Obama’s stance on money from corporations, unions, and other large organizations that aren’t lobbyists?
Lobbyist is a term of art, one mans advocate is another’s lobbyist. We have intelligence agents, they got spies. You want to know who the financial firms and the DuPonts, the Exxon’s give money to, so on and so forth, its easy enough to find out. And your expectations will, most likely, be confirmed.
A technique pioneered by Karl Rove. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that Democrats can use it too?
He never thought he’d be in a position where that opportunity might arise.
Oh, if it is true that Obama does not accept money from registered lobbyists, I only wish he could impose that practice on every elected official in the country; Democrats and Republicans alike.
Maybe he thought Republicans didn’t have any strengths to attack?
With respect, that’s not really the argument they’re making in this case. They’re saying that it’s hypocritical to condemn other people for taking money from lobbying groups if you do so yourself.
Let me get this straight, Obama is not going to take any money from Unions and he doesn’t want the DNC to either?
Wow, Obama sure is taking a lot of heat for saying that he won’t accept donations from lobbyists.
The spin in here makes a centrifuge look like a Sit-N-Spin.
All I would ask is that Obama’s supporters hold him to what he says. Don’t let him get away with making a fine speech about his principles, cheer him wildly, and then look the other way when he fails to follow those principles.
I don’t often say this, but Mr Moto has a point. The Obama campaign has been sort of weaselly on special interest money. It’s not just the Rush Limbaugh crowd talking here - mainstream media have reported that Obama’s campaign has used some arcane legalisms to be able to claim it doesn’t take any money from lobbyists. No lobbyist works for the Obama campaign - but some provide services for the campaign that are just like work - but they’re called volunteers so the services they’re doing aren’t technically defined as work. A senior adviser says he’s not a lobbyist - under Illinois law that’s true - although he’d be legally required to register as a lobbyist in most states or Washington DC for doing the exact same job.
This is the kind of thing the Clintons were justifiably condemned for: saying something that seemed to have a clear meaning - having it revealed that that clear meaning wasn’t true - and then explaining how they made their statement using a specific definition under which what they said was technically true.
Active lobbyists are registered. There’s a list that can be checked. Thurgood Marshall is on that list, and the Obama campaign returned his donation. This is not a new policy.
But hey, why take my word on it? How about what the Federal Election Commission has on record for where Obama’s campaign money is coming from? Is that a good enough cite? While you’re there, check out where McCain gets HIS money from. Oh, and don’t forget to notice the difference in the size of the war chest, too.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that Obama’s walking the walk here. He’s serious about keeping his campaign as free as is humanly possible from special interest money and he’s serious about being accountable solely to the American people who’re donating their money in support of his campaign. Please, do enlighten me–has there been another presidential candidate in recent history who can show anything near as clean a record as this?
Do you think McCain’s flip flopping on the telcom immunity/domestic spying issue has been influenced in any way by the $750,000+ he’s receivedfrom the 23 telcom lobbyists who work for his campaign (out of a total of 66) and their friends, associates, spouses and colleagues? I’m sure Mr McCain is totally blameless and his views are solely derived from his own deeply held convictions but you can see how it might seem a little coincidental to the untrained observer who’s less versed in the niceties of Washington etiquette. I, for one, applaud Obama for making it easy for us unschooled yahoos to believe that he means what he says.
As I wrote, lobbyist registration laws are set by the states. Illinois happens to have relatively easy ones. Here’s an article about David Axelrod - it’s from Newsweek which I trust most people will agree is a nonpartisan newsource. To look at what Axelrod does and then say he’s not a lobbyist is the same as arguing about the meaning of “is” is.
The DNC is apparently giving put 3% of its profits.
The same article notes that lobbyist get better returns when they give directly to politicians. I would imagine it would be pretty hard to buy a whole party. Though Democrats have been pretty loyal to Labor Unions and now the DNC is not going to be accepting their money.
Can we blame Obama for accepting money from non-registered lobbyist? Give that a large number of donors, would it be easy for him to figure out who the non-registered lobbyist are?
I don’t know what you do for a living, but just for argument’s sake, let’s say it’s landscaping. By your logic, if I told people I thought you do good work, I’d be lobbying for you and shouldn’t be hired by Obama for his campaign since if you were someone else and the people I praised you to were other people and we all lived elsewhere, I’d run afoul of Obama’s rules. Speaking of Clintonian, I think your objection is strained. As for the volunteer thing, I don’t know whether you’ve ever done volunteer work with a hospital or charity, but the only profit you get from doing that is the good feeling of helping someone.