I don’t understand the distinction here.
I am a lobbyist for something - ethanol, say. I have an envelope with money in it, and I hand it to Obama. He won’t accept it because it might morally compromise his campaign. So I give the envelope to my wife, and she hands it to him. He takes it. This is better?
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, I’m told that there are many women these days who earn their own money and think for themselves. I don’t have a cite, though.
Right, and I am aware that there is really only a certain amount of purity that we should demand, considering that all of us belong to organizations that engage in lobbying.
Even so, it appears, per my cites, that Obama isn’t living up to his own standards - he’s only meeting them through creative definitions. Were he to state clearly disclosure rules and the like but let the lobbyists work for him, I think I’d like that better - it is far more transparent.
Lib, it’s always tough to tell with you if you’re being disingenous or you really beleive the things you’re saying. I’ll assume you’re honestly don’t understand the distinction between a lobbyist and what you’ve described.
A lobbyist gets paid.
It’s one thing to tell people I’m a good landscaper because you just happen to believe it and have no stake in my business. But if I’m paying you a thousand dollars a month to tell people I’m a good landscaper, then you’re a lobbyist and your recommendations should be weighed in the consideration that you’re in my employ. If people asked you which was the best landscaper in town, Lawns-R-Us or Nemo’s, don’t you think the fact that Nemo’s is paying you a thousand dollars is a consideration? Some people in those circumstances might recommend Nemo’s even if Lawns-R-Us is actually a better service.
As for the volunteer issue, it’s another form of indirect payment. A campaign needs workers and usually the more workers they have, the better the candidate does. Workers have to eat so somebody has to pay them. So if I offer to pay somebody while they work for you as a volunteer, I’m effectively using my money to help your campaign. It’s not as direct as me handing you a bagful of cash but the outcome is the same.
I personally have no problems with things like this. The interests of a candidate and a special interest are going to coincide sometimes and it’s natural that they work together and support each other. But I do have problems with the hypocrisy of anyone who says he won’t do something and then sneaks around and does it. I’d rather have a candidate who admit he takes money from lobbyists then a candidate who takes their money and then denies it by weaseling around the definition of what a lobbyist is.
So it is your belief that, in general, that this is what is going on in cases as described. It’s pure coincidence that so many lobbyists’ wives and families donate - it has nothing to do with anything.
Uh huh.
Regards,
Shodan
Thank you for this. I would have thought that those cites would have been accepted at face value. Good to know they were by some folks.
As I understand it:
Now, on the other hand, Mr. Moto and Shodan are arguing a sort of guilt by association scheme. My Father is a lobbyist for instance. (not hypothetically, he’s actually a lobbyist) I’ve donated some money to Obama, but less than $ 200. I never consulted my Father about this donation. I might have in passing said, “I contributed to Obama’s campaign.”, but otherwise there is no political relationship between my Father and I. Should we consider that a donation by my Father to the Obama campaign?
It would seem to me, that by the standards of the FEC, he has not been taking money from PACs.
What’s also interesting to me is that the bulk of McCain’s money has come from 2000+ donors, whereas the bulk of Obama's money has come from 200- donors. Though to be completely fair, Obama has raised more from 1000+ donors than McCain has raised at all. But the same can be true of his 200- donors.
If it was a case like that, I’d be among the first to call it nit-picking. But the “allegations” (if that’s the right word) are much more substantial. David Axelrod is not some obscure member of the Obama campaign - he’s right in the heart of it. If you were to make a list of Obama’s top five advisors, Axelrod would be on it.
And we’re not discussing some minor connection to lobbying. Axelrod is a professional lobbyist by any reasonable definition of the term. He gets hired by companies to advance their interests in the political arena.
I know who David Axelrod is. But the point is some of the other arguments have been about people’s families or the employees of companies. The fact is that nearly have of Obama’s nut has come from contributors like me.
The question then becomes, whether or not it is possible to win a campaign without professional politicos working on your campaign?
Probably not. But if Obama is going to say that it is corrupting to have lobbyists working on your campaign, then these rather nitpicky distinctions between donating your time, donating your money, used-to-be-a-lobbyist-and-will-be-later-but-not-at-the-time-of-the-campaign, etc., rather work against Obama’s sell that he is a new and different politician who isn’t going to be seduced by Washington.
If he is going to claim to be as pure as dawn’s dewy fingers, then he is going to have to expect a good many hard questions when it seems hard to slip a dime into the gap between Obama’s campaign practices and everybody else’s.
Like I’ve said before, he is a relative newcomer, and has never run a national campaign before. Surprise, surprise, when people aren’t necessarily willing to take his word for it anymore.
Regards,
Shodan
