Posted: Fri 19 Sep 2008 15:19 Post subject: Barack Obama and Lobbyists, Inseparable Allies
Quote:
Barack Obama and Lobbyists, Inseparable Allies
Since CNN and the rest of the mainstream media have decided to mislead the public by propagating Barack Obama's fallacious attacks against Senator John McCain, I have no choice but to wage a counter-attack against Ted Turner and his crooked minions.
CNN quotes the ever elusive, Barack Obama as saying, "John McCain says that he is going to tell all those lobbyists in Washington that their days of running Washington are over, which sounds pretty good until you discover that seven of his top campaign managers and officials are -- guess what? -- former corporate lobbyists."
"It's true," says CNN White House correspondent, Ed Henry. "Seven top McCain officials were lobbyists, though the campaign stresses that none is currently registered to lobby Congress."
Mr. Henry! Did you say that SEVEN of McCain's top officials were lobbyists?
Well, Mr. Henry, why didn't you also mention that THIRTY-EIGHT members of Barack Obama's fund-raising team were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government? That's right, THIRTY-EIGHT! I'm sure you were probably aware of that fact, Mr. Henry, but you and the rest of Teddy Turner's cronies are simply trying to prop up Senator Obama. Right?
Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.
Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm's lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists. - Source - USA Today
[To see the entire list of these 38 fund-raisers and the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for Barack Obama's Presidential campaign, click here]
Need we go any further, Mr. Henry? How about the millions Senator Biden has received from lobbyists, lawyers and law firms since 1989, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Senator Biden recently tried to defend his lobbyist connections. "I don't meet with lobbyists, my staff does," he said. But in fact, even this argument - as ridiculous as it sounds - has already been debunked. See my earlier post: Biden: 'I Don't Meet With Lobbyists', Unless They Happen to be Iranian Lobbyists
The truth of the matter is, this discussion is simply a waist of time. Anyone who thinks there's a politician out there without lobbyist connections [especially a Chicago style politician, like Barack Obama], is a veritable fool. Unfortunately, it is Charlatans like Barack Obama and CNN who play these kind of fools as if they were a bunch of cheap fiddles to be used at their disposal as a means of furthering their own political ambitions.....
These 38 fundraisers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign work for law firms that have lobbying operations in Washington, D.C. The dollar figure reflects the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for the campaign.
I am a contributor to the Obama campaign who works for a multinational professional services company that, not only has lobbying operations in Washington D.C. but also bids on government contracts and provides services to the U.S. government.
Does that mean that by taking money from me that Obama is in the pocket of the special interests of my firm? If I worked to bundle the donations of colleagues does that mean that my company now "owns" Obama? I donated to the campaign because of my personal beliefs not because of the company I happen to work for, and lots of people do the same.
I think it is just as naive to assume that the mere presence of people connected to a lobby means that the candidate has been bought and sold. Politicians have to raise money and they rely upon people they know to help them do so. But what role do they do play in the campaign besides fundraising? What degree of influence do lobbyists who are still lobbying for organizations have on policy? Another is to what degree do a candidate's platform (or votes in the cases of Obama and McCain) reflect the interests of the fundraisers for his campaign and the lobbyists' agenda?
To me the acceptance of PAC money is much more troublesome. PACs are how a lot of questionable funds get funneled into a campaign without the same level of scrutiny.
It's still true regardless and left off tv. I think all are beholden to special interest groups and CAN'T bring CHANGE until they change. And no cookie for Obama in that respect either.
Good answer, but it all leads back to the source. None can claim to be innocent.
Most politicians owe allegiance to (one way or another) those who contribute the most money. The average American is not a large campaign donor and money talks . My problem with politicans is that $$ sways their vote, quid pro quo, more so than being the representative for their constituents. That is, after all, their job. Most seem to forget it, unless its election time, and we (electorate) are to blame for it.
Another salient point to consider: Has company X or lobbyist Y gained or has a history of gaining unfettered access to certain politicians? And, has this access led to favortism for certain policy decisions and/or (vote) pandering? Methinks so.
Another salient point to consider: Has company X or lobbyist Y gained or has a history of gaining unfettered access to certain politicians? And, has this access led to favortism for certain policy decisions and/or (vote) pandering? Methinks so.
That's the key for me. It's not even worth my time to pay attention to arguments about whether lobbyists are influencing campaigns, because they are. It's a matter of which ones are present and what they ultimately are able to secure from politicians.
I think Obama is giving the legal answer on this issue. He has gone out of his way to keep the PACs away, but lobbyists? A lobbyist is anyone who advocates for a cause, industry or policy and wants favorable laws, money, or both. That's everyone from Grandmas for Kittens and Puppies to ExxonMobil.
Yes, but the litmus test is weither or not these PACs, lobbyists, special interest groups, campaign donors, etc and their interests, CLASH with the will of the people.
Yes, but the litmus test is weither or not these PACs, lobbyists, special interest groups, campaign donors, etc and their interests, CLASH with the will of the people.
Since we're enlarging fonts and bolding things, I thought this was an important point, too.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
and left off tv. 
until they 