Here's Elizabeth standing up for all of us on the Daily Show:
Welcome to Katalusis for progressive views on politics, religion, environmental issues, and popular culture. (Photo of the Mississippi River from the University Club in St. Paul, MN.)
Showing posts with label lobbyists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobbyists. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thursday, October 6, 2011
A collective statement from Occupy Wall Street (video)
As regular readers know, Keith Olbermann is not one of my favorite commentators and ironically he, too, is guilty of the criticisms of the media offered in Occupy Wall Street’s collective statement. But in this Special Comment (Current TV), it must be acknowledged that Olbermann performs a valuable public service by reading Occupy Wall Street’s statement in its entirety. Watch the video:
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama Picks Raytheon Lobbyist as Second in Command at Pentagon
President Obama just announced new ethics laws tightening the restrictions on lobbyists working in government. But get this – ABC’s Justin Rood reports:
‘“Experts and watchdogs say they cannot fathom how President Obama's choice for the Pentagon's second-in-command, currently a lobbyist for a defense giant, could be nominated under the principles of his new ethics rules.
‘“It appears to be a black-and-white case. I am unaware of what makes it so gray in the mind of President Obama," said Winslow T. Wheeler, a former congressional budget staffer now with the Center for Defense Information, on the president's choice of Raytheon lobbyist William J. Lynn to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Wheeler said it would take a "gigantic loophole" to squeeze Lynn, a top executive for defense giant Raytheon who registered to lobby for the company as recently as last June, into the office.
“Obama's executive order, which he signed Tuesday, would appear to ban lobbyists like Lynn from working in executive branch jobs related to the work of their former employers. Moreover, it would force appointees to recuse themselves from any business their former employers might have an interest.
‘"We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely," Obama said yesterday upon signing the order.
‘"I think they need to re-evaluate [Lynn's appointment] after their strong stance on government openness and ethics," said Scott Amey, of the Project on Government Oversight. His group opposes Lynn's confirmation.”’
To read more on this puzzling development, go here, and let’s hope – there’s that word again – that President Obama will sooner, rather than later, start practicing what he preaches.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
A Third of Obama’s Record-Breaking Haul From Big Donors
Back in June, Barack Obama reversed his earlier pledge and became the first major party candidate to reject public financing. The Democratic presumptive nominee justified his decision by claiming the system was broken and pointing to his 1.5 million donors, most of whom give small amounts.
But the startling headline in today’s NY Times reads: In Obama Campaign, Big Donors Are a Major Force. The article reveals yet again that Obama is not the representative of the new politics that he claims to be. Rather he is one of the most skillful old-style politicians to step on the national stage in recent years, and he has long been adept at influence peddling and courting large donors.
According to the Times article:
(Bold emphasis in material quoted from the Times is mine.)
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.
But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.
Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.
While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors.
He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.
The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season.
Read more:
But the startling headline in today’s NY Times reads: In Obama Campaign, Big Donors Are a Major Force. The article reveals yet again that Obama is not the representative of the new politics that he claims to be. Rather he is one of the most skillful old-style politicians to step on the national stage in recent years, and he has long been adept at influence peddling and courting large donors.
According to the Times article:
(Bold emphasis in material quoted from the Times is mine.)
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.
But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.
Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.
While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors.
He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.
The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season.
Read more:
Monday, July 7, 2008
Obama’s Small Donors: Goldman, Sachs & Co., UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, etc., etc.
After all the fuss about Barack Obama’s broken promise to accept public financing in the general election, it was even more disconcerting to read this expose of his campaign’s funding sources in today’s Chicago Tribune by Dennis Byrne. Byrne leads off:
“David Plouffe, manager of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, keeps sending me e-mails asking me to cough up money because the presumptive Democratic nominee's fundraising is, supposedly, as pure as the driven snow. Somehow, my name got on Obama's list of prospective suckers, and for months I've read this song and dance about how he has freed himself from the tentacles of special interests.
“This is baloney.”
Further down, Byrne states:
“Biggest donors?
“Goldman, Sachs & Co., UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Google, Sidley Austin, Skadden Arps, Time Warner, Morgan Stanley, Exelon, Latham & Watkins, Microsoft and GE are among the biggest corporate contributors.”
Byrne then asks?
‘“How can this be? Didn't Obama say he doesn't accept money from lobbyists and PACs? Well, that means he still can accept money from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists and state lobbyists," said the Center. ‘Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees [and their families].’”
Read the rest of Byrne’s article here.
“David Plouffe, manager of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, keeps sending me e-mails asking me to cough up money because the presumptive Democratic nominee's fundraising is, supposedly, as pure as the driven snow. Somehow, my name got on Obama's list of prospective suckers, and for months I've read this song and dance about how he has freed himself from the tentacles of special interests.
“This is baloney.”
Further down, Byrne states:
“Biggest donors?
“Goldman, Sachs & Co., UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Google, Sidley Austin, Skadden Arps, Time Warner, Morgan Stanley, Exelon, Latham & Watkins, Microsoft and GE are among the biggest corporate contributors.”
Byrne then asks?
‘“How can this be? Didn't Obama say he doesn't accept money from lobbyists and PACs? Well, that means he still can accept money from "spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists and state lobbyists," said the Center. ‘Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees [and their families].’”
Read the rest of Byrne’s article here.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
“Could Obama Have Misspoken About His Lack of Ties to Lobbyists?”
Photo credits: Aftermath NewsIn the Caucus this morning (NY Times) Ariel Alexovich suggests that in tonight’s debate in Philadelphia between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, questions might surface regarding the recent firestorm over Obama’s “bitter” words and indeed, Obama is still struggling to come up with a satisfactory rationale for his San Francisco gaffe.
But Alexovich also mentions another possible challenge Obama might be forced to address this evening. Obama has consistently presented himself as the harbinger of the “new politics” while attempting to smear Hillary Clinton for her supposed ties to lobbyists.
Alexovich asks: “Could Senator Obama have misspoken about his lack of ties to lobbyists? A USA Today investigation claims that ‘his fund-raising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.’ 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.”
I’ll be watching the debate this evening, sponsored by ABC at 8 p.m. ET and 7 p.m. CST, to see whether or not the moderators raise these relevant questions with Obama or give him his usual free pass as we’ve seen in previous debates, while doing their best to trip up Hillary Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)