Lobbyists Second Chance?
Posted by Jake G. on 03.28.2009
Obama's new plan to hurt lobbyists could offer them the clean slate they need.
In another attempt at more government transparency President Obama's new rules on preventing stimulus lobbying are groundbreaking and creative. As reported in previous columns here, lobbying itself is not necessarily a bad thing. There are lobbyists fighting for good causes. Naturally however lobbying is also used as a tool by big companies to get gains that often are of little use to the common man. The film "Thank You for Smoking", was a whimsical look into Tobacco company lobbying as an example. Lobbying has generally gotten a bad rep in the press and whenever a politician is looking to point the finger at someone during a campaign it's usually a lobbyist.
Obama's new rules in a nutshell require lobbyists to submit written accounts of what they'd like to see done and then those written statements are reviewed and posted on the internet for all to see. This is a huge change from the days of luncheons and hand shaking sessions on K Street in Washington. The plan right now extends largely to the stimulus bill, but could end up becoming common practice for all future DC budgets and bills.
Lobbyists are upset, feeling they are muzzled and have began trying to fight back. One plan would see them become unregistered and would potentially open up a huge can of worms in the form of even more backdoor secrecy than the current lobbying system in Washington. That could backfire however, reducing the time and energy that lobbyists are able to expend on their pet projects. As of now their anger is falling on deaf ears to the Obama administration. Still many lobbyists remain vigilante in their attempts to return things to the ways of old.
I, however have a different take. For years lobbyists have been the bad guys. Even suggesting that lobbying could be a good thing would often incite ridicule. Experts on the matter though know that plenty of good has come from lobbying. Now under the Obama Administration's new rules, we could finally see lobbying be put in a positive light. Lobbyists should be happy that their ideals are becoming public record.
If these lobbyists aren't up to any shady activity, then they should have nothing to fear. When John Q. Public is able to read that some of the things the lobbyists are fighting for are of interest to them, they lobbyists may even gain a more powerful tool: Public support. Of course that doesn't mean that many of the more typical lobbyists with their Snidely Whiplash long handlebar moustaches won't be upset.
The lobbyists that don't have the public's best interest in mind, should worry, because they're going to be exposed and with any luck expelled from the law making and bill passing process. As they should have been a long time ago. Other lobbyists are missing a golden opportunity to have their profession improve in the public's opinion. They should support this improved transparency in this vital area of government.
Your continued idealism in the face of the unknown leads me to believe you're either a highly precocious 12-year-old or incredibly naive. While it's wonderful that you believe in the best, simple studies of human nature show that as a species, we tend to take the easiest route, morals be damned. Your third paragraph hit the nail on the head - all this is going to do is lead to more secrecy, because even if Obama is a the most morally upright, incorruptible person, there's still the rest of the government, many of whom have proven time and again to only have their own best interests at heart. It's going to take a sweeping change to fix this system, and swapping out one head of state for another without changing the body of Congress really does nothing beneath the surface.
Posted By: Wyatt (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 07:04 AM
The lobbyists that don't have the public's best interest in mind, should worry, because they're going to be exposed and with any luck expelled from the law making and bill passing process....
What happened to Obama wanting to preserve jobs?!?!!! If this bill passes I might lose mine.
How the fuck am I gonna pay for my mortgage now?
Posted By: Lobby-ier (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 08:08 AM
You're still an idiot Jake...and twice in two days you have made it perfectly clear that the only thing that you support is Obama's balls on your nose.
You're against the people, you're against the Constitution of the United States...you are blind.
Obama made promises to get rid of this lobbying influence, he promised “change”- that was the root of his entire campaign. Bush spent the entire country into oblivion, Obama promised change, and he said he was going to “end the lobbyist influence in Washington”.
Why do you give him a break? He has set himself up to be worse than Bush…his budget and spending will be worse then the last three Presidents combined.
Here is a list of his Primary Campaign Contributors: from http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N0000 9638
Now check that list with companies that have received bailout money.
Then check out John McCains, Peloski, and others…
Explain to me how University of California, received who received 3 billion dollars in tax payer money from the State of California, or any of these other state Universities that are funded with tax payer money are allowed to finance candidates- especially California, who as a state is already in the hole by millions and millions of dollars?
Or how companies that funded Presidential and Congressional candidates are getting bailouts- or bonuses written into their contracts on a bill designed to keep the company from going under.
Someone- anyone, explain to me how and why the war on drugs, the war with cartel members on the boarder is now moving liberal leaders to resubmit the Brady Bill, and try and pass it for an indefinite period of time- a bill that would reduce, if not remove, the rights of American citizens to purchase a gun...
But Obama is now in the process of passing the Give Act which will give Obama a standing paramilitary unit with funding equal to the Department of Defense. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2857/show
And this Act will probably have some mandatory service requirements- What the fuck is that?
We already have a military and it’s all volunteer- and best I can tell they do a pretty good job…we already have a National Guard who does a good job and they work for the states…
What the fuck does Obama need his own paramilitary force, with mandatory participation, with no oversight- who answers to the President?
And with the Brady Bill 2.0 on the horizon? Things don’t sound right in “The Land of Freedom”- you mother fuckers better start paying attention.
Jake I’m disappointed- there was a time when the Liberals would have been all over this kind of shit…but the other day you rewrote history, today you defend lobbyist, so what are you defending tomorrow- a dictatorship? Hitler youth?
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM
When you refer to lobbyists , are you including the homosexual lobbyists, the illegal immigration lobbyists, the atheist lobbyists?
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 02:03 PM
Lobby-ier, you think Obama cares about you?The only lobbyists he cares about are the 13 he hired for his staff.
Lets face it, he wants you to go get a GREEN job for the non-existent global warming.
Make a difference in 2010.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Spook, the reason people like Jake,Joe Rivett and Andrew talk about crap like lobbyists,Notre Dame,Atheism,the "awesomeness", etc is becuase if distracts common people from the real issues.
The mainstream media and Obama cultists will throw away everything for this guy.Another SS,progressive and nuanced.You think if Bush had put out the give act the response would be the same?Of course not.
I know this, my 17 year old and his friends loved Obama.Imagine the look on their faces when I brought up the give act.Two year commitment?It made them look at the messiah a little differently.Thats what these liberals are afriad of.They can not tell the truth, so they avoid it.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 03:01 PM
If you bothered to read the entire regulation, you'd know that it is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. Even CREW and the ACLU are up in arms over this.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 03:02 PM
My God, that is the funniest thing I have read all week. Lobbying is a Congressional activity plain and simple. Obama drops the hammer on lobbyists by saying they can't talk about individual projects with Administration officials.
If any of this was actually a sincere effort to end the influence of lobbyists within Administration, the most simple change would be to stop accepting money from lobbyists regardless of what they talk or write about.
Jake-G thinks that writing down lobbying intentions on paper and submitting to Administration for internet posting will curtail the influence of lobbyists. I mean that is so cool.
Just as happened in the most recent passage of 2009 appropriations, Obama will say no to ear-marks, Congress will send him a bill chocked full of ear-marks, Obama signs it. Obama will curtail lobbying Administration officials, Congress will bathe in lobbyist cash and as often is the case, pass legislation written by lobbyist. Obama will sign the bill while saying he put his foot-down on lobbying.
You see this won't matter because spending bills do not originate in the Executive Branch.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Good column. You raise some interesting points about lobbyists could use this to their advantage.
It's a shame you guys on 411 have to put up with the same 3 or 4 idiots like the Spook responding to everything though. I don't see any praise here for Obama, just a mention of what this plan could offer for the future of lobbying.
A great, non-biased piece of work, immediately chastised by the Republican moon goons claim it's a pro-Obama piece and how Obama is evil.
Such ignorance.
And Wyatt, there's nothing wrong with idealism. Did you even read this piece? Your response has NOTHING to do with what was said here. He's not talking about Obama being in office, he's talking about the change that's been made to how lobbyists can do their business. You mention sweeping change, but that's exactly what this program is. A massive overhaul of the way things are done in Washington. A step in the right direction. Which is what we elected Obama to do.
Posted By: ThePoe (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 06:17 PM
Poe,
I have to agree. The only people that are complaining are the conservative/libertarian trolls that keep attacking anyone that puts out a Pro-Obama piece (The Spook, John, and others), they can add NOTHING with their comments.
Those posters should run for political office. All they do is complain, and they offer zero solutions (Looking at the troglodyte named The Spook). All they can do is complain over, and over, and over again. Talk about being redundant, you need to get some new material.
Posted By: David (Guest) on March 29, 2009 at 02:41 AM
Here is something to do with the selfish idiots that keep posting on commenting on this site.
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'Liberal?' If by 'Liberal'
they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad,
who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then
the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of
'Liberal.' But if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the
welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil
rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the
stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by
a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal."
--John F. Kennedy
Posted By: David (Guest) on March 29, 2009 at 03:15 AM
The Poe and David...
I'll offer a better solution and then tell me I'm all fucked up.
1) Inform the public what they are paying for with these bailouts and stimulus bills.
2) Hold Obama to his word- that means he gives everyone time to read the bills he wants to sign. Obama goes line by line through the bill and explains what it is- like he promised.
3) Create a law that no company or institution that gives money to a candidate- from any party- can receive any government assistance. That should fix the lobbying problem.
4) Create a law that tax payer funded institutions can't give a fucking penny to a candidate. This keeps schools from being the primary contributor to a candidate. If they receive one penny of tax payer money then they can't give any money to any candidate.
Poe and David- You understand that Obama has carried over virtually every bill that Bush put into place?
Now he wants to create a privately controlled civil defense force with equal funding to that of the Department of Defense with mandatory service requirements?
His bailout bills had language written into them by congressmen who received most of their campaign money from those same banking firms giving them the rights to bonuses paid for with tax payer money.
That same bailout that "we had to have to stop the destruction of our finical markets" but have those Banks given out any of the money? Why does the President have to ask the banks to start loaning? - It’s tax payers fucking money. Has this bailout created any new jobs?
We have all been conned...you assholes who voted for this guy have never stopped to see who financed his campaign- or who he is.
Has Obama addressed this birth certificate question?
Has anyone read one paper written by him when he was editor of the Harvard Law review? Does one even exist?
How do you become head of the Harvard law review without any papers submitted?
Why does he have the same cabinet as Clinton and Bush?
Why is everyone on his staff tied to Wall Street?
How many of his appointees were caught with tax problems? And how many slipped through?
Who is the person on the other side of the teleprompter telling him what to say?
Why has he broken every campaign promise he has made?
If either of you two can answer these questions then I'll admit I'm wrong...but Obama, and Bush are looking alike- probably because the same people funded their campaigns.
Look at who funded Obama, Bush, Kerry, McCain, Gore, Pelosi, Clinton, and others...
Check opensecrets.org...
Then look at who received bailout and stimulus money, bonuses and laws to protect them.
And then tell me who is running this country.
It's not the people- It's the lobbyist.
Keep defending them assholes.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on March 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Poe, I tried to be nice to you and you write bullshit like that so..........go fuck yourself
David, I want to be exactly like you so here goes.
So what if Obama said no to lobbyists controlling with administration then hired 13 of them, thats progressive.
So what if Obama said he was going line for line in bills then signed into law a bill with 9000 earmarks full of pork.Thats nuanced
So what if Obama is pushing through his own civil service corps that will answer to him and only him, thats "awesome"Wait sorry that was for Andrew.
Notre Dame,Limbaugh is evil,Olbermann rules, all hail the liberal messiah!!
Is that better?
I fell like I need a shower now.If you have a problem with my arguments then state your case against them.Name calling without substance behind it is for ASSHOLES..........like you.Your so blind in your adolation for Obama, you will defend things that are reprehensable.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 29, 2009 at 02:24 PM
After reading complaints about the GIVE act, and I am VERY curious where the whole "paramilitary defense force" comes in. I haven't had a chance to fully read the act (I'm holding off on full commentary on it, as I will probably write a piece on it), but I can't see how paying middle/high schoolers for doing community service in the summer is going to create a force that could take out the Boy Scouts, much less the Marines...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM
J. Alexander, I agree. Not too worried about the paramilitary of compulsory volunteerism. What offends me is that this policy will create another permanent class of "community organizers" to administer the compulsory volunteer programs. It is just another way to create a group of people whose income is solely dependent on an Uncle Sugar handout.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM
ThePoe:
I agree that there's nothing wrong with idealism, so long as it's tempered with some modicum of realism. But when blind idealism is left unchecked, you start with Socialism (truly an ideal system, but based essentially on humans not being humans) and end with Communism (a fundamentally flawed system that resulted from greed corrupting the Socialist ideal).
As far as my comment not pertaining to the article, I specifically pointed out a particular paragraph as a frame of reference for the train of thought that led to the comment. Basically, Jake admits that this could backfire and lead to EVEN MORE secret dealings. I was merely pointing out that because humans, especially politicians, are essentially flawed creatures who actively seek out the path of least resistance, I believe that the path of backdoor secrecy is the way this bill is going to change things.
Not for the better, as you and Jake's collective blind idealism would seem to have you believe. Hence my comment about changing the head without changing the body - even if, as I said, Obama is the most morally upstanding man to ever hold office in the history of our nation, Congress, lobbyists' prime target, is still comprised of a bunch of people with questionable morals, no matter where they fall in the political spectrum. Until there's a massive change in all three branches of our government, a purging of the people who have run our country for so long, complete with an influx of new blood (and not just career politicians finally stepping up to the big stage), the changes that Obama promised are not truly going to come to fruition, no matter the public face that's put on things.
And Wyatt, there's nothing wrong with idealism. Did you even read this piece? Your response has NOTHING to do with what was said here. He's not talking about Obama being in office, he's talking about the change that's been made to how lobbyists can do their business. You mention sweeping change, but that's exactly what this program is. A massive overhaul of the way things are done in Washington. A step in the right direction. Which is what we elected Obama to do.
Posted By: Wyatt (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 03:20 PM
"The lobbyists that don't have the public's best interest in mind, should worry, because they're going to be exposed and with any luck expelled from the law making and bill passing process"
Your naive if you think lobbying laws wont be skirted. Companies and PAC's pay goverment relations firms millions of dollars to try to bend the system to their needs. They donate thousands of dollars to politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Barack Obama to get their way.
To cheerlead for Obama like this and to not see the big picture, that Obama's rallying against lobbiests is nothing but a dog and pony show for his liberal donors shows that you really do not understand the political process that well. Do you really think that some big corporation with what you call " shady purposes" is going to care if they have to post on some website for what there needs are? Do you think that they really will not use that website as PR tool and just lobby for what they want anyway? And get it? Do you truely belive that anyone outside of uber-liberal anti buisness or some reporter looking for a soundbite or an article to write will even read that website? That there would be any real outrage?
I think its great that 411 has a politics section up and that so many writers care for this country and are looking for integrity. But I would really like to know how many of these columnists have ever worked or even interned in Washington. There is a real basic abscence of a real insider knowledge of our political process in these columns.
Posted By: ETS (Guest) on April 01, 2009 at 09:08 AM
"What offends me is that this policy will create another permanent class of "community organizers" to administer the compulsory volunteer programs. It is just another way to create a group of people whose income is solely dependent on an Uncle Sugar handout."
I am curious as to where I can read up on this policy because the way you worded the above statement left me confused. If these people are doing some form of work, how is it a hand out?
Posted By: pd (Guest) on April 01, 2009 at 12:18 PM
pd,
By doing a job that's been unnecessary for the last 233 years, I can see where it could be considered a handout. Depending on the project, I often work up to 6 days a week and anywhere from 10-12 hours a day. Add in the fact that the closest I've worked to my home in the past five years is 320+ miles, and when am I going to have time to do this compulsory service? On my weekends off, when I try to spend as much time as I can with my daughter? I work for an environmental remediation company, cleaning up past mistakes made by businesses. On top of that, my job is to keep the people that actually do the work safe and free from exposure to toxins. Isn't that enough of a service to the communities I work in? If I had a 40-hour-a-week job in my hometown, I'd absolutely volunteer (like I did in high school to help with adult literacy learning). As it is now, though, it's just not something I can support, much less pledge my tax dollars to pay a coordinator who's probably going to be making more annually than I do.
And again, let me stress - this is something that we as a nation have survived without for as long as we've been a nation, so where is this huge imperative need for such a system?
Posted By: Wyatt (Guest) on April 01, 2009 at 10:27 PM
STAY CURRENT