"It's a choice between a candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than either Republican in this race and a campaign that has not taken a dime of their money." Speech Transcript.
Stop. Hold it right there Senator Obama.
Lobbyists generally are paid by corporations, unions and other interest groups to shape public policy by making regular contact with government officials. They must register with both houses of Congress, and make public disclosures identifying their clients and the amounts they are paid.
Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama's ban does not cover such individuals. Full Story.
The other big element in Obama's stand against the world of special interests is his refusal to take PAC money. While this may be noble, experts say it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Massie Ritsch, Communications Director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says it is not particularly risky to eschew PAC money since it "amounts to only about 1 percent of the money in any presidential campaign. So you're not leaving a whole lot of money on the table when you say 'I'm not taking PAC money.'" Full Story.
OpenSecrets.org tracks political contributions for all members of both houses of congress and has been tracking contributions to each of the presidential campaigns. This link will detail Barack Obama's top contributors to his presidential campaign. Its not exactly the list of "ordinary Americans" he boasts to have taken his contributions from.Top Contributors
| Goldman Sachs | $421,763 |
| Ubs Ag | $296,670 |
| Lehman Brothers | $250,630 |
| National Amusements Inc | $245,843 |
| JP Morgan Chase & Co | $243,848 |
| Sidley Austin LLP | $226,491 |
| Citigroup Inc | $221,578 |
| Exelon Corp | $221,517 |
| Skadden, Arps Et Al | $196,420 |
| Jones Day | $181,996 |
| Harvard University | $172,324 |
| Citadel Investment Group | $171,798 |
| Time Warner | $155,383 |
| Morgan Stanley | $155,196 |
| Google Inc | $152,802 |
| University of California | $143,029 |
| Jenner & Block | $136,565 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | $134,738 |
| Wilmerhale Llp | $119,245 |
| Credit Suisse Group | $118,250 |
Exelon Corp, who is on that list of top campaigns contributors, has contributed more than $230,000 to Barack Obama since 2003.
If you have registered as a supporter for Barack's presidential bid, you have been receiving his inspiring e-mails. In one seeking money, Obama decried the special interest industry in Washington and warned it would spend more money than ever to "try to own our political process." "We're not going to play that game," the e-mail said.
Unfortunately, Barack's own legislative history says otherwise.
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, Barack Obama took up the cause.
Senator Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate. It did not pass. Full Story.
While Obama is on the campaign trail claiming to be above "old politics", the voting record, campaign contributions and legislation he has participated in says otherwise. What is unfortunate about this is that he has raised the spirits of millions of Americans who truly believe he is going to fight "Washington's ways" and bring responsibility and ethics to the White House. While he may attempt to accomplish this, the facts on the table indicate otherwise.
1 comment:
That's some real deep insight - so this makes him exactly no better or worse than any other politician who will lie, twist, distort, slant, spin, shift, backstab, abandon, betray, and otherwise ska-rew Joe Public to win office.
YAWWWWWNNN.
At the very least he can form a coherent sentence, and inspires people. You can't say the same for Hillary, McCain, and certainly the current President. I'll probably vote for him just based on that.
Post a Comment