Hey, Keller? Does this look like lobbyist influence to you?
posted at 9:33 am on February 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Both Democratic presidential candidates keep harping on two topics in the campaign. They want to end lobbyist influence in Washington, and they want to keep foreigners from unfair competition in American markets. The latter message has generated considerable enthusiasm, and blaming lobbyists has always been a winning political message.
However, both need to explain how they managed to break those same promises as Senators (via Instapundit):
Both Democratic presidential candidates, who promise to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists in Washington, helped enact narrowly tailored tax breaks sought by major campaign contributors.Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has accepted $54,350 from members of a law firm that in 2006 lobbied him to introduce a tax provision for a Japanese drug company with operations in Illinois, according to public records and interviews. The government estimates the provision, which became law in December 2006, will cost the treasury $800,000.
In 2002, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton introduced legislation at the request of Rienzi & Sons, a Queens, N.Y., food importer, according to company president Michael Rienzi. The provision, which became law in December 2004, required the government to refund tens of thousands of dollars in duty charged on imported tomato products, Rienzi told USA TODAY.
Rienzi gave $110,000 to committees set up to support Clinton’s 2000 Senate race, records show. Rienzi family members contributed an additional $52,800 to her campaigns since 2000. Michael Rienzi also said he donated to Bill Clinton’s presidential foundation, but he declined to say how much.
Got that? They both received tens of thousands of dollars from lobbyists in order to make it easier for foreigners to compete in American markets. Hillary’s change made it tougher on American tomato farmers to compete against foreign farmers, while Obama’s allowed the Japanese to expand their competition against American pharmaceuticals, although at least it created jobs in this country.
How did they manage to do that? A little-known rule in Congress allows members to create exceptions in tariff laws every two years, individually, somewhat akin to earmarks. Basically, this process exists to sell Congressional influence to the highest bidder. Lobbyists can make a fortune for their clients with a little down payment to a single Senator or Representative.
One presidential candidate refuses to introduce tariff suspensions, considering them dirty politics. John McCain has what he calls a “standing policy” that rejects private-relief bills or any bills intended for the purposes of any one person. I’d say that Obama and Hillary talk the talk, but only McCain walks the walk. I guess the New York Times missed this in their haste to tie McCain to lobbyist interventions.
Cross-posted at Captain’s Quarters.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Kaboom!
Another shot across their hypocritical bows!
The campaign in the general election is going to be juicy! Crank up the “Rough Republican Attack Machine” and prepare to RRAM!
heldmyw on February 27, 2008 at 9:38 AM
I wonder why some TV interviewer doesn’t ask them about these dealings ? Looks like both are getting a free ride on this.
OBX Pete on February 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I didn’t know that! Thanks, Capt.
Spirit of 1776 on February 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Those two lie with impunity. Nothing they promise will ever come to pass. The really spooky part is that a significant portion of the brain dead, liberal electorate actually believes what the say.
rplat on February 27, 2008 at 9:42 AM
No McCain doesn’t accept the lobbyist the way everyone else does…
he just cow tows to them with immigration and cheap labor…
Kaboom!!
hard to take the high ground when he’s just as dangerous as both of them combined..
TOPV on February 27, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Lowering taxes is pro-growth and pro-capitalism.What,what? A democrat did it?
Lowering taxes is lobbyist influenced and “will cost the treasury $800,000!”
It’s a little tough keeping up these days.
e-pirate on February 27, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Liberals get yet another pass from the NYT just because, well, just because they’re…liberals.
Nothing to see here. Move on.
pullingmyhairout on February 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Bububuhut what about those 5 billion jobs Hillary promised?
RUSSERT: Who will it be? Do you know his name?
CLINTON: Medvedev — whatever.
benrand on February 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM
The good news for OHB is that the MSM will not allow the average voter to ever hear about any of this unless McCain gets so shrill about it that he’ll turn voters off.
snaggletoothie on February 27, 2008 at 9:55 AM
So BHO and HRC accept donations from shady lobbyists, and McCain just gives them donations, of sorts…or injections of capital one might say…if they were to refer to their penis as “capital”…..
beefytee on February 27, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Not that reporting this now bothers me, but this story is 8 months old.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html
I’m not aware if Senator Obama has been asked specifically about the cases of NuFarm and Astellas Pharma. He should be asked about them. Anything he did as a Senator is fair game. If the press won’t ask him, Hillary should. Better to face this foe now rather than later when IT WILL COME UP.
gabriel sutherland on February 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM
McCain’s looking better everyday. If only we can be assured that he’ll stop trying to suck up to the NYT with another lapse in common sense on border security.
Mark V. on February 27, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Yeah, the Dems are a shoe-in this year. I’m not counting on much from the Republican strategists, who have failed us more than John McCain could ever dream, but if they can show even the competence of a five-year old, they are going to have it VERY easy when it comes to attacking the Dem nominee this time around.
Don’t let us down, boys.
amkun on February 27, 2008 at 10:18 AM
No, look. You’re all goofy in the head. Let me explain:
Barak’s acceptance of monies from these people is not serving the needs of “special interests”. Far from it. “Special” implies they are unusual and that sets them out from the crowd. As everyone wants to see the Messiah elected, the interests cannot be considered special. Therefore, Barak only got money from “interests” and not “special interests”.
As for the tariff exemptions, it’s a canard! Earmarks are specialized pork projects. The exemptions are specialized pork exemptions to foreigners. See– not spending money, but refusing to collect it! It’s not pork. Second, it can’t be pork if it’s going to foreigners. We all know foreigners don’t eat pork, so it’s offensive to even call it pork! It’s just like eating while standing up– if you, you don’t get fat because the calories don’t count when you eat standing up. (Or eat with a diet soda.)
So come on, “Captain” Ed or “Allah”pun”dit”. You guys can do better than this. Now where’s my prayer rug? Time for my 5 minute devotion to Saint “Don’t Call Him Hussein” Obama.
Nethicus on February 27, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Rhetorical, right?
ej_pez on February 27, 2008 at 10:22 AM
America.
Buy one, get one free.
fogw on February 27, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Best thing the Repubs could do for the election is to PUBLISH these silly rules and then say they won’t use them at all….
Only way to regain public trust…
If not? Repubs are doomed in this election…
Romeo13 on February 27, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I wrote to Mr. Ruttenberg and to Mr. Keller at the NY Times and asked when the Times would run a front page article about Obama receiving gobs of money from the nuclear power industry and then introducing legislation that helped the nuclear power industry. I asked when Mr. Ruttenberg would write an article about how Bill Clinton doled out presidential pardons on his last day of office to criminals whose families were donors to Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign. I asked about whether the Times would run an article about how Bill Clinton pardoned two criminals who, coincidentally, paid $200,000.00 apiece to Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s brother. Guess what? The Times didn’t answer me. I asked also when the Times had run a front page article about how Senator Chris Dodd had received huge contributions from the securities industry for his uncontested reelection campaigns in Connecticut and then introduced legislation that curtailed securities lawsuits. But of course the Times and Mr. Ruttenberg have no interest in any of this. Bill Keller and Jim Ruttenberg have one agenda: insuring the defeat of the Republican candidate. I have it on good authority that had Romney been the front runner, the Times was rearing to go on an article about how Romeny lives in a mansion while laying off thousands of people.
Larraby on February 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM
The MSM will ignore this issue, at least as far as it applies to the two Dem candidates. After all, who cares about “imported tomato products” anyway?
Del Dolemonte on February 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM
OK Ed, good point. So, that puts another mark on the “Conservative” side of the list for John McCain. The “Liberal” tally is still heavily lopsided though.
Geministorm on February 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Pimps arguing over their pricing structures.
profitsbeard on February 27, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Oh that truth in these issues still mattered. Change. Hope. Change. Hope.
Sugar Land on February 27, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Whatever.
benrand on February 27, 2008 at 10:53 AM
The picture says it all. Can anyone imagine another time when someone has waved their finger in Hillary’s face and lived?
meci on February 27, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Now that there story is gold. Sure hope Team McCain is reading.
rockmom on February 27, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Nonsense. First, one does get to claim some high ground for declining to play a corrupt little game, whatever one’s other views. Second, you say that McCain is “cow tow” (kowtow)-ing. Do you really believe that? I don’t. I think he sincerely believes in amnesty. Third, while I grant McCain’s considerable drawbacks as a Republican nominee, to call him “as dangerous” as Hillary “Hillarycare” Clinton and Barack “most liberal in the Senate” Obama is to fail to face up to reality. Do you imagine that Republicans can afford to sulk and insist on perfection? Do you imagine that if HillaryObama passes socialized medicine, we’ll be able to roll it back when we finally find our ideal conservative? Has any country ever succeeded in that? Do you imagine that the distinction between the judges who would be appointed by HillaryObama, and those who would be appointed by McCain, is meaningless to conservatives?
I really don’t understand this notion that conservative voters should refuse to see, and act on, the differences between socialists and whatever McCain is.
Splunge on February 27, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I’ll believe Democrats are serious about special interests when they stop eating from the government-subsidized taxpayer-funded trough of Planned Parenthood.
Until then they can keep quiet about “big business” and “big pharma” when they support “big abortion.”
BKennedy on February 27, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Comment pages: