Lobbyists not funding “my party”? Not quite

posted at 7:05 pm on June 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama declared that “my party” will not take money from lobbyist PACs. However, the lobbyist ban apparently doesn’t apply to personal donations from lobbyists, as Obama’s campaign has proven repeatedly during the primaries. The ban on PAC donations also doesn’t apply to Obama’s party:

To rousing applause, Barack Obama formally announced this afternoon that the Democratic National Committee will follow his lead and begin refusing donations from registered lobbyists and special-interest political action committees.

“They do not fund my campaign,” the presumptive Democratic nominee told a small-town southwest Virginia crowd, after delivering a standard refrain that blames drug and insurance interests for blocking universal health care. “They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States.”

Well, at least not on the presidential level.

The Obama campaign confirms that two other arms of the national party – the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – will continue to accept lobby and PAC money this election. That’s the same position as presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and every affiliate of the Republican National Committee, who all accept lobby and PAC dollars.

To make this clear, lobbyist PACs will continue to fund the Democratic Party, regardless of what Obama claimed earlier today. That has to be the fastest flip-flop since Hillary Clinton changed position on illegal-alien drivers licenses within 120 seconds last November. Obama clearly intended people to believe that the entire party had orders to turn down these donations, which even they acknowledged was false from the beginning.

Besides, all that does is redirect lobbyist money from PACs to individuals. While acting holier-than-thou, the Obama campaign has had no problems having big-ticket lobbyists among their bundlers. Two of the top bundlers for his campaign lobby for the oil industry. Obama wants to pretend that that he remains free of influence from lobbyists, but by his own definition of influence, he’s in their pockets already.

This continues a very tiresome theme in this election, which demonizes lobbyists instead of the elected representatives they lobby. The issue isn’t lobbyists but the expansive amount of spoils that they can grab at the federal level. If a candidate wants to reduce the influence lobbyists have, they would enact policies that shrink the reach and cost of federal government. Barack Obama’s policies do exactly the opposite, expanding government control and spending, increasing the spoils for lobbyists given to them by elected representatives.

When Obama kicks all of the lobbyists out of his bundlers, rejects all contributions from people employed at firms that do lobbying, and then extends that policy to all of the official Democratic Party committees, then he will have told the truth in today’s announcement. Until then, he’s still the man who took $125,000 from Jack Abramoff’s firm by holding a fundraiser in their offices and essentially lying about his stance on lobbyists.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

START THE ADS!!!! Quote Obama with his pledge of no lobbyists, and then Queue the LIST of lobbyists.

muyoso on June 5, 2008 at 7:10 PM

When Obama kicks all of the lobbyists out of his bundlers, rejects all contributions from people employed at firms that do lobbying, and then extends that policy to all of the official Democratic Party committees, then he will have told the truth in today’s announcement

Ed, we know this will NEVER happen.

upinak on June 5, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Today’s HA Obama posts would be enough to destroy the career of any politician held to normal, acceptable standards of behavior.

I guess the Messiah’s above all need for ethical behavior. Even Community Organizers generally have to be cleaner than this pathetic empty suit.

Make Chrissy’s leg tingle and you’re in, right?

MrScribbler on June 5, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Obama: an immature, naive, lying sack of **** that we can Believe in..

Chakra Hammer on June 5, 2008 at 7:15 PM

But it is change we can believe in. . . not like those Eeeevil Republicans! /sarcasm

Right_of_Attila on June 5, 2008 at 7:18 PM

The problem with this distinction is that it will fool the most gullible of the population.

Democrats.

drjohn on June 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM

He’ll be singing:

It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to

soon enough.

The tincans of corruption tied to his ankles by his crooked firends will start making more and more noise.

Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, oh my!

Enough to wake even those True Believers who want to HOPE, but who will realize that, with Barry, they’ve been had by one more sleazy, amoral, shamelessly-lying Bill Clinton clone.

And the only CHANGE being, this time he’s mocha.

profitsbeard on June 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM

Nah, no lobbyists…

Just Corporate sponsorship of BOTH Partys Conventions.

And yes, they do get special access for it.

McCain Feingold and the FEC at its best.

Romeo13 on June 5, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Awaiting the obligatory re-defining of words to rationalize his latest “misspeak.” Or is it again our faults for mis-characterizing his words?

Alas, we won’t know until the MSM tells us which.

geckomon on June 5, 2008 at 7:52 PM

Comrade Obama goes to where all the scoundrels go when their best bud lobbyist is jailed, they talk sanctimonious talk and hope the peasants don’t catch on.

Anyone remember how Ken Lay was attached to Bush when Bush hardly knew the guy. Contrast that to how the drive-by media is covering up Comrade Obama’s 20 year association with this Rezko crook.

tarpon on June 5, 2008 at 7:53 PM

This is all bullshit anyway.

It doesn’t matter who you take money from, it matters who who you give access to once you are elected.

rockmom on June 5, 2008 at 7:55 PM

How does this help my kids?

VolMagic on June 5, 2008 at 7:59 PM

Liberals are not just stsupid, they are colosally stupid.

They truly are useful idiots, unwilling to dare question the Obamessiah.

drjohn on June 5, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Political Affirmative Action/Correctness = Saying one thing while doing the oppisete without being call on it by the MSM & while getting credit for what u’r saying u’r doing or not doing although it’s all BS…

Y314K on June 5, 2008 at 8:44 PM

As I understand it, donations under $200 have less information shown. The amounts are so numerous for Obama’s online contributions no one can check up on them. I always believed the majority of those contributions would not be allowed if they were fully checked out. He is so popular in other countries and it would be so easy for online contributions to be made without question.

Oleta on June 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM

C’mon John. Get him to pledge that he will not accept a dime from anyone that belongs to a teacher’s union, environmental organization, or legal profession. In fact, make him pledge to bar any lawyers from contact with the federal government.
This would be so easy to nail him on.

Rhinoboy on June 5, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Oh please Hussein, stop the small wet, mushy, pillow talk.

I’ll believe you politicians, when YOU ALL refuse ANY donations, and put YOUR OWN life savings on the line to get elected to public office.

byteshredder on June 5, 2008 at 10:44 PM

That’s not how I heard it on the news. I wonder why.

29Victor on June 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM

(I don’t really wonder why)

29Victor on June 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM

The man is a complete and utter fraud.

He is a Nation of Islam Socialist with ties to Russia.

His ties to Putin go through Zbigniew Brzezinski and this interesting little summit meeting:

During the August recess of 2005, Lugar, who was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went with Senator Barack Obama to Russia to inspect nuclear facilities there. They were detained for three hours at an airport in the city of Perm, near the Ural Mountains, where they were scheduled to depart for a meeting with the President and the Speaker of the House of Ukraine. They were released after a brief dialogue between U.S. and Russian officials and the Russians later apologized for this incident.

Red Pill on June 6, 2008 at 1:27 AM

It could very well be, his “handlers” are filling him fullof this BS…..and he has told the lie so many times he actually does beleive it………

I’ve come to believe Obama actual IQ is very low—put him out on the street and its a gaffe machine…….

He absolutly needs a tele-prompter to project his oratory image….

Its the group of left wing handlers behind him that are using him as a hand puppet via his image and oratory skills

sbark on June 6, 2008 at 8:26 AM

I really do believe that politicians have “evolved” to the point that they are absolutely convinced the American public is outright stupid. Otherwise how can you explain how these pols keep on saying the same old lies over and over again with no thought of ever being caught or held accountable. But at the same time we elect the same old pols over and over and over and over again. Time for term limits now, lets get some new corruption in office.

abcurtis on June 6, 2008 at 9:46 AM

The Obama supporters I know don’t know or don’t care about this type of hypocrisy. All they care about is getting “Booosh” out of the WH and getting BO in. BO could take money directly from Hugo Chavez and they wouldn’t care or would tout it as good “change” in foreign relations.

Snidely Whiplash on June 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM