Lobbyists “a steady stream” at White House despite Obama pledge
posted at 12:41 pm on May 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Remember when Barack Obama pledged to keep lobbyists from dictating outcomes in his administration? Good times, good times. It only took a fortnight for Obama’s promise to become a joke when Jake Tapper asked Robert Gibbs to produce the “waivers” for lobbyist appointees to Obama’s administration, which numbered in the dozens by early March. The Washington Post follows up more than three years later and discovers that lobbyists are “a steady stream” in the White House visitor logs:
It was an unremarkable January day, with a steady stream of lobbyists among the thousands of daily visitors to the White House and the surrounding executive office buildings, according to a Washington Post analysis of visitor logs released by the administration. The Post matched visits with lobbying registrations and connected records in the visitor database to show who participated in the meetings, information now available in a search engine on the Post’s web site.
The visitor logs for Jan. 17 — one of the most recent days available — show that the lobbying industry Obama has vowed to constrain is a regular presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The records also suggest that lobbyists with personal connections to the White House enjoy the easiest access. …
“A lot of folks,” Obama said last month, “see the amounts of money that are being spent and the special interests that dominate and the lobbyists that always have access, and they say to themselves, maybe I don’t count.”
The White House visitor records make it clear that Obama’s senior officials are granting that access to some of K Street’s most influential representatives. In many cases, those lobbyists have long-standing connections to the president or his aides. Republican lobbyists coming to visit are rare, while Democratic lobbyists are common, whether they are representing corporate clients or liberal causes.
Some of these visitors are the usual suspects — lobbyists for unions, the ACLU, and so on. But a great many more represent the very corporate interests that Obama blasted in 2008. For instance, a lobbyist for Comcast and Taser International has been to the White House on 30 occasions. Another lobbyist for the biotech industry has made two dozen visits. A well-known liberal lobbyist has been to the White House 47 times, twenty more than Tony Podesta, the lobbyist brother of former Obama aide John Podesta. The spouse of former climate-change czar Carol Browner, Tom Downey, made 31 visits to the White House. His firm represents Time Warner and Herbalife, among others.
Does that sound like a President who chased the lobbyists out of the government? Or does it sound more like a President who just opened the doors for the moneychangers of choice?
Don’t get me wrong. Lobbying is a legitimate profession, and in fact is explicitly protected by the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing a law infringing on the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Groups form on permanent or ad hoc bases to argue for policy choices. Lobbying is only illegitimate when it involves illegitimate means. However, Barack Obama set himself up as the scourge of lobbyists and demagogued on the subject incessantly during the 2008 campaign. As recently as last month, he posed himself as holier-than-thou on the subject. This is a clear example of hypocrisy in action. Kudos to the Washington Post for exposing it.
Related Posts:









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
If government is going to be arbiter of fair and lawful competition, long as RICO, monopoly, and other LARGE laws aren’t being violated, then government is WAY too large.
Liam on May 21, 2013 at 8:44 PM
How else are the bureaucrats going to keep the bribe money coming?
malclave on May 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM
That pretty much covers the topic.
Liam on May 21, 2013 at 8:53 PM
How do you pronounce this: womp
Whoomp (as in Whoomp, there it is)? Wahmp (rhymes with pomp)? something else?
cptacek on May 21, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Uber is a FANTASTIC company… naturally, it and the innovation it represents would be antithetical to the current oppressive environment this crony-based government has spawned…
dpduq on May 21, 2013 at 9:03 PM
I hate to throw the grammar Nazi flag, but the word I bolded above should be wringer.
Gator Country on May 21, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Woah! Erika’s quite the womp rat!
KS Rex on May 21, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Wringer is a ringer for “ringer”
Now if you’ll excuse, I have clothes to dry.
wolly4321 on May 21, 2013 at 9:45 PM
And then those cities wonder out loud why they continually suffer ‘brain drains’ when the best and brightest flee for greener pastures.
It’s not rocket surgery.
Myron Falwell on May 21, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Just like the medieval guilds, the purpose is to protect the existing businesses from aggressive competition.
And yes, this undermines the whole free enterprise system. Fortunately, the startups just view it as one more obstacle to get past, and manage anyway. But it’s still a waste of time and money.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 22, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Had the opportunity to use Uber’s sedan service in L.A. a few weeks ago.
As soon as the service was ordered I knew that my car was 4 minutes away. I watched on the screen as it got closer and closer. When it hit 1 minute, I saw a black sedan on the opposite side of the street signaling to make a u-turn.
Contrast this with a year earlier when I called for a taxi in order to make the exact same trip. I was told that they were busy but they’d have someone there in 10 minutes. 15 minutes later I called and was told that someone would be there in 10 minutes. Another 15 minutes later I called and was told dispatch had sent someone and if they weren’t there in 5 minutes I should give them another call. 10 minutes after that I flagged down a passing cab and they got my business instead.
The Uber sedan service was $90 with tip. The taxi was $110 with tip.
If Uber wants to extend their business into the taxi realm (and they plan to keep the same level of service), it’s nothing but a boon to the residents of the cities they are operating in.
JadeNYU on May 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Wonder how much the preferred payment providers are paying DC?
unclesmrgol on May 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM