home

Obama Launches New and Deceptive Lobbyist Ad Against Clinton

Barack Obama launched a new ad attacking Hillary Clinton for taking lobbyist money. I think it is flat out deceptive.

Obama relies on lobbyists. His campaign spokesman called his refusal to take money from lobbyists "symbolic" and acknolwedged "it doesn’t solve the problem of money in politics."

Obama has a network of lobbyists supporting him:

While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help.

Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: “I would imagine that it’s as large as the Clinton list,” in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.

He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give “policy” and “campaign support.” Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise. Williams is actively building support for Obama among lobbyists and the corporate clients they represent.

Among the lobbyists helping Obama: [More...]

.... former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.

He'll take money from their wives:

Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama’s campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama’s campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist’s wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

Obama says he's for transparency.

One lobbyist who has worked hard for Obama behind the scenes, according to two pro-Obama lobbyists, denied that he was in the Illinois senator’s camp when queried by The Hill. The shy lobbyist wanted to keep his allegiance secret because he represents a New York-based company and his job could be harmed if he alienated Clinton, explained a fellow Obama partisan.

Obama has wealthy donors and bundlers who have access to his campaign. See this Washington Post article.

The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite. One-third had never contributed to a presidential campaign, much less raised money.

The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers. Both Illinois and Washington, D.C., have six, and five hail from New York.

Among the group are businessmen such as Kenneth Griffin, a famously private 39-year-old billionaire who threw his support behind Obama's presidential campaign just as he hired a team of lobbyists to urge Congress to preserve a lucrative tax loophole.

How about when Obama was in the Illinois Senate?

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

How about his current campaign?

Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.

The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).

Obama will change the way business is done in Washington? Hardly. He'll just keep it more secret since there won't be dollars to trace. Kind of like money laundering.

< How to Read Polls: Part X | SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 14 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Would that the networks (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    would expose this.

    My niece will be donating to Clinton again today to help her get commercials out to counter this.

    Those of you who are maxed--Emily's List is doing a stellar job with "women get out the vote" to help Hillary.

    Wow, hope she counter ads him (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    This is going to get nasty because Obama feels the loss of one more blue state is not going to favor him with SDs. Sounds to me like he is the one fighting for his life. 'bout time. Must be time for another donation to our Lady.

    It's getting so that this man's (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    history is self-erasing; whatever he says today erases anything else he may have said or done in the past.

    I think the Clinton response ad writes itself, but the one that will hurt him the most is the one that will come out of the McCain campaign, especially in light of the still-unresolved questions about whether Obama did or did not agree to public financing.  

    Yes, I know McCain is not as pure as he paints himself on this issue, but that won't matter to the media.

    The more I hear from Obama, the worse I feel.

    Heres the response ad I'd like to see (none / 0) (#19)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55:00 AM EST
    Make fun of it

    Evil Hillary Clinton began her government career as a lobbyist show a young Hil clomping around New bedford in her birkenstocks gathering the data on why so many kids were not in school(in the 70's she worked for the Childrens Defense Fund to lobby congress to make it illegal to keep handicapped kids out of school)

    Now ...her PAC funds are dominated by evil special interests
    list the opensecrets PAC page that shows her Special Interest PACs are like nurses associations etc..

    He sure is treading in murky water there as his lobbyist/policy advisors who operate the Bipartisan Policy Center (reassuring name, right?) include the nuke power CEO John Rowe from Exelon!

    Parent

    Every time the Obama people (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    come here and make the damning claim, "yeah but Hillary was on the board of Wal-mart" I want you all to link to this phrase:

    Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.

    Another Thing (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    This is the same attack Nader made on Gore.

    Gore had taken donations from the pharmaceutical lobby.

    When Nader attacked him about that, I thought Nader was being divisive, misleading, smearing a candidate I knew, a candidate I had confidence in to keep the country going down the right path.


    I'm tired of writing this (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    but I will write it again. He is a grand deception when it comes to lobbyists. Take Sidley-Austin LLP, his wife's former law firm. It is the sixth largest law firm with over a billion dollars in revenues and more than 600 lawyers of whom some are registered lobbyists. In their health care practice they have over two dozen registered lobbyists:

    http://www.sidley.com/public_policy_govt_affairs/

    And they bundle money for Obama. Tom Cole in the Illinois office has raised over $50,000; John Levi also in Chicago the over $200,000; Kathryn Thompson in the DC office over $50,000 And these figures are for YE 2007. God knows what the numbers are now. Here is what he does: He gets money from the lawyers at Sidley-Austin that are not registered lobbyists. But law firms are partnerships were compensation is pooled so the work of one attorney benefits the rest. So while Obama does not directly take money from the registered lobbyists at Sidley-Austin it is all just a game, a wink and a nod. Let's look clean of money but we know where his loyalties are.

    And like Sidley-Austin, he has at least 16 other law firms with registered lobbyist doing the same thing.

    http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009

    Thank you (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    He should be transparent. His top contributors so far. Opensecrets.org:

    Goldman Sachs  $523,478
    University of California  $339,168
    UBS AG  $327,302
    JPMorgan Chase & Co  $317,142
    Lehman Brothers  $302,697
    Citigroup Inc  $301,146
    National Amusements Inc  $293,022
    Sidley Austin LLP  $271,857
    Harvard University  $268,491
    Google Inc  $259,010
    Skadden, Arps et al  $248,743
    Exelon Corp  $227,661
    Morgan Stanley  $225,976
    Time Warner  $221,878
    Jones Day  $212,525
    Wilmerhale Llp  $194,688
    Latham & Watkins  $187,208
    University of Chicago  $183,147
    Kirkland & Ellis  $182,176
    Citadel Investment Group  $175,900


    Parent

    I have been raising this issue... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by citizen53 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    from the start.

    It irked me as an Edwards supporter that Obama was so well connected, but stealthily.

    He is no different than Clinton, but he gets a free pass.

    The deception of the Obama campaign is found on a variety of levels.

    It's built on pure illusion that is easy to create when one has 1/4 billion to spend.

    I dont think it will hurt (none / 0) (#4)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    Can I just say that I don't think this ad is particularly hardhitting.
    I mean if this some way to demonize Clinton, then I think its quite lame.

    None-the-less deception is the name of the game.

    When Ross Perot ran (none / 0) (#6)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:21 AM EST
    he said he wouldn't take special interest money and financed his own campaign.

    Molly Ivins pointed out that he was a special interest.  She said he was just cutting out the middleman.

    This is good... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    ...the best way to beat Obama is with counterpunching.  Break out the ads about people that influence Obama: Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, William Ayers, and Wright.  

    LOL :-D (none / 0) (#12)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    That would rock, and I think that she will hammer him completely with all of that, and still somehow tie it into his condescending attitude to Americans. She's a judo master.

    Parent
    This may backfire (none / 0) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    Some think the poll change for Obama may be backfiring.  If media shows this piece and discusses how it isn't true... the media spin may become the subject of this article...

    Clinton tells a lie, Obama is a lie

    The word "stealth" (none / 0) (#10)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    in the article jumped out at me when I read it some days ago. Not a nice word to attach to a campaign.

    Obama's K-Street Plan (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    Was reported over a year ago.

    TIme to get it into the main stream?

    You bet.

    I'd say it's a year too late.

    Please stop the personal attacks on Obama (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    I've deleted several. You cannot call him a liar. It's name-calling and an attack on his character.

    So what can we call a person who lies? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    I think you call it a candidate for change. (none / 0) (#25)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:27:15 AM EST
    Change you can't believe in

    Parent
    Less than truthful (none / 0) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    Say you think it is less than truthful/or how he is spinning and then provide some info on why....

    then run over to another site and vent!  :)

    Parent

    No I let his words prove what he is (none / 0) (#27)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    I don't think I have to call him anything.  I don't know who said it but someone did " By their acts you shall know them"

    Parent
    A politician, lie? (none / 0) (#28)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    Surely they only misspeak?  See Hillary Clinton in Tuzla.

    Parent
    In case of Hillary (none / 0) (#29)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    it is a lie..
    but in case of Obama.. he gets the benefit of doubt of mis-speak, mis-quoted, [and rightfully so because he is so new that we/media cannot call him a regular politician]

    Parent
    You folks sound bitter (none / 0) (#37)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    but (none / 0) (#46)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    we don't cling to guns or religion because we are bitter...

    Parent
    Probably OT, but interesting (none / 0) (#30)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    USA TODAY On Politics:

    The Charlotte Observer -- BET founder says Obama wouldn't be a contender if he was white.  He can say it, Ferraro could not.

    he will be (none / 0) (#31)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    labeled as a freak :) You just can't say that kind of stuff even though it may be correct [esp. if you are on the Clinton side]!!

    Parent
    My preference is for candidates (none / 0) (#32)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:30:06 PM EST
    to not take money from lobbyists and pacs.  Sure, there are some non-profit lobbyist supporters of BO who have had their personal donations returned, but that's a fair trade off, because it means that his campaign wasn't paid for by those who want to influence policy to make money for their corporate bosses.

    As to all the other stuff that is common to both BO and HRC; I don't care, because they're the same.  I prefer to look for things that differentiate the two.  But, I understand where the HRC supporters are coming from.  This is similar to BO saying his health care plan is 95% similar to HRC's plan.  But, HRC and her supporters like to focus on the only real difference, (mandates) which they prefer (even though mandates won't work without more seriously reforming the underlying system, imo.)  At least in that situation BO argues why his plan is better.  I don't see a lot of HRC supporters arguing that it is best to take lobbyist and pac money, as is HRC's policy.

    PS: it's nice to see a non-poll post.  A few of those are interesting, but it's nice to break out of the horse race to look at issues (or occasionally tactics, e.g. ads) too.

    Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    It's public information that his biggest contributor has been Goldman Sachs ($523,478). Eight of Obama's top twenty investors are securities and investment firms.

    He takes money from oil companies. I found this on Rosanne's blog:

    The Center for Responsive Politics he accepted $160,000.00 from major oil companies, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and others. Two of his top bundlers George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar are CEO's for major oil companies. Last month, Obama accepted another $8400.00 from ExxonMobile, $12,370.00 from Chevron and $6500.00 from British Petroleum.

    Goldman Sachs (none / 0) (#39)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    As a former employee of Goldman Sachs, I can tell you that the firm is solidly pro-Clinton. CEO Lloyd Blankfein and former CEOs Jon Corzine and Robert Rubin are all Clinton. And GS also bundles money for Clinton.

    Though I am biased obviously, GS is an exceptional firm. Not tainted by the sub-prime mortgage crisis and rarely tainted by any scandals. I will tell you that when I joined I had a welcome note from the LGBT GS Asso and GS sent me on two recruiting trips to recruit gays and lesbians. I worked on Wall Street for a decade and I can tell you GS is a firm apart.
    Not all of corporate America is evil.

    Parent

    Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    I'm sure GS is all fine people and that they prefer Clinton. My point is Obama's hypocrisy. He's no different than everyone else. His top contributor is GS (from Rosanne's blog)

    "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security and legislation that would deregulate the investment banking/securities industry (Center for Responsive Politics)"

    Parent

    Opensecrets.org (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    He's no different than anyone else. If anything, his contributors are more boutique-y, latte-sipping and Prius-driving.

    Opensecrets.org

    Politicians Distort Positions of Other Politicians (none / 0) (#36)
    by sssor on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:52:54 PM EST
    Really? Wow! My question is 'Do supporters of either Democratic candidate believe that by denigrating the other candidate or their followers that they are supporting their candidate?' That anyone would support either Democratic candidate now and vote for McCain (because the 'other' democratic candidate prevailed)is beyond hypocritical. Either Hillary or Obama would be infinitely preferrable to McCain. Obama is clearly distorting the issue of Hillary and lobbyists. Hillary is clearly distorting the recently reported remarks by Obama. Shocking...just shocking. But pale in comparison to the notion that McCain would be preferable if my Democratic candidate does not prevail.

    I'd edit that comment (none / 0) (#40)
    by tree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    to say that Obama is the one distorting what he said at the SF fundraiser.  

    Parent
    Heck, Hillary is not even hitting (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BernieO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    him for saying the reason people are bitter is that they were left behind by the Bush AND CLINTON economies.
    I would love to see Bill come out swinging on this one. He should say he found Obama's comments insulting not only to him but to all the Democrats who worked with him in the nineties to give us an economy that moved 6 MILLION people out of poverty while generating a budget surplus. He could then list the policies and the results his administration achieved and compare them to the disaster that is the Bush economic policy.
    I have heard Bill speak twice here in NC and he talks a lot about the economy of the 90's. The crowds loved it. However it gets no media coverage. If he brings it up in the context of this dustup with Obama, it would really get media attention. It would allow the campaign to remind voters of how good the 90's were for all income levels as well as get the message out to young people who don't know this.(The ones I know don't.) In addition it is an opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of the Bush/Reagan trickle down idiocy.

    OT I was at a meeting this morning at Hillary's Charlotte headquarters and heard several people - the president of NOW, Hillary's best friend from childhood among others  - talk about all the things she has done over the years. The reaction of a lot of us there was that the campaign has done a terrible job of getting this information out to the public. It is no good just preaching to the choir. I have a feeling this is the result of Mark Penn's silly niche marketing approach. The campaign needs to get out the information on both the success of the policies of the 90's as well as the many substantive things Hillary has done over the years. We hear all the time about Obama's working as a community organizer, but not about Hillary working with abused children, for education reform, etc. They need to wake up and stop relying on Obama to screw up.


    Parent

    Another little. white lie (none / 0) (#38)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST


    Hillary is a product of the establishment (none / 0) (#44)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:11:15 PM EST
    but the country can prosper even with influence from lobbyists. Its a reality. The American people can live with it, but saying your donors are mostly <100$, is a bit deceptive. He wants to be the hope and unity candidate and Camelot uh, well and good, but this is reality.

    Obama wanted to end this thing before we got the reality check. We know Hillary. When she said in one of her ads "this campaign is about you and where we're headed as a country" and damn it she's talking to me and despite her wealth she knows that together the country can live with lobbyists and the rich can prosper too. She also said this country is worth fighting for. Damn it  she's fighting for the nom everyday she puts on her pantyhose and goes out there to face the avalanche of negative press. We need that right now in this country. Its why shes got my vote.

    We know the difference. So all those ads about lobbyists from the Ocamp will fall on deaf ears.