Edwards and Lobbyists hypocrisy:

[Tellurian]

We love SEIU and think they do good work. Should we hate them because they are lobbyists?

Here is the latest on Edwards hypocrisy via Tapped

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=post_4977#018082

John Edwards has made it very clear that he thinks lobbyists are the bane of the American political system, and will prevent needed healthcare reform. He said so again at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Political Action Conference yesterday, warning that if you give industry lobbyists a seat at the table, “they’ll eat all the food.” So it was with some amusement that I looked up, after Edwards finished his remarks yesterday, to find a man on the stage jazzing up the crowd for the SEIU’s “Lobby Day.”

“We’re going to lobby, and then we’re going to lobby some more,” he shouted at the crowd. “And then we are going to rally.”

And that, indeed, is the SEIU’s Political Action Conference’s agenda for today. From 10:30 to 11:30, the group is holding “Lobby Day Briefings” at the Washington Hilton, after which participants will be ferried to Capitol Hill by bus. And then, at 1:45, they will hold a “Money for Healthcare, Not War” rally.

In addition to citizen lobbying efforts like today’s, the SEIU works with registered federal lobbyists to forward its agenda and weigh in on legislation critical to its members. Since just 2000, Senate records show, the SEIU has worked with: Bond & Co.; Clark & Weinstock; Colling Murphy Swift Hynes Selfridge LLC; Robert Giroux; Jennings Policy Strategies; the Nueva Vista Group; Bill Lynch Associates; and Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale.

Additionally, the SEIU has its own in-house registered lobbyist, Alma Henderson, according to Senate disclosure records.

These are likely the sorts of efforts Hillary Clinton was defending at the Yearly Kos conference when she said: “A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans.”

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=post_4977#018082

[DURHAM D]

1. Oh Dear - John is having more than a bad hair day. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

2. Maybe John Edwards makes a distinction between lobbyists for unions...

...and lobbyists for management.

[saracat]

5. Difference between"citizen" lobbyists and "paid " lobbyists.Edwards was inciting members to "lobby"

for themselves.I am not certain but I believe that Edwards may be a union member himself.

[Tellurian]

3. Update: Edwards seen scratching his head in wonderment..

On SEIU, Politico has several reports.

#1 The SEIU just pushed a conference call with reporters back from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. this afternoon, and I’ve heard mixed things out of the union’s deliberations today, though various sources agree that Edwards’ supporters inside the union are pushing hard for what would be a big win for him.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/SEIU_in_the_balance.html

#2 The latest news:

“An SEIU insider, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the union won’t endorse a presidential candidate today.

Edwards’ California supporters were confident last night that they had the votes to make him the union’s candidate — it was Edwards or nobody — but, according to two sources, they weren’t able to pull it off over the opposition of big locals based in New York and Chicago.

That’s a real loss for Edwards. The endorsement would have been a major vote of confidence and a source of institutional muscle at a time his campaign could use both, and he and his supporters inside the union pushed for it very, very hard.

The decision today — which is expected to be announced in a 4:30 p.m. conference call — doesn’t mean the union can’t endorse later in the cycle.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/No_endorsement_today_from_SEIU.html

[saracat]

4. There is a HUGE difference between a "citizen" lobbyist

and a paid lobbyist.And Edwards , who has always supported Labor, was urging the union members to "lobby "themselves. I frequently have asked fellow Democrats to "lobby' in much the same manner.The luncheon Clinton recently held with "lobbyists " paying as much as $25,000 apeice can in no way be comparable to Edwardfs call for Labor to lobby for itself.

[DURHAM D]

6. But is this not the very point Hillary was trying to make in

one of the debates - re: lobbyist that represent ordinary Americans.

[Cameron27]

7. That's exactly the point Hillary was making.

[saracat]

10. No.Hillary was defending her relationship with "corporate" lobbyists and

inferring they represented "real' people. This is not the same thing at all.I wish it were.Hillary was NOT meeting with "citizen" lobbyists a for her $25,000 luncheon.Edwards has not been taking money from those kind of people and Hillary refuses to stop taking it from them.

[Cameron27]

11. Who's attending that luncheon?

[saracat]

15. Here is who is attending

Today at noon, Hillary Clinton will be hosting a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. for a select group of lobbyists with an interest in homeland security.

Tickets for the Clinton fundraiser are $1,000 a ticket and $25,000 per bundler. And for that money you get more than a meal--you get to attend one-hour breakout sessions in four different areas of homeland security that will include House Committee Chairs and members of Congress who sit on the very committees that will be voting on homeland security legislation.

[Tellurian]

12. Hillary isn't bound to follow anyone's rules...why would you think she should?

Would you happen to know if Edwards returned "Jeff Fieger’s" money back yet?

"Edwards already has faced question about another trial lawyer who raised money from him. Attorney Geoffrey Feiger was indicted on federal charges he conspired to route more than $125,000 in illegal contributions to Edwards' 2004 White House bid.

Feiger, a trial lawyer who became famous for representing Dr. Jack Kevorkian during his assisted suicide controversy, has pleaded not guilty. Edwards' campaign said it knew nothing about the alleged scheme and cooperated with the Justice Department. But the campaign has declined to refund the donations in question, choosing instead to wait for the outcome of Feiger's trial to avoid influencing jurors."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/19/law...

[saracat]

14. You are sooo right .Hillary has made it clear she isn't bound by any rules at all!

[saracat]

17. Ah, yes. Match you and worse, today!

More Bundler Problems for Clinton
Clinton includes on her list of "Hillraisers" -- those who have committed to raising more than $100,000 for her White House bid -- several financiers linked to past troubles. They include Marvin Rosen, the former Democratic National Committee finance chairman whose efforts to reward six-figure party donors with attendance at White House coffees and overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom became the focal point of Senate hearings into fundraising abuses. Rosen did not return messages left at his offices in Florida and New York.

William Stuart Price, the Oklahoma oilman also on the "Hillraiser" list, stunned a courtroom in 1995 when he detailed how his former gas company had tried to "gain influence" with the Clinton administration by providing $160,000 in money and membership in a ritzy Washington golf club to the son of a Cabinet secretary. Price, who was never accused of wrongdoing, did not return calls seeking comment.

Price's testimony became the focal point of a criminal investigation of Ron Brown, then commerce secretary and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. The inquiry ended with the conviction of Price's former bosses, Nora and Gene Lum, for making illegal donations.

Also on the list is former senator Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), who withdrew from a 2002 reelection campaign after being "severely admonished" by the Senate for taking lavish gifts from a businessman and contributor, David Chang. Torricelli did not return messages left at his office yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[Tellurian]

18. S'matter...can't answer the question..?

The question is simple with a CURRENT workable link..

[saracat]

20. Sure I can! They "bundled the story " and moved it! New link below!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091902508.html

[liskddksil]

8. What a Contrast

On one hand we have Hillary Clinton holding thousand dollar a plate fundraiser where those wealthy enough to get in get to influence her homeland security policy. On the other we have hard working union men and women going to members of congress to advocate for issues affecting working Americans. I think I'll pick the latter.

[rodeodance]

9. get real. Not all lobby's are of the same cloth!

[saracat]

16. And as illustrated above, very true!

[Tellurian]

19. All you've illustrated is dodging the question.. wheres the money?

:rofl:

[saracat]

21. Hillary has it from the lobbyists as stated.

Today at noon, Hillary Clinton will be hosting a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. for a select group of lobbyists with an interest in homeland security.

Tickets for the Clinton fundraiser are $1,000 a ticket and $25,000 per bundler. And for that money you get more than a meal--you get to attend one-hour breakout sessions in four different areas of homeland security that will include House Committee Chairs and members of Congress who sit on the very committees that will be voting on homeland security legislation.

[Tellurian]

22. Nice advt.. Now how about answering the question..

Has Edwards returned the tainted money yet from the money laundering attorney?

Trippi's attack made no mention of Lerach, the Edwards' bundler, or the fact that Lerach had just reached a plea deal in a scheme prosecutors alleged involved kickback payments to plaintiffs in class action lawsuits he and his former law firm brought.

Lerach and his former law partner Melvyn I. Weiss were notified in the summer of 2005 that they had become targets in that lengthy criminal investigation, meaning they were likely to be indicted, according to lawyers involved in the case.

Court papers say that they employed the scheme for more than two decades in 150 cases that brought their firm more than $200 million in fees.

Milberg Weiss, the New York based law firm where Lerach served as a partner until a bitter parting in 2004, was indicted on conspiracy, mail fraud and money laundering charges in May 2006. Lerach and Weiss were not charged at that time but they were notified by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles that they continued to be the targets of their investigation. The firm is fighting the charges. Weiss himself has not been charged with a crime and maintains his innocence.

Political donations by Lerach and his partners, as well as a former expert witness named John Torkelson, came under investigators' scrutiny but the government has not filed criminal charges alleging they broke election laws.

Edwards campaign said it donated Lerach's personal donations to charity yesterday after his guilty plea, but isn't returning the money he raised from others.

Edwards already has faced question about another trial lawyer who raised money from him. Attorney Geoffrey Feiger was indicted on federal charges he conspired to route more than $125,000 in illegal contributions to Edwards' 2004 White House bid .Feiger, a trial lawyer who became famous for representing Dr. Jack Kevorkian during his assisted suicide controversy, has pleaded not guilty. Edwards' campaign said it knew nothing about the alleged scheme and cooperated with the Justice Department. But the campaign has declined to refund the donations in question, choosing instead to wait for the outcome of Feiger's trial to avoid influencing jurors.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/19/law...

[saracat]

23. Can't you read? it is in the article you quote! And this is OT, NOT about Lobbyists!

Edwards campaign said it donated Lerach's personal donations to charity yesterday after his guilty plea, but isn't returning the money he raised from others.

Weiss himself has not been charged with a crime and maintains his innocence.

Feiger, a trial lawyer who became famous for representing Dr. Jack Kevorkian during his assisted suicide controversy, has pleaded not guilty. Edwards' campaign said it knew nothing about the alleged scheme and cooperated with the Justice Department. But the campaign has declined to refund the donations in question, choosing instead to wait for the outcome of Feiger's trial to avoid influencing jurors.

[jsamuel]

13. an attempt to blur the issue

John Edwards refuses to take lobbyist money. Clinton avidly defends taking lobbyist money. We know what effect lobbyists have on legislation. John Edwards supports unions, but will not take money from lobbyists.