Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New Obama administration lobbyist policy angers K Street

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:24 AM
Original message
New Obama administration lobbyist policy angers K Street

Lobbyists Stew After Being Bounced From Boards

By Keith Koffler, CQ-Roll Call Group

A tide of anger and dismay is rippling down K Street as the Obama administration implements a new policy limiting the roles of lobbyists on federal advisory committees.

The policy change, described by the White House as the next step in President Barack Obama ’s drive to limit influence-peddling in Washington, could affect hundreds of lobbyists who serve on the panels, which were created by Congress in the 1970s to provide private-sector advice to the government.

<...>

The policy was announced quietly Sept. 23 in a blog post on the White House Web site by the White House special counsel for ethics and government reform — also known as the “ethics czar” — Norm Eisen. “The White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions,” Eisen states. He goes on to say that “it is our hope” that lobbyists already on the panels not be reappointed.

The Commerce Department and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative took the White House “aspiration” to heart almost immediately, telling members of the panels in a letter last week that lobbyists will no longer be appointed to panels and that those on them will be out as the committees are rechartered in 2010 and 2011.

more





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. Happy to recommend.
Use of lobbyists is not the best way to get real insight into anything, including the private sector.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. But he's a corporatist!!! He's a shill for the lobbyists!!!
:sarcasm: K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. The operative phrase today seems to be "chump change".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
53. I thought they were talking about you.....
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
44. Credit where credit is due...
Edited on Tue Oct-06-09 10:07 AM by grahamhgreen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. Oh nooooez, looks like Rahm and DLC is selling us down the river again!!!! OMGZ!!!
sigh, I can never have too much fun mocking the overdramatic naysayers that frequent this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. F*ck K Street and thank you Obama.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. Heads are exploding on K street. 'Bout time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's a Chicken Little nightmare!
Thank you Mr. President for keeping your promise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. Chicken Little Nightmare is
so right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
7. I've been thinking about all those lobbyiests and that they all make
a LOT of money themselves, and then when you add in all the money they pay to the Congressmen, I bet all these conpamies would be just as well off if they didn't employ them at all. Sure there would be more regulations than there currently are, but most of those regs would help keep the same damn co's out of courts, which also result in reduced profits!

I see no problem with reps from a relative company testify before a congressional committee to argue for their position. That's a good thing because no congressman can possibly know all the internat problems that could be created by some new laws, but it should end there!

Life's a "B" when you really have to shorten your campaign because NOBODY would have multimillions to spend on months & sometimes years of ads!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. are lobbyiests like poultergeists?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. I'm glad the parasites are pissed
Good work Mr. President
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. Excellent! Bravo Obama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. I laugh at their pain
Suck it lobbyists!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. b-b-b-but i read here every day that obama is republican lite and a corporate whore and he hates
puppies and shit!!11!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Hah..."hates puppies and shit!!" Hahahah!! +1 for you and +Infinity for the Pres. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Like Tridim said upthread..
Edited on Mon Oct-05-09 04:49 PM by Cha
"This is a Chicken Little Nightmare".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
40. Heads are exploding! Why didn't he do this on inauguration day????
That's really where the disconnect is. Some people have no clue what legal and administrative processes are like.

KRNT!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
15. k & r.
I'm curious though, if these panels "were created by Congress in the 1970s to provide private-sector advice", how did the "private-sector" influence congress before that? Was it a better system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
42. I don't know how the operated prior to the 70's but I think we've all seen
the influence of certain interests on our government grow exponentially since then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
55. It usually involved brown paper bags and unmarked bills. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
17. At last!
Edited on Mon Oct-05-09 04:27 PM by Rosa Luxemburg
:bounce: :bounce:

:bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. Certainly a step in the right direction.
"...federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions,”

I will applaud this.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIdaho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
21. Ban All Lobbyists - That one act could save what is left for our democracy. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
22. If it pisses of K street, it must be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
23. Obama is a Corporatist Sell-out Son of a... wait-a-minit
Reads post
.
.
.
.
.

Nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. And he didn't do ANYTHING
so far. I swear i heard it on SNL. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
56. I don't trust Obama... he's...he's... I've heard he's an Arab.
No ma'am. No, he isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
25. some Du'er impatience for change and unrealistic expectations of how much Obama can reform with the
massive power of corporate money and RW noise machine thrown against him at every turn, drives me CRAZY! He can't do it by himself folks. As Michael Moore said recently "we've got your back Mr.President" and without that he doesn't have a chance. He's the best chance we've had in decades to reduce the corporate domination of our lives and could use a little more support from the democratic base. The fact that he's enacted significant lobbyist reform and his Supreme Court nominee just questioned the "personhood" rights of corporations should tell you more about him than all the conspiracy rhetoric about him being a "corporatist". Add to that a story from the LA times today that he is working behind the scenes on each Senator to get the public option included in the Health care reform bill. This all takes time, and timing. Glad to see the policy promises and progressive agenda beginning to take shape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99 Percent Sure Donating Member (355 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
26. Believe it or not, health care lobbyists have a huge presence
in DC, so his tackling health care reform right off the bat should have been a huge signal that he was, again, keeping his word to also lessen lobbyists' huge influence in DC. Should also indicate why there's such fierce opposition.

Health care lobbies are number 2, behind -- drum rollll -- finance, insurance and real estate.

Maybe after they've cleared out of town in a couple of decades--because they will not be moved without a tremendous fight--the states will concentrate on taming their big time lobbying industries.

We forget President Obama's record while in the Illinois legislature as well as in the US Senate, but here's a memory jogger.

Illinois State Gift Ban Act

After entering the Illinois legislature, in 1998, Obama got the Illinois State Gift Ban Act passed which was at the time described as "the most sweeping good government legislation in decades." The law prohibited legislators, state officers, state employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government.

2007 Ethics Reform Law

Obama was one of four senators who helped pass the 2007 Ethics Reform Law curbing lobbyists influence--the measure was described as the “most sweeping since watergate.” In his first week in the 110th Congress, he joined with Senator Feingold to introduce what was called a "gold standard ethics package." Most of Obama-Feingold's most important provisions made it into a bill passed by the US Senate in late January 2007. The bill included:
  • a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by firms employing lobbyists;
  • an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets;
  • full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose;
  • additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and
  • requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they collect or arrange for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #26
49. Obama didn't keep his word; he entertained Billy Tauzin inside the White House
Edited on Tue Oct-06-09 10:38 AM by brentspeak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
27. You have to wonder
How many less millions we'd be spending without all this private sector "advice". :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
28. A WELCOME CHANGE!! Now we'll see how these slimeballs work around it. You can rest
Edited on Mon Oct-05-09 09:46 PM by bertman
assured they will get plenty of help from the almost 535 elected recipients of their well-placed largesse.

A first step in the right direction.

Recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
29. Well duh!
"... it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions... "


Isn't that the whole point in having them register in the first place?

This is good news. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
30. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jfkraus Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
31. Good!
You always know you've done something right when it pisses them off!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
32. kr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-05-09 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
33. Ooohh..... Kaaayy....
Now, can ban them from having any hand in drafting congressional legislation?

Please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
34. who are the 3 lobbyists he has working for him that he got/made a "waiver"
for?--randi mentioned this today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. I Think It's More Than Three; Total Number Is Not Public Info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
35. This is welcome news. I'll count this as a win. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
36. It's about time he played some hard ball.


these guys dancing around the finance committee writing the very legislation... kill public option from the bill? Payback is a bitch.


knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
37. Into each and every life a little rain must fall...
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
38. WHAT? Stop sugarcoating things!!! The Supreme Great Depression is COMINGG!!!
Get ready for bonfires of bodies, pain, famine, doom, defeat, greyness, wasteland, Dow < 100, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE DISEASED STARVING FLESH-EATING DEAAAAATTTHHHSSS . . . . .

Oh wait, we're not.

Glad to rec some good news in the Sea of FearFearFear Doom-o-rama here.

Now all he needs to do is roll back the Bewsh Tax Cuts and I'll be happier.

Trust me. Corporations suck, but they aren't going to let another Great Depression happen, because then the people that run them will be hunted and strung up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
41. Why, why . . . that's almost totally liberal!

I guess, however, those lobbyists will find themselves laid off, and ironically, on unemployment. They'd better lobby for Federal Unemployment Extensions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
43. My only critique of this:
Why the heck would you announce this policy quietly? It seems like exactly the sort of thing that would garner widespread public approval, but because of how it was implemented, news of it will probably travel no farther than political junkies like the folks at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GivePeaceAchance Donating Member (950 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
45. If 'K Street' are angry we're on the right road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
46. Excellent news!
As someone who has been somewhat disappointed in Obama's appointments of lobbyists within his administration (not to mention Summers, Geithner et al on the financial end), my hat is off to President Obama for this move. About damned time!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
47. Now if he only gets rid of the lobbyists in his administration,
then WE THE PEOPLE can party!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
48. The so-called conflict between Obama and lobbyists is about as real as professional wrestling
Edited on Tue Oct-06-09 10:39 AM by brentspeak
This is all closing the barn-door after the fact. For all practical purposes, the lobbyists have gained access to the White House from Day One and have already won at least two of the major issues already: health care reform and bailing out Wall St. Billy Tauzin, on behalf of the insurance companies, has had at least three personal meetings with Obama inside the White House, and walked out the White House a happy man. Big Pharma cut a secret deal with Obama. And we all know how Goldman Sachs has basically used the White House as their second HQ.

This article would be big deal had Obama blocked lobbyists from the White House door from the get-go. Not much left to lobby over now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
50. Cry Me A River K Street
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
51. Obama is worse than Hitler
this is just more proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
52. Yay! Anything that pisses off K-street has got to have SOMETHING going for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-06-09 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
54. I count that as a good solid endorsement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC