Obama, Cozy with Corporate Lobbyists, Risks Much with Edwards Attack

[DaLittle Kitty]

Thought this was very poignant...:nuke:


Obama, Cozy with Corporate Lobbyists, Risks Much with Edwards Attack
By Christine Escobar, HuffingtonPost.com
Posted on December 31, 2007, Printed on January 2, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/72079/

While John Edwards announced this weekend that he will ban corporate lobbyists and foreign government lobbyists from his White House, Barack Obama has stepped up criticism of Edwards on everything from his populist views to Iowa ads about Edwards by an independent organization backed by union members.

With these latest remarks, however, Obama is wading into treacherous territory if he thinks no one will notice his close ties to big business lobbyists and their money, all while he attempts to play connect-the-dots on Edwards.

Obama has been relying on the advice and support of Washington lobbyists since early in his 2008 predential campaign. In an article from March of this year on The Hill, Alexander Bolton detailed Obama's K Street connections:

"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."

These lobbyist ties surfaced again before the holidays, when The Hill published this story on December 20 that exposed two federal lobbyists currently on Obama's campaign payroll, one of whom appears to have received payment while she was working as a lobbyist.

"Teal Baker, who received her first payment from Obama's campaign on June 13, represented 18 corporations between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year while working as a lobbyist for Podesta Group, a K Street powerhouse. Clients paid Podesta Group over $2 million during those six months for Baker and her colleagues to represent them, according to documents filed with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Clients such as Oshkosh Truck and Pinkerton Consulting paid more than $700,000 for Emmett Beliveau and his colleagues at Patton Boggs to represent them during the first half of 2007. Beliveau received a $3,050 payment from Obama's campaign for advance work on Feb. 21, a campaign finance report shows.

In addition, the article states, "Brandon Hurlbut, Obama's liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.

Until recently, Hurlbut had a voice mail greeting at B&D Consulting informing callers that he was on "a temporary leave of absence" to work for Obama's campaign."

On its website, Patton Boggs, (the firm that employed Beliveau), proudly boasts of being "consistently ranked as the nation's number one lobbying firm by the National Journal."

The Podesta Group, (the firm that employed Teal Baker), is run by Tony Podesta, a Chicago native. Podesta was listed third in Washingtonian magazine's list of the city's top lobbyists. The Washingtonian article from June says Podesta was hired by British Petroleum, whose pipeline problems and refinery fires have created regulatory and public-relations issues. Podesta had been "guiding BP through congressional hearings."

The author of the article, Kim Eisler, writes, "Podesta and his team of 23 lobbyists are said to collect $12 million to $15 million in annual billings."

A chart on current and former lobbyists who've worked for presidential campaigns for the 2008 election is published on The Hill's website. Wondering who's on Edwards' payroll? The chart names two men: Adam Jentleson and Matthew Morrison.

Jentleson "lobbied on behalf of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank," and Morrison, "was registered as a lobbyist for the American Federation of Teachers," (a trade union). Trade union and liberal think tank, quite the distinction from Obama's political movers, isn't it?

According to Colleen Murray, a spokeswoman for Edwards, both aides have ceased lobbying.

As Paul Krugman recently confirmed in his column for the New York Times, Obama is attempting to compare labor unions and progressive interests with groups that advocate for corporations as he criticizes Edwards, those recent Iowa ads and tries to link Edwards to Washington lobbyists.

But by doing just this, Obama glaringly leaves the door wide open on his own involvement with big business lobbyists and more importantly his denial of what's at stake in this era of rampant corporate greed.

Christine S. Escobar is a Chicago based writer whose work has appeared online and in print at Life Without School and Organic Family Magazine.


Go John Edwards! :woohoo:

[rodeodance]

1. Obama and clinton are so alike.

[rodeodance]

2. and a big REC

[AndyA]

3. And aren't corporate lobbyists responsible for a lot of the problems we have today?

How can anyone change things when they owe the same old favors to the same old people?

Hillary and Barack are up to their armpits in lobbyist money, and those lobbyists WILL WANT SOMETHING IN RETURN FOR ALL THAT CASH.

Make no mistake about it, a vote for Hillary or Barack is a vote for more of the same. They cannot hurt their friends, the ones with the cash, so the American people will continue to suffer. There's no other way around it.

[DaLittle Kitty]

4. Well Said Andy

"Touche'" Let's hope the Iowans do America PROUD! " :think: America!

[Andy823]

7. From one Andy to another

I couldn't agree more!

This country needs "real" change, and if a candidate is taking millions from corporate America, how can the give us the change we really need?

[AndyA]

11. Yes, I'd like to hear some of the Hillary and Barack supporters address this.

How, indeed, can they push through real, meaningful, change when it will impact their donors negatively? Those millions aren't being given just because they love Hillary and Barack. There will be a price to pay for all that money, and Americans are all too familiar with who pays that price after 7 years of Bush. :(

[Triana]

5. Every picture tells a story, don't it?

(Compare Obama to Edwards below - I think that tells all - this is from opensecrets.org previously posted by another DUer and I saved the graphic of it - appears that Obama doesn't have much room to talk.)

[indimuse]

6. MICHELLE OBAMA IS CORPORATE AMERICA PEOPLE!!! THE OBAMAS ARE CORPORATE USA.

Michelle still receives money from Wal-mart...go look it up! AS well as being highly instrumental in closing of a factory..La Junta...There is a video...150 jobs...GONE! Thank you Michelle...

The Chicago "free registration required" Tribune is reporting tonight that Michelle Obama has resigned her board of directors' position with the TreeHouse Foods. Her husband, presidential candidate Barack Obama, has been a frequent critic of the world's largest corporation and told a union crowd just last week, "I won't shop there."
The Tribune reports that Michelle Obama made a little more than $100,000 last year for serving on the board of Treehouse.

More...
In recent weeks, Obama supporters have maintained that the tie between Michelle Obama and Wal-Mart was a loose one. TreeHouse, based in west suburban Westchester, is one of many suppliers to the retailing giant and provides a small portion of its merchandise, they said.

But critics have noted that TreeHouse depends heavily on Wal-Mart for its business, according to the company's annual report.

In Michelle's own words, here is why she quit:

As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities.

But just two days ago, she explained things differently to ABC News:

When asked if she had considered resigning from her position, Michelle said that ultimately any changes that she made would be based on her own moral and ethical compass.

"I'm going to have to make a range of changes in my life. I've reduced my work hours at work. I will probably have to take a leave at some point. I will probably not be able to maintain my commitments," she said. "But if I make a change, it's going to be based on ... what I think is right."

[indimuse]

8. And...

Obama's vote as a U.S. Senator was in support of confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He also voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, despite Negroponte's involvement in Iran-Contra and other situations that clearly raise questions about his ethics and discretion. Obama also voted for a bill to LIMITED citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he HELPED VOTE DOWN A DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENT((REMIND OF LIEBERMAN??)) to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now, Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush's right-wing judges.
A HUGE Lieberman supporter..
Obama was supposed to be progressive champion??

[Bitwit1234]

9. Well he's the type the dumb asses like so....what do you expect.

[tammywammy]

10. A great point, you should really make this it's own thread

But add a little caps to it.

[PATRICK]

12. Right now

he is playing to a segment Edwards may have alienated in a fairly conservative state that liked Kerry for
being a solid conventional leader. Obama may be trying to portray the same through uplifting vagueness and rhetoric, but this still sort of simplistically looks like JFK running 1960ish against RFK 1968ish and in a state that was not that forward looking in 2004. Edwards on the other hand is much more clear than the vague hopes either Kennedy offered(without swatting down labor unions!!!!!). That rallies or alienates the TV saturated conservatism of those not yet in a new vast Depression.

Boy that sounds like a horrible analogy, but it is fairer I think to look at this as strategy than as a stain of darkness. Obama may have the same problems as JFK, dangerous ones, obstinately outdated conventional ones in the mix, but if that helps him win, more power to him- and us. We'll continue the agenda arguments when he is in the WH.

He WILL have to undo any hint that labor and and progressives and the 70% of people who like him are presumably against the war are special interests" in any cold sense like money lobbies and capitalist elites. There is no equality there, especially if those interests are not only your base but in the interests of the majority of America and the majority of its highest ideals. Does he have to be desperately in need of those interests to back off this Third Way crap? I do and don't hope so, because our unifed first interest may just be getting him elected.

[Stop Cornyn]

13. Excellent article

[Armstead]

14. That's bothersome

[Tennessee Gal]

15. Great article!

I am liking John Edwards more and more!