I'm confused. Is Edwards taking PAC money or Washington lobbyists' money or not?

[Emit]

“I am proud to be the only presidential candidate who has never taken a dime from Political Action Committees or Washington lobbyists, because I’m determined to be a voice for regular families like the one I grew up in,” Edwards said in a statement. “For too long, our political leaders in Washington have looked the other way as lobbyists and irresponsible corporations have fought against efforts to achieve real change in America.” John Edwards
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/28/edwards-launches-no-lobbyist-money-pledge/

Today on This Week, George Stephanopoulos asks Edwards this:

" ... You've made such an issue on lobbyists...You say no corporate lobbyist in the White House, no lobbyist for foreign governments in the White House ... Some of your biggest contributors are trial lawyers ... And the Association of Trial Lawyers in America is the 6th largest lobbying group in the country. 6$Million spent on lobbying. 8 of your top fundraisers are on the Executive Committee of that organization. 18 are on their Board of Governors..."

VIDEO: Edwards 'in This Through the Convention'
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4093850
http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek

What is the real issue? Is the issue not taking PAC money? Or is the real issue not taking money from registered lobbyists who are trying to find a way around the PAC money ban from Corporations and unions?

Or is the issue both for Edwards and if he says he isn't taking any, then how does he account for the ATLA lobbyists' money he's received?

Edited to add "or Washington lobbyists' money" to OP.

[fenriswolf]

1. been posting this for two days, here it is again.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

[Emit]

4. Contributions from Political Action Committees to John Edwards for PRESIDENT in 2008

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION Labor $5,000
HOLLINGS FOR SENATE -- $2,300
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND INC. PAC (PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERAL PAC) Trade/Memership/Health $1,591
BERKLEY FOR CONGRESS -- $1,000
PH&S FEDERAL PAC -- $500
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND INC. PAC (PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERAL PAC) Trade/Memership/Health $246
DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA INC DEPAC (DAIRY EDUCATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE) Cooperative $0
ACTBLUE -- $-25
ACTBLUE -- $-25
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION Labor $-5,000


http://www.campaignmoney.com/committee.asp?candidateid=P40002347&cycle=08&cnt=10&amt=5587&cname=John+Edwards

How do we account for this?

On edit, granted, they don't appear to be Corporate groups.

[Garbo 2004]

6. Looks like the $5K was returned by the campaign. The campaign may not have caught or returned the

other amounts during that reporting period.

[Emit]

9. That could be it

PolitiFact has some info and explanation, which includes his campaign returning PAC donations:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/124/

[Madam Mossfern]

7. Hey! I belong to the IBEW

It's good to know that my brothers and sisters support him. :headbang:

[Emit]

14. Yes, I see. Thanks for posting this. n/t

[Selatius]

2. This is kind of easy to explain.

If Edwards isn't taking money from a PAC as an entity, then the individuals in that PAC can decide to each donate in their own names to Edwards instead. This is sort of like how corporate executives and managers get around the prohibition on corporate entities not being allowed to donate to any political campaign. If Wal-Mart as a corporation cannot donate to anybody, the individual executives and managers at Wal-Mart can, citing the 1st Amendment right of an individual to free expression.

[lapfog_1]

5. Or, in Edwards case, lawyers in law firms

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K01

where he runs a close second to Hillary, and Obama is right behind them.

But if any "special interest" group has their hands on John Edwards wallet, its lawyers.

Given his background as a trial lawyer, I don't know if this is a bad thing or good thing (one set of people would have you believe that trial lawyers are fighting the big nasty corporations on behalf of the "little guy"... another set would have you believe that every stupid and unneeded safety feature and regulation are the result of ambulance chasers... which is also why our health care costs sooo much).

I'm more cynical than that... I think trial lawyers like to litigate when there is a chance of a multi-million dollar fee... for them.

[JDPriestly]

10. Lawyers like to litigate when they think they have a winning case.

There is a lot of ignorance about lawyers' pay, how much lawyers earn and why.

Here is how lawyers generally get paid.

Flat rate -- the client agrees to pay the lawyer a specific dollar rate to handle a matter (usually not a litigation matter). The client pays that rate no matter what and the lawyer must perform the work. This works for matters in which the overall amount of work can be estimated fairly easily.

Hourly rate -- the client agrees to pay the lawyer an hourly rate. The lawyer tracks his or her time (usually in tenths of an hour), bills at the end of the month, and the client pays the hourly rate. This is often how defense lawyers charge the insurance companies or corporations that hire them to defend their insureds or themselves. The client may negotiate a reduced rate or ask to have a discount on the overall bill or a reduction in the number of hours billed, but the client is usually bound by contract to pay the time billed. Litigation is difficult. Each case has its own problems. A lawsuit over some small thing can consume a lot of lawyer time, so the bills can really mount up surprisingly fast. Most ordinary people cannot afford to pay the hourly rate to a lawyer to handle a case. It is hard to predict at the outset whether a case will involve a lot of work or be quickly resolved. A lawyer can only afford to agree to bill an hourly rate for work if the lawyer is pretty sure the client can and will pay.

Contingency fee -- the client agrees to pay the lawyer a percentage of the amount that the lawyer wins either at trial or through a settlement process. Generally, plaintiff's attorneys like Edwards work on this basis, mostly because ordinary people can't pay the hourly rate. The hours just add up too fast. As I said, a trial lawyer has a lot of costs. For example, he or she has to maintain an office, pay some staff, cover bar and continuing education fees, professional insurance (costs the sun and the moon) maintain a library, pay for Lexis or another internet research service and support him- or herself and the family. And when the lawyer works on a contingency basis, he or she pays all of these costs up front. If a case is really good, and the lawyer is really good, the judge and jury are fair, if, if, if . . . . then maybe the lawyer wins and gets a share of the money. If the defendant has no money, if anything goes wrong, the lawyer loses -- big. It is a gamble. That is why lawyers do not take cases unless the return on winning promises to be good. The risk is just too great. (I often wonder about the number of lawyers who went broke suing the tobacco companies.)

I suggest that those who think trial lawyers don't deserve their pay read the book, The Buffalo Creek Disaster by Gerald Stern. That case was actually settled pretty quickly. A lawyer can wait a long, long time to actually get paid. Just getting the verdict is the first step. Once you have it, you have to enforce it. That can be even harder than getting the verdict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_Flood

Edwards was an excellent lawyer and got good verdicts. He probably worked on contingency and his pay was a percentage of the verdicts. His clients also got a percentage of the verdicts. Do you see now why lawyers prefer to litigate for high verdicts? Litigation is risky, and the lawyer works really, really hard.

[Catchawave]

3. I'm a member of MoveOn, Humane USA and the DFA

and I donate to the Edwards campaign. Does that count?

[MGKrebs]

8. I think the issue is non-giant-corporation PACs, but he apparently is not articulate

enough to make that distinction, and it really pisses me off.

I personally know lobbyists for very progressive organizations, and I support several PACs that work for issues I believe in, and they aren't big corporations. To me, PACs are THE way for citizens to organize themselves in a way that their voice can be coherent. But just because corporations (allegedly) have done PACs better than we have, many progressives now want to abstain from the process and cede the territory to them.

How many people bought a cd last year? 10 million? If only 10% of them forgo the cd and donate $25 to a progressive PAC like the ACLU or ActBlue or Human Rights Campaign or the League of Conservation Voters or KidsPAC, that would be $25 million. I believe the top PAC so far this cycle ( a union!) has donated $1.4 million. Even if they take half for administration, that leaves $12.5 million, and $12.5 million can have a big impact.

It seems silly to insist that we stay disorganized and chaotic. Why can't we organize our money, even if it's only $10 at a time?

[Blackhatjack]

11. PACs are free to spend their money on issue oriented ads and more... but

Even though it is legal, Edwards has refused to accept $$ from PACs.

Edwards has been consistent.

[MGKrebs]

12. But what's the point?

It seems the problem is with "big corporations", so why doesn't he take PAC money from the Sierra Club? He is damaging the issue PACs far mor than he is restraining corporate PACs.

[Emit]

13. I follow your logic and agree.

That's one of the reasons I put out these questions. Thanks for your insight. :hi: