Obama's Lobbyist Lies

Custom Search



K Street

help fight the media




Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery.


Obama say he doesn't take money from DC lobbyists and special interest PACS.  This is the type of double-talk "politics of the past" rhetoric Obama rails against.

While his claim is technically true, what he does do is take money from state lobbyists and other big money contributors who have substantial lobbyist machines in DC, like law firms and corporations.

In April 2007, the LA Times quoted the Campaign Finance Institute’s Stephen Weissman as pointing out that the distinction Obama makes on lobbyist money is meaningless: "He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different.  … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."

The Capital Eye reported that "[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007."

Obama’s no stranger to being influenced by those campaign donations, either.
NewsBusters reports how the leftists of the nutroots went gaga when Barack Obama claimed that he'd stand against taking money from lobbyists, and so did the media.  He was for a "new era" in politics.  He is for "change."  Isn't he special, the nutrooters and media sighed contentedly.

Well, apparently Obama's standard of a "new age" in politics doesn't carry too far into his campaign, because the Democratic National Convention (DNC) is being funded by ... you guessed it ... lobbyists.

As a New York Times report says, "Democrats Look to Lobbyist to Finance Convention," the man being tapped by the DNC to head the fundraising for their national convention is well connected lobbyist Steve Farber.

"Mr. Farber’s vast contact list could prove crucial in raising the millions of dollars needed by the Denver host committee to showcase Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in August in Denver."

Well, so much for getting the influence of lobbyists out of politics, eh Mr. Obama?
Despite his solemn promise to the American people to keep lobbyists out of his administration, two more have slipped in.  The latest waivers were provided for Jocelyn Frye, director of policy and projects in the Office of First Lady, and Cecilia Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs in the executive office of the president. 

Munoz was a senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza.  She was heavily involved in the immigration battles in Congress in recent years, and is now a principal liaison to the Hispanic community for the administration.

Not only has Obama flagrantly violated his pledge to keep lobbyists out of his administration but only a couple weeks after his inauguration he began doing this -- probably a record for repudiation of a campaign promise.  Even worse, he's hired an ethnocentric spokesperson for the non-citizen, pro-amnesty Hispanic special-interest factions.  La Raza ("The Race") is a group adamantly committed to an open-borders, pro-amnesty, and special privileges policy ('affirmative action') for Latinos.  The choice of Munoz clearly illustrates that amnesty will be the goal of the Obama administration.
Timothy P. Carney says more than 40 former lobbyists work in senior positions in the Obama administration, including three Cabinet secretaries and the CIA director.  Yet in his State of the Union address, Obama claimed, "We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs."

Did Obama speak falsely?

Well, it depends on what the definition of "excluded lobbyists" is.

I asked the White House if he chose his words poorly, but the media affairs office defended Obama's statement: "As the President said," a spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail, "we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions."

So, the country may have heard, "we haven't hired lobbyists to policymaking jobs," but the White House tells us Obama meant, "we only hired some of the lobbyists who applied for policymaking jobs."  In other words, they've excluded some lobbyists.

And this was in the context of reducing the "deficit of trust."

So Obama has, indeed, taken a Clintonian turn, but not toward the center.  Instead, he has adopted our 42nd president's use of clearly misleading statements that can be parsed so as to be factually correct, at least in a general sort of way.

Continue reading here . . .

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved