Walking The Walk

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"Senator Barack Obama, as he becomes his party’s presumptive presidential nominee, is starting to exert his authority over the Democratic National Committee. A first step? New fund-raising guidelines.

Mr. Obama announced today that the D.N.C. will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees, which follows the rules he established for his own campaign last year.

“I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs and today,” Mr. Obama told an audience in Bristol, Va. “I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party.”

He added: “We’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different.”"

Good for him. Although, as this article points out, banning contributions and gifts from lobbyists won't get at some of the deeper sources of their influence, it's a very good start. (That article places a lot of emphasis on lobbyists' control of information; I think it probably underplays the importance of lobbyists contributions, bundled and otherwise, in terms of helping to free candidates from some part of the massive time sink that is fundraising.)

Obama also announced that Howard Dean will stay on as DNC chair, also a good move, in my opinion, for reasons explained here. And while I'm linking: this analysis of Obama's strategy is very, very good.

Comments

[liberal japonicus]

from that last link

Astonishingly, a similar pattern existed in neighboring Washington...

"They're opening offices faster than Starbucks," state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz remarked of the Obama campaign.

Saying that in Washington State gives that comment a bit more oomph.

[OCSteve]

This sounds great and I hope he follows through. So far, he has talked the talk but not walked the walk… I really hope he holds the line here.

[Gary Farber]

"So far, he has talked the talk but not walked the walk"

What do you mean by that, Steve? How has Obama not held the line on contributions from lobbyists?

[OCSteve]

Gary: What do you mean by that, Steve? How has Obama not held the line on contributions from lobbyists?

I like and support the guy, but he’s (so far IMO) trying to have it both ways on this issue. We keep hearing that he won’t take any money from the oil companies, and he demonizes the oil companies.

“I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.”

First, of course he doesn’t take money from oil companies. No candidate does, as that would be illegal. He takes money from oil company executives and employees, let’s them hold fundraisers for him, and act as bundlers.

(1)

(2)

There’s nothing at all wrong with that, except when he tries to claim he doesn’t take money from oil companies. And I don’t buy that he doesn’t take money from Washington lobbyists after he had a fundraiser at Jack Abramoff’s old firm and pulled in $125k. Again there is nothing wrong with doing that, except when he claims he doesn’t take money from lobbyists.

This latest is more of the same. “They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party.” Bull.

The Obama campaign confirms that two other arms of the national party - the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - will continue to accept lobby and PAC money this election. That's the same position as presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and every affiliate of the Republican National Committee, who all accept lobby and PAC dollars.

You can claim that taking money from the employees of these companies doesn’t count, or that the DCCC and the DSCC have nothing to do with the DNC or his campaign, but I don’t buy that.

Again, there is nothing wrong with taking this money. I just don’t like the word games attempting to claim he’s not taking this money from the companies or the lobbyists.

[Nell]

@OCSteve: Your first point, about the execs and bundlers, is much stronger than your second.

The DSCC and DCCC have a specific and separate job to do. Trying to tell them who to accept and reject money from is a lose-lose battle at this stage of his political career. Of course they're part of the national party and its overall strategy, but they have their own objectives and many, many different state and district constraints -- and they answer to their caucuses.

The national committee is different. Its biggest job is to elect a Democratic President, and its fundamental job is to support the elections of Democrats at all levels all over the country. It answers to Democratic activists and politicians, of whom the members of Congress are only a subset (though an important subset).

Sure, this step is nowhere near cleaning up the system of legalized bribery that is our campaign finance system. But it's an important step, one that no Democratic presidential candidate has taken before. It should be clear how dramatically different DNC policy would have been had Sen. Clinton become the presumptive nominee. (Terry McAuliffe. Mark Penn. Bill Clinton. I'll leave it at that.)

[Nell]

Nothing but public campaign financing will really get the hogs out of the trough, IMO, but as long as there's a majority on the Supreme Court ruling that money is speech, all fixes will be incremental.

Given that, this is a positive step. I agree it's a long way from making it true that "they will not fund our party." If only. Now that our party's in a position to make big gains, possibly roll the table, "they" want more than ever to fund it.

[OCSteve]

Nell: The national committee is different.

I see your point, but Obama’s claims are pretty broad. (“They will not fund our party.”)

But even if we want to limit it strictly to the campaign and the DNC, assuming the DNC will follow the same rules his campaign has:

•Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig, whose lobbying clients include gambling and handgun interests.
Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

•Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show. Jensen said his wife had "personally chosen" to contribute to Obama.

•Obama accepts contributions and fundraising help from state lobbyists. Florida lobbyist Russell Klenet hosted a fundraiser for Obama Aug. 25, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Two months before, Klenet had withdrawn as a lobbyist in Washington for a kidney dialysis company that relies heavily on federal revenue, Senate records show. Klenet did not return phone calls.

•Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money."
…
Yet Obama's 20 largest sources of money, grouped by employers, are executives from major corporations and law firms with a Washington lobbying presence — including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Google, according to the center. Clinton's and McCain's top donors include executives from some of the same companies, such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.

The sub-prime mess is another example. We’ve heard Obama demonize the banking industry over predatory lending. His finance Chair is Penny Pritzker. He held a fundraiser at Credit Suisse, and he has “taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than BOTH Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.”

Realistically, if we had McCain saying/doing this and claiming that the RNC would follow his lead:

-I won’t take money from the oil companies (but I’ll take it from their CEOs).
-I won’t take money from lobbyists (but it’s OK if it comes from their wife, and I’ll hold fundraisers with them, and they can bundle for me, and of course state lobbyists are OK).
-Those evil corporations are bad, especially those banks (but their money is fine).

…if we had that situation the cries of hypocrisy would go through the roof here.

I agree with you on the rest of your points BTW.

[Gary Farber]

"You can claim that taking money from the employees of these companies doesn’t count, or that the DCCC and the DSCC have nothing to do with the DNC or his campaign, but I don’t buy that."

Steve, I think you have half of a legitimate point.

The legitimate part is that you're perfectly correct to note that, if accurate, the DCCC and DSCC taking money from such sources is a perfectly valid point to criticize.

But precision in language is possible and desirable for a reason. In fact, the DCCC and the DSCC have nothing whatever to do with the presidential campaign, both as a matter of law, and as a matter of fact. Coordination by them is forbidden by law, and they are entirely separate entities, though entities that are certainly sympathetic to each other.

So you have a perfectly valid point to your criticism, and if you kept it simply to noting that Obama's statement is lawyerly, and that there are related issues worth noting, then I'd be right with you.

But his distinction is also important and valid, and not just bull, and I have to note that, as well.

"I see your point, but Obama’s claims are pretty broad. ('They will not fund our party.')"

The party is a legal entity. You're misreading it as some sort of generalized claim, when it is not. The statement is correct. Precision in language matters, even though a lot of people don't notice it when they read. Obama's claim is specific and narrow, and you are misreading it.

Election law is extremely specific about all this, and the distinctions between all these entities makes the difference between what is legal for them to do, and what is not.