(A first step. Should be interesting. – promoted by David Dayen)
AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, has a new funding source to pay for full public financing for Secretary of State campaigns – a $350 annual registration fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers. As you might suppose, the lobbyists are up in arms at the idea of having to pay the same fee they pay in Illinois – not to mention losing access to elected officials they can’t donate to because they’re using Clean Money instead of private money – and are coming out to fight it.
Let’s not let them stop Clean Money! The Senate Appropriations Committee hearing is in room 4203 in the state capitol building on Monday morning at 10:00am, and it’s huge. We’ve got to pack the hearing room with people power to stop the lobbyists from killing it. Carpools of Clean Money supporters from all parts of the Bay Area all the way down to Orange County are driving up, but we need even more.
If there’s any chance you can come, please join us! Send an email to [email protected] to tell us you’re coming or to be hooked up with a carpool.
Can’t make it? Send a fax!
If you can’t make it, use the California Clean Money Campaign’s online letter-writing tool to send a free fax to Appropriations Chair Tom Torlakson, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, and other targets. The more faxes they get this week, the better!
This is the closest a Clean Money bill has ever made it to getting through both houses of the legislature in California, and AB 583 makes the perfect pilot project by funding Secretary of State races to make sure they never have to take money from the likes of Diebold or other private contributors. So let’s make it happen!
This article by Frank Russo got me pretty depressed about the state of California politics.
There’s something amiss in the state of Sacramento-and it has something to do with the state’s banking and lending institutions and the stacking of committees that deal with them with legislators that are either weak kneed or just a bit overfriendly with the industry that they should be protecting us from.
What else is new?
Well, this afternoon, the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance, and Insurance, Chaired by Senator Michael Machado of Stockton, will be hearing two bills that have been gutted down behind a closed door process such that today’s public proceedings on them may amount to little more than a sham […]
It’s difficult enough to get bills passed through the Assembly Banking Committee and the Assembly floor when going up against the behemoth banking industry which has a lot of spare change to throw around in legislative races and many high paid lobbyists scurrying about the Capitol.
It looks like AB 69 by Assemblymember Ted Lieu, originally a great bill, has been amended since it left the Assembly-and before today’s hearing-such that the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices, initially listed in support, has withdrawn that position.
Read the whole thing. The bottom line is that in this recent primary election special interest groups spent nearly $10 million, and a good bulk of them were business interests who are now playing inside Democratic primaries in traditionally liberal areas to sell low-information voters a bill of goods. This doesn’t always work, but it works just enough to frustrate progress in Sacramento.
Lesson 3: The business lobby can influence Democratic politics, even in a largely minority district.
Former Assemblyman Rod Wright, a moderate, defeated liberal Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally — reversing the pattern of leftist victories — in a South Los Angeles Senate district after business donors invested roughly $1 million in Wright’s campaign.
“Business has tended to stay out of black politics,” says Sragow, who advises the business lobby. “But some black politicians ask, ‘Why? We’re always out looking for economic development in our districts.’
“The business community has decided it can’t get a Republican Legislature, so it will play in districts where there’s a Democratic candidate it can work with.”
A major Democratic strategist has all but said that Don Perata shepherded along the candidacy of Rod Wright, and actually put it in terms that come very close to illegal coordination (note “a flurry of record spending by closely-aligned IE groups focusing all of their attention and ammo in one, concerted direction.”)
This is the game. IE’s are increasingly the only way to reach the electorate, as the low-dollar revolution has pretty much not reached the Golden State. So the Chamber of Commerce and industry groups fill the pockets of the politicians who, once elected, feel obligated to repay them. The US Constitution allows the right for anyone to petition their government for redress of grievances; outlawing lobbyists or the ability of merchants to consult their politicians is not tenable. What is tenable is to either create a parallel public financing system by employing the residents of the state to pay attention to local politics enough to fund progressive-minded candidates, or to bring clean money to California, where it’s arguably needed more than anywhere else, and end the pernicious influence of special interests in state elections. Otherwise, you get a steady parade of mortgage relief bills that offer no relief.
The real question here is whether these military contractors think they’re contributing to the same Duncan Hunter or not.
Records show connections between companies Rep. Hunter has worked with and some individuals who are contributing to his son’s campaign.
Rep. Hunter added language to the 2008 Defense Appropriations bill awarding $19 million to L-3 Communications, which has an office in San Diego, for the development and testing of a missile system, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Executives from that company contributed $2,750 to Duncan D. Hunter’s campaign.
Rep. Hunter also earmarked San Diego-based Trex Enterprises Corp. $1.5 million for the development of a device that will help helicopter pilots navigate with limited visibility. Campaign finance records show Trex employees, including a scientist, donated $4,800 to Duncan D. Hunter’s campaign.
Lobbyists working for the companies have also supported Hunter’s campaign. Patrick McSwain and Frank Collins, who were listed as principals at the lobbying firm Northpoint Strategies, collectively donated $2,500. Northpoint worked on behalf of L-3. McSwain and Collins were both former [Rep. Duke] Cunningham chiefs of staff.
You know, why wouldn’t they? Hunter was a reliable champion for whatever boondoggle weapons system these contractors thought up, even planes that can’t fly. There’s no reason to believe that his son won’t act the same way.
Calitics has endorsed Democrat Mike Lumpkin in this seat.
On The Issues: Unbiased Comparison of Clinton, Obama, Edwards
I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s confused about who I should vote for in the upcoming primary. I’ve been leaning towards voting for Edwards all along but I also like a lot about Obama and I have to admit I think Hillary is the scrappiest fighter of the three.
I’m certain I won’t find clear comparisons of the three candidates from the MSM (mainstream media) and in fact they’re doing an excellent job of making my research even more difficult. They’re treating this election like a celebrity battle between Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton instead of the crucial decision for our national leader.
So, I’ve found some info in various places and I’m putting it together for myself, and for you right here. I’ve focused on issues that are 1) Of great importance to me personally, and 2) Where the candidates differ substantially on their position or previous votes. Please feel free to share this around to your contact list. As I said, I’m certain I’m not the only one who’s split on this decision.
Iraq & “War on Terror”
Each candidate’s position on addressing the threat of terrorism in general and their attitude toward specific campaigns, principally the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Additional positions may be found in the National Security section Source.
Barack Obama
Words: Obama advocates a slow, scheduled withdrawal from Iraq (which he argues was a strategic blunder) and feels we should have an open dialogue with Syria and Iran. He believes that the focus of the “war on terror” should be on al-Qaeda in Pakistan and the Taliban. “We live in a more dangerous world, partly as a consequence of Bush’s actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq that should have never been authorized or waged. … The US has to reserve all military options in facing an imminent threat – but we have to do it wisely.”
Actions: A long time critic of the invasion of Iraq, Obama voted AGAINST redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007 (2006) but FOR redeploying troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (2007). The Center for Security Policy has given Obama a rating of 21%.
Hillary Clinton
Words: Clinton believes we should redeploy troops out of Iraq accompanied by regional diplomacy; she takes responsibility for her vote to authorize the use of force against Iran, but does not feel it was a mistake, claiming “we are safer than we were, but we’re not yet safe enough”. She further proposed setting a cap on troop levels until they are redeployed. She also feels that we should rule out using nukes on Iran and believes in supporting Israel unequivocally. “There is no question mark next to me – there’s an exclamation point. I am an emphatic, unwavering supporter of Israel’s safety and security.”
Actions: Clinton proposed a measure setting October 11, 2007, as the expiration date of the authorization to use force against Iraq. She voted FOR authorizing the use of force against Iraq (2002), FOR funding military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (2003), FOR on requiring on-budget funding rather than emergency funding for Iraq (2005), AGAINST redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007 (2006), and FOR redeploying troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (2007). The Center for Security Policy has given her a rating of 21%.
John Edwards
Words: Edwards feels that al-Qaeda should be the target in the “war on terror”, not Iraq, that North Korea’s nuclear program should be shut down, and that our security depends on working with our allies. He voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq, but has since recanted and apologized for that decision. He supports requiring President Bush to seek new authorization for military action. “What this global war on terror bumper sticker-political slogan … was intended to do was for Bush to use it to justify everything he does. The ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture, none of those things are OK.”
Actions: Edwards voted FOR authorizing air strikes in Kosovo (1999) and FOR using all necessary force (1999), FOR authorizing the use of force against Iraq (2002), and AGAINST funding military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (2003).
Corporations/Regulation
Policies in relation to corporate regulation and deregulation, tax incentives, business development, and corruption are all included. Source.
Hillary Clinton
Words: Clinton feels that “to the corporate elite” middle class and working Americans are invisible. She believes there is a “culture of corruption and cronyism” in Washington and that we need to “stop outsourcing critical government functions to private companies, close the revolving door between government and the lobbying shop, and end no-bid contracts”.
Actions: Clinton voted FOR restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (2001) and FOR repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move jobs offshore (2005). The US Chamber of Commerce has given her a rating of 35%.
John Edwards
Words: Edwards argues that we should eliminate tax breaks for all companies outsourcing jobs. He feels we should support organized labor against mistreatment by corporations and that record corporate profits do not benefit the struggling middle class.
Actions: Edwards voted FOR restricting rules on personal bankruptcy (2001). The US Chamber of Commerce has given him a rating of 15%.
Barack Obama
Words: Obama believes that corporations should be responsible for work conditions and pensions and that there should be tax incentives for corporate responsibility. He feels we should close tax loopholes for companies that relocate abroad and end tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.
Actions: Obama voted AGAINST reforming bankruptcy to include means testing and restrictions (2005) and FOR repealing the tax subsidy for companies that move jobs offshore (2005).
Health Care
A variety of health-related issues are included, ranging from universal health care and AIDS research to veteran’s benefits and assisted suicide. The focus is largely directed by what each candidate has chosen to address. Source.
John Edwards
Words: Edwards believes that universal health care can be implemented through a combination of cost containment and a variety of revenue sources. He advocates full funding for AIDS research. “We’re asking everybody to share in the responsibility of making health care work in this country: employers, those who are in the medical insurance business, employees, the American people – everyone will have to contribute in order to make this work.” He proposes requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance by law.
Actions: Edwards voted AGAINST limiting self-employment health deduction (1999), FOR including prescription drugs under Medicare (2000), AGAINST the Republican “prescription drug benefit” bill (2001), FOR allowing patients to sue HMOs (2001), FOR allowing the import of prescription drugs from Canada (2002), and AGAINST a limited Medicare prescription drug benefit (2003). The American Public Health Association has given Edwards a rating of 100%.
Barack Obama
Words: Obama believes that the federal government should provide health care for everyone. He also feels that we need to increase competition in the insurance and pharmaceutical markets and advocates better funding for AIDS research and prevention. “Too many hard-working Americans cannot afford their medical bills, and health-related issues are the number one cause for personal bankruptcy. Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care is a priority.”
Actions: Obama voted FOR negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drugs (2005), FOR increasing the Medicaid rebate for producing generics (2005), FOR expanding the enrollment period for Medicare (2006), and FOR requiring negotiated prescription prices for Medicare (2007). The American Public Health Association has given Obama a rating of 100%.
Hillary Clinton
Words: Clinton believes in incremental reforms that will lead to universal health care through insurance premium subsidy, but feels that single-payer health care is unrealistic. She also supports AIDS education and research and advocates expanding eligibility for the SCHIP program, expanding Medicare coverage, and requiring all employers to contribute to the cost of their workers’ health care. She proposes expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act and barring insurers from rejecting patients with pre-existing conditions. “We have to lower costs, improve quality and cover everybody.”
Actions: Clinton voted AGAINST the Republican “prescription drug benefit” bill (2001), FOR allowing patients to sue HMOs (2001), FOR allowing the import of prescription drugs from Canada (2002), AGAINST a limited Medicare prescription drug benefit (2003), FOR negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drugs (2005), FOR increasing the Medicaid rebate for producing generics (2005), FOR expanding the enrollment period for Medicare (2006), AGAINST limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000, and FOR requiring negotiated prescription prices for Medicare (2007). The American Public Health Association has given Clinton a rating of 100%.
What About the $$$?
See which groups/industries are donating to which candidates (Republicans included) from Open Secrets category:
You can take THIS QUIZ to figure out which candidate most matches your positions on the issues. (Note: this quiz matches you up with ALL candidates including some who have dropped out of the race.) I was quite surprised by the order in which the top three Dems came up for my own quiz. It’s caused me to re-think my vote.
With the nation’s economy increasingly becoming a volatile issue in the presidential campaign, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce is about to issue one very tough promise to spend millions of dollars against candidates deemed to be anti-business. (Are you listening John Edwards?)
It seems if you dare to tell the Truth about the wholesale “sell off” of hopes and aspirations the American Middle Class — well the “powers that be” just might get a little UPSET with you …
But will that shut Edwards up about it? … I hope not!
Sunlight afterall, is the best disinfectant!
(not capitulation and compromise)
The US Chamber of Commerce, why do they care about what Edwards is saying?
Could it be that some alarm bells went off, as Edwards keeps calling out Lobbyists before a National Audience?
“No corporate lobbyists or anyone who has lobbied for a foreign government will work in my White House. We will not replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats. I hear people argue that the way that you can get things done is to sit at a table with drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, and negotiate with them and somehow they will voluntarily give away their power. I think this is a complete fantasy.”
And then the nerve — to raise the issue again on a Sunday Talk show! What was Edwards thinking?
John Edwards: This Week with George Stephanopoulos
John Edwards: The real question is What is Day One in the White House going to look like? “Day One, in my White House there will be NO Corporate Lobbyists, Nobody who Lobbied for Foreign Governments.”
…
“Yes. There will be NO Lobbyists who have worked for Trial Lawyers, NO Lobbyists who have worked for Big Corporations in my White House — Period!”
…
“I don’t think the Lobbyists are doing America any good! I think what they’re doing is, they’re standing up against working Middle Class families. And the Middle Class is struggling, and at risk as a result.”
…
Straight talk like that — really upsets those shadowy sales-rep-types, who have more of a say in Congress, than YOU DO!
Even though the US Chamber of Commerce’s logo shows “the people” they supposedly represent, their “behind the scenes” activities show the Chamber actually works very hard for some slightly more “influential interests”.
Think this is an exaggeration? Reuters in the UK, has just announced, that Big Business is the “most afraid” of John Edwards to really change things:
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) – Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same — Democrat John Edwards.
…
His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on “corporate greed” and warnings of “the destruction of the middle class.”
He accuses lobbyists of “corrupting the government” and says Americans lack universal health care because of “drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists.”
…
An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.
“The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards.
“Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington,” said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz.
Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street.
…
Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be “a disaster” for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
…
BUSINESS’S FAVORITE UNCLEAR
Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said.
These candidates represent stability to executives who have much to lose if November’s election brings about the sweeping change some candidates are promising.
…
“My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat … I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt,” said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as “an anti-business populist” and “a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes.”
“I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business,” he said.
This is what the Corporate Elite is SO nervous about:
You can Pick your Candidate, only so long as ‘they don’t upset the apple cart’. Anyone that dares to really challenge Corporations for Economic Fairness, will face the wrath of the Media Pundits and Programming Directors! (and the US Dept of Commerce too, apparently.)
Silly People, thinking we actually run our Government. That ship has sailed, starting with Reagan’s Deregulation, and Supply-Side give-aways to business, and it’s been going down hill ever since. (Anyone remember NAFTA and CAFTA?)
Despite the angst of the super rich, to keep hording and acquiring more Wealth, our country has done fine in the past when Tax Rates were much higher for business and the power-elite.
Historically, Marginal Tax Rates have been much higher than we have now: (Even rolling back to the Reagan Tax rates of the 1980’s is hardly extreme, given historical Tax rates.)
Even when we had these greater levels of Tax Responsibility for the very wealthy in eras past, that did NOT cause the U.S. Economy to nosedive in those years. Just the contrary actually, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continued to grow in those periods, in large part I suspect, due to the hard working nature of the American People:
Edwards just wants Corporations to be Good Citizens, and to pay their fair share, to support this Country of ours:
The Corporate Section of the chart (Rose Color) could really stand to be a little wider, now couldn’t it?
That Reuters article cited a lobbyist who said:
an Edwards presidency would be “a disaster” for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
So what is exactly “the disaster” for those industrialists?
Perhaps making 300 to 400 x more than average worker is NOT enough to maintain their “upper crust” lifestyle? Or perhaps “corporate greed” has little patience for the petty problems of working people, as we drift ever further into debt and despair?
Ever since the Regan era, American Workers started going downhill … and we have rarely looked back. And our Leaders have rarely tried to correct that course of those who toil their lives away, in the trenches:
Most of those Trend lines by the way, are headed in the WRONG Direction for 95% of us!
Of course those Corporate Execs and their Lobbyists are ‘pleased as punch’, since their Wealth Trends are skyrocketing upwards, in that top 5% tier.
This is what Edwards is talking about when he says we must fight for Economic Fairness, and against the greed of the top 1%. Of course much of that Business elite often have a totally different Agenda — so different in fact, that they have put Edwards on their “must watch” list (and on the Media Blackout List too).
This Wealth Gap is Real. And has recently been confirmed by respected University of Michigan researchers:
ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2007) – The rich really are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, a new University of Michigan study shows.
The study—the most recent available analysis of long-term wealth trends among U.S. households—is based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, conducted by the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR) since 1968.
Over the last 20 years, the net worth of
the top two percentile of American families nearly doubled, from $1,071,000 in 1984 to $2,100,500 in 2005.
But the poorest quarter of American families lost ground
over the same period, with their 2005 net worth
below their 1984 net worth,
measured in constant 2005 dollars.
The poorest ten percent of families actually had a negative net worth—more liabilities than assets.
…
The researchers also examined net worth dynamics across different age groups and educational levels. They found that the median household net worth of people in their 20s declined by nearly 30 percent, while the net worth of households headed by people in their 30s also fell slightly. The findings provide support for the widespread sense that it is harder than it used to be for younger people to establish themselves financially.
…
Those Divergent Wealth Trends are Real. And so is the daily pain for the Majority of us left behind, on all those downward tracks! As Edwards has been saying those corporate interests are literally stealing our children’s future!
John Edwards on Taking on Entrenched Special Interests
.. these entrenched interests — whether you’re talking about oil companies, drug companies, gas companies, whoever — these entrenched interests are literally stealing our children’s future. They have a stranglehold on this democracy and they are having an incredibly destructive force on the middle class, on families …
That is no exaggeration! It’s just life in modern day America, where Issue-based Reporting has been tossed aside, as another extravagance, that our Corporate Media cheerleaders, seemingly has no use, nor time for!
I can sort of understand the Media and Lobbyists trying to keep Edwards quiet — Greed being what it is! Afterall they have that ‘Home in the Hamptons’ to protect, and all those stock options to cash in someday.
But when fellow progressive Democrats join the rabble to censor Free Speech, and the Democratic process — there is really NO Excuse! A diversity of ideas is a Good thing for Democracy. We already have WAY TOO Much filtering out of the Voices of average Americans, from the traditional Media.
As Democrats, we should embrace Free Speech, which includes the rights of Citizens in each State, to cast their Votes!
Last time I checked we were having an Election —
NOT a Coronation!
NOT a President by Media-Fiat!
But an old-fashion, Let the People Decide Election!
The reason we don’t have Universal Health Care today is because of Drug Companies, Insurance Companies and their Lobbyists, in Washington. They stand between you and the Health Care that you need.
We have to take this system on, we have to change it. We have to be willing to be honest about it.
…
You have to say NO to these People!
You have to say as President I represent the American People!
That’s the only way we’ll get the Change that we need in this Country.
John Edwards on Taking on Entrenched Special Interests
I want to say a quick word about this. You know, it is true that these entrenched interests — whether you’re talking about oil companies, drug companies, gas companies, whoever — these entrenched interests are literally stealing our children’s future. They have a stranglehold on this democracy and they are having an incredibly destructive force on the middle class, on families being able to do what my family has done and so many who are sitting here have been able to do.
And the problem is you can’t be with those people, take their money and then challenge them. It doesn’t work. You have to be willing to actually stand up and say no — no to lobbyist money, no to PAC money, no corporate lobbyists working for me in the White House. If you intend to take them on, and if it is personal for you — and this is extraordinarily personal for me — if it’s personal for you, then you can be successful bringing about the change.
Teddy Roosevelt — just one quick example — Teddy Roosevelt — Teddy Roosevelt, a great American president — he didn’t make deals with the monopolies and the trusts. Teddy Roosevelt took them on, busted the monopolies, busted the trusts. That’s what it’s going to take.
We have a battle in front of us. We do. I don’t think we have a problem with politicians in Washington spending enough time with lobbyists and going to cocktail parties. They do it all the time. They do it every single day, and I’ll tell you who’s paying the price for those cocktail parties: Natalie Sarkisian, every single American who doesn’t have health care coverage, everybody who’s going to the gas pump and paying so much money for their gas. When are we going to have a president who actually takes these people on? That’s what I’m going to do.
What you see happening in America today, if you’re president of the United States and you’re looking at this from altitude is you see a very few Americans getting wealthier and wealthier, you see the biggest corporations in America’s profits through the roof — ExxonMobil just made $40 billion, record profits — all of that happening at the same time that we have 47 million people with no health care, 37 million who will wake up in this country tomorrow worried about feeding and clothing their children. Tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America and served this country honorably will go to sleep under bridges and on grates.
It’s time for us to say and it’s time for the president to say enough is enough. This is a battle for the future of our children. This is a battle for the middle class.
Let’s take jobs, which we haven’t talked about. We’ve touched on a lot of other things, but we haven’t talked about jobs. We’ve had a trade and tax policy that is bleeding American jobs, and all it has done is pad the profits of the biggest multinational corporations in America. You talk about professors here at this college.
…
I saw a projection just a week or so ago suggesting that America could lose as many as 20 (million) to 30 million more jobs over the next decade. Think about that for a minute, 30 million. And who’s the most at-risk group? College graduates. This is not just people who are working in mills and working in factories — who have been devastated by this, completely devastated — these are middle-class families, these are college graduates and their jobs at risk.
“We need a different Tax Policy, a different Trade Policy,
where the first question, and this is what I WILL ask
when I’m President of the United States:
‘Is this Trade Proposal, Is this Tax Proposal,
IS it good for working Middle Class Americans?’
That’s the Question!”
John Edwards: This Week with George Stephanopoulos
John Edwards: The real question is What is Day One in the White House going to look like? “Day One, in my White House there will be NO Corporate Lobbyists, Nobody who Lobbied for Foreign Governments.”
…
“Yes. There will be NO Lobbyists who have worked for Trial Lawyers, NO Lobbyists who have worked for Big Corporations in my White House — Period!”
…
“I don’t think the Lobbyists are doing America any good! I think what they’re doing is, they’re standing up against working Middle Class families. And the Middle Class is struggling, and at risk as a result.”
…
This is the reason George, that the Voters here in NH, and all the future States, need an ‘unfiltered Debate’ between the two of us, about who can best bring about change.
George Stephanopoulos: You want a 2-person race?
John Edwards: I want a debate with — Listen I like Senator Obama very much. We do have a basic general view that is very similar. But I have a very view than he does, about how we bring about Change. I think we have an ‘epic fight’ on our hands, against these entrenched monied interests. And I think we’ll never be successful —
George Stephanopoulos: He led the fight for Lobbying Reform in the Senate, he says.
John Edwards: But he talks about this in a that suggests, you sit at a table and negotiate, with Drug Company Lobbyists, Insurance Company Lobbyists, and Oil Company Lobbyists, and you can somehow negotiate — they’ll negotiate their power away. That’s a fantasy, in my judgment! I don’t think it will ever happen! I’ve been these people my entire life. First for 20 years in court rooms. And then I did it in public life.
…
What I am saying is these people have a disproportionate influence on the way the Government works, and they are stopping Progress. And let me be specific, we’re talking about this too generically:
Drug Companies and Insurance Companies have killed Health Care Reform in America.
Oil Companies have kept us from protecting the Environment, by attacking Global Warming.
The biggest multi-national corporations have set up, a set of Trade Systems and a set of Tax Laws that benefit them and profit them, but the Middle Class and working people are struggling as the result.
That is Wrong! I want to be the President that fights for the Middle Class, fights for working people, the kind of people I grew up with, George. I said this last night. This not abstract, or academic for me — it is PERSONAL! I see these people, going to these cocktail parties, having their receptions. You’ve been there George, you know how it works!
…
I mentioned this last night, this young woman who lost her life Nataline Sarkisyan, just a few week ago. Because her insurance company, one of the largest in America would not pay for a liver transplant operation — even though she HAD insurance. They would NOT pay for it! And People say to me, as their President, they want me to sit at a table and negotiate with these people?
I mean, they’re the PROBLEM, they’re NOT the SOLUTION!
And my job is to stand up for the American People against them!
…
This Cause, of fighting for people like Nataline Sarkisyan, fighting for people like my own family, and for the Middle Class, and giving them a decent life. And making sure their kids have a better life — which is what this is ultimately about — this is ‘the Cause of my Life’!
And I have NO Intention of stopping!
I am in this, through the Convention — and to the White House.
George Stephanopoulos: through the Convention?
John Edwards: Absolutely!
… I am in this through the Convention — and to the White House.
SO … Who is Standing up for you and your family, and your Future?
Who is looking for just another way, that we can “all just get along” …
I’m sorry, “Playing Nice” just does NOT work, anymore!
That Ship has sailed!
Look what happens when you work hard and “play by the rules” — hard-working Americans “get played for fools”!
This isn’t about petty politics or good intentions.
Corporate greed and influence in Washington are stealing our children’s future.
The moral test of our generation is whether we’re going to allow this broken system to go on without a fight or take on corporate greed and stand up for the middle class and American jobs before it’s too late.
They aren’t going to just give their power away.
Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that’s a fight I was born for.
Corporate greed and influence in Washington are stealing our children’s future.
How so?
Do those “greedy corporations” just stroll into Congress and demand that legislators, just give them concessions?
Well sometimes — but usually its much more subtle than that. Usually they just hire someone to do this convincing for them.
And those they employ, know the “behind the scenes” working of Washington quite well — They don’t become highly paid Lobbyists for nothing!
Lobbying is hard work! The stress level and the burn out rates in the Lobbying industry is high. Lobbying Firms must resort to snapping up “retiring Congressmen”, in a system known as the “revolving door”. Sometimes Lobbyists need a break too, and they go back into Politics for a spell (just ask Fred Thompson).
Lobbying Firms also have been known to recruit this country’s best talent, in places like Harvard and Princeton. Recent graduates, are probably easier to train, and ready to “go that extra mile” in order to make a name for themselves:
from the Princeton Review Career page:
Lobbyist: Day in the Life
First and foremost, lobbyists must be adept at the art of persuasion, which is the mainstay of their job. They must figure out how to sway politicians to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent.
When normally opposing groups find a common area of interest and can present a united front they are extremely effective.
Lobbying can be direct or indirect.
Direct lobbying means actually meeting with congressmen and providing them with information pertinent to a bill being voted on. The lobbyist imparts her information with the help of graphs, charts, polls, and reports that she has hunted up or created. Needless to say, this is usually information that the politician might not otherwise have access to, that casts the matter in a light favorable to the interest the lobbyist represents.
Sometimes, lobbyists will even sit down and help a politician draft legislation that is advantageous for their interest.
Maintaining good relations with politicians who can be relied on to support the lobbyist”s interest is key. While lobbyists and their employers cannot themselves make large campaign donations to politicians, they can, and do, raise money from other sources for reelection campaigns.
Indirect lobbying, sometimes referred to as grassroots organizing, is a bit less glamorous. Grassroots lobbyists enlist the help of the community to influence politicians by writing, calling, or demonstrating on the organization”s behalf. This means long hours spent on the phone and writing letters, trying to rouse the community to get involved. These lobbyists also report to politicians about the concerns and reactions they have gotten from community members. Indirect lobbying is also done through the media. Grassroots lobbyists write articles for newspapers and magazines and appear on talk shows to generate interest in and awareness of their issues.
There are no licensing or certification requirements, but lobbyists are required to register with the state and federal governments. Most lobbyists have college degrees. A major in political science, journalism, law, communications, public relations, or economics should stand future lobbyists in good stead.
Many lobbyists also come from careers as legislators, as former politicians often capitalize on their years of government service and their connections to old pals still in office. This is the “revolving door” that recent legislation has begun to regulate.
Indeed, networking is the name of the game in lobbying, where people are hired as much for who they know as what they know. Someone who can schmooze at high levels will start his lobbying career from an accordingly high perch, while others face a long hard climb upwards.
So how are Corporations, stealing our Children’s future?
By sheer numbers and dollars spent, to block legislation, or otherwise, insert clauses to laws, helpful to their Profits Margin — and little else. That’s what unchecked greed gets you, in a Free Market society, where Corporations make up the rules, and the People must take a back seat.
Here’s the list of the most influential power-brokers in Washington, and chances are you never even heard of them:
Top Lobbying Firms, 1998-2007
Lobbying firm – Total [retainer fees]
Patton Boggs LLP
$251,392,000
Cassidy & Assoc
$247,275,000
Akin, Gump et al
$205,225,000
Van Scoyoc Assoc
$167,198,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers
$126,640,000
Williams & Jensen
$123,404,000
Ernst & Young
$112,871,560
Hogan & Hartson
$109,293,907
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$96,708,249
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc
$95,637,500
PMA Group
$92,680,132
Preston, Gates et al
$88,720,000
Verner, Liipfert et al
$88,595,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
$85,534,945
Holland & Knight
$74,969,544
Alcalde & Fay
$70,290,660
Clark & Weinstock
$69,725,000
Timmons & Co
$69,068,000
PodestaMattoon
$68,955,000
Washington Group
$68,820,000
In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies.
Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.
THIS — is the “Broken System in Washington” that Edwards talks about in that Ad!
This is “the moral test of our generation”:
whether we’re going to allow this broken system to go on without a fight or take on corporate greed and stand up for the middle class and American jobs before it’s too late.
Have you every wondered why we don’t have:
– Universal Health Care
– Energy Independence
– Fair tax policy
– Fair trade policy
Well who do you think can afford to hire “enough” Lobbyists to get their way?
How much did you give to Sierra Club last year? What about the Natural Resource Defense Council? Chances are it wasn’t enough! Big Oil no doubt gave more to many of these Lobbying Firms — and yet another year slipped by, with NO REAL ACTION, toward Energy Independence, and stopping Global Warming!
That’s just Wrong! This system of Government of our IS Broken!
When are we gonna show a little backbone — and do something about it? (that is something that Edwards often asks, too)
Those Mega-Million-dollar Lobbying Firms have “built a Wall around Washington”! That Wall keeps out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans like you and me!
Other candidates think that to change the system you got to “work within the system” — if that approach worked, we’d already have – Universal Health Care, Energy Independence, Fair tax policy, Fair trade policy!
I guess “working the system” really only works for those who can afford to “pay to play”?
Hmmmm … maybe I should contact MY Lobbyist?
Wait a minute, who’s that?
Who’s going to Lobby for ME?
Who’s going to Fight for MY Issues?
Who’s going to “represent WE the People”
in that power-broker circus, called DC?
Who’s got the guts, and the experience to take on this “epic fight of a generation”?
That Fighter sounds like John Edwards to me!
The question is, Is America ready to step up, and help fix this Broken System?
If not now, when?
Ever?
Learn more about why Lobbyist’s influence MUST be reigned in:
Here are some the key ideas about that “Wall around Washington” that John Edwards has so keenly identified:
————————————
John Edwards:
There’s a wall around Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside.
And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy.
Every single day, working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles, pay-now and pay-later;
when they watch the factory door shut for the last time;
when they see the disappointment on their son or daughter’s face when there’s no money to pay for college.
This is not okay. That wall has to come down.
That wall has taken the greatest economy on the planet and put it in jeopardy.
Too many good paying jobs are going to other places instead of your hometown. The tax code rewards wealth and not work.
CEO’s went to work on that wall to protect their huge tax cuts and loopholes and trade deals while the great divides between the haves and everybody else grow wider and wider.
It isn’t class warfare to talk about this — this is the Truth.
America needs a fighter to fix this. America needs a president who will stand up and stand proudly for working people again.
————————————
SO what is this “metaphorical Wall” ?
Is it the insular nature of the “Power Elite” attracted to the city of Washington DC itself?
Is it the Echo Chamber in DC that has no time for outside voices?
Or is it anything that prevents “We the People” from getting “True Representation” out of our Elected Officials?
John Edwards has gotten many laughs with the cutting line about Industry Lobbyists: “If you give them a seat at the Table — they’ll eat all the food!”
Lobbyists are the “Bogey Man” that’s everyone loves to hate — but are they really that big of a Deal?
It’s just Business right? Corporations are People too. They deserve to have their Voices heard in DC, too, Right? I thought I read that somewhere in the Constitution, Didn’t I? …. Hmmmm ….
There he goes again! Talking about those big, bad Drug Companies, Insurance Companies, and Oil Companies and their Lobbyists! Woooh Scarey!
The reason we don’t have Universal Health Care today, is because of Drug Companies, Insurance Companies and their Lobbyists in Washington. They stand between you and the Health Care that you need.
We have to take this System on. We have to Change it! We have to be willing to be honest about it. I don’t believe you can change that system and bring about the change we need on Health Care, on Energy, and on everything else, unless you’re willing to say ‘It’s broken — It doesn’t work!’ If you defend it, and you say, ‘Oh well it’s fine, we’ll just take money from the Lobbyists, it’s no big deal — and then we’ll work it all out.’ — that doesn’t work! You have to say NO to these people.
You have to say as President, I represent the American People! I don’t represent Drug Companies, Insurance Companies and their Lobbyists in Washington! I don’t represent Oil Companies — I represent America! Because that’s the ONLY way we’re going to get the Change that we need in this Country. …
How dare Edwards have the audacity to want to actually “represent the American People, as President”?
Doesn’t he know, that’s not how our System of Government Works anymore?
Exactly!
Edwards does know, and he’s Just Saying No. No More!
NO More “Business as Usual”
NO More CEO’s “Buying a Seat at the Table” in Congress
Lobbying Overview – Total Spending, by Industry Sector:
NO More trading our Corporate Representatives for their, and vice versa:
Just how much of those Lobbyists BILLIONS finds its way into Congress?
HMOs – $30 Million
——-
Drug Companies – $77 Million
——-
Insurance Companies – $179 Million
——-
Oil & Gas Companies – $117 Million
——-
Electric Utilities – $81 Million
——-
No More taking over the Election Process, by helping those Representatives pay their Campaign Bills:
If previous Campaign Donation Trends are any guide, get ready for another year of “Madison Avenue” Mud-Slinging! (the 2008 “donations” are just getting started)
1. Break the nexus between lobbyists, money and lawmakers.
Cap contributions from lobbyists and lobbying firm PACs to federal candidates at $200 per election and to national parties and leadership PACs at $500 per election cycle.
Prohibit lobbyists and lobbying firms from soliciting, arranging or delivering contributions and from serving as officials on candidate campaign committees and leadership PACs.
2. Prevent private interests from financing trips and from subsidizing travel for members of Congress and staff, and executive branch officials and federal judges.
3. Ban gifts to members of Congress and staff.
4. Oversee and enforce ethics rules and lobbying laws through an independent congressional Office of Public Integrity and increase penalties for violations.
5. Slow the revolving door.
6. Place sunshine on lobbying activities and financial disclosure reports.
It will take more than just rhetoric.
John Edwards will take the power out of the hands of Lobbyists. He will:
— Take on the Lobbyists’ Power with a Constitutional Line-Item Veto:
— Prohibit Lobbyists from Giving or Raising Campaign Cash:
— Today, lobbyists approach politicians with campaign checks in one hand and wish lists in the other. Federally registered lobbyists gave over $23 million in the 2006 campaign. Edwards has never taken a dime from federal lobbyists or PACs. He will sever the connection between money and lobbyist influence by:
* Ending lobbyist campaign contributions:
— Lobbyists should be able to make their cases on the merits, not by influencing politicians with donations. Edwards will prohibit all federal candidates from accepting campaign contributions from federal lobbyists.
* Stopping lobbyists from bundling:
— Lobbyists solicit donations from others and direct them towards candidates to maximize their impact, a practice known as bundling. Edwards has never allowed any lobbyists to bundle donations for him. As president he will ban federal lobbyists from bundling for federal candidates.
— Close the Lobbyist Revolving Door:
* Banning top government officials from becoming lobbyists:
* Banning lobbyists from taking top government jobs
— Expose Lobbyist Contacts to Sunlight
— Prohibit Executive Branch Employees from Accepting Corporate Gifts
— Prohibit lobbyists from donating to campaigns or fundraising for them.
— Fight lobbyists’ bread and butter – earmarked pork-barrel spending – with a constitutional version of the line-item veto.
— Close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street by banning former top officials from lobbying their colleagues and lobbyists from taking executive branch positions related to their former clients.
— Expand the congressional ban on lobbyist gifts and travel to executive branch officials.
It’s really not a Laughing Matter! The Legislation that the Lobbyists help write and pressure through Congress IS really criminal, sometimes!
IF the Focus of this Country doesn’t change soon, from how Wall Street is doing
to how “your Street” is doing —
well America should just quit pretending to represent the People
and Actually start inviting CEO’s to Congress for Planning Sessions,
since it’s their Opinions that are the ones that matter anyways!
Oh wait, they already do —
The Cheney Energy Plan,
The Lieberman-Warner Carbon Give Away,
FCC Telecommunications Consolidation Plan,
… the list goes on.
Big Business gets the Concessions,
We the People get the Bills!
And NOT when “it’s Convenient” for Politicians to fix it
(huh, when’s that ???) — But NOW!
It seems some Senators IN OFFICE NOW, could be reforming this System of Corporate Favoritism, NOW — not “Later”?
SO Why Aren’t they? …. Hmmm?
————
Post Script:
If John Edwards has a valid point about Lobbyists, why is the Media all too ready to just chalk it up to “Edwards has become Angry”?
Well, Could it have anything to do with the fact, that the Corporate Media is “trying to get their Seat at the Congressional Table” too?
TV-Radio Stations
——-
Books, Magazines, Newspapers
——-
It’s the American People WHO need to get Angry !@!
And Support Candidates, like John Edwards, who are willing to take on this Broken System — and NOT just go along with it!
No one else will do it for you!
Indeed, they’d rather have you “Relax, Just Go Shopping” …
“Business as Usual” is Good for “some interests”.
The ones that matter most in today’s world, it seems.
Yesterday, the UN held a major conference on climate change (Bush was a no-show) and the Secretary-General called for immediate action to preserve the future of the planet. In a separate event, the President will call for a consensus about the world’s highest-emitting nations that would allow each to set their own voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions instead of it being ordered by an international treaty.
Not a good idea, I know. But let’s accept Bush’s logic for a moment (and only a moment, before you slip into dementia). He believes that governing entities should be given latitude to make the climate change policies that they see fit, rather than having them signaled from on high. Unless, of course, that refers to states in this country and the one on high is him:
The Bush administration has conducted a concerted, behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to try to generate opposition to California’s request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, according to documents obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform […]
A flurry of e-mails among Transportation Department (DOT) officials and between its staffers and the White House, released yesterday, highlights efforts that administration officials have made to stir up public opposition to the waiver. Rather than attacking California’s request outright, Bush officials quietly reached out to two dozen congressional offices and a handful of governors to try to undermine it.
One May 22 e-mail written by Jeff Shane, undersecretary of transportation for policy, outlined how Transportation Secretary Mary Peters orchestrated the campaign. Peters “asked that we develop some ideas asap about facilitating a pushback from governors (esp. D’s) and others opposed to piecemeal regulation of emissions, as per CA’s waiver petition,” Shane wrote. “She has heard that such objections could have an important effect on the way Congress looks at the issue.”
over…
Waxman has been investigating this issue for some time. In fact, back in June, he even released a voice mail from a DOT staffer to a member of Congress asking them to oppose the EPA waiver for California. But this new data is just more evidence of the total politicization of federal agencies, and the ideologically driven desire to stop all efforts to curb the production of greenhuse gas emissions. It also happens to be completely illegal to use our tax dollars to mount such a behind-the-scenes campaign.
In a letter yesterday to James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) asked him to “repudiate these efforts.”
“If Secretary Peters has concerns about whether California’s application meets the legal standards set forth in the Clean Air Act, she should submit comments to EPA making her case,” wrote Waxman, chairman of the oversight panel, which negotiated for three months to have the documents released. “Instead of taking this action, however, she apparently sought and received White House approval to use taxpayer funds to mount a lobbying campaign designed to inject political considerations into the decision.”
The Governor is on a barnstorming tour, selling his own action on climate change to the UN (while conveniently forgetting to mention firing the head of the Air Resources Board because he was pushing too hard for emission reductions, or the three important environmental bills on his desk he has yet to sign). He may want to speak up about this effort to undermine all anti-global warming efforts, which incidentally is coming from the standard-bearer of his own party. Or he could keep giving speeches and savor applause.
