Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A Big Change

By 24 Comments

The DNC is following Obama’s lead in not taking donations from Washington lobbyists.

It’s become clear that the lobbyists angle is one way Obama is going to grind down McCain’s undeserved reputation for integrity (a reputation trumpeted day in, day out at the Washington Post) since McCain’s campaign is run by lobbyists.   It’s the proper stance by Obama and Howard Dean’s DNC in that it helps keep the government’s focus on helping everyone, not just special interests.  But I think it will have consequences beyond how the Democrats & the government operate.

I wonder about the consequences.  Numerous businesses budget money for political donations as part of their business plans (CSX for instance).  If the Republicans are out of power and a President Obama won’t take donations, what do businesses do with that money?  Do they just re-invest it in their business?  That might be better for the overall economy, but a fair number of lobbyists in Washington will be out of work.  (Out of work lobbyists!  The horror! The horror!)  Do these special interests try to donate more at the state level?  Or do they help the GOP pay for a re-branding effort?  

hat tip to commenter andrei at balloon juice

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. And get more involved in direct political action, to the degree that they can. Indeed, I wonder how many blog posters are paid professionals. Not so many yet, I think, on political blogs like this one — although there have been a few forays even here on BMG by PR firms — but relatively more, I suspect, on product blogs like engadget

  3. I agree with most of this stuff, but a recent email from a colleague of mine responding to a similar listserv discussion makes a very interesting point.  Are we throwing out the baby with the bathwater here?

    <

    p>”…as a federally registered lobbyist myself, I take offense to the notion (not necessarily espoused by you, but by the population in general) that “lobbyist” is a bad word and only applies to bad people doing bad things.  I lobby for the Council for Opportunity in Education (www.coenet.us) – a non-partisan, non-profit organization that supports educational programs to assist low-income, first-generation and disabled students in achieving access to higher education.  I spend my days on Capitol Hill trying to get the federal government to invest more money into higher education and to create programmatic changes to benefit such students.  I don’t bribe people with fancy meals or large contributions – I simply talk to the decision-makers about issues of importance to my constituency.  This is not to say that I haven’t made any political contributions but certainly nothing that exceeds FEC limits or gives me special access.  The truth of the matter is that “fundraising” is a sad fact of American political life.  You need to raise money – A LOT of money – to run for and keep public office.  To make a contribution is not to buy someone’s vote.  It is simply doing your part to make sure that your candidate can (continue to) serve to represent your interests.  (Stop laughing – I’m serious!)

    <

    p>To me, it’s really a shame that a few high profile criminals have made it difficult for the rest of us to go about our business without the automatic judgment of others.  I don’t know much of anything about Mr. Pavia [mini-scandal from PR], but I just want to caution everyone from immediately assuming that because he’s a lobbyist, he’s a “bad man” out to do “bad things.”  Mr. Obama’s camp made a decision to exclude lobbyists because of such concerns and now it’s being used against him.  Truly you cannot win.  I am an Obama supporter and I’m frustrated that I can’t do more to support my candidate of choice because for fear of landing him into hot water.”  

    <

    p>Thoughts?

      • Here is another popular take that happens to be mostly right.

        <

        p>Lobbyist: Someone with access to deep pockets from moneyed interests for your campaign.

        <

        p>Activist: Poor interest group rabble rousers who are better at raising hay than donating money.

        <

        p>Maybe the internet will change this eventually, but it’s actually mostly correct IMHO.  

    • A lobbyist is paid; an activist is volunteer.

      <

      p>A special interest seeks to benefit their own members directly while a public interest seeks what they see to be a greater good.

      <

      p>It’s tempting to deride the interests of the other side, but the truth is all of us have interests.

        • For example, NRA and Handgun Control Inc. are both public interests in my mind even though I definitely agree more with the latter.  This is because if they get their way anybody can take advantage of it.

          <

          p>On the flip side, any business or industry lobbying for tax breaks is a special interest because only their members will be able to benefit directly.

          <

          p>Organized labor is a bit of a hybrid.  When they are lobbying for better working conditions or wage/hour laws that is public interest because even non-union workers will benefit from it.  If they are lobbying for more collective bargaining rights that is special interest because it directly benefits them.

          <

          p>Keep in mind that I do not automatically say special=bad and public=good.  THAT is the part that is in the eye of the beholder.

  4. You speak of the lobbyist as something bad.  In a free country people are free to band together to seek their fair share.  This week AIPAC is holding a convention in Washington, DC.  All the powerful politicians vie for time to present their positions to the AIPAC crowd.  The presumed Democratic candidate is coming up short. A presidential candidate cannot win without the Jewish vote.

    <

    p>Mr. Obama’s fondness for his religion of antisemitism only cements his position as an also ran.  If the Democratic Party wants to win this fall it must lure the Jewish block of voters (and many christians that support Israel).  The Republicans have had this advantage for too long.  The best way for the Democratic Party to lure away Jews from the Republicans is to appeal to their love of Israel.  Israel is the great democracy of the Middle East surrounded by enemies.  It must rely on US support or its people will be pushed into the sea.  Many voters realize this and empathise with the Israeli people.  Americans support Israel.  The Republicans give some support to Israel.  They are rewarded for it.  Even Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, internationally respected as one of the holiest men in the world, thanked GW Bush for his war in Iraq.  The Republicans show support for Israel first, last and foremost. This cements relations between the Republicans and the people of Israel.   Senator McCain is inheriting this support and he is further enhancing it.

    <

    p>The Republicans prepare for war with Syria and Iran in the effort to save Israel.  What do the Democrats do?  Nothing. They mumble of a peace that cannot happen.  Opportunities pass without the Democratic party taking advantage.  The Jews want to support the Democratic party, but are being shut out.

    <

    p>If the Democrats want to take back the presidency they must be prepared to give the Jewish voters more than they can expect from the Republicans.  Today Mr. Obama could have announced Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois as his running mate.  A 2nd generation American, a soldier, a statesman, he would be a perfect running mate.  He would have had the AIPAC crowd on their feet.  Instead, the opportunity lapsed.  The Democrats will field another also ran.      

    • A presidential candidate cannot win without the Jewish vote.

      <

      p>That’s just plain meshugeh.  Just ask George Bush, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan, all who got less than 1/3rd of the Jewish vote.

      <

      p>Roughly speaking, Jewish population in states are:
      1 New York 9.10% 1,654,000
      2 New Jersey 5.50 436,000
      3 Florida 4.60 641,000
      4 Washington, D.C. 4.50 2,000
      5 Massachusetts 4.40 268,000
      6 Maryland 4.20 211,000
      7 Connecticut 3.00 97,000
      8 California 2.90 922,000
      9 Pennsylvania 2.70 330,000
      10 Illinois 2.30 268,000

      <

      p>In 2004 POTUS:

      <

      p> * New York went Dem by 19%, so even if every Jew voted Dem and then voted GOP, it wouldn’t swing the state.
      * New Jersey went Dem by 6.2%, so if every Jew voted Dem and then voted GOP, it would swing.
      * Florida went GOP by 5%.  Not all the Jews in Florida would be enough to swing it Dem.
      * DC went Dem by over 80%.  The Jewish vote can’t swing the capital.
      * Massholes voted Dem by a 25% margin, and the Jews can’t swing that state either.
      * Murr’land voted Dem by 12 points; not enough Jews there either.
      * Nutmeggers preferred the Dems by 10 points, so Jews can’t swing CT.
      * Cali also went Dem by 10, so Jews can’t swing it.
      * PA went Dem by 2.2; clearly Jews could impact Pennsylvania’s EVs.
      * Illinois was 10 points in 2004; too many Gentiles there too.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>So, of the 10 states with the most Jews per capita, the only states where the Jewish population was greater than the margin of victory was PA.  It’s true that if 100% of Jews were voting Dem and then all voted GOP that their margin is double their per capita population, which would also put NJ in play and, if the Florida Jews had all voted for Bush in 2004 they could all swing back to the Dem in 2008 and bring Florida in play.

      <

      p>Realistically, Jews are heavy Dem voters, but even if Obama scared them all away, the only states he’d be risking that Kerry won in 2004 are NJ and PA, and frankly Philly has enough black voters that his increase in black turnout could  easily overcome any swing in Jewish voters.  As for Jersey — sure, I suppose you could argue that Jews could swing Jersey to the GOP, but it’s a big stretch methinks given that Jersey is 14.5% black.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>That’s not to say that the Jewish constituency isn’t important, or that their positive influence isn’t desired.  But, as voters, they don’t have much influence because the margin of Democratic vote wins is higher than the number of Jews in the state by more than a factor of two.

      • From McClatchy, some numbers from exit polls:

        In 2004, Jewish voters gave Kerry an important boost in some states. He won New York, where Jews are 8 percent of the total and backed Kerry 4 to 1, and New Jersey, where 7 percent of voters are Jewish and gave Kerry a 3-to-1 margin. Though Kerry lost Florida, where about 5 percent of voters are Jewish, they gave him a 4-to-1 edge.

        • and don’t buy much of it.  It’s true, Jews likely have more than 3% influence on campaign donations and media exposure.  Those things can be tough to measure, and tougher to predict.  The article’s argument that Jews live in swing states is both wrong [other than FL] and I showed above that, in fact, they don’t make up a large enough cluster to swing the state’s vote.

          <

          p>I don’t know what percent of those states’ voters were Jewish in 04, nor do I know what they’ll be in 08, although since I think overall turnout will be higher I suspect that the total percent of the vote represented by Jews will be lower.

          <

          p>

          Were I a politician, I’d rather have 100 supporters that vote than 1.000.000 that do not.

          <

          p>I’d take the million.  They all have friends, they all have influence, they all have car bumpers and lawns and checkbooks, and I just might be able to convince more than 0.0001% of them to vote for me.

    • Stomv already crumbled the idea that the Jewish vote swings the election.

      <

      p>

      The best way for the Democratic Party to lure away Jews from the Republicans

      <

      p>That line is wrong, because Kerry got the Jewish vote by over 3 to 1, and Gore had a similar margin.

      <

      p>

      The Republicans prepare for war with Syria and Iran in the effort to save Israel

      <

      p>Now we have a very bad idea… the Republican President has two wars going on that are not going well, and Banner wants two more???

      <

      p>Banner cites Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger as thanking George W. Bush for the Iraq War, and so does Iran.  In fact, it looks like Iran may have helped Bush start the war:

      WASHINGTON – Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have “been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service … to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government,” a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.

      A top aide to then-secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, shut down the 2003 investigation into the Pentagon officials’ activities after only a month, and the Defense Department’s top brass never followed up on the investigators’ recommendation for a more thorough investigation, the Senate report said.

      The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

      <

      p>Isn’t it amazing that Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger and Iran can agree on the biggest American foreign policy decision in the past decade?  Maybe soon we’ll sing kumbaya.

  5. Senator Obama is like every other politician going.  He accepts money from people who lobby.  These “people who lobby” may not be registered lobbyists – but they work for firms that have lobbying divisions.  These “people who lobby” may not have offices on K Street…but offices in states.  

    <

    p>This was in Newsweek this week:

    <

    p>http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519

    <

    p>

    When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a “California-style energy crisis” if the rate increase wasn’t approved-but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. “It’s corporate money trying to hoodwink the public,” the state’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then-but may soon get more scrutiny-is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.  

    <

    p>So when is a lobbyist not a lobbyist?  When they’re operating in Illinois!

    <

    p>

    Neither Axelrod nor his partners at ASK ever registered as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison-and under Illinois’s loose disclosure laws, they were not required to. “I’ve never lobbied anybody in my life,” Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. “I’ve never talked to any public official on behalf of a corporate client.” (He also says “no one ever denied” that Edison was the “principal funder” of his firm’s ad campaign.)

    <

    p>You don’t need a Harvard degree to connect the dots…and conclude that this is still “lobbyist” money.

    <

    p>

    But the activities of ASK (located in the same office as Axelrod’s political firm) illustrate the difficulties in defining exactly who a lobbyist is. In 2004, Cablevision hired ASK to set up a group similar to CORE to block a new stadium for the New York Jets in Manhattan. Unlike Illinois, New York disclosure laws do cover such work, and ASK’s $1.1 million fee was listed as the “largest lobbying contract” of the year in the annual report of the state’s lobbying commission. ASK last year proposed a similar “political campaign style approach” to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a “grassroots” group of medical experts “capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position,” according to a copy of the proposal. (ASK didn’t get the contract.) Public-interest watchdogs say these grassroots campaigns are state of the art in the lobbying world. “There’s no way with a straight face to say that’s not lobbying,” says Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes government transparency.

    <

    p>I fail to see how the Senator is any different from any other politician – except the others don’t pretend that they’re above taking money from lobbyists.  

    <

    p>  

  6. as I didn’t thing it real but low and behold I guess at first light it is.  Free from that Satanic gender bias of relieving oneself.  Oh yeah big changes indeed.

    <

    p>SB200+Colorado
    Prohibits discrimination in public bathrooms.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives