The Downside of Anti-lobbyist Rhetoric by Obama and Edwards

The Politico has picked up on the "potential downside of being anti-lobbyist" meme, which I posted on 10 days ago. You can read my original post here. Their story even validates my point about how banning lobbyists from a Presidential Administration radically reduces the talent pool, and quotes no less an authority than Paul Light, formerly with the Brookings Institution. However, it does not go into the potential damage such an action would do to the Capitol Hill Democratic Leadership, which would have been nice follow through. Just goes to show how lazy reporters really are.

Imitation really is a nice form of flattery. The Politico story is below:


Anti-lobby pledges easier said than done
By: Jeanne Cummings
January 14, 2008 09:07 PM EST

John Edwards and Barack Obama are taking their bans on donations from Washington lobbyists one step further: pledging to limit the role of the persuasion class in their administrations.

Needless to say, this isn’t sitting too well with lobbyists here in town, and at least one expert wonders whether it makes much sense.

“It’s easier to say you are going to ban lobbyists from your administration than actually doing it,” said Paul C. Light, an expert on federal appointments and hiring.

“We know from past research, back to the Kennedy administration, that almost two-thirds of presidential appointees come from within the Washington standard metropolitan area — almost a three- or four-mile radius around the White House,” he added.

The pledges from both candidates are aimed at bolstering their argument that they can change the way Washington operates. Neither is proposing an all-out ban on lobbyists-turned-presidential-advisers, although that might actually be easier to implement than what they are planning.

If elected, Edwards says he wouldn’t hire or appoint Washington-registered corporate lobbyists or those who represent foreign governments.

“It is unrealistic to think that you can sit at a table with drug companies, insurance companies and oil companies and they are going to negotiate their power away,” he says on the campaign trail.

Obama is keeping the door open to hiring them. But any lobbyist who joins his administration wouldn’t be permitted to work on “any project, law or regulation related to their former employer.” And, upon leaving his service, the former appointee would be prohibited from lobbying the Obama administration for the duration of his term.

On the campaign trail, the Illinois senator vows to “challenge the money and influence that’s stood” in the way of major policy changes. He also reminds audiences that he co-sponsored sweeping ethics reform legislation passed last year. “I’ve gotten something done,” he says.

Certainly, there are reasons for any administration — and particularly a new one — to be cautious. The most obvious one: Jack Abramoff.

Abramoff, who was convicted in a bribery scheme involving members of Congress, never officially worked for the White House. But in 2001, he used his ties to the new Bush administration to promote the hiring of some of his allies in the Interior Department and the General Services Administration. Then he used those connections to advance the interests of his clients. (Some of his Bush administration allies ultimately were convicted, too.)

The Abramoff scandal was the subject of hearings chaired by Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The fallout tarnished Congress more than the White House. But it fed the story line of Bush critics who claim the administration has been too cozy with corporate interests and lobbyists.

While it makes sense for the Abramoff scandal to prompt a prospective president to raise his guard, cases such as his are pretty rare. Meanwhile, there are some downsides to the Obama and Edwards pledges.

Lobbyists, for all their baggage, also happen to represent some of the best-trained advocates in Washington. The community also is home to a slew of experts on policy ranging from health care to energy to foreign affairs.


The Edwards and Obama approaches could wind up excluding, or discouraging, an impressive pool of talent from assisting their White Houses.

“I just think it’s silly,” said Charlie Black, a longtime lobbyist who is now helping McCain’s campaign.
“There are a lot of CEOs who have to register as lobbyists and their executives who come to town to meet with members. It’s demonizing a group of people who are mostly honorable people and who are knowledgeable about how government works and public policy,” he added.

Indeed, the pool of registered lobbyists is expanding today under the ethics reform law pushed by Obama.

Ethics attorneys in Washington spent much of last year urging corporations to err on the side of caution by registering anyone who touches, or even confers about, a strategy for influencing Congress. That could shrink the potential employment pool under Edwards’ no-corporate-lobbyist rules.

The fine wording of Edwards’ hiring ban is also likely to lead to some predictably edgy headlines, warned Light, a professor of public service at New York University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Among the scrutiny the former North Carolina senator would face: questions about the fairness of hiring a former labor union lobbyist while shutting out any corporate advocates, or headlines that note an appointee had once been a registered lobbyist.

“It’s a nice promise to make, but the people who have to implement the rules could go crazy,” Light said.

The decision by both candidates to ban federal lobbyists — not state lobbyists — from their donor lists already has led to the same sort of technical attacks.

At a New Hampshire debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that a high-ranking figure in Obama’s campaign is a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical company. Obama shook his head and muttered that the charge just wasn’t so. But the adviser is indeed a lobbyist, albeit at the state level.

Finally, the policies overlook some new realities: Many in Washington want to be, or wind up becoming, a lobbyist. Republicans have long used lobbying shops as a refuge while their party was out of power. In the Bush years, Democrats had begun to follow the same path. Democratic lobbyists’ ranks swelled significantly last year after their party took over the Congress, making them sought-after hires for groups that had lost touch with the once-minority party.

That phenomenon would not only limit Edwards’ personnel choices, but it could make Obama’s post-service rules unpalatable to many who would lose significant income if they lost their ability to lobby the administration.

“It’s hard to be in this town without doing some lobbying to get by,” Light concluded.

TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company

Clinton Administration Infighting Impacts IA Caucuses: Richardson Knifes Hillary (Field Report Four)

According to another campaign colleague, during the Iowa Caucuses, Richardson decided to ask his supporters to back Obama if he wasn’t “viable” in their precinct. In the Democratic Caucuses, a candidate must receive 15% of the vote on the first round in order to be eligible to win delegates. Supporters of candidates deemed “unviable” are cajoled, sweet talked, persuaded and threatened by their neighbors into supporting their 2nd preference. Richardson was always the only viable candidate among the 2nd tier under these rules and this actually explains why he didn’t come in with more than 2% of the vote.

Going into the Caucuses, Edwards was the 2nd choice of a majority of caucus goers. In fact, many political observers thought that he would win on that basis alone. By asking (and getting) his supporters to back Obama on the 2nd round instead of Edwards, Richardson essentially threw the election to Obama, kneecapping Hillary in the process. She would have been able to withstand an Edwards victory (after all, he has no money) but as we’ve seen an Obama victory is something else – a victory for the forces of real change and an inspiration our nation hasn’t felt since the days of RFK (apparently – I wasn’t here yet). Ironically Hillary really is not perceived as “a change agent” since she has been on the national scene at least since failing to get Congress to enact her misbegotten health care plan. Obama on the other hand, really is a new fresh face who does represent change and a new direction for the Democratic Party (i.e. away from the Clinton’s).

Now the question arises as to why Richardson, whom many perceived as angling for Hillary’s VP or Secretary of State slots, would do this. It’s quite simple really and it goes back to the Clinton Administration: Terry McAuliffe. Apparently there was some dust up between the Governor and the former Democratic Party Chairman/fundraiser extraordinaire in which it was strongly intimated that not backing Hillary would result in some type of retribution. Given McAuliffe’s position it could either be a threat to cut off Richardson’s funding for the NM Senate Primary (assuming he gets in during the short deadline after Feb. 5) or the promise of being excluded from a future Hillary Clinton Administration.

Ironically, whatever threat McAuliffe made obviously backfired and put Clinton in the position she’s now in – on the verge of losing a 2nd straight primary/caucus by double digits (assuming the David Duke Statistical Lie problem isn’t affecting the polling outcome, which based on my previous posts I believe it is though I still think Obama MAY be able to squeak through a victory). Should Hillary be unable to regain her footing before Feb.5, she will tarnish the Clinton legacy and effectively end the Clinton Machine’s hold on the Democratic Party. It would be morning in the Democratic Party.

To paraphrase Nixon, “Richardson knows a little about politics too.”

Oh, and just for the record, Hillary saying she knows how to beat Republicans is bunk. A Republican Minority, lead by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas beat her health care plan to smithereens in 1993. In both 1992 and 1996 more people voted against Bill Clinton than voted for him. He only received 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. The Clinton’s only know how to beat Republicans in a three-man race (Perot ’92, Buchanan ’96) in which the 3rd guy appeals to core Republican values. Put her head to head with anyone but Huckabee and she’ll have a hard time of it – Romney’s actually achieved universal health care in his state, McCain is definitely more trustworthy and likeable despite the establishment’s attitude towards him and can play the military b ackground card in a way she can’t, and Giuliani can counter the change argument easily (“I changed the country by bringing down the mob,” “I changed Wall Street culture, at least temporarily, by bringing down Ivan Boesky,” “I changed New York City, the untamable city, and made it livable for families again” – how does she counter that?).

New Hampshire Racism Imperils Obama Momentum (Field Report One)

I've been doing some volunteer campaign work recently for one of campaigns. Doesn't matter which one or where (but it's not Obama - I'm a Libterarian and am VERY pleased with Ron Paul's 10% result in Iowa).

One of my colleagues on another campaign told me that they have a South Asian volunteer who has been harassed, threatened and called the N word more times than anyone can count. While I am EXTREMELY pleased with what Obama's Iowa victory says about our nation slowly transcending race as an issue, the treatment of this volunteer by New Hampshire residents is discourgaging in the utmost. Not being representative of the country in terms of diversity is ok if you're openminded (witness Iowa last night), BUT BEING LILLY WHITE AND RACIST is just one more example of why New Hampshire should lose its first in the nation primary status. I don't support Obama due to policy disagreements, but the way New Hampshire is treating this volunteer indicates that he has a hard row to hoe there.

Putting on my analyst/pundit hat, this does not bode well for the Obama campaign and New Hampshire racism could halt his momementum and pitch the race towards Hillary or Edwards. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are good Americans who hate racism and don't want to win this way. It's just unfortunate that this racist little state will get to kneecap Obama before he can really take full advantage of what President George H. W. Bush referred to as "The Big Mo." I mean, it's not like this is happening in the South where such things are to be expected.

I wish our country would finally embrace MLK's dream of judging us by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. New Hampshire residents obviously don't share this dream.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - after all New Hampshire is populated by former Boston residents, and it's no secret that Boston is one of the most racist cities in the country.

You Know You're Campaign's Going South When You're a Game Show Joke

Responding to Power of 10's Drew Cary, a contestant replied that her haircuts cost $200. Mr. Cary went on to make a joke about the price of Senator Edwards's haircut. Once a campaign blunder becomes a cultural meme, it's clear the campaign is going South, and that it needs to recover quickly. The Edwards campaign has not. $400 haircuts and a woman fighting your fights (Elizabeth and her feeble attacks on Edwards' opponents) does raise questsions as to whether the whispers about him, publicly aired by Ann Coulter to howls of liberal outrage, are true.

What's worse is that as the haircut meme spreads throughout our popular culture, self-replicating as a it moves along, it continually undermines the Senator's poverty/Two Americas/class-warfare agenda. This is a huge problem for him, and because it wasn't dealt with properly fast enough, has likely already sent his campaign into a death spiral.