The Need for Public Financing of Political Campaigns Should Be Obvious.

Veiled lobbyists give $700,000
By Kevin Bogardus
April 19, 2007

White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) brought in $168,000 from K Street in first-quarter fundraising, according to a campaign-finance watchdog. Yet none of her contributors identified themselves as lobbyists, instead listing their profession as attorney, company president or other titles that, while accurate, distance donors from the lobbying world.

Of all 2008 hopefuls, Clinton leads in contributions by employees of lobby firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. By contrast, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) leads in contributions from self-identified lobbyists, as per PoliticalMoneyLine.com.

“I don’t think there are many lobbyists that have ‘lobbyist’ beneath their names on their business cards in this town,” the communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Massie Ritsch, said. With the broader definition in mind, the campaign-finance watchdog tallied contributions from employees of lobby firms to all presidential campaigns. According to an analysis of recent filings CRP released yesterday, donations to the six top 2008 contenders — Clinton, McCain, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) — totaled more than $530,000.

Donations to all White House hopefuls by those who work at firms that lobby were about $700,000, the group said.

By contrast, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, the six presidential front-runners together raked in about $90,000 in 70 contributions from self-identified lobbyists.The value of lobbyists’ support exceeds that of the cash they give. They also fundraise and bundle contributions for a campaign.

Yet the term “lobbyist” has become a loaded one in the public imagination, and the industry’s tarnished image is affecting how hopefuls campaign for the White House. Two 2008 presidential contenders — Obama and Edwards — so far have refused contributions from federally registered advocates. Obama has gone as far as to return $50,000 from lobbyists.

Donors identify themselves, including by occupation, on contributions to candidates. Of the major contenders, almost all report a few self-identified lobbyists on their donor rosters, including Obama. (While he has refused funds from federally registered lobbyists, he has accepted donations from lobbyists at the state level).

Two candidates have no self-identified lobbyists listed as contributors: Clinton and Edwards.

Representatives for both campaigns said they have not discouraged donors from identifying themselves as lobbyists.

Steve Elmendorf of Elmendorf Strategies identified himself by his executive title — “president” — on his Clinton donation. “I would be happy if they identify me as a lobbyist. I would be happy if they don’t,” Elmendorf remarked. “There are obviously a lot of titles they can choose from. Hence, ‘lobbyist’ is not the politically best available title,” he noted.

Clinton’s campaign has taken in the most money from employees of lobbying firms this quarter, more than $168,000, according to CRP’s report.

McCain reported the most contributions from self-identified lobbyists: 33 individual contributions totaling more than $40,000, according to FEC records compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine.com. CRP, however, counted more than $147,000 in contributions from lobby employees for the Arizona senator.

A McCain campaign official noted the small percentage of self-identified lobbyists in the overall number of contributors to the senator’s campaign, and said the campaign strives to get all the appropriate information from its donors, consistent with Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules.

Some K Streeters themselves note that their profession’s sullied reputation can give them pause when filling out contribution forms.“There was an initial distancing with Abramoff and Ney, but people are coming to their senses now,” said Peggy Tighe, a partner at Strategic Health Care, a lobby firm. “Why obscure the truth? There is honor in this profession.”Tighe donated to McCain’s campaign this quarter, and said she identified herself as a lobbyist on the contribution.“There was an initial hesitation when I wrote it down. I could have put down ‘advocate’ or ‘government-relations expert,’” Tighe said. “I am a strong believer in transparency in contributions.”Monica Notzon, a partner at Bellwether Consulting Group, a top Republican fundraising firm, said she believes lobbyists avoid listing themselves as such.

“Lobbyists are savvy enough to know that there is a stigma attached to the word ‘lobbyist,’” Notzon said. “They refer to themselves as ‘government-relations consultants’ or ‘public-affairs directors.’”The fact that many lobbyists identify themselves as attorneys hints at the trade’s emerging professional status. Considered a niche business more than a decade ago, more and more law firms are expanding their advocacy today. “You have a lot of law firms expanding their lobbying practice. It is obviously a growth area,” a partner at Ryan, Phillips, Utrecht & MacKinnon, Jeff MacKinnon, said. “They are all chasing the dollars.”

MacKinnon contributed to several Republican campaigns and identified himself as a lobbyist.

Al Cardenas, one of the name partners for the law firm of Tew Cardenas, on the other hand, described himself as an attorney in his contributions to Romney, even though he is a well-known lobbyist.“Eighty percent of our revenues are derived from the practice of law and 20 percent of our revenues are derived from our local, state and federal lobbying practice.

Since I spend more time in the legal side of the practice: ergo the designation,” Cardenas wrote in an e-mail.“However I do lobby, am proud of it and have (to my knowledge) always registered on behalf of [the] firm’s clients for whom I have personally done lobbying work,” Cardenas wrote.


....and the truth shall set us free.

Obama Has To Play The Game

Though I sure as hell don't like what this article says, we, as Americans, must face the fact that until we demand change in the way we elect our officials, special interest money will call the shots and anyone who wishes to get elected to reform the process will have to play the game as it is played by everyone else in order to get elected.

Push for publicly funded elections NOW.

We will never have a Democracy until we get the big money out of politics.

Sen. Obama finesses his lobbyist ties
By Alexander Bolton
April 20, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has pledged to create a new brand of politics in the Democratic presidential primary by rejecting contributions from lobbyists and political action committees (PAC), but his fundraising records show that he relies on donors with special interests.

Three of Obama’s top fundraisers, who each have raised more than $50,000 for his campaign since January, were registered as lobbyists last year, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. In 2006, Alan Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures earned $90,000 in lobbying income; Tom Reed, of Kirkland & Ellis, lobbied for the Seismological Society of America, the Nanobusiness Alliance, and the Airport Minority Advisory Council; and Scott Harris, of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, represented Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Dell and Sprint-Nextel.

All three Obama fundraisers have said they are no longer lobbyists, although the public records office has not posted contract termination reports for any of them. Several other major Obama fundraisers also have histories of lobbying government officials for a living. Thomas Perrelli was a lobbyist for Jenner & Block as recently as 2005. Until 2003, when Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate, Peter Bynoe was a registered state lobbyist representing Boeing and other corporate interests, according to the Illinois secretary of state.

They have both raised at least $50,000 for Obama’s presidential bid, according to his campaign.

Frank Clark, chairman of Commonwealth Edison, helped lead a $2.2 million congressional lobbying effort on nuclear research and waste disposal in 2000, according to a report under his name filed with the Senate. He also raised more than $50,000 for Obama this year. He played an important part trying to persuade state lawmakers to deregulate the energy industry in Illinois.

All this may surprise Obama’s supporters.

In a fundraising e-mail sent to supporters at the beginning of March, the candidate wrote that Washington’s special-interest industry is trying “to own our political process and dictate our policies in Washington.“We’re not going to play that game. We’re not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees. We’re going to transform the political process by bringing together hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans to build a campaign.”

Critics of lobbyist influence in politics say Obama cannot make a serious bid for the Oval Office and escape the influence of special interests. “You don’t escape special-interest influence-giving simply by banning lobbyists from being able to give to you,” said Nick Nyhart, the president of Public Campaign, which advocates public financing of elections. “Most of the givers are in some way connected to entities that employ lobbyists.

The interests are there even if the individual [donors] are not lobbyists themselves.“By collecting $1,000, $2,000, and $2,300 checks, you’re simply walking into the interests of special-interest America. “I think it’s a positive gesture,” Nyhart said of Obama’s ban on lobbyist contributions, “but to the extent it makes people think candidates are not taking special-interest money, it’s just wrong.”

Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said the candidate is doing his best in a difficult situation.“This ban is part of Obama’s best effort to address the problem of money in politics,” said Burton. “It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem, and it isn’t even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates.”

While several of Obama’s fundraisers have recent experience working as lobbyists, at least 10 other big fundraisers hold senior positions in companies that have lobbyists under contract or employed lobbyists in the last few years, according to public records. David Heller and Bruce Heyman are big Obama fundraisers and managing directors at Goldman Sachs.

Last year, Goldman Sachs spent $3.3 million on lobbying. The company hired firms such as DLA Piper, Rich Feuer Group, and the Duberstein Group to influence lawmakers. James Dinan, the founder and CEO of York Capital Management, is another Obama bundler. His company hired Dutko Worldwide to lobby on asbestos issues in 2005 and 2006.

Some Obama fundraisers have obscured their professional affiliations. John Schmidt did not list his employer on Obama’s April fundraising report. But a comparison of his name and address with old Federal Election Commission records shows that he works, or at least did until recently, for Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, a firm that lobbied the federal government on behalf of 70 clients during the second half of 2006. Its client list included Chevron, Motorola, Verizon, Visa, JP Morgan and Credit Suisse.

Other Obama fundraisers work for companies that have hired lobbyists to work on issues of the jurisdiction of Senate committees on which Obama sits.

Bill Kennard, for example, is managing director at The Carlyle Group, based in Washington. The Carlyle Group paid a lobbying firm, Ogilvy Government Relations, $460,000 last year to lobby on pension legislation and trade relations with China and Korea, issues that fall within Obama’s committee responsibilities.

He sits on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Foreign Relations panel.

One Obama fundraiser who said he did not feel comfortable speaking on the record said Obama has left millions of campaign dollars uncollected by eschewing lobbyists’ contributions. “There is an enormous amount of money he could have collected from folks who are lobbyists who are not contributing or fundraising, at least in the D.C. area,” he said. “I’ve called a lot of people; more of them are registered than I understood.”

The financial sacrifice enhances Obama’s effort to portray himself as a reformer and new brand of politician. Such an image is potentially helpful on the campaign trail, but as the year wears on, a saintly reputation could become a liability if opponents successfully frame it as an exercise in hypocrisy. “

Senator Obama is in a very difficult situation — he wants to wage a serious campaign for the president when the entire public-financing program has been abandoned by everyone who is a serious candidate for president,” said Craig Holman, an advocate of public financing with Public Citizen. “He has to raise $300 million to $400 million or $500 million. He’s trying to do that at the same time he is trying to clean up Washington.”


....and the truth shall set us free.