The Mainstream Press Addresses Obama's Claims of Independence from Special Interests

Posted by Damozel | In the interests of truth and fairness, I'm very pleased to see that USA Today is challenging Obama's claim of independence from what they call "Washington's influence industry."  Though it's technically true that he isn't taking money from lobbyists and PACs, the implication he'd like for voters to draw---that he is free of such influences---simply does not follow.   His representations seem deliberately designed to exaggerate his degree of independence from special interests in contrast to Clinton's.   Though both D Cupples and I are concerned about Clinton's ties to special interests, we are equally concerned about Obama's (not to mention McCain's). 

In any case, his campaign is attempting to paint a somewhat inaccurate picture of his indebtedness to such influences and that in itself is troubling. 

Among other things, an ad he has been airing in Pennsylvania makes a big point of the fact that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies. Well, no.  Neither do Clinton or John McCain.  That would be illegal. 

USA Today writes:

The screen fills with grainy footage of sprawling 1970s gas lines.

"Nothing's changed," Sen. Barack Obama says into the camer

a, "except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas. … I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore."

Obama's ad, which has been airing in Pennsylvania as the April 22 primary approaches, is technically true but misleading, as non-partisan FactCheck.org and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign have been quick to point out.

It's accurate that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal. But Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama's case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama's fundraising team. (USA Today)

And while he doesn't take money directly from lobbyists, he doesn't object to taking money from their spouses.  A campaign spokesman, Tommy Vietor, has an interesting spin on the campaign's presentation of Obama as free of Washington influences.  "He called Obama's policy an imperfect but important symbolic step." (USA Today)   Ah, I see; it is a symbolic step.  In other words, a gesture. 

There's more.  "Vietor said Obama "has long believed that lobbyists exert far too much influence over the national agenda."  (USA Today)  Sure, Tommy, we all think that.  Even Hillary thinks it.  And I wouldn't say a word about Obama's finances if his campaign weren't trying to get the benefit of implications that don't hold up to scrutiny.

USA Today has published a pretty good laundry list of the ways in which Obama's claim that he has no ties to lobbyists or special interests is, let us say, questionable.

• Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig, whose lobbying clients include gambling and handgun interests.

• Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

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

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

• Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money." (USA Today)

As our internet friend Adam has often pointed out to both D Cupples and me, it's certainly possible that  these contributors just happen to be industry moguls who love Obama.   It's not impossible.  On the other hand....no, I just don't believe it.  At any rate, it's not this that troubles me; what troubles me is that his campaign has attempted to portray 'imperfect but important symbolic step' in the direction of reform as something more. 

Once again, I find myself finding Obama disingenuous.  Sigh.

Memeorandum has blogger buzz here.

BN-POLITICS POSTINGS

The Daily Show Does Bitter-Gate

Signs of Bush Tactics & Hypocisy in Another Obama Campaign Email

Not Technically Fibbing:  More on Obama's Campaign Finances 

Obama:  "Ill-Chosen" Words

Obama Critic Quits Radio Show Over Hatred?   

Obama on Pennsylvanians: Just Words -- but the Wrong Ones 

HIllary Gets 270+ Endorsements from Officials in PA

Indiana School Allowed Obama but Not Hillary to Speak? 

Jon Stewart:  Obama Wins 'Dick Move of the Week'

Comments

[Adam]

Thanks for referencing my previous response, and for considering me an internet friend. :)

I certainly prefer to see coverage of this, which is at least a real issue that deserves to be considered, than coverage of "bitter-gate".

Two very small things I'd add to my previous comment you linked to:

1) I don't think Obama has ever said he has "no ties" to lobbyists. He has said they are not supporting his campaign. That's the difference between lying and telling what you consider a half-truth.

2) I did a quick investigation of two big money bundlers for Obama who had oil industry ties, and found they both had extensive philanthropic interests that fit Democratic party values. One had established a $800 million dollar foundation (a sizable chunk of his net worth) and had given away tens of millions of dollars to projects in urban renewal and improving access to healthcare. I haven't seen any counter-examples where contributors are known as activists on behalf of their industries. So my belief that these contributors are giving money for the right reasons has some empirical backing.