DNC Devises Plan to Stand Firm Against Lobbyists -- While Taking their Money

by Deb Cupples |  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) needs oodles of cash to pay for TV ads, to help Barack Obama beat John McCain in November.  Now, more than ever, the DNC needs a First Rate Fund Raising Plan. 

This was made necessary after millions of ordinary democrats closed their wallets to the DNC.  Apparently, they're still upset because DNC leaders disenfranchised Florida -- that and many ordinary Dems simply don't grasp the Hyper-Sophisticated Math that DNC leaders relied upon when tallying the one half of Michigan's primary votes that the DNC was willing to count.

Whatever one does, some out there just has to gripe.  If it's not voting rights, its shoddy health care or costly wars.  You can't please everyone.

Back to my point: the DNC needs a First Rate Fund Raising Plan (FRFRP, correctly pronounced Furfurp), and it has come up with one.  McClatchy's blog reports:

"Barack Obama will announce today that the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept donations from federally registered lobbyists or political action committees, his campaign said this morning. No word yet on whether that applied at last night's $28,500-a-pop DNC fund-raiser at which Obama appeared in New York City.

"The new limits expected to be announced would conform to Obama’s own self-imposed campaign finance standards, in which currently federally-registered lobbyists are out from contributing but state-registered lobbyists or the spouses of federal lobbyists or lawyers affiliated with firms with federal lobbyists still can give.

“'The rules that have applied to the Obama campaign will now apply to the DNC,” said Obama campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass. (McClatchy)

I already hear the Doubting Thomas voices mumbling things like, "But Obama's rules allowed him to take money even from non-working spouses of lobbyists; even from law firms who make millions off lobbying; even from lobbyists' clients, whose checks the lobbyists will bundle for the DNC; even from....

And several sources would agree with that (e.g., USA Today,  LA  Times, SourceWatch, Newhouse News Services, Chicago Tribune).

But please withhold judgment for a moment and hear me out, because I can counter the arguments of those who doubt that the DNC's new Furfurp will work.

Fact: most voters pay no attention to where politicians get their money.

Fact: most voters don't understand why special-interest dollars cause problems for us taxpayers.

Fact: most voters get political "information" in sound bites from the TV, while they're washing lettuce for their dinner salad.

Fact: most media will continue to lazily fail -- or intentionally refuse -- to explain the corrupting influence of special-interest dollars on our government. 

In short, most voters are not likely to catch on to the realities any time soon.

That being the case, when most voters hear about the DNC's new Furfurp, they will get this impression: "The DNC is refusing to take dirty money from lobbyists."

You doubt me? The Associated Press ran this headline just today: "DNC Bans Lobbyist Money..."

Many voters will jump to this conclusion: "Oh good, the DNC is taking a stand against corruption."

Here's the brilliant part of the DNC's new Furfurp: while the DNC convinces voters that it is fighting corruption, the DNC will -- in fact -- still be vacuuming up oodles of cash (albeit indirectly) from lobbyists, PACs, and corporations run by people who would knock down their grandmother with a sledge hammer if she stood between them and a pot of money.

Sigh.  Now I'm hearing people say things like: "The Furfurp is dishonest and fake and very Karl Rove; how can the DNC even consider such a plan?"

My response: why waste time focusing on the Negative Nellie view?  Let's look forward and focus on the more positive, half-full view. 

Winning is what matters. If one has to drop a few principles on the battlefield, so be it. There's no law stopping anyone from scouring the war-torn landscape, after the battle is over, in a quest to reunite with said principles. 

Sure, the thousands of bloody corpses strewn about may pose obstacles, but they are minor.  My only request is that our leaders will show signs of due care and respect when shoving the carcases out of their way. [It's bad for Karma to mistreat the dead or defeated.]

Trust me: the DNC's new Furfurp is a fine plan.  The only way it could be foiled is if three things happen:

1) if the Republicans discover the true nature of the Furfurp

2) if the Republicans squawk about the Furfurp to the media

3) if the media diligently gives coverage to the Republicans' objections.

Admittedly, Numbers 1 and 2 are likely to happen -- but (as I said) all three things have to happen to foil the Furfurp.

Given how most media covered the Democratic primaries (and Election 2000 and the Iraq war), Number 3 is an enormous long shot. 

In short, the DNC has the odds in its favor.

That said, I congratulate the DNC on its First Rate Fund Raising Plan.  If I had a flute of Champagne, I'd be raising it and saying:

"Here's hoping the DNC defeats McCain, whom we could never tolerate in the White House -- if only because he has taken tons of special-interest cash and would likely push public policies that serve those special interests instead of the public."

Memeorandum has commentary.

Comments

[Melissa]

We all knew all along that the DNC wanted Barry for his money machine.
What a joke- no PAc or Lobyyist money. BWAHAHAHAHA.
I will make damn sure the voters here in my area get reminded of the lesson I gave them about bundling!

[Buck Naked Politics]

Melissa,

Good point re: money machine.

[Danny]

Furfurp, like the sound made when as a youngster I would pin my little brother down and let spit drip and then suck it back in before it landed on his face (Furfurp).

I gave to the DNC when Howard Dean became the chairman (huge Dean support here). But I will not give another dime and have decided to leave the party.

BTW - Hillary has a Hillary TV add up on her website. She is thanking her 18 million supporters and it doesn't look like she is going anywhere soon. She states "this part of the campaign".

Hillary 2.0 coming at you Obama like a freight train

YEEEEAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!

[Buck Naked Politics]

Danny,

Our girl has taken so much abuse, and if she takes the WH in 2008, she'll just get way more.

Maybe Hillary would rather serve the public a different way -- less painful -- way? Hasn't Hillary taken enough?

[Bart]

Hillary is so much stronger than most people will give her credit for... or when they do give her credit they call her nasty names - we've heard them all.

If Hillary was ready to serve in a different way, I have no doubt she would be or is already doing it - HEY - who knows why Obama ended up at HER house tonight? She may have a few things she'd like to get done... more will be revealed. Oooh what I would have given to have been a fly on the wall during that meeting! How interesting would that have been?

Anyway, my strength and positive thoughts are with Hillary and her supporters. It's not time to throw the towel in - there's plenty of time to do things right.

[Deb]

Bart,

I agree: Hillary likely has some public-policy issues she'd like to tackle.

[Adam]

I'm trying to take a break from commenting, but I will just give you a little thought courtest of Occam's razor:

If this were painless, wouldn't the RNC do it as well? If this were painless, wouldn't McCain do it, to take the talking point away from Obama? Wouldn't all his primary opponents have done it as well?

The simple, most obvious answer would be yes.

If your argument is that they don't do it because they don't think it matters, then you are not addressing my argument. They lose political ground by not matching him here. You KNOW that Obama will hit McCain on this for the next five months without fail - this is an issue he's got a record of hitting people over the head with.

They don't match Obama in this regard because they can't. Unlike Obama, they don't have a million and a half individual donors. They are more reliant on the large contributors. I'm not basing that argument on some belief in Obama's morals; I'm basing it on Obama's financial statements. Obama is the only one who can afford to cut out a significant chunk (not all, but a significant chunk) of the big donors.

These restrictions are not an end-all to money influence in politics. Obama would be the first to admit that. But are they a start? Yes, they are. Do they have an impact on how you can raise money? Yes, they do. The empirical proof is right there in the actions of Obama's opponents.

---

My guess, like Bart, is that the discussion last night was very issue-oriented. I doubt they talked about the VP for more than thirty seconds, if at all. I tend to agree with Howard Fineman's analysis: Hillary would rather be a Ted Kennedy figure in the senate, than serve as VP in an Obama administration. There's nothing wrong with that - she's certainly earned the right to make that choice.

[Deb]

Hi Adam!

Bundling is easy to do. Holding fund raisers without personally signing checks is easy. Getting clients to hold fund raisers is equally easy.

My only point is Occam is entitled to his opinion, but merely stating his doesn't change mine.

I think the DNC is misleading the public to get favorable P-R points. My opinion might not be so firm, if I hadn't seen DNC leaders do the same thing re: Florida -- but I did see them do that.

I agree that Hillary would be better off in the Senate (or supreme court, if Obama beats McCain -- she's got the mind, the academic background and a streak for protecting ordinary folks).

I miss you, though I'm getting more done now that you're taking a break.

Please let me know what you think about my invitation: it wouldn't have to be daily and you could continue your Obama ambassador-ship. Seriously.