Anti-Lobbyist Pledge Makes Its Way to Washington DC

GOBAMA!,GOBAMA!GOBAMA!
jack abe.’ need not apply

Will the Obama use the same no-security system to track donations to his transition that he used for the campaign? To see if I could, I donated $5 under a completely fictitious name, address and e-mail. It went through without any problem whatsoever. My children’s school has a better security (online) system than the president-elect. And no one calls him on it…
And if no one forces him to put a security (and it’s so minimal — please! this is easy), then lobbyists galore could be donating money.

“It’s surprising that AEI, a highly conservative group, is giving kudos to Obama. I don’t know if it’s a devolution or an evolution taking place.”
Agreed though in fairness AEI is not a fan of corruption.

Jake playing devil’s advocate.

Seah, sorry, but no comparison between Obama and McCain regarding lobbyists. McCain’s campaign was practically nothing but lobbyists heading his campaign and policies.

Actually, in fairness, Obama’s not President yet so it remains to be seen what lobbyist rules will be in place in January.

And so it begins. Say one thing in the rush to get elected, do something else once that mission is accomplished. So Obama is a typical politician, just like the rest. There is nothing “new” and “transformational” here. But then, I am not surprised.

Liz has a point, people. The Obama campaign took money under incredibly lax security. We don’t know who gave how much for real. We don’t know how many people took advantage of the system. It is possible, for example, that George Soros or Oprah Winfrey or Joe Shmoo could have arranged for the purchase of a million dollars worth of disposable credit cards and had people use those cards to contribute to the campaign, thus avoiding the campaign finance laws. Did that happen? I don’t know and neither do you. And since no one is going to audit the campaign or, apparently, investigate the abuse, no one will ever know.
I am honestly surprised that people are not concerned about the huge amounts of money raised under these circumstances. Or does potential abuse of the system not concern you when it is done in the name of a candidate you support? Is it only when evil Republicans set fundraising records, as Bush used to do regularly, that pundits, reporters, and political punch fans get suspicious and upset?

jhw, yep, both read and understood every word. Jake was showing how Obama’s position on lobbyists has evolved over time. Yes, there were two quotes from Obama the candidate– one saying in no uncertain terms there would be no lobbyists in his administration, then one saying something slightly, but crucially, different. As Jake points out with his headers, the second one appears to repeat the first, but there is nuance afoot. The second statement says they won’t run things, not that they won’t be employed at all. The important third statement is not from Obama but from his transition team. Are you going to argue they do not reflect his views when they announce the guidelines? These guidelines are in line with previously stated suggestions of what the guidelines for employment in the new administration, as opposed to the transition team, will be. It was previously posted on the Obama website that the rules are expected to be that lobbyists would not be allowed to lobby the administration for two years after they leave a position in it. The final rules have not been announced, but I expect they will be similar to these guidelines for the transition, but probably a tad looser.
I am not saying it is not a step in the right direction, if you really are interested in keeping lobbyists and their influence out of government. I personally do not get really worked up about it, because there are lobbyists and then there are lobbyists. It is not a simple issue and there are plenty of people who could be labeled “lobbyists” who would not trouble me in the slightest if they were a part of the Obama (or any other) administration.
I am not saying Obama is going back on his initial pledge, only that he is changing it to reflect the realities on the ground. That is what politicians do– it’s not good or bad, necessarily, it’s just politics. My argument was not that he was a slimeball liar– it was that he was a typical politician. I am not the one who thinks this is the end of the world. I just think people should have a more realistic understanding of what is going on. Let’s not keep the man on a pedestal. That does not mean I think he deserves to be kicked to the curb. But get real.

In an interview with Brian Williams, when Obama was asked that since the campaign was so grueling and grinding process, and to make it this far, he must have wanted very badly, so what is it about Presidency that Obama wants so badly as a young man?
And Obama answered — because he wants to see a government that reflects the decency of the American people.

Of course Obama owes George Soros, MoveOn.org, the media and everybody and their brother favors. Obama is the biggest hypocrite in politics. In the primaries, Obama ran as the most extreme liberal democrat, then in the general moved to the center. I don’t trust him, and never will.
I will alway pray for the preservation of our great nation, and our Christian faith worldwide, but never for Obama, because I don’t believe he and his cronies have good intentions for our great nation and the world.

GetReal: A million disposable credit cards? When pigs fly….. GetReal? It’s time to get a life.

Concerned in OH: “It’s amazing how one man can say one thing with such a straight face, do the exact opposite, and be lauded from the press for being so principled.”
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, it’s you that’s in the wrong and not the press? You’ve been wrong so much I’d have thought you might have started to realize that by now.
Take this. Let’s look at what Obama said shall we?
“I don’t take a dime of their money”
And now he’s saying:
“Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.”
That’s not the exact opposite. That’s exactly the same.
And then we have:
“they won’t find a job in my White House.”
Now he’s saying:
“Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.”
Leaving aside that he’s not in the White House yet, what do you think a lobbyist is? It’s someone who lobbies. A lobbyist who’s not lobbying isn’t a lobbyist.
On top of that, you have the additional rules that, if someone was a lobbyist before working on the transition, they can’t work on the field in which they were lobbying, and if they become a lobbyist after working on the transition, they can’t lobby the administration in that field.
He’s not doing the exact opposite of what he said. He’s doing exactly what he said.
You seem to think he said he wouldn’t hire anyone who’s ever been a lobbyist, ever. He didn’t. Can you not grasp the simple concept that someone who is no longer lobbying is no longer a lobbyist?

I think those who are commenting negatively haven’t actually read Jake’s article.
The change in the policy on the lobbyist issue is a very positive statement from the Obama camp. It is in keeping with his promise to not have lobbyists in his administration.
In many positions requiring that field’s expertise, many of the top people might have at one time done some work lobbying. Take the subject of oil exploration. Many terrific experts have worked for national wildlife protection firms trying to keep drilling out of national parks. Should they be disqualified from ever serving Obama’s administration? No, thus the time limits imposed with this new rule.
It is common sense that experts in most fields might have been hired at one time or another by either side of an issue. This rule will keep recently active and current lobbyists out of Obama’s adminstration.

WOW!!! Obama is a politician!! WOW!!! I am so shocked! Jake Tapper is shocked that Obama makes incomplete, vague statements!!! Jake Tapper is shocked that Obama is a politician!
We live in a world of ideas and a world of imperfect language to express those ideas. Add to that the fact that the world is not static and you’ve got yourself a world a bit more complex than a few cherry picked statements. Indeed, even those statements can be reconciled, so long as you don’t approach or understand language like a five year old.

Mara, I did not say that someone DID come up with a million disposable credit cards, I said they COULD do so. That is an important distinction. It was an example to make a point. There could have been wholesale fraud in the Obama campaign financing system, or minor fraud, or anything in between. There were not sufficient safeguards and they refused to offer any more information about their contributors that what they were required to by the letter of the law, even as others were more transparent and even though they had pledged to be transparent as well.
I have a life, thanks. And being concerned for the long-term integrity of the election process is, in my view, not an unreasonable interest for me or any other citizen. I support campaign finance reform and yes, I was extremely disappointed when Obama did not take public financing as he had promised. Now that he has been successful after having spent record amounts of money and outspending his rival by major multiples, the precedent has been set. Are you really comfortable that every future candidate who might try a similar swamp-the-opposition-with-cash strategy? Are you not interested in having the mistakes, as well as the successes, of the Obama financing studied so that we can learn what what works, what does not, and what we need to be cautious about in the future? Are you not interested in seeing where problems arise and in working to eliminate those problems? I would have thought that ensuring fair and free elections would be a nonpartisan issue.

It’s nice that president-elect Obama can tout his washed hands off the lobbyists. He likely will have some payback to the Unions who have helped elect him. That’s why he’s supporting a rescue plan for the automakers? Perhaps he can argue that it’s only fair, if companies like AIG gets help, when why not GM? Not a good reason in my book just because we’d have to follow a wrong precedent. True capitalism dictates tht business should be allowed to profit as well as fail. Don’t argue that too many people are impacted. Well…. who caused GM to be in such a predicament? Doesn’t the union have something to do with it (high fringe benefits, etc.)? I’m not anti-Union, to note.