Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms (updated)

by BigBoyBlue, Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 02:42:00 PM EDT

The LA Times reports today that even after presidential hopeful Barack Obama made a show of standing up to Washington insiders by returning donations from lobbyists, he received help raising campaign money from at least two of them.

Even as he shuns donations from lobbyists, Obama has taken more than $1.4 million this year from law and consultancy firms that have partners who are registered to lobby, a Times analysis of Obama's fundraising shows. He has received hundreds of thousands more from corporate executives while turning down money from their lobbyists.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-obama4aug04,1,4742821.story?coll=la-p olitics-campaign&ctrack=2&cset=t rue

Further, the Des Moines Register reports that Obama's fundraising team has used state lobbyists, former lobbyists, spouses of lobbyists and partners in lobbying firms who are not registered for specific clients to reach the rich, the Washington Post reported in April.

As a U.S. Senate candidate, Obama was no stranger to PAC donations. From 2001 to 2006, he received $1.8 million, or about 8 percent, of what he raised from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070803/NEWS09/708030378/1001/NEWS

The New York Times reports that Howard Wolfson, Clinton's advisor, told reporters that campaigns had made different decisions about fund-raising sources. Playing to character, Mr. Wolfson didnt hesitate in discussing this to take his own shot at Mr. Obamas campaign by pointing out that the Illinois senator (Obama) had accepted money from lobbyists in his home state.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/revisiting-the-heated-debate-exchange-on-lobbying/

Tags: campaign finance, lobbyist, obama (all tags)

Comments

77 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Obama

This entire debate on lobbyists is moot. I'm not surprised by this hypocrite though.

by areyouready 2007-08-04 02:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

More lies by hillary supporters. All of Obama's donations are reported to the FEC. He DIDNOT take any money from lobbyists.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 02:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

Did you read the headline , the diary text and the la times article at all. No one said he received lobbyist money " directly ".

by lori 2007-08-04 02:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

So how is it hypocrisy?

by psericks 2007-08-04 03:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

Maybe this AP line can help you out , its on the front page of yahoo,

" While they don't accept money directly from lobbyists, Edwards and Obama are not above benefiting from the broader lobbying community. Both accept money from firms that have lobbying operations, and Obama in particular has tapped the networks of lobbyists' friends and co-workers."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_o n_el_pr/democrats_bloggers

That should help you.

by lori 2007-08-04 03:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

the key line in that article is "they don't accept money directly from lobbyists".............GAME, SET, MATCH

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

"Both accept money from firms that have lobbying operations, and Obama in particular has tapped the networks of lobbyists' friends and co-workers."

You don't see a contradiction there ??

by lori 2007-08-04 03:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

lobbyists friends and co-workers are NOT lobbyists. Just because you have a friend or co-worker that is a lobbyist does not make you one.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

hahahahahahahahahahaha

by bookgrl 2007-08-04 03:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

As someone who's worked with campaign fundraising.

...let me explain how it works.

Apparently you don't know how Washington works. Let's say I really like Clinton and I donate the max amount to her. BUT I really want to help her more. So what I do is have my "wife" give her a contribution. This explains why my wife who knows nothing about politics is suddenly maxing out to Clinton. BUT I want to help her out more so I have my "sons" who know jack shit about politics max out to her too.

Indirect money from lobbyists still come from lobbyists. And this is exactly my problem with widespread knee jerk calls for banning lobbyist contributions. IT DOESN'T GET RID OF THEM OR LIMIT THEM IT JUST MAKES THEM HARDER TO TRACK It becauses less transparent. Now instead of one well known lobbyists give money we have hundreds of thousands of "friends" and "wives" of lobbyists giving money.

Even worse lets say you ban campaigns from getting direct lobbying funds. What happens aside from the scenario above is that we get a shitload more 527 groups popping up who can spend more money and are less regulated. You get more "Swiftboat veterans for truth" groups flat out lying and smear candidates with no accountability towards the campaign. I guess if you want all that money flowing out there unaccounted for then go ahead and ban lobbyists funds but you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

by world dictator 2007-08-04 04:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Good explination.

I am so tired of that canard. It's actually less transparent to go about collecting funds through the backdoor.

by bookgrl 2007-08-04 04:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: As someone who's worked with campaign fundrais

BS. It's not less transparent. What you're talking about is bundling, and Obama has led the charge in the Senate on mandating that candidates disclose their bundlers.

Look, Obama can either embrace lobbyist influence or he can take steps to limit it. Your implication is that restricting lobbyists just causes them to hit up friends for donations, but this is something they were obviously doing before anyway. "Housewife" is one of the leading donor occupation categories alongside "student." Corporate donors have always gotten around spending limits this way --- but Obama and Edwards are essentially cutting their personal maximum donation level in half.

It would be impossible to eliminate all donations from all friends/wives/business associates with any sort of accuracy, without abolishing the whole system of private financing of elections altogether, but you can place the most obvious restrictions of direct lobbyist money and reduce the amount they can personally donate.

527 groups are going to be popping up anyway. We need to start by trying to break the direct link between the people directly lobbying our government, walking the halls of the capitol building, and actual donations.

You're arguing that instead of taking a small but principled stand, we should do nothing but wait (for years?) for a constitutional amendment on public financing.

One of the strangest complaints that I've heard is that Obama takes funds from state-registered lobbyists... Why should a person lobbying the state government in, say, Montpelier, Vermont matter at all? Huh?

by psericks 2007-08-05 03:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Welcome to the 21st century!

Let me be the first to welcome you out of the 19th century and into the 21st. There are a lot of differences between this century and the one you're coming from. You'll be shocked to learn, for example, that women in the 21st century actually have their own money, careers, and political opinions. I realize it might be a difficult concept to grasp, but it really is true that a wife is no longer seen as nothing more than an extension of her husband.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-05 10:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

that's certainly how it works with hillary...

or anyone who depends on terry mcauliffe.

the question is really, is that how it works with everyone else? do you really think that obama's or edwards' contributors are pulling this scam to any significant degree? what you've described is how the clintons work. but they're old school, archaic even...

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:16PM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: Obama

I'm sorry lololol.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-08-04 07:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

Lobbyists friends and co-workers are NOT lobbyists. Lobbyists spouses or domestic partners are NOT lobbyists.

The implicit sexism in that whole argument is clear if you ask why no one is complaining that Obama also took contributions from some lobbyists husbands. When a man who's wife happens to be a lobbyist donates to a campaign no-one assumes that his donation was nothing more than a backdoor surrogate for his wife. We assume he has a mind and money of his own. But when it's the other way around some people can't even imagine the possibility that it's anything other than a sneaky way to get lobbyists contributions.

Why?

by Mystylplx 2007-08-05 10:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

You don't see a contradiction there ??

No. He promised not to take money from lobbyists. He doesn't take money from lobbyists. No contradiction so far... He didn't promise not to take money from spouses, siblings, parents, childhood friends, or anyone who might have sat next to a lobbyist on a bus. He will accept donations from family, friends, and acquaintances of lobbyists. Still no contradiction...

by Mystylplx 2007-08-05 09:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

nope...

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: also

.............AND..........., Hillary probably has over 80% of her donations from $1000 and above. With Edwards its probably 70%.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: but she is not pretending

One third of Obama's $31 total in primary dollars in the second quarter came from donations under $200. That's more money than Edwards, for example, raised total. Obama has a massive number of small donors.

by psericks 2007-08-05 03:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: but she is not pretending

We went through this before. How much of that number was pumped up by declaring "entrance fees" to campaign events as donations, sale of trinkets as donations? The Obama campaign decided to list as "donors" many people who just went to see the guy and paid $5 or $10, also someone who paid $3 for a trinket is listed on paper as a small donor. Given that numbers game the Obama campaign engaged in on that (nothing really wrong with that) you are looking at inflated percentages as for "small donors" and you have to look at where the majority of the money has come from. It shows a bit different.

by georgep 2007-08-05 07:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: but she is not pretending

And I find your comment just as ridiculous now. Big donors pay per plate ($1,000 or $2,300) all the time to have small fundraisers with the candidate and hear them speak --- why shouldn't small donor events also be treated the same way? (And frankly the entrance fees were usually quite a bit higher than $5 or $10, that's why they're such revenue generators.)

Most importantly, your point is moot because we're talking about dollars donated, not numbers of donors --- so nothing is being inflated.

Obama generated one third of his total fundraising from these small donors. He's pulling in a massive amount of his total funds from these kinds of efforts. This is real money.

by psericks 2007-08-05 07:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: but she is not pretending

Read this :

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson got in a shot at Obama while giving his own take on the exchange over lobbying:
"We exist in a system in which politicians have to raise money in order to have competitive elections, and some campaigns are going to make different decisions about who they get their money from," he told reporters. "I believe that Senator Obama takes money from lobbyists in Illinois, but not lobbyists in Washington. That's a distinction they obviously think is important... Every campaign will make their own decision -- we'll make ours."

by lori 2007-08-05 08:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: but she is not pretending

Wow .

If you are going to play that game you better have clean hands all the way. The clinton camp is ready for it and Edwards and Obama are very vunerable to charges of hypocrisy.

by lori 2007-08-05 08:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

hillary's hypocrisy is legendary...

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: but she is not pretending

What's the connection? The idea is to turn down contributions from federal lobbyists. Lobbyists in Springfield, Illinois or in Montpelier, Vermont working on state issues aren't the same as those working to buy influence with Congress.

by psericks 2007-08-05 09:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

are you racist or just have a bad sense of humor?

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

This is all about going after Obama/Edwards

because Clinton stated she will CONTINUE TO TAKE MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS, at the YKos Conference and was booed royally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/us/pol itics/05dems.html?ref=politics

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/04/bo os-at-yearly-kos-as-hillary-salutes-lobb yists/

by iamready 2007-08-04 09:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070803/NEWS09/7080 30378/1001/NEWS

by bookgrl 2007-08-04 03:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

Hillary not only takes money from lobbyists and PAC"S, she is proud of it. John Edwards says he does not take money from lobbyists BUT he gets most of his money from trial lawyers. He also criticized hillary for accepting money from Rupert Murdoch when he had accepted $800,000 from Murdoch himself.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

Point?

by bookgrl 2007-08-04 03:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

And there goes the SPIN.

by lonnette33 2007-08-04 03:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

not to mention that Edwards donated the 800,000 to CHARITY. This is just more bogus spin against Edwards.

by KainIIIC 2007-08-04 04:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

How big was his tax break?

by world dictator 2007-08-04 04:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama

They refused to go into detail about it, so that one is not confirmed yet. I mean, if they indeed donated it to charity, why not disclose to which one? No good reason, really. So, that one is iffy at this point.

by georgep 2007-08-04 05:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

thanks for the republican perspective...

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

People have just turned lobbying into some sort of freak show . There are very decent people involved in lobbying for healthcare for seniors , for the sick etc . To just paint lobbyist with a broad brush is just wrong.

by lori 2007-08-04 02:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

and when HRC stated this, booed, and when Edwards asked the crowd, "how many of you have your lobbyist representing you in Washington, DC?" No, hands were raised.

by iamready 2007-08-04 09:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Which shows how out of touch the crowd was. I'm guessing that many in the audience are represented by lobbyists for unions, colleges, environmental groups (huge lobby effort), human rights organizations, pro choice groups, AARP, teachers groups, ad infinitum. In fact, virtually everyone in attendance is represented in one way or another by Washington lobbyists.

Not that any of that should get in the way of a piece of good old fashioned demogagery.

by hwc 2007-08-04 09:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

it didn't get in the way of her stupidity...

bill richardson took positions at odds with the netroots, but he couched it by saying, "i know it's not what you want to hear." hillary stupidly acted indignant. like it wasn't at odds with democratic principles.

as if america is her own personal fiefdom...

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Edwards and Obama just pissed off the nurses lobby and the teachers lobby . They have endorsed Hillary Clinton immediately after the presidential forum in the kos convention and plan to campaign against them in the early states.

by lori 2007-08-04 03:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

that is really irresponsible to endorse someone based strictly on the fact that you can bribe them.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

maybe the sarcasm was too much for you.

by lori 2007-08-04 03:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

There is no need to read the article, its full oF lies. You can see exactly where obama gets his money from by looking at his FEC filings AND its not from lobbyists, no matter what the "Los Angeles Times" says.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Yes ignore reality. Search no further. You have no need to use your mind. Obama will tell you all you need to know and when you need to know it. Over and out.

by DoIT 2007-08-04 03:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Obama certainly does have good judgment. Better than Edwards, Hillary, Dood, Richardson and Biden. Did you forget, they all voted or supported the Iraq war in 2002.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Yeah, Obama waited till 2004 to support the war. Poor guy had to wait a few years. A crying shame.

by DoIT 2007-08-04 03:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: this person below must be 12

I hope you mean above. I haven't been 12 for decades.

by DoIT 2007-08-04 04:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

It really is getting a little surreal around here.

by robliberal 2007-08-04 07:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

This doesn't surprise me. Just another fine example of Obama being for something before he was against it.

All this PAC purity bullshit is a bit much. I agree with those that believe that there is too much undue influence of money in politics. Look how much these campaigns for the PRIMARIES are costing. But Edwards has his hedge fund stuff, Obama has his Wall Street friends in high places and wives of lobbyists and Hillary has PACs. People try to make one seem more pure than the other. I agree with Chris Dodd that what we really need is public financing of campaigns. Hillary said she would introduce a Constitutional Amendment to make it the law of the land. I didn't hear anyone else say that or agree to help her. But they can sure get in their PAC jabs.

by DoIT 2007-08-04 03:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree

I agree. Money does have too much influence on politics. But at least Hillary is very honest, that's exactly why I like her.

Another argument is that GOP will never refuse to accept PAC money, why should Hillary refuse to accept such money from unions etc to surrender to those GOP candidates on money front?

Public financing is an idea, but how realistic? I just don't believe this issue is all at important considering the war, healthcare, education etc.

by areyouready 2007-08-04 03:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree

"Public financing is an idea, but how realistic?"

Realistic enough for Hillary to say that she will introduce a Constitutional Amendment for just that.

by DoIT 2007-08-04 03:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Dodd wants tax payers to fund his campaign? That is not a good idea. If the public wanted to fund Dodds campaign they would volunteer their money to his campaign fund. Apparently, he does not have that many supporters so he wants the entire country to fund his campaign eventhough he has no meaningful support. Dood should drop out of the race before he ends up in debt like Vilsack and is forced to go begging for money from hillary, just like Vilsack.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 03:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Okay you don't want public financing but you criticze lobbyist who represents millions of constituents and you say there is too much money . what is your solution.

Lobbyist represents millions of ordinary folks form teachers lobby representing teachers etc and I am not ready to shut out millions of american citizens represented by their lobby from engaging in the political process . If a candidate takes money from a lobby it means they think that candidate will promote the best interest of the millions of citizens they represent , just like i donate to a candidate because i think he/she will represent my best interest.

What some liberals seem to be saying is that let shut lobbyist who represent thousands of citizens from the political process , i am not in favour of that . Yes there are lobbyist that might promote an agenda or ideology I don't like but nonetheless they represents ordinary american citizen and it is left to the politician to decide whether they want to compromise thier principles , and if they do then their constituents or voters will hold them responsible . But saying lobbyist shouldn't donate to campaigns means you want to shut out the thousands they represent.

by lori 2007-08-04 03:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million

I stopped believing anything Obama says anymore a while back.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-04 04:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Obama: "I don't take money from PAC's or lobbyists...err scratch that..."

by world dictator 2007-08-04 04:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

lol

by areyouready 2007-08-04 04:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

And, you know darn well that Clinton's oppo research team knows where every last penny in the Obama and Edwards campaigns came from.

Having climbed up on those high horses, those two better hope like hell that their campaigns are pure as the driven snow.

by hwc 2007-08-04 05:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

don't worry, they are...

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Don't the Hillary apologists have anything positive to say about their candidate? That there's some good reason why she wants all those payments from lobbyists? That they're really not bribes? Why do all your arguments seem to boil down to arguing that the other guy is just as lousy as my candidate?

by davey jones 2007-08-04 05:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

"just as lousy"?

Clinton never claimed that she is not going to take PAC money. Once that claim is made, it has to be fanatically followed, or it smells like hipocrisy.

by georgep 2007-08-04 05:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

hipocrisy???

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

I don't think a $2300 contribution to a $100 million campaign is going to buy a lobbiest much in the way of influence in the Oval Office. Even the big bundlers are only raising a couple hundred thou'.

You play the game based on the rules as established by the Federal Election Commission. To not take full advantage of the rules is just stupid.

by hwc 2007-08-04 05:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Let me get this straight...

Edwards and Obama are making a good faith effort to reduce by however little the influence of a group of people who are professionally employed to lobby the federal government and in some cases sink progressive legislation, and instead we should prefer the candidate who openly embraces those contributions?

I'll take the candidates making at least the baby steps over those who aren't even trying. Neither Obama or Edwards have claimed to have ended corporate influence. And yes, they still take money from law firms and consulting firms, which is the only charge of this diary.

As Obama mentioned at the YouTube debate and at the Kos debate today, he has pushed for the very ethics reform bill mandating that the names of bundlers be made public so that we know if lobbyists are out there bundling.

The fact is, Obama and Edwards are making a much more public effort towards reducing the impact of lobbyists in Washington. And I respect that.

by psericks 2007-08-04 05:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Big picture

$1.4 million out of $58.9 million total that Obama has raised so far is only 2.4%; not a big deal imo, especially if it's from "law and consultancy firms that have partners who are registered to lobby." Lawyers and law firms are an important part of the Democratic Party machinery these days.

Besides, according to opensecrets.org (disclosed funds), Obama has raised $60,567 from lobbyists (out of $58.9M total), while Edwards has raised $10,450 (out of $23.1M total), so it's not like anyone is 100% clean by the strictest standards. However, by reasonable standards both Obama and Edwards are doing just fine in my book.

Note: 29.8% of Obama's and 10.1% of Edwards' campaign finance reports are not disclosed at the moment per opensecrets.org.

links:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select .asp?Ind=K02
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index. asp?cycle=2008

by End game 2007-08-04 05:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

We have 3 top tier candidates; but only one who is completely honest and open about where she gets her money. Obama is a sneak and a liar - he's got a huge K Street network; and John f*cking Edwards middle name is "hedgefund" - he worked for a hedgefund and invested in a hedgefund and made a pile of money.

No wonder Hillary is 24 points ahead of Obama and 30 points ahead of Edwards. The country isn't buying Obama's and Edwards' deceptive b.s.

by Regan 2007-08-04 06:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

All the top tier candidates are honest about where they raise their money. It's against the law not to be. OBAMA DOES NOT ACCEPT MONEY FROM FEDERAL LOBBYISTS........period. Hillary supporters are so embarassed by their candidates relationship with lobbyists and PAC'S that they are trying to tarnish good, clean politicians. The people of Iowa are not fooled, Hillary is considered untrustworthy by them.

by allmiview 2007-08-04 06:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Honest? Or playing a shell game? Maybe we watched a different forum, but I could have sworn that Obama's point was how contributions from "big pharma" somehow tainted Clinton more than the others.

Well, let's go to the tape. So far in the 2008 race, Clinton has received $172,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. Barack Obama has received $161,000.

Does he really believe that the difference of 9 thousand dollars makes him somehow more "pure". Or, is he just blowin' smoke up everyone's ass?

Funny that he didn't mention the big bad banking industry, where he has recieved $115,000 more than Clinton. Should be beat him over the head for being a pawn of the banks?

The system is what it is. The whole lobbying thing is just so much smoke. Clinton, the so called slave of the Washington lobbyists has received less than 1% of her contributions from those evil Washington lobbyiests.

by hwc 2007-08-04 08:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Great point, hwc!

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-05 04:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

sure, it's that people believe she's honest...

as opposed to the rather distinct advantage she has in name recognition, or the huge network the clintons have created since the early 80s, or any one of a hundred factors more relevant to her position than your insipid belief that she's honest...

by bored now 2007-08-06 07:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

I am surprised the Obama supporters did not say it was Hillary Clinton's fault he took so much money from lobbyists.

by robliberal 2007-08-04 07:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

He hasn't taken any. These are large law firms, and if people don't have anything to do with the lobbying that their firms do (or that their firms' subsidiaries do), what's the issue?

by Adam B 2007-08-04 07:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Remember folks, Obama has not given you permission to read the article. It is dangerous to read and think you could suffer an epiphany so severe there are no FDA approved prescriptions available that will help you.

by robliberal 2007-08-04 07:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

In other words, you have no substantive response.

by Adam B 2007-08-05 05:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

I'm surprised that Obama didn't blame his staff, again!

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-05 04:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

Hey, I'm still waiting to see her earmarks.

by wizinit 2007-08-04 07:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

One of the things that is pissing me off at this point about this site is how much of these issues becomes My candidate, your candidate. I don't give a shit what each canddiate has done on this issue. My chief concern is the issue itself.Or don't any of you think the issues matter anymore?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 07:52AM | 0 recs