A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 2: Lobbyists as big fundraisers)
Introduction
Check Part 1 for the content of this "Obama is the establishment candidate" Hillogism and definitions of "establishment."
Part 2 will examine Hillary's lobbyist connections. Given the levels of access and influence that the lobbying industry has achieved in the last 15 years, I consider lobbyists part of the "establishment." Lobbyists represent the big companies and industries that definitely are "establishment," and lobbying itself has become a prominent industry.
Hillary has among her big fundraisers some big time lobbyists, and Obama...perhaps not so much.
Hillary's defense of lobbyists
Back in August 2007, a get together known as Yearly Kos was held. This event is basically a gathering of the lefty blogosphere. All of the Democratic candidates were there, and at a session where they were all present, the discussion turned toward campaign financing in general and money from lobbyists in particular. After Edwards and Obama said they would no longer accept money from lobbyists, the moderator asked Hillary if she would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists, she answered with a firm "Yes, I will." She went on to explain that "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." And then, Hillary spokesman Phil Singer (remember him?) put everyone's minds at ease by explaining that Hillary "is committed to 'real lobbying reform' and simply skipping lobbyists' donations 'is not going to result in change.'" There is another Hillogism in there--"I'm going to make lobbyists change by taking their money." Yeah, right.
And why would Hillary defend lobbyists?
Back in August 2007, Hillary had to come up with some sort of defense of lobbyists, and not just because she was accepting contributions directly from them. In the fund raising game, people who work to bring in numerous other contributors are known as "bundlers." A bundler might, for instance, organize a party for a candidate and make sure that the invitees have money and can be persuaded to give money to the candidate. Some of Hillary's bundlers--"Hillraisers"-- are lobbyists. These "Hillraisers" have pledged to bring in large amounts of cash for the campaign (at least $100,000). And by the way, "Hillraiser" is a term used by Hillary's campaign. Calling Dr. Freud. I keep thinking there is some quote attributed to Freud that might fit here, but I just can't seem to remember it...Anyhoo, back to the Hillraisers. In August of 2007, some of the Hillraisers were big time lobbyists. As Newsweek reported, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that some of those lobbyists included:
Another report and a comparison of the findings for Hillary and Obama
Instead what I found was a mish mash of information. The official federal government records can be found by searching the database of the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR). There is an instruction page on how to search the database. There is plenty of info available on the site, but as of right now, there is nothing from which to determine if anyone is a registered lobbyist as of this date. Then again, it is within the realm of possibility that I simply failed to find such info. It is also possible that such records will be available as they are filed by the mandatory reporting dates. For instance, not all mandatory reports by lobbyists on activity in 2007 have been filed.
In any event, I tried some other sources. One source was another part of Public Citizen, LobbyingInfo.org. Another source was LobbySearch.com.
I have tried to determine whether a given person was a registered federal lobbyist in 2007 and/or is currently a registered federal lobbyist. Since the SOPR has the official government records, I used inclusion in the SOPR database for 2007 as my primary consideration. In other words, if a person is not shown in the SOPR database as having lobbied in 2007, for purposes of this post, I am not considering that person to be a bundler AND a lobbyist. However, since the SOPR does not have any records for 2008, I used the other two sources as a possible indicator that a person is still a registered lobbyist as of this date.
None of the ten were listed on LobbyingInfo.org. Four were listed on LobbySearch.com. The statement from the Obama campaign said that none of these four were registered as lobbyists in 2007. My review of the SOPR records confirms that assertion as to three, and the one exception would be Reed (as discussed above). However, not all reports are in for 2007, so the SOPR will need to be checked again.
Regardless of how one interprets these findings, there is no question that Hillary has 12 bundlers who were federal lobbyists in 2007 while Obama had at most one.
What this further means is that Hillary has more major fundraisers who either are or were in 2007 federal lobbyists. And that means that when it comes to relying on lobbyists, Hillary is far more "establishment" than Obama.
Coming next in Part 2.1--details on Hillary's lobbyists that show they are truly "establishment."
Part 2 will examine Hillary's lobbyist connections. Given the levels of access and influence that the lobbying industry has achieved in the last 15 years, I consider lobbyists part of the "establishment." Lobbyists represent the big companies and industries that definitely are "establishment," and lobbying itself has become a prominent industry.
Hillary has among her big fundraisers some big time lobbyists, and Obama...perhaps not so much.
Hillary's defense of lobbyists
Back in August 2007, a get together known as Yearly Kos was held. This event is basically a gathering of the lefty blogosphere. All of the Democratic candidates were there, and at a session where they were all present, the discussion turned toward campaign financing in general and money from lobbyists in particular. After Edwards and Obama said they would no longer accept money from lobbyists, the moderator asked Hillary if she would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists, she answered with a firm "Yes, I will." She went on to explain that "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." And then, Hillary spokesman Phil Singer (remember him?) put everyone's minds at ease by explaining that Hillary "is committed to 'real lobbying reform' and simply skipping lobbyists' donations 'is not going to result in change.'" There is another Hillogism in there--"I'm going to make lobbyists change by taking their money." Yeah, right.
And why would Hillary defend lobbyists?
Back in August 2007, Hillary had to come up with some sort of defense of lobbyists, and not just because she was accepting contributions directly from them. In the fund raising game, people who work to bring in numerous other contributors are known as "bundlers." A bundler might, for instance, organize a party for a candidate and make sure that the invitees have money and can be persuaded to give money to the candidate. Some of Hillary's bundlers--"Hillraisers"-- are lobbyists. These "Hillraisers" have pledged to bring in large amounts of cash for the campaign (at least $100,000). And by the way, "Hillraiser" is a term used by Hillary's campaign. Calling Dr. Freud. I keep thinking there is some quote attributed to Freud that might fit here, but I just can't seem to remember it...Anyhoo, back to the Hillraisers. In August of 2007, some of the Hillraisers were big time lobbyists. As Newsweek reported, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that some of those lobbyists included:
Matthew Bernstein (whose client list includes Raytheon and Merrill Lynch), James Blanchard (Bristol-Myers and an Indian gaming tribe), Steve Ricchetti (Eli Lilly and General Motors), Richard Sullivan (Delta and Freddie Mac) and John Merrigan (Starwood Hotels).And Hillary's lobbyists had brought in a good chunk of change by August 2007:
Figures compiled by another group, the Center for Responsive Politics, find Clinton has raised $668,250 from registered lobbyists and "government relations" officers—far more than any of the other presidential candidates, including the GOP contenders (who openly seek lobbyists' cash).That figure differs from a current report by the Center for Responsive Politics based on reporting by the candidates through January 7, 2008, and those figures show that Hillary has received $627,800 from lobbyists, while Obama has received $80,409. I am not sure of the methodology used in obtaining these figures. For instance, I do not know if contributions made by people who were not registered as lobbyists in 2007 were included.
Another report and a comparison of the findings for Hillary and Obama
- General findings of report
- Notes about my research
Instead what I found was a mish mash of information. The official federal government records can be found by searching the database of the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR). There is an instruction page on how to search the database. There is plenty of info available on the site, but as of right now, there is nothing from which to determine if anyone is a registered lobbyist as of this date. Then again, it is within the realm of possibility that I simply failed to find such info. It is also possible that such records will be available as they are filed by the mandatory reporting dates. For instance, not all mandatory reports by lobbyists on activity in 2007 have been filed.
In any event, I tried some other sources. One source was another part of Public Citizen, LobbyingInfo.org. Another source was LobbySearch.com.
I have tried to determine whether a given person was a registered federal lobbyist in 2007 and/or is currently a registered federal lobbyist. Since the SOPR has the official government records, I used inclusion in the SOPR database for 2007 as my primary consideration. In other words, if a person is not shown in the SOPR database as having lobbied in 2007, for purposes of this post, I am not considering that person to be a bundler AND a lobbyist. However, since the SOPR does not have any records for 2008, I used the other two sources as a possible indicator that a person is still a registered lobbyist as of this date.
- Findings as to Obama
None of the ten were listed on LobbyingInfo.org. Four were listed on LobbySearch.com. The statement from the Obama campaign said that none of these four were registered as lobbyists in 2007. My review of the SOPR records confirms that assertion as to three, and the one exception would be Reed (as discussed above). However, not all reports are in for 2007, so the SOPR will need to be checked again.
- Findings as to Hillary
- Matthew Bernstein
- James J. Blanchard
- Geraldine Ferraro
- Gordon D. Giffin
- Matthew A. Gorman
- Patricia L. Lynch
- Garry Mauro
- John Merrigan
- Heather Miller Podesta
- Steve Ricchetti
- Richard Sullivan
- Jose H. Villarreal
Regardless of how one interprets these findings, there is no question that Hillary has 12 bundlers who were federal lobbyists in 2007 while Obama had at most one.
What this further means is that Hillary has more major fundraisers who either are or were in 2007 federal lobbyists. And that means that when it comes to relying on lobbyists, Hillary is far more "establishment" than Obama.
Coming next in Part 2.1--details on Hillary's lobbyists that show they are truly "establishment."
posted by WCharles @ 2/13/2008 01:46:00 AM
2 Comments:
All that and Obama is still able to raise twice as much cash as Hillary has been.
I should go back and check the numbers, but Hillary raised a boat load of money in the week after Super Tuesday. Still, the fact that Obama has been raising more money in my opinion reflects a basic fact of this campaign, namely that Hillary peaked early. She rode that wave of "inevitability" early and had nowhere to go but down--especially once that wave started dissipating.
She ain't out of it yet, and March 4 is going to be a key day.
Post a Comment
<< Home