It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNC will no longer take lobbyist, PAC money

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   


In his first order of business as his party's presumed presidential nominee, Barack Obama is instructing the Democratic National Committee to adopt his policy against accepting donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees.

The change will make the party and the candidate have a consistent position. Obama often says banning the donations is one way to help keep him free of the influence of Washington insiders.

The move indicates Obama will argue Republican rival John McCain is under the influence of special interests because of his advisers' lobbying ties.

Obama's ban on lobbyists money is not ironclad. He does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. He has had unpaid advisers with federal lobbying clients, and some campaign officials also previously had lobbying jobs.

source


I am not very impressed by what appears to be a politically motivated, half-hearted gesture. Is Obama doing this just so he can use it in his campaign against McCain? It seems so.

What I would really like to see him do now is address his contributions from Goldman Sachs, and divulge whether he has accepted campaign funds from any other investment banks and hedge funds that are in on the speculative hoarding and run up in oil and gas futures that is driving the ridiculous prices we are paying at the pump. He made a campaign stop at a gas station in Indiana, I think it was, last month, and made a big speech about gas prices and their effect on working class people, whom he claims to represent.

It is time now for Mr. Obama to add some meat to the potatoes on the table and come out with a substantive plan to divest himself of the real movers and shakers of the status quo political scene in DC. That is, if he really means to do what he says about bringing relief from corporate hegemony over the political process in the US.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I am not very impressed ....


Neither am I. When Obama publicly acknowledges his 130+ corporate money bagmen, and he dumps them all, THEN I'll sit up and take notice.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


It just bewilders me that our government has allowed special interest groups to lobby OUR elected government officials for their own personal interests, Congress is suppose to represent ALL US citizens best interests, not big companies!

This is an older poll, but I'm sure it still represents how people feel about lobbying.

Public Opinion Polls on Ethics in Government


Club for Growth Survey, conducted by Brasswood Research (Jan. 28-29, 2006)

* 61 percent say their opinion of lobbyists is “unfavorable.”
* 80 percent of likely voters say the “level of ethical misconduct in Congress today” is either “serious” (50 percent) or “scandalous” (30 percent).

*****SKIP*****


Democracy Corps Questionnaire (Jan. 22-25, 2006)

* 83 percent believe that the current level of corruption is a serious problem—39 percent think it is a “serious” problem, 44 percent think it is a “very serious” problem.
+ 81 percent are upset about the way the House Ethics Committee is operating—24 percent are “extremely” upset, 26 percent “very” upset, 31 percent “somewhat” upset.

*****SKIP*****


CBS News/New York Times Poll (Jan. 20-25, 2006)

* 77 percent of registered voters believe that lobbyists bribing members is just “the way things work in Congress.”
* 57 percent think that at least half of all members of Congress accept bribes or gifts that influence their votes.

*****SKIP*****


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll (Jan. 10-11, 2006)


It' just baffles my mind that, with this sort of opinion by most Americans, there hasn't been an outcry yet to make lobbying ( w/ money is called bribery!) illegal when ANYTHING of monetary value ( a bribe) is given to OUR elected official to try to get him to vote in a certain way, which more than likely isn't in the people's best interest, otherwise the lobbyists wouldn't have had to lobby/bribe them!

If the media would just keep lobbying in the headlines, MAYBE the outcry to make it illegal to bribe OUR elected officials for their vote will finally force Congress to end this corrupt activity.

Money/Bribery should never have been allowed to begin with to sway how OUR elected officials vote in Congress!

[edit on 6/5/2008 by Keyhole]

Mod Edit: Trimmed down quoted material

[edit on 6/5/08 by FredT]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Yes. Lobbying and earmarks are the two sides of the coin of corruption that has undermined our nation's leadership and put "special interests" before the interests of the people at large. Imo, no one in DC is free of the stigma this practice should carry. Everything else they say and do is just a distraction and smoke screen to try and cover up what has become business as usual on the Beltway.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This is because Obama is already backed by the wealthiest, most elite special interest group on the planet.

Read this and you'll understand how deep the connections run.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


I'm curious. Did you hate Barack Obama before you ever knew anything about him, and then just look for more things to dislike about him? All of these negative things you are saying about him apply in just as many other ways to the other candidates, if not to 99.9 percent of the people in Washington DC, and in many other places, as well.

McCain is in with the MIC and the booze industry. Hillary has a lot of dead friends. Whatever. Who is the best for the people of the US and their interests at the business of politics? That is the question. They're all dirty to some extent or another. You don't get to where they are and stay clean.

Campaign promises should be contractually binding, that's all I have to say.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Listen up you RepubliCONS...it's strategic, because McSame's list is WAAAY worse and far more of a percentage of his support. To "see"" this move will cripple him.

I say...it's tacticly brilliant! Especially after McSame called out Obama to participate in small town hall meetings that allow McCain to look less like a robotic dork.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join