Here's a cool interactive graphic from Media Matters highlighting John McCain's extensive ties to corporate lobbyists. What they fail to mention is that since everyone knows McCain is a reformer, he deserves a free pass on everything related to his relationships with lobbyists. After all, what matters is sticking with pre-set narratives, not offering new information.
« Small City Urbanism | Main | The Beltway Bubble »
McCain's Lobbyist Pals
04 Apr 2008 01:13 pm
Comments (14)
Matt, for some reason, comments aren't working on your "Beltway Bubble" post.
MSNBC debunked Fred's claim WRT oil companies, and I'd bet it applies for other industries too. He doesn't get money from the registered lobbyists representing those companies, but rather from employees- mostly people who do not come to Washington to influence legislation. It is almost entirely a consequence of having the most donors in history; inevitably, many will come from those firms and businesses.
And there's a huge difference in getting money from a company and having the registered lobbyist of that company run your campaign. Especially when you consider that top staff members usually get top jobs in the White House.
Tony,
You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of "bundling". Employee donations to candidates tend to be coordinated and not random.
A politician with ties to lobbyists? You don't say.
In other news, dog bites man.
I know what bundling is (thanks for the condescension, pal), and while I concede that the majority of these dollars probably were bundled, that still does not address the fact that they were not bundled by people who go to Washington to influence legislation. And you cannot ignore that a bigger portion of Obama's corporate money comes from shift workers, etc.
McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists. He has shown, on multiple occasions in his career, that lobbyists affect his work. They will run his White House.
Who you pay to run your campaign matters a lot more to me than what level employee held a fundraiser for you.
Moreover, I would like to see the % of money that comes from lobbyists/corporations. McCain hasn't raised that much money from anybody. IIRC, something like 94% of Obama's $55 million in February came from donations of $200 or less.
Fred said... You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of "bundling". Employee donations to candidates tend to be coordinated and not random.
I saw a poster claim this before, but they refused to back it up with anything more substantial than attitude. (That particular mental giant claimed Obama received hundreds of millions from "bundlers", more than he had actually received in the entire campaign up to that point.)
So if you're going to toss out the term "bundling", please cite some sources that tell us who and how much is involved. Otherwise, it's just a nebulous charge.
BTW, you say "employee donations to candidates tend to be coordinated." I'd like to see citations of that too. That's a very broad statement.
Also, wouldn't it be logical for employees in a given sector to back somebody with general policies they felt would be good for their sector or economy in general? Maybe, as people fear for their jobs due to Bush's failed policies, they see McCain preaching much of the same crap (e.g. more tax cuts!!!). Maybe they feel Obama or Hillary would give them more stability in their own lives.
Of course if you consider the Internet in general or Obama's web site specifically to be a bundler...
"I know what bundling is (thanks for the condescension, pal)"
Your initial comment suggested that you didn't.
"And you cannot ignore that a bigger portion of Obama's corporate money comes from shift workers, etc."
Considering that you haven't provided any evidence that this is true, why can't I ignore it? While you're at it, feel free to provide evidence that MSNBC "debunked" the WSJ article that Obama and Hillary are lapping McCain in donations from corporations.
"McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists."
McCain's campaign manager is a former lobbyist who worked for McCain before becoming a lobbyist. I won't assume that you didn't know this, because that would be condescending. I'll just assume you are trying to be intentionally misleading here.
"He has shown, on multiple occasions in his career, that lobbyists affect his work."
Lobbyists affect every politician's work, by advocating for the interests of their lobbies -- that's why American senior citizens, unions, corporations, and other interest groups (e.g., sufferers of certain diseases) hire lobbyists in the first place. You don't think lobbyists have had any effect on Obama or Hillary?
"They will run his White House."
If I took this line seriously I'd be condescending to you.
-The source for the MSNBC article was, I'm pretty sure, Chuck Todd's blog. I cannot find it because they do not have their archives organized in a way that displays the title, and I'm not about to click "Next" through a blog that is updated what seems like two dozen times a day. However, I am confident that this article said that though Obama has indeed gotten money from companies, MANY of these donations come from "shift workers." Again, this is largely a consequence of having a record number of donors. Further, look at LFC's post; do you consider the internet a bundler?
-I don't like Hillary Clinton, and I can't think of a single lobbyist who has donated to Obama's campaign who might influence him in the White House. Probably because none has. I mean, did you even click the link?
-Are you honestly denying that top campaign staff members get top jobs in the White House? Karl Rove became chief-of-staff. Mickey Kantor became trade rep. I don't know if Lee Atwater had a defined role, but he was a top adviser to both Reagan and Bush the 1st. Etc., etc. Given McCain's history (Keating 5 for starters), I feel pretty certain that his advisers will continue the trend of having important roles in the White House.
Finally, as I said before, the biggest problem for me is not where you're getting your money from. Who you align yourself with is more telling.
As a Democrat, I am tired of the overwhelming influence corporations have in our government, and would like to see that end. Having a staff that isn't almost completely made up of corporate lobbyists is a good first step.
Somebody on some thread posted a link to opensecrets.org. I found this graph rather telling. Out of the nearly $3 million given by lobbyists, only Hillary raked in more than McCain. McCain pulled in over 5x more from lobbyists (who can give as private citizens) than Obama.
Back to the topic of bundlers, we now know that Obama has a total donor list of something like 1.2 million unique donors. Assuming half the money is from bundlers, and each bundler averaged, say, 100 people, that means there are 60,000+ bundlers working for Obama, or one in every 5,000 U.S. citizens. Color me incredulous.
"As a Democrat, I am tired of the overwhelming influence corporations have in our government, and would like to see that end."
And that's why you're going to vote for a Democrat who has received more money from corporations than McCain?
Interesting, too, that the Bush administration signed into law the most draconian regulation of corporations in decades (Sarbanes-Oxley) and that the Bush Justice Department also meted out the harshest sentences for corporate crimes in history (crimes that were committed during the previous Democratic administration, no less).
Fred - or rather, let me start by saying "look, stupid" - the goal of government regulation is to get bribes, and also to use inconsistent enforcement to keep people in line.
None of that "corporation regulation" you babble about is relevant. What matters is that Bush and Cheney have handed billions to their corporate cronies, and launched wars designed to benefit their corporate cronies.
You might be correct that a lot of corporate crimes occurred during a Democratic administration - that wouldn't surprise me in the least. Both parties are corrupt to the core.
But to suggest that McCain isn't just another corrupt politician - along with Clinton - is just stupid. Obama at least is getting most of his campaign money from smaller outfits - probably people who really think he's going to make a difference with regards to their pet causes - which only shows how stupid they are.
Comments closed April 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"After all, what matters is sticking with pre-set narratives, not offering new information."
Here's some new information for you, Matt: WSJ: "Business Donors Bypass McCain". Good luck hawking the meme that McCain is in hock to corporate lobbyists when, as the WSJ article notes,
And,
Posted by Fred | April 4, 2008 1:37 PM