I can only think that there was some polling done that showed that in people's minds, "lobbyist" = "Abramoff" and they developed a plan identifying the things they can do to get as far away from that as possible.

This is one of those things that we have to trust that they don't really mean what they say, but I believe a lot of damage is being done in the meantime. How and how is the good lobbying going to be repaired?

I think this is all much ado about nothing. Obama had a rule, no lobbyists. How do you think it would look if he says, "Well, this lobbyist is ok because of X,Y,Z."

And while I agree with you that the issue isn't lobbyists, it's corrupt politicians, most Americans don't think that way.

I understand your point, but this is such a strained understanding of the situation. Is the problem the access lobbyists get to politicians? Or is the problem the effect of money on politics? There isn't a workable option to money in politics so all we can do is change the manner in which it is delivered. This is a window dressing change at best, and at worst it stymies that which we value the most, the involvement of those who have difficulty being involved otherwise. Most people cannot afford 10k to meet Obama by themselves, but by sidelining PACs and lobbyists, now those are the only people that can meet with him.

Either they have done this merely superficially as a campaign tactic or they actually believe that lobbying groups are bad for democracy.

If its the former, well, that's a position without an ideal, and we know how well those stand up over time. Additionally, its awfully cynical for a campaign built on hope. If its the latter, then that is a condemnation of representative democracy (lobbying by a paid lobbyist, not that different from that as a Congressman). Why run for President if you don't believe it is just and right for one person to stand in for the views of a group of others who pay him for that purpose?

I suppose the distinction one would make is that a politician has ideas that then attracts followers, whereas a lobbying group has ideas and then finds someone to voice them. However, I don't think Obama invented hope, he just got in front of a large group of people who all felt that he embodied what they already believed in...which model does that sound more like?

I have been informed that the above is a bit of a polemic. I really want Georgia to be blue in November and my frustration occasionally boils over. My apologies to those that were offended.

People were offended? Once again, politics is a contact sport.

"Is the problem the access lobbyists get to politicians? Or is the problem the effect of money on politics?"

To me the problem is neither. The problem is the people, the politicians. You can either resist a donation for a bullshit vote or you can't. But politics will always attract people in it for the money and power, so I suppose you've got to cut off or at least limit the extent to which a politican can be bought. And I think it's the money, not the access.

"Why run for President if you don't believe it is just and right for one person to stand in for the views of a group of others who pay him for that purpose?"

I get your point. I do. But are we really to believe that if a lobbyist for the environmentalists, pro-choice people, union folks isn't allowed access to Obama, that he's going to vote against their interests?

You either trust him to do the right thing or you don't.

Or maybe I view the whole thing a bit too simply.

This is probably about the only forum in which I can see political professionals *defended* for the way the system has turned out.

I don't do one dollar, one vote democracy, no matter where that dollar comes from.

Also, hate to tell you all, but *any* position can be justified for the benefit of access. One day, Tissue Regeneration is all about stem cell research and science (which I like), and tomorrow it is all about covering up some colossal fuck-up that the FDA is all angry about.

Defense companies can protest that they protect soldiers and high-paying jobs. Oil companies can say they are out to keep the lights on and get us away from foreign dependence. Real estate people can convince politicians (and apparently the Supreme Court) that government meddling with property can increase tax revenue.

Force the coziness and one-on-one out of politics and require politicians to maximize their time in their districts. Also, it is much easier to claim the such-and-such lobby (such as the "abortion lobby") is doing horrible things than hundreds and thousands of women that have made a real and difficult choice.

Removing lobbyists also makes it harder for Astroturf to look like grass-roots.

Cleland is a hero to Georgia Democrats as well as Democrats throughout the country.

This situation looks bad for Obama. There's no positive way to spin this.

Cleland himself said he's not offended.

Policy says no lobbyists, he's now a lobbyist.

Same as Phil Gramm, same as Trent Lott, same as Tom Downey.

It's one part of playing the game differently that I'm behind. Note that he's also got MoveOn.org and other 527's benched.

Cleland himself said he's not offended.

Policy says no lobbyists, he's now a lobbyist.

Same as Phil Gramm, same as Trent Lott, same as Tom Downey.

It's one part of playing the game differently that I'm behind. Note that he's also got MoveOn.org and other 527's benched.

RuralDem, you don't think you're over-reacting a bit?

What? About Cleland being a hero? Certainly not.

Does it look bad? Yeah.

I thought my post was nice compared to what it could have been!

I was referring to this statement, "There's no positive way to spin this."

What's wrong with that? I don't really think that's over-reacting.

I didn't say it'd cause him to lose or anything.

As always, this discussion starts out about campaign donations, but ends up talking about incumbent politician behavior. I think there is a distinct difference. But maybe I'm naive.

BTW, Fox News just had a "lobbyists aren't all that bad" feature story. It looks like they used their newest, youngest talking head to make the claim as well.

I also find it funny that McCain "has purged his campaign of lobbyists." And by "purged," we of course mean in the same sense that Sen. Gramm has been "disassociated" from the campaign.

And yes, anytime that Fox News tell me the sky is blue, I immediately take a color-blindedness test.

For a long time the Obama campaign has had this rule they're just being consistent. If they were inconsistent the GOP would've hit them hard on it.

The mistake they made was to invite him then disinvite him. They should've acted more competently.

"Cleland is a hero to Georgia Democrats as well as Democrats throughout the country."

I like Cleland, a friend of mine drives for him, but I don't know if he's a hero for Democrats throughout the country whatever that means. What's his best accomplishment, voting to authorize war powers for an illegal war then losing the election anyway?

Zaid,

Maybe you're not familiar with what happened in 2002.

Anyway, Cleland's actually spoken throughout the country since 2002 and I believe Democrats from all over like him.

Besides, his service to our country and losing his limbs because of it is worthy of labeling him a hero.

I'm sure you'll find a problem with that though.

In 2004, Max traveled extensively on behalf of Kerry's campaign, including a stunt at the ranch in Crawford. He introduced Kerry at the convention. In 2006, he continued to travel across the country on behalf of many House challengers. He has been very active in the Democratic Veterans groups and has been on Air America and other national shows. To say his name in many circles is to remind Democrats of some of the worst of Rovian tactics. He was attacked for not being patriotic enough among other things.

Oh, I should have mentioned that he was honored at the JJ Dinner this year and John Kerry did the introduction via video. Yes, I would say he is easily recognized and respected for working on behalf of the party.

JerryT,

"As always, this discussion starts out about campaign donations, but ends up talking about incumbent politician behavior. I think there is a distinct difference."

What's the difference to you? Not being snarky, just curious.

I definitely think there's a difference, but I think the bigger problem is the latter (which is probably why I always gravitate towards it).

And related to odinseye2k's comment about FauxNews running a story about lobbyists, there were two ways this could have gone down.

1) Obama decides to make an exception to his "no lobbyist" rule for Cleland. FauxNews and other MSM outlets jump on Obama's flip-flop and other policy change!!1! They won't talk about how Cleland's a war hero.

2) Obama disinvites Cleland and follows the same path he is now. What happens? FauxNews runs a story on how lobbyists aren't that bad.. which is what many here have been screaming about for weeks.

I absolutely agree that the bigger problem is the latter. That's why it's annoying that campaign donations get lumped in with lobbying legislators. For campaign contributions, lobbyists are just like everybody else; with the same limits to what they can donate.

I think it' a P.R. thing, but a clumsy one. Fortunately, the Repubs have taken the bait and they are scrambling to distance themselves from evil lobbyists too. They must have the same polling.

The FauxNews story cited a pew poll that said only about 4% of the population considers lobbying an honest profession.

Used car salesmen are thought of as more beneficial to society.

"I absolutely agree that the bigger problem is the latter. That's why it's annoying that campaign donations get lumped in with lobbying legislators."

They are closely related problems in my mind. There is a wide gulf between "lobbying legislators" and those that do this thing as a career. This pushes politics toward an upper-middle and upper class activity. It makes it easier for the professional guild to separate itself and groupthink outside of what the popular base desires.

And I say the above as someone whose attitudes toward the masses would probably qualify him as a Republican, but I do believe there needs to be at least one forum where the elite at least hear the needs of the rest without a filter.

Well, a few points. First off, I just love Max, and think he is a hero and has shown courage talking about his PTSD. In short, he is one of my favorite Democrats. But clearly, Obama has a policy that has been in place since 2007, and it would be a mistake to make exceptions for "favored" lobbyists. Either you're against lobbyist fundraising or not. Obama is against it.

I also think you very casually speak of who Max is lobbying for: a company that may possibly get a contract with the government in the future. A company doing perhaps fine work but for a profit, not just out of the kindness of their hearts. So I find it "curious" that you are so mad about this, by overplaying a "snub" (Max had NO PROBLEM with the disinvite given the reason) and underplaying his role as a lobbyist.

I disagree strongly that lobbying somehow automatically separates normal people from some elite class. I think it is just the opposite. Corporations are DESIGNED to be organized, and there are trade associations and Chambers of Commerce and all sorts of groups looking out for their interests. Corporations will get a seat at the table no matter what the lobbying rules are. Having a lobby system is what allows the rest of us to get our voice heard. It's just practicality. A legislator can't really respond to 80,000 separate voices in their constituency, but if a group can get itself organized enough to speak for, say, 5000 of them, it begins to hit the radar screen, as it should. The only reason lobbying is evil is because we on the left don't spend enough of our money or our time with the groups we should.

We know Chevron's got guys up there advocating drilling in ANWR, but what are we saying, we don't want the Sierra Club to be able to afford to do the studies and surveys and technical analyses to counter that?

I also don't agree that "Either you're against lobbyist fundraising or not". You could be against corporate lobbyist fundraising. You could be against lobbyist fundraiser bundling. You could be against just defense contractor lobbyist fundraising if you want. It's a very broad brush that has been painted, but in the end, I expect Obama to be responsive to progressive interests and I also expect that he will need lobbyists to do some of the work necessary to illuminate the dark corners of complicated issues.

beachmom - Welcome! It's good to see you jumping in down here.

This whole thing has gotten blown out of proportion BECAUSE of the strong feelings most of us have for Max.

It is what it is....

Actually, I feel strongly about it because of my support for Choice,Environmental issues, civil justice and other important issues represented by PACs and lobbyists.

"You are either against 'lobbyist fundraising' or not"

That's an oversimplification and I think you know it. Does the company he works for want a government contract? Yeah, and if you deny him admission the CEO of the company can just as easily stand in his place for 10k. However, if you deny access to the lobbyist for the gray wolf, there isn't anyone there to take his place.

People say we should "trust" the candidate, but it isn't going to be, well they want to do this, but I know there are a ton of people out there who wouldn't want me to make that decision if they knew about it. so I will not. Obama needs those people. This is a constant campaign, look at the social security issue of 2005.

You think he just hates lobbyists or do you think the polls show people hate lobbyists and therefore he is keeping them out.

The problem is policies driven by polls rather than ideas.

You want to attack McCain for being lobbyist friendly and you are worried the effectiveness will be diminished if there are lobbysists in pictures with you. Fine. Okay, but still, this was a bit of a gaffe.

JerryT,

"I also don't agree that "Either you're against lobbyist fundraising or not". You could be against corporate lobbyist fundraising."

I don't think this was directed towards me, but if it was.. I certainly didn't intend to imply that.

"but what are we saying, we don't want the Sierra Club to be able to afford to do the studies and surveys and technical analyses to counter that?"

No one is saying that. Sierra Club would still be free to fundraise and conduct environmental studies. Instead of "behind closed door" lobbying from both Sierra Club and Corporations who want to drill up the Earth, I'd rather have hearings on whatever the issue is (but I won't hold my breath on that).

I agree with you that lobbying has a place in our representative democracy because yes, a lobbyist can be an effective representative for hundreds / thousands of people or even a minority view point. I just struggle with lobbyists' proper place.

"I just struggle with lobbyists proper place."

Which is why should worry less about the quid and more about the pro-quo...

Jen B.,

I think you've got a good amount of the point.

Lobbyists serve as a single point (or very few) of contact to a politician.

Yes, the CEO can replace his lobbyist as the speaker with a lawmaker. In fact, I welcome this because the CEO has more limited time and he has to establish trust and rapport himself rather than a someone that is well known in Washington but is invisible to the press.

Any small group can slap together some cash and point out a point man. This makes a person that represents 10 people equivalent to someone that represents 10,000.

Get the point man out of the way, and the difference between 10 and 10,000 becomes quite obvious.

With a single person as the contact, it is a lot easier to hide from that difference and establish a false balance.

I'm sure there are psychological effects and biases on decision making at work here. There is probably an analogy to the choice between pushing a fat man off a bridge to save five people and flipping a switch to kill one and save five.

When your system is designed to be representative, additional layers between the representer and the represented are going to work against the intent.

"The only reason lobbying is evil is because we on the left don't spend enough of our money or our time with the groups we should."

Well, the pragmatic argument would be that since lobbyists are already demonized, and we on the left are weaker in the lobbying world than the right, then we should certainly work to be sure they stay demonized, yes?

No jen, that was responding to Beachmom. :-)

But anyway Jen, you point out the difficult part of all this. The campaign is painting with such a broad brush and further demonizing lobbying, which I would thing almost certainly will serve to reduce contributions to organizations who are known to lobby. If the campaign doesn't believe people are able or willing to make the distinction between "corporate lobbyists" and "issue lobbyists" then why should we believe that those same people are able or willing to think of the Sierra Club as anything but substantially evil?This is the damage that is being done by taking this path that will have to be repaired.

And Odin, I suppose "our" lobbying is weaker on some level, but I look at the top 10 lobbying organizations at opensecrets.org and 7 or maybe 8 of them are "ours".

I can accept this as a campaign tactic (even though I disagree with it). I would just ask that people not get too wrapped up in trying to defend some "good government" principle to the point that it gets a lot harder for the good guys to do their work in the future. And I am certain that it could get a lot worse if we are not careful. That would suck.

I personally don't find Sierra Club lobbyists menacing or Cleland's group mentioned to be bad, but it's a matter of ideological consistency to please both sides of the aisle to block out all lobbyists, not just let in the ones you agree with.

If he had AFLCIO lobbyists tailing him and banned Bear Sterns lobbyists, I'm pretty sure he'd be lampooned in every right wing radio broadcast.

I wish that we could have it so only the "good" lobbyists were let in, while the "bad" ones were left out. The problem with that, is that everyone will have a different definition of what is good and what is bad. I realize, my statement about lobbyists fundraising is quite strong, but this is the policy Obama set. Even if you disagree with it, he would look very foolish and inconsistent to make exceptions for lobbyists he liked. Given the two choices, I think he chose the right way, even given the difficulty of that choice of disinviting Max.

So what if everybody has a different definition?
There is only one definition of what "good" lobbyists and "bad" lobbyists are that matters in this case; Barack Obama's, and he has made that choice already- they are ALL bad.

If I were a candidate, I would take money from anybody and everybody. I would even take money from Glenn Richardson if he wanted to send it to me. But in accepting it, I would take the opportunity to state clearly and strongly that the contribution buys nothing.

It seems to me that if you can't trust someone to NOT be influenced by contributions - there are a lot more problems with the candidacy than whether they take lobbyists money.

"It seems to me that if you can't trust someone to NOT be influenced by contributions - there are a lot more problems with the candidacy than whether they take lobbyists money."

Everyone is influenced by contributions its how the American political system works outside of completley publicly financed campaigns (which are mostly in some city and state level races).

Why do you think Obama's healthcare plan is far to the right of what people have shown to want through public opinion studies (single payer). He gets more money from the HMO employees and doctors than even McCain. There's a link there.