White House Discloses Two More Lobbyist Waivers Granted

ABC News:

The White House Tuesday evening disclosed that almost three weeks ago the Obama administration granted ethics wavers for two additional officials who had previously worked as lobbyists. On February 20 the administration signed waivers for Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women & Families, and Cecilia Muñoz, the former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza, allowing them to work on issues for which they lobbied.

These two are in addition to deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist whose waiver was granted two days after President Obama announced on January 21 what he heralded as the most sweeping ethics rules in American history -- ones that would "close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely."

Read the whole story: ABC News

Comments

[vietveter]

Say hello to the new boss

same as the old boss

EARTH TO AMERICA...­...... change is NOT the other side of the same coin

What happened to the LAW?

[roma1]

No Warvet, he promised to uphold the constitution. You know, THE LAW OF THE LAND!!!!

[isthisajoke]

It all depends on what "is" is.... remember??? do as I say, not as I do!

[jsgaetano]

With right wingers, hiring lobbyists is the rule, rather than the exception.

It's really amusing how they are now whipping out the phony outrage, considering they've argued loudly against any sort of ethical standards on anything.

[Ohsherrie]

And besides that there's a huge difference between lobbiests for the National Partnership for Women & Families and the National Council of La Raza and the Financial, Gun, Drug, Oil, Insurance and Tobacco lobbies that own the repugs.

[DerekRC]

Typical Democrat. Make promises that defy logic. Contradict those promises with your actions(earmarks, lobbyists, Iraq etc...) and withstand minimal coverage by in-the-bag media.

Barack Obama has managed to triple the deficit in 2 months with his endless bailouts and absurd stimulus package that does nothing but fill the coffers of Democratic pet projects.

Where is the outrage of "placing the burden on our gradchildren"?

[Maloysius]

The story is about lobbyists not the stimulus.

3 waivers out of 800 hires is not bad. Bush did not even make an effort. He had Halliburton/KBR's biggest lobbyist and former chairman of the board sitting right behind him during state of the union speeches. I'd rather see a president make an effort and have to make an exception every 300 hires than have McCain and the army of lobbyists who ran his campaign take over the government. He said he would make Phil "Enron Loophole Gramm, a UBS lobbyist, the Secretary of the Treasury! Charlie Black lobbying from the campaign bus! Randy Scheunemann lobbyist for Georgia advising on foreign affairs!

And since you mentioned the economy, Bush inherited a surplus and 21 million new jobs from Clinton and managed to run the biggest deficits in the history of mankind while wiping out 40% of market capital. Nearly 90% of Americans believe that Obama inherited an economy destroyed by Bush. They elected him to fix. You don't like it. Run for office yourself.

[2warvet]

However, Bush did not promise that he would not use lobbyists.

[jsgaetano]

Obama tripled the deficit? What color is the sky in your world?

Barry is going to have to do a TON more spending to catch up to GWB, the "fiscal conservative" poster-child. GWB outspent every president before him, COMBINED. There's no way Obama can ever match that.

[ammonman]

The problem is that politicians have to speak in sound bites that the American public can understand and easily support. People hear "earmarks" and "lobbyists" and think "bad!" And 90% of the time, this is true. However, non-profit organizations that work to represent the poor, the disabled, etc. are not at all bad. And if there were no earmarks in the stimulus bill, who would decide where the money went and how? Sometimes, earmarks can lay out in detail the specifics of an otherwise blank check.

[aliceinks]

I see a lot of excuses being made here. I could get behind you if he hadn't promised, "No lobbyists will be in MY WH." He didn't say, oh, we may have to grant waivers to some or ignore others that were. Period.

[IndependentPAVoter]

Your reaching now. We all know he was speaking of corporate lobbyists. Nice try though.

[jsking2110]

oh, so only corporate lobbyists? When did he say that?

[Maloysius]

4 posts earlier you wrote:

"Are you kidding me? This is a joke, yes? Is this what we voted for....mor­e LIES and LIES??
A one term president is looking more more possible. What a way to screw it up."

And now you are saying, "I could get behind you if ..."

That have medication for this you know.

[Renee27]

the National Council of La Raza and National Partnership for Women & Families is considered to be lobbying groups? Personally I am not frighten by those two groups, they help average Americans.

I consider greedy corporate lobbyist to be a threat to society not community service/organizing groups.

[LorettaSingbiel]

Well what a surprise that Rushpublicans are up in arms about community service/organizing groups getting lobbyist waivers ... afterall, their reformer Palin and maverick McCain DEMEANED & DEGRADED Obama for being a "Community Organizer" himself.

I'm PROUD to have voted for our President, and WILL vote for him again in 2012!

[OverIt]

We are still talking a handful of waivers as oppposed to hundreds if not thousands of Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big (fill in the blank) lobbyists who RAN things under Bush. And besides, these two were GOOD lobbyists representing American families and disadvantaged groups. So I'm not losing any sleep over their waivers!

[scjk67]

read the article tro//s before you spew out ignorant comments. Obama will hire them only if they're FORMER lobbyist, he will NOT hire them if they are STILL lobbying.

[aliceinks]

Are you kidding me? This is a joke, yes? Is this what we voted for....mor­e LIES and LIES??
A one term president is looking more more possible. What a way to screw it up.

WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR THEM TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES???

[tjc7513]

Change we can believe in. @ more lobbiest, tax dodger running IRS. Urban Czar taking brib fron archeitect. Tom the tax dodger. Media who cover him in election taking government jobs....on and on.....mor­e change...

[jtown]

So what, they did not lobby for big business, this is a non issue, people please don't read into things that are not there, this is really not an issue.

[lowgear]

bho:

No lobbyists, well OK just a few.

No EARMARKS in stimulus bill, well OK but ONLY 9000.

NO EARMARKS in Omnibus bill, well OK, but we'll talk about reforms LATER.

Out of Iraq, well OK maybe NOT.

My administraction will be the most transparent, we OK maybe NOT so much.

a man true to his word.

[Gidster]

A man who has to run a government with the materials at hand.

Your dismissal out of hand for anything Obama might do shows your willingness to put your ideology ahead of America.

Earmarks are not the same as pork. Targeted spending is how schools get upgraded, national monuments get repaired, public facilities get improved.

Pork is spending on local projects that benefit few, or that benefit special interests.
McCain's earmark, the purchase of land around an Air Force base that provided a windfall for an Arizona developer whose executives were major campaign donors, That is pork.

It took Bush 8 years to break it, Obama has been at it for 50 days......­..

[tjc7513]

Or maybe want some one to be honest for a REAL change....

[jsking2110]

he said no earmarks. didn't he?

[bluemike]

Just another lying politician.