More

David Axelrod: Obama's Fundraising Rules Still Better Than Anything Republicans Have

First Posted: 10/30/11 01:49 PM ET Updated: 10/30/11 02:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's policy of fully disclosing the list of his top supporters who bundle campaign cash is ironically responsible for a recent New York Times story hitting him for taking contributions from people who are effectively lobbyists, despite a campaign pledge to shun such money.

"At least 15 of Mr. Obama's 'bundlers' -- supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and solicit it from others -- are involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies. They have raised more than $5 million so far for the campaign," the Times reported on Friday. The story noted that the 15 are not registered lobbyists.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Obama, told CNN on Sunday that it was the president's own practice of disclosing his bundlers' names that made the story possible. Republican candidates, who have not sworn off cash from registered lobbyists, are likely signing up bundlers from the same crowd, but voters won't be able to find out as long as they decline to disclose the information.

"Everyone should understand the reason why The New York Times can write that story is because the president is disclosing everyone who raises money for him. None of the Republican candidates are willing to do that," Axelrod said.

In voluntarily banning lobbyists from donating to his campaign, Obama raises the question of just who counts as a lobbyist. The campaign defines a lobbyist as someone who registers with the federal government as one, but a shadow industry of unregistered lobbyists exists in Washington, as people avoid registering under complex federal rules.

"You have people who really are, by any stretch of the imagination, lobbying Congress, lobbying the White House. They are lobbyists and they are bundlers -- that is, they ask other people to give money," CNN's Candy Crowley pointed out.

Axelrod defended the administration by arguing that, since no law requires that bundlers not be lobbyists, whatever steps Obama takes are better than nothing.

"The president has imposed on himself a ban on taking contributions from federal lobbyists. He has imposed on himself a ban from taking money from political action committees. But more importantly as president, he has ended the revolving door between industry and the government so he doesn't hire lobbyists to come in. The last administration you saw lobbyists come in, write the rules, write the laws, then go back to their jobs in industry. That is not going on right now. This is a profound change," Axelrod said.

In fact, some top White House officials have been exempted from that rule. Obama's chief of staff, William Daley, was a lobbyist for JPMorgan Chase, for instance.

"So we can quibble about issues like this, but when you look at the substance of what he's done, he's gone so much farther than anybody has ever gone before. Is it perfect? It's not perfect, Candy. We are not in a perfect political system," Axelrod said. "So it is not a perfect system. But is he better than anybody has ever been before on this? Has he made a real difference on this? Absolutely."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's policy of fully disclosing the list of his top supporters who bundle campaign cash is ironically responsible for a recent New York Times story hitting him for ta...
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's policy of fully disclosing the list of his top supporters who bundle campaign cash is ironically responsible for a recent New York Times story hitting him for ta...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,186
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (30 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mulebone
You're heavy, and I'm not your Brother
03:56 PM on 10/31/2011
I wish the people who are giving money to the Obama campaign would acquaint themselves with these facts:

“83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BeckyJustice
Stop the frickin Fracking. NOW!
04:39 PM on 10/31/2011
You have been listening to Republicans again? I tried to do a search on your items. funny thing was, the search turned up only Republican sources, so I decided to go right to the 'source' they were, uh, er, gasp, 'Quoting?'

Guess what. The FBI has NO such data. In fact, here is a list of all their statistics. Check for yourself.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010

Seems like it should be against the law to falsly quote the FBI. You may not want to be a part of such deceit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mulebone
You're heavy, and I'm not your Brother
05:07 PM on 10/31/2011
First of all, all you've done is list the url of the FBI website.

Not the way sourcing works, I'm afraid ... at least here in North America.

But let's play with this a little...

What does it matter to you if the stats are accurate or not? Are you going to change your demand for amnesty if I show they are accurate? (Which they are)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
06:35 PM on 11/01/2011
Assuming that your data is accurate, it only supports Obama focusing our limited resources on violent illegals instead of going after children and crop-pickers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mulebone
You're heavy, and I'm not your Brother
11:59 AM on 10/31/2011
Down below someone wrote that amnesty is the only practicable solution to the 30 million illegals within our borders because deporting them would bankrupt the country. Don't laugh. That's a canard promoted by La Raza and other pro-amnesty groups as a slam-dunk argument for amnesty.

And who among us can't help wondering whether that was the plan all along -- to get so many illegals here that it would impractical to deport them all.

History suggests differently.

In 1954 Eisenhower deported one-million illegals with this surprising result -- a million more self-deported rather than risk incarceration and forceable removal.

The second easily dismissed point the poster below makes is that in Alabama the new harsh law has had a devastating effect on the economy because across the state harvests are going unpicked. Well, this may well be, but the deception in this argument is the implication that the bulk of Alabama's illegals are farm workers. Not so.

A good illustration of how false this claim is is New York and New Jersey.

New York has over 650,000 illegals while New Jersey has 450,000.

Indeed, of the nine states with the highest illegal population, only three of them are border states where massive amounts of illegals are required to work farms.

In other words, when La Raza portrays the typical illegal as a lettuce picker they are engaging in deception and fraud. Likewise, when our President repeats their rhetoric, so is he.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BeckyJustice
Stop the frickin Fracking. NOW!
06:07 PM on 10/31/2011
And, "Civil rights violationsThere were widespread allegations of abuse against Mexicans and US citizens of Mexican descent, including harassment and beatings.[3] Lawsuits were filed and settled in favor of victims.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

You have to wonder how much that cost the Taxpayers?

Then, on Alabama's new laws on Immigration.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Immigration-law-author-tells-farmers-No-changes-2200451.php

"STEELE, Ala. (AP) — A sponsor of Alabama's tough new immigration law told desperate tomato farmers Monday that he won't change the law, even though they told him that their crops are rotting in the field and they are at risk of losing their farms."

All that for this?
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-26/opinion/opinion_raines-alabama-immigration_1_illegal-immigrants-immigration-legislation-alabama-law?_s=PM:OPINION
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:25 AM on 10/31/2011
a great shot of our president -
the coolest man on the planet.

gives mick jagger a run for the money.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
11:14 AM on 10/31/2011
Ummm, people? President Obama is making it transparent who he is getting funds from. A big deal if you look at what the republicans are doing. He has supported changing campaign financing rules to end the corruption in elections. What do you want him to do? A background check of every donor? These false equivalencies are such baloney. There is a BIG difference between the two parties. His policies have, with one exception, been geared towards helping the middle class and the poor. They have all been obstructed by the Republicans.......
Mickey1
Some things I know, and some things I don't.
11:29 AM on 10/31/2011
Bill Moyers on a Democracy in Shambles: "Money First, People Second... If At All"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIQ5-W1Epw&feature=player_embedded#!

Populist Patriots not Pillaging Plutocrats
Ron Paul / Bernie Sanders 2012
Bernie Sanders / Ron Paul 2012
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citizen of the universe
"Lois, Mom, Mama, Mommie, Ma"
11:32 AM on 10/31/2011
"Ron Paul / Bernie Sanders 2012"

Wasted vote!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
11:34 AM on 10/31/2011
Ask Bernie Sanders who he thinks should be president in 2012.....Obama is a pragmatists. Sometimes that is hard for idealists to deal with. But he is trying to move this country in the right direction with huge constraints - namely the republican obstructionism.....
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
dawlishgal
10:21 PM on 10/31/2011
A top congressional aide who ought to know told me that the Democratic Party leaders held meetings in early 2007 (the year BEFORE the last election) at which it was already decided that the Party would move far to the right and progressives would still have to vote for it. Afterall, (I was told), "who else are you going to vote for." THIS, for me, was the background of the last election....I supported Obama with my time, money and enthusiasm because I thought he was out of the DLC leadership loop. Imagine my dismay, when I saw his choices for his cabinet and the rest of his administration. All of those fusty old DLCers, Wall Street crooks who hadn't even paid their taxes, and even a few Republicans. I knew even then that Obama had been part of the con with all of his promises for "change." If he had intended to make changes, he would have chosen people who were not only capable of initiating change, but actually wanted to make changes. But he didn't. He has consistently failed to defend himself from charges of "socialism" or :"communism." Instead, he moves his policies closer to those who make the charges, apparently in the hopes that if he capitulates sufficiently, eventually they'll stop making up stuff about him. It is as though he is NEVER going to catch on and become a real leader.
11:14 AM on 10/31/2011
President Obama is going to win his second term as President and I think he will do it decisively, not because he's such a great leader but because the Republicans can't field a candidate that can compete with President Obama. I hope his second term is more successful than his first.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
11:26 AM on 10/31/2011
His first term was not as successful as it should have been because the republicans have actively worked to undermine all of his policies. They have used unprecedented obstructionism to block his fiscal policies EVEN when they were policies they had only weeks before supported. Obama didn't fail. The republicans committed T-REESON....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pinouye
11:08 AM on 10/31/2011
"Everyone should understand the reason why The New York Times can write that story is because the president is disclosing everyone who raises money for him. None of the Republican candidates are willing to do that," Axelrod said.

Are you kidding me? So the President (or should I say Candidate Obama) pledged NOT to take money from lobbyists, he breaks that pledge, and now Axelrod wants to say "look over there at the Republicans"??? The real simple thing to say is that President Obama did break that pledge, period, then explain why he did so. Throwing up this smoke and mirrors about looking at the other side is just plain dumb! People voted for Obama because of his "Hope and Change" mantra, and it is acts like this that show he is just another politician with a handout for $$$.
photo
PrimusElijah
Serial; semi-colon abuser
11:19 AM on 10/31/2011
Another politician wouldn't even have disclosed this information. Have you also noticed that of those 15 people, none of them are actually registered lobbyist. It seems we expect perfection out of this man. That is just not a reasonable expectation for anyone. He's the best at this type of disclosure in our history. Sorry if that isn't good enough for you!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
11:30 AM on 10/31/2011
Exactly. Another example of the media taking a story and trying to portray some kind of false equivalency with the republicans. F&F
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pinouye
12:04 PM on 10/31/2011
I don't expect perfection...I expect him to keep his word. If this was such a non-story, the Axelrod would not be trying to change the subject!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
11:22 AM on 10/31/2011
He took no money from registered lobbyists........you can see precisely who is donating to his campaign. It is transparent. Now go take a look at the republican side......what is he supposed to run with no money? What do you want him to do??
photo
jazgr8
Ok, I give up, you win.
11:53 AM on 10/31/2011
Yes, you can see precisely who is donating to his campaign. Lobbyists who are technically not lobbyists because they are not technically not registered at lobbyists. According to Axelrod, this should be a positive because even though in reality they are not doing what they promised to do, they are being "transparent" about it.

What I would like him to do is stop listening to people like Axelrod and go with his fundamental, personal instincts.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
behindEnemyLines
Put down the talking point pamphlet.
11:08 AM on 10/31/2011
So it was Obama's confirmation that he broke his campaign promise that made a story about him breaking a campaign promise possible.... um ok, thanks for that David.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Timo Love
11:06 AM on 10/31/2011
OWS = get big money out of our corrupt political system.
11:00 AM on 10/31/2011
Someone has to pay for the Hope and Change. Too bad our Great Great Grand Children will still be paying for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
11:37 AM on 10/31/2011
No, they will be paying for the Bush wars and tax cuts.....and do you know why? Because republican obstructionism has made it impossible for the dems to pass any fixes. Obstructionism at the detriment of the country for the benefit of their party. It is shameful....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mdmccormick
I am tired of this BS
10:59 AM on 10/31/2011
I agree it is change, is it change I can believe in? Not so much, however I am left with the alternative of small change in the right direction to massive change in the wrong direction what is my choice to be? As with the last presidential election I am forced to vote against the alternative but it does not make my vote for the President. I will instead concentrate on the races for the House and Senate and hope to get those who would work for the American People.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sposton
right to tell what they don't want to hear
10:56 AM on 10/31/2011
We will have to learn how to vote for alternative candidates en masse. Those who usually vote for Republicans ought to vote for someone who has not been anointed by kleptocracy, perhaps someone like Ron Paul, while those who usually vote for Democrats ought to vote for someone like Kucinich or Sanders. Both camps need to learn how to stop voting for the same pre-vetted and pre-selected, utterly bought kleptocratic candidates. If we don't learn how to do this we are done. How can we expect any real change by voting for Obama or whoever is the GOP candidate? Do you know how they get us? They scare us into voting for Obama by the prospect of a GOP candidate winning, and the inverse is true for the other side! For how long are we going to continue with this charade?

There are millions of Americans who believe that Obama will save us or that whoever is the GOP candidate will save us. How naive is that?
11:08 AM on 10/31/2011
I have written in third party candidates on occasion, when I knew my vote didn't count anyway because I voted blue in a red state (or vice versa). It didn't change anything. Those who did it in FL in 2000 cost Gore that election. And cost the country it's health, well being, economy and future. (I could get away with it in CO but it cost us in FL.)

Yes, I'm disappointed in the Obama Admin for a lot of reasons. But I'm APPALLED at Congressional Republicans and candidates! And terrified by them, as I was by W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Palin, et al.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sposton
right to tell what they don't want to hear
11:27 AM on 10/31/2011
We need to get rid off "winner takes all" electoral method and replace it with something better which would allow you to vote your conscience without ending up with the least desirable candidate as the result of your voting your conscience.
photo
PrimusElijah
Serial; semi-colon abuser
11:24 AM on 10/31/2011
Ron Paul may not be an establishment candidate but it has some rather nutty ideas. The American People are going to vote en masse for any third party candidate until we get campaign finance regulations in order and that isn't going to happen with the Roberts Supreme Court. No man is going to save us, but we can be inspired to save ourselves.
What I know is there is one party who's rigid platform offers no real solutions. That's the GOP. Also, what clout would a third party president really have if there's no one to back them up in congress?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sposton
right to tell what they don't want to hear
11:43 AM on 10/31/2011
I am not advocating for everyone to vote for Ron Paul. I am merely using him as an example of someone who is clearly not a choice of kleptocracy and could satisfy many on the right of the political spectrum. The point is to stop voting for preselected kleptocratic candidates of either party.

I agree that no one person can save us but voting for kleptocratic candidates assures a victory for the thieving system. Yes, we need campaign finance reform but we can't just wait for it while continuing to vote for preselected candidates.

It goes without saying that we must also change whom we are electing to Congress. The same principles apply there. We are currently electing those who can raise millions without any thought given to the fact that when you raise millions from kleptocracy you sell your soul to them. Why should I vote for people who will end up representing 1/10 of 1% of the population?

All reforms must start with an individual asking herself what she can do differently to bring about the necessary change. This doesn't just apply to the Left but to people across the political spectrum. We cannot change people to vote the way we would like to vote because people have natural political affinities. What we need to do is to be able to vote our conscience without this action ending up electing what is for us the worse option. "Winner takes all" must go.
EndTheGOP
Smedley Butler is ashamed of us.
10:49 AM on 10/31/2011
Wow, you mean another broken promise? Shocked, shocked, I say! The man is a shameless corporatist, that is his only loyalty, unfortunately. He's talking the talk now, just to get enough votes for 2012, but I'll believe him when he starts walking the walk. He can start that walk in Wisconsin.
10:45 AM on 10/31/2011
Dems utilize good lobbyist that advocate for good & worthy causes.

repubs utilize bad lobbyist that advocate for bad & unworthy causes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Logicalthinker10
Meet the new boss, the same as the old one.
10:59 AM on 10/31/2011
You are right. Dems are using Goldman to give more money to the poor, while Republicans are using Goldman to benefit the banks. Are Americans really this dumb and delusional?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pinouye
11:09 AM on 10/31/2011
Solyndra ring a bell? $500 Million down the drain.
11:40 AM on 10/31/2011
No it doesn't but the new #1 car co. General Motors does--1.4 million jobs saved & created by Pres. Obama's decision to loan GM money
- Let's see...does ObamaMotors ring a bell? - LOL -
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/05/gm-reclaims-crown-as-no-1-global-car-company/

BUT the lies of bush to invade Iraq certainly rings a bell...3 TRILLION down the drain along with the 20 Battalions of USGI's.

Oh wait! you mean this Solyndra?...Republican donors and allies had invested in Solyndra. That is probably the motivation for the Bush administration’s support of Solyndra. So the loan originated during the Bush administration and was passed along for renewal to the Obama administration.
LINK:
http://themoderatevoice.com/122532/solyndra-and-bush/
10:45 AM on 10/31/2011
The problem with Obama is that despite the title, he's not the one in charge. Hell his own party ignores him. Congress has become the beast that will not heel, sit or stay, and Obama has proven both inexperienced and impotent in getting cooperation from even his own party. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the tails wagging this dog and the show ain't going anywhere.
photo
PrimusElijah
Serial; semi-colon abuser
11:27 AM on 10/31/2011
That's because the Democrats are not a lockstep showcase in ideological purity that the GOP is. Just take a look at what Obama has been able to do and get back to me on the tail wagging the dog. Much of what you say seems to be cover for the GOP not really doing anything for the last 3 years except for refuse to do anything when they don't get 100% of what they want.
photo
jazgr8
Ok, I give up, you win.
10:40 AM on 10/31/2011
Right now, I am either going to vote for Obama or nobody. It's comments like this from Axelrod that make make me cynical enough to lean towards the latter.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:59 AM on 10/31/2011
Please vote, vote something, even Micky Mouse. I think by voting for Mick you only give 1/2 vote to the Republicans, but if you don't vote at all you're giving the Republicans 100% of your vote. (err.., when I say Micky Mouse, please don't confuse your vote for any Republican candidate)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Logicalthinker10
Meet the new boss, the same as the old one.
11:01 AM on 10/31/2011
Like you really had a choice at the ballot. Overall, Republicans and Democrats have the same goal, which is to enrich the 1 percent at the expense of the poor. Only Americans that are in denial believe otherwise.