Obama's Lobbyist Fib

PHILADELPHIA -- Watching the tube in Pennsylvania these days might as well be called watching OBAMA TV. I've seen my share of saturation advertising buys during campaigns, but this is unprecedented. In a five-hour session of watching one network I counted 14 ads sponsored by Barack Obama, compared to a total of three ads for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And guess what I woke up to on my hotel clock radio? Yep, that's right, the audio version of Obama's ad.

That's all well and good except for the fact that every one of the Obama ads I saw or heard present him personally telling what can only be charitably described as a half-truth -- that he takes no money from Washington lobbyists. "I'm the only candidate who doesn't take their money," he says in the ad entitled "For Decades."

Obama is careful to claim in the ad that he does not take money from "Washington" lobbyists. That's because he does take money from state-based lobbyists.

Long ago the media watchdogs, such as Politifact.com, determined that at best it is only half true for Obama to claim that he takes no money from federal lobbyists. He takes plenty of money and advice from those who work for lobbyists, such as former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. More on Craig Crawford's Trail Mix.

Also on Trail Mix: Clinton's Expanding Trust Gap

Comments

[debwarot]

Can someone help me with this, please? I am having trouble understanding how the source of individual contributions are officially established.

Suppose I work for Exxon - I am an admin. asst., HR person or truck driver. I believe in Senator Obama and send him a donation. I did not go through a bundler, but sent it on my own via his web site using my credit card. I indicate my employer as being Exxon. Given this scenario, will my contribution then be 'counted' as coming from Exxon?

This is a sincere question and I would truly appreciate an honest answer. Thanks!

[texanna]

Bubba, you are spitting in the wind telling the truth on HuffPo about Sen. Obama's clay feet. His supporters will NEVER believe their guy is human and -- horrors, worse than human, he's a politician! They refuse to acknowledge that he's owned by the same folks that own the other candidate, that his record is pretty much the same, that his positions are pretty much the same and the likelihood is that his Presidency would be pretty much the same. Because, to admit any of that would mean that they had been fooled and no one likes that. I could be a lot more enthusiastic about Sen. Obama is he was really as real as everyone wants him to be instead of the myth they've invented.

[markkraft]

Craig is the new Huffington Post troll, apparently.

He says Obama told a "fib", and yet admits that Obama doesn't take money from federal lobbyists... and shows zero evidence of any possible influence from other lobbyists.

Frankly, Obama has done a miracle... he's the first candidate likely to win a major party's nomination who has refused to take money from federal lobbyists, and who has, by and large, funded his campaign based on individual donations from ordinary Americans.

Are we to fear the influence from a pitiful percentage of total donations from some of his old supporters in Illinois?

You don't get it, Craig. Obama is *OUR* candidate, because we've *PAID* to help put him in the White House. As a result, he serves the people of the United States of America... and no one else.

[tbone99]

Obama takes plenty of money fron large corporations through the lawyers who represent them.These lawyers fall under a different U.S. business classification than registered lobbysts so technically he can say they're not lobbyists,, but they funnel the money just as fast.

You're the one who doesn't get it.

[AjicNYC]

Obama is "YOUR" candidate I am glad you can afford to "PAY" for democracy in this country. So the people that cant afford to give a donation to a candidate dont count??? dont forget 13 million people voted for Hillary as well. and if FL and MI get their votes in Hillary would be the nom

[awb]

DOES ANYONE EXPECT A NORMAL COMMENT FROM CRAIG CRAWFORD?

Hillary Clinton is a household name since 1992 all across the world - do you not think it reasonable that Sen Obama needs to introduce himself to the voters directly?

h has had to depend on Hillary shills like Crawford that would be a problem

[MarylandDem]

Thanks you, Craig Crawford, for pointing out what a bunch of BS it is for ANYONE to think that Barack Obama isn't in bed with the major players in Washington. He is running TOTALLY misleading ads in PA and Indiana suggesting that he doesn't take money from "Washington lobbyists." No, but he takes it from their clients, their wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, neighbors and anyone else from whom they can bundle a $100 grand or so. When is the mainstream media going to catch up with this BS? In time for everyone to have buyer's remorse before the general.

[SamThornton]

Mr. Crawford, why don't we cut to the chase and give full throat to our strivings for balance and foul temper by declaiming that both Democratic candidates are lying b*stards unfit to be garbage collectors, let alone office holders? That should prove deeply satisfying to both the Clintonistas and the Obamanauts and distract us from the prospect that our new President McCain will probably start World War III and usher in an economic depression with his bonehead policies.

I'm actually starting to look forward to the coming Apocalypse. At least all the shouting dullards will vanish along with the rest of us.

[CLEDUC]

I think the headline of this article is more of a fib that Obama's position.

To contribute to Obama's campiagn, one must agree to the following conditions that Clinton doesn't require:
1. This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
2. This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.

I think it's more than fair for Obama to make that distinction.

People who lie about the above may still donate but the candidate has no special obligation to them. A gas attendent may contribute but Obama is under no obligation just because he is somehow associated with an oil company.

Sadly, I think the logic of the above escapes some when they need to crank a headline to get themselves attention that they would not receive otherwise.

[SCG]

Mr. Crawford,

I have mostly enjoyed your commentary and overview of Washington and the political machinations, still do. But if Hillary was out spending him in ads, you'd be noting the superior strength of the Clinton campaign.......etc.

As for lobbyists? I work in Construction and I'm a donor, does that equate to buying influence for the construction industry?

[ "He takes plenty of money and advice from those who work for lobbyists, such as former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. " ]

Again the agenda to equate Obama to Hillary, technically factual, without proportion or perspective. The predominate source of his funding is from small individual donors, but that balanced view wasn't what you wanted to get across, was it?

If you tried to hold Hillary to the same cynical standards, you couldn't write the volumes of columns necessary to clear up her distortions, fabrications and out right un-truths.

[Yansher]

What a joke Craig? You are attacking Obama? Where were you when your Gal told her 'Whoppers'?

[Marjan]

Obama Didn't Want My Money
by Borell
Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM PDT
I just had the strangest experience. A presidential candidate gave me back my donation, told me would not accept it because of what I do for a living, and it left me more committeed to the candidate and conviced that he is the person that must be the next president.

I went to the mailbox and found a letter from the Obama Campaign. Enclosed was a check for $100, the return of my contribution from earlier this month along with a letter explaining why it would not be accepted.

Borell's diary :: ::
You see, I am a registered lobbyist for a non-profit organziation. We are a non-partisan, non-political membership organziation, we do not have a political action committee and strictly observe a policy of non-particpation in any event that even remotely appears political. I serve as their legislative rep, trying to ensure that expertise of our membership is heard by public officials on issues related to their area of expertise (public safety).

I guess given the fact that I was not a corporate/industry lobbyist, I never really considered that Obama's no-lobbyist money ban would apply to me, but it did! The letter thanked me for my interest in the campaign, but stated flately that my donation was not acceptable.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/7/124812/3285/604/491642

[debwarot]

Thanks for sharing this - it confirms what I have thought all along - that Senator Obama is an exceptional candidate running an exceptional campaign.

[jstock]

Clinton supporters (yes, Ann, I'm back): Bottom line, he does not take money from Washington lobbyists. Just like the ads say. Sounds to me like he's telling the truth. Is he spinning? You bet. He wouldn't be a politician if he didn't engage in this kind of hairsplitting. I wish he wouldn't take any lobbyist money or even any Fat Cat money, for that matter. I wish all of his campaign's money came in $20 or $40 increments. But he's still getting a much larger percentage of his money from small donors than anyone else. That's real grassroots, not astroturf. Overall, I like his approach to fundraising, and to campaigning. He's run one heck of a campaign so far. Let us all calm down and stop looking for controversy in everything.

[FreedomLoverX]

How stilted. What is with you? You are such a LIAR it isn't worth giving you another word.

[1dogs2]

Once again, you've displayed your own fondness for a fib, Craig. On this site, most of the readers are sufficiently well-informed to know the difference between contributions by INDIVIDUALS and those by corporate lobbyists. They also know that most of the vast amounts of money that the Obama campaign has raised comes from 1,200,000+ small donors, whose average donation is $96. Go peddle your "Obama fibs" story line to to the uninformed and misinformed. You'll be in good company there.

[BitJam]

Your headline is a much bigger fib than the fib you accuse Obama of. He said he does not take money from Washington lobbyists, which is true. Yet your headline screams that he is lying about it. What he said was not nearly as misleading as you claim. Obama is not going to fix the problem of Washington lobbyists overnight. But he is certainly taking a step in the right direction by refusing to take their money. Yet you attack him for taking it.

This is part of a disturbing pattern. Recently we were subjected to the false headline that Obama was using the MLK assassination to solicit funds. But the email in question did not mention money. At worst, some copies had a "donate" button at the bottom as part of a standard email template. A "donate" button does not a solicitation make.

Last week we had an even more shocking headline claiming that Obama hijacked Hillary Clinton's Web site. If it were true, Obama would be facing jail time. Breaking into someone else's computer is a serious crime. But the story merely complained that the Obama campaign bought more Google ads than Clinton's did.

If you want to quibble that Obama is not doing *enough* to short circuit Washington lobbyists, even though he is doing more about the problem then either Clinton or McCain, that's fine. But don't use it as an excuse for a shocking headline that lies about him being a liar.

[jhNY]

He probably didn't write the headline. That's usually handled by an editor, you know, somebody here at HuffPo.

And the notion that 'your headline screams', aside from being hilariously overheated as a characterization, is also part of a 'disturbing pattern'-- that of the supreme oversensistivity of Obamanauts to perceived criticism of their idol, however mild.

A fib is a small, very nearly inconsequential untruth-- something much less reprehensible than a lie. To conflate 'fib' into 'lie' is to purposefully misunderstand the definition of both words, just so you can reach a sufficiently emotional pitch of outrage to get your writing hand to move.

[Valkyrie]

That's BS. It has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with nearly every politician (or even dim-witted blonde bimbos in the entertainment section) being saddled with the same SHOCKING HEADLINES that Huffpo used to accuse Fox news of. And the headlines almost always have NOTHING to do with the person they're maligning.

Huffpo is becoming more and more synonymous with Fox and hypocrisy in general. And it doesn't matter which candidate you support. I know HuffPo wants to sell sell sell just like normal "news." But they should practice what they preach and just sell the story based on there actually being a story.

Because guess what: If the story was good enough, they wouldn't need the juicy headline to get people to read it. As with so many on this site, we can see that the stories have little actual value.

[vsign]

Lie? That is what politicians do. Now as voters, we decide which lies are important or not.

What did we learn about the swiftboating of the Clintons in the Lewinsky affair? I think we learned that politicians need to lie (like we need to sometimes for privacy's sake) and lying about sex does not distract from doing the job.

Exaggerating about being under sniper fire or repeating the story of a Deputy Sheriff about the health care system - those don't qualify to me - to discard the public service work I want a President to do for me.

Bush told us he was above lying and that he'd bring morality back into the White House. Look at his lies about the war in Iraq.

Pretending to be above the lies like Obama does is not going to wear well. Voters need to know who will influence a candidate. Obama has large donors and we need to know how they will influence him.

We also need to know how Rev Wright will influence Obama.

[elbowguts]

I can't believe we're still talking about Monica Lewinsky.

However, it's a gross misrepresentation to say it was only about sex. I think it's safe to say that an executive at a major public corporation who had the poor judgment to have sexual contact with an intern at their corporation (and was discovered doing so) would be fired or forced to resign. Not because sex is bad, but because one should not take advantage of a gross inequity of power to get his/her rocks off.

Hillary Clinton's lies disqualify her because they reveal a pathology that places the liar at the center of the universe and almost automatically call into question *anything* that person says, whether it's true or not. There is no position on an issue that cannot be supported by a lie. The liar will never assess her stance on a particular decision against reality because there is no need to; can you see the danger there?