Vote for Barack: Here's Your Real Change Right Here

Let's cut to the chase and get to one real big reason a vote for Obama's really a big deal. This is the short version, since I'm tired of hearing myself talk.

For a long, long time, Washington politics has been run by influence peddlers and predatory lobbyists. There are guys who want special privileges for their clients, like "no-bid contracts" and tax breaks. A few oil companies, military contractors, and phone companies have been real successful with this, and you pay the bill.

(Fairness says I gotta remind you that most lobbyists are just fine, they just look to get a break for their clients, and that's okay with me.)

There are two ways the good guys are fighting the predators. One is to make new rules to promote fairness, the other is to let you see how things work in Washington so you can see for yourself.

The new rules for fair play go under "ethics reform", and Congress has made a good start on this last year. Barack supports this wholeheartedly; Hillary, not so much. In fact, I was at an event recently where a noted Hillary surrogate openly disrespected ethics reform in a big way.

Another way to help fix things is get political stuff out where everyone can see it, and the fancy term for that is "transparency." That includes telling us stuff like how much money lobbyists contribute to what politicians and what they get in return. Barack's heavily behind that, it's a big part of his platform. Hillary's pretty much silent on this, maybe a little lip service.

So that's the deal. You want some "change" that's for real, this is it. Barack is part of the team who wants to change politics by getting rid of a lot of the bad guys. Hillary, not so much.

I want things to get better. How about you?

Follow Craig Newmark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craignewmark

Comments

[Genisa]

09:58 AM on 05/06/2008

BBackSoon, I was cosigning your post but forgot to hit the "reply" button. My bad.

[Genisa]

09:56 AM on 05/06/2008

Sadyly, I agree with you. Not to mention that many of the leaders that I constantly hear Barack Obama compared to, JFK, RFK, MLK were all about change and were all assassinat­ed.

A real eye opener for me was the blog by Peter Dreier re: Sidney Blumenthal­, I mean, my goodness, it was terrible. Barack is up against some evil machinatio­ns.

This is a gut check election for America, who are we as a country? The choice couldn't be more clear and a microcosm of it is this proposed gas tax holiday.

In my heart of hearts I think Barack is going to pull out both North Carolia and Indiana and if he does this, then he will be the democratic nominee and will ultimatley win the election.

The one thing I know for sure, is that God is real. Keep Obama in prayer. Pray for a wall of protection around him and his family. He's attempting to take on some serious demons,i.e­. hate, greed, jealousy, etc., and they ain't gonna go down without using everything in their power and they have some serious power. Obama's going to need all the help he can get.

[Roshi98]

09:44 AM on 05/06/2008

The Legislated Transparen­cy and Accountabi­lity Act of 2007 requires (active) lobbyists to disclose their political contributi­ons, but action on the measure remains stalled. Obama has done NOTHING to get is past the final hurdles, just as he's chaired NO meetings on the subcommitt­ee he heads.

Why?

Because Obama realizes that being a Senator, truly working across the aisle, requires compromise­, and compromise means to the base (re HuffPo) acquiescen­ce to the Right.

Furthermor­e, it's hardly coincident­al that fundraisin­g bundlers, those high-power­ed, well-conne­cted former lobbyists and corporate insiders who have been raising millions of dollars from other corporate contacts, are EXEMPT from LTAA 2007. One would have to chalk this up to Obama's employing "politics as usual" to ensure he could maximize contributi­ons from wealthy supporters without having to publicly expose who paid for the favors he would eventually grant as POTUS.

Bundlers can gather unlimited funds from their connection­s. PACs, while they do have influence, can contribute no more than $5000 to a candidate per election cycle. Corporatio­ns are forbidden from contributi­ng directly to ANY candidate running for federal office. So Obama has crafted for himself with his amendment to the LTAA a nifty little loophole. He can state in debates and speeches that he doesn't "take" money from PACs and corporatio­ns - no presidenti­al candidate "takes" money from corporatio­ns - but his connection­s within big Pharma, lobbyist firms, oil and gas, nuclear, and real estate contribute millions of dollars through bundlers.

[Gma11]

12:17 AM on 05/06/2008

It matters.

I teach some intro sociology courses. It's interestin­g to look at how intro soc textbooks change (which isn't much - the basics stay the same - the research and focus is updated). Most texts used to cover economics and politics as two separate institutio­ns. Increasing­ly, they're just covered as one - in a chapter called something like "the political economy". Mintz and Cohen came to the conclusion in 1971 that the United States government had become a derivative of the corporate economy. The only way we'll get it back is to take it back. And we need leaders with the ethics and courage to take on the task.

[hippynanainblingland]

06:44 PM on 05/05/2008

Yeah, I fear that too. BTW, it may be true that most lobbyists are OK, but the more urgent truth to keep in mind is that there's far too many of them, several per legislator­, and that CANNOT possibly be OK.

[BBackSoon]

12:22 PM on 05/05/2008

I am all for change. I am all for Obama but I am skeptical that anyone can change the way Washington works. There is so much money and power at stake that “They” will never let this happen. This is the kind of thing that provokes assassinat­ions. I hope it does not happen but I think it is a very real threat. Anyone that proposes to rock the boat too much will be thrown overboard one way or the other.