Special Interests Prepare to Derail Obama Agenda

Thursday morning's Wall Street Journal reported:

Industries from health care to agribusiness to mining that stand to lose under President Barack Obama's policy agenda are ramping up lobbying campaigns to derail or modify his plans.

... Opinion polls indicate that Mr. Obama's broad goals enjoy popular support. But crucial details of the president's agenda will be decided in coming months by close-in legislative fighting, where big industries and the members of Congress that support them have plenty of clout.

While lobbying alone is not evil, the combination of special interest lobbyists plus their ability to legally funnel millions into political campaigns is toxic. Members of Congress become dependent upon the lobbyists, and lobbyists sell the clout this dependency creates.

Joe Trippi recently explained more:

Right now, millions in campaign contributions coupled with millions spent on lobbying can result in billions worth of payback for special interests. It's all legal.

...But there are some big losers in that equation: The public. The American people have lost faith in a system dominated by money. We don't have lobbyists looking out for the public good. And when non-profit groups do send liaisons to congressional offices, they don't have the same clout as a lobbyist who can put together a $50,000 fundraiser later that evening.

The public faces a choice: do we continue playing a rigged game where the voices of special interests outweigh the voices of regular people or do we fundamentally change the game?

I know my answer to that question.

Change Congress, the anti-corruption group I formed with Joe Trippi, has already mobilized thousands of people across the nation in support of a political "donor strike" where we pledge not to give politicians a penny more unless they support bipartisan legislation that would fundamentally reform the way congressional campaigns are funded.

If you're ready to change the system, please join the donor strike today.

Specifically, we're advocating for the Durbin-Specter plan, which combines public financing with Obama-style small dollar contributions. It would liberate politicians from spending huge portions of their day courting $2,400 special-interest checks and instead allow them to court support from regular people.

This model has already worked on the state level, and it garners nearly 70% in national polls. It's also the essence of fiscal responsibility - according to the conservative Cato Institute, the money saved by politicians being free to slash corporate welfare would fund over half-a-century of public funding and save taxpayers billions per year.

We all have our favorite issues. Mine is global warming. Yours may be health care. But progress will be blocked on all of these issues until we change the game. Unfortunately, politicians won't make reform a priority unless we demand it in stark terms.

So far, over $850,000 has been withheld in the donor strike by about 7,000 people (based on last cycle's contributions). Dianne Feinstein alone has lost over $200,000. When a politician puts their name on the Durbin-Specter bill, they're in the clear.

If ever there were a moment in history to push for fundamental reform, this is it. Will you join the donor strike today?

Together, we can Change Congress.

Comments

[enochsmoky]

Headline "Special Interests prepare to derail Obama agenda." I take that to mean Republican leaning "special Interests.­" It seems that the Democratic special interests have already gotten about everything they wanted in the stimulus and budget bills. Trial lawyers, teachers' unions, ACORN, welfare beneficiaries, welfare activists, private sector unions and public sector unions are all special interests that do not necessarily have the nation's best interests at heart. Always remember that there are at least two sides to every issue.

[seanparnell]

"two sides to every issue" dramatically understates the number of sides!

This is typical hysteria and hyperbole from Lessig - "oh no, the special interests are coming! we have to stop letting them bribe Congress..­."

Sheer fantasy, Most elected officials vote the way they do because they believe it's the best policy, in the best interest of the constituents, or they're afraid they'll be voted out by the electorate if they don't vote a certain way - all of which are pretty much the way we should expect them to vote if they're honest, in other words.

No matter the source of their funding, ALL politicians have to go to the voters and explain how they'll vote or why they voted a particular way. The public can always vote them out if they don't like it.

The two states that have the welfare-fo­r-politici­ans schemes touted here are hardly exemplars of "good government­." Arizona is a fiscal basketcase, with the largest budget deficit in the country by percentage. Maine has the highest tax burden in the country, and their "universal health care" program (Dirigo) has imploded.

This is the "reform" that will "change the game" if enacted? Please.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org

[TRYKER]

Although you must mean well, this idea strikes me as suspect. If the end result is that the dem candidates get less funding, then its almost like a right wing scam.
Surely there must be another approach that doesn't diminish support for trustworthy candidates.
Lobbying has always struck me as plain old bribery and I never understood why it was allowed.

[seanparnell]

Banding together with your fellow citizens to take your case to elected officials is "bribery" in your view? Good lord, are you pining away for rule by philosopher kings unsullied by contact with mere plebes?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org

[mechenvy]

"We don't have lobbyists looking out for the public good." Agreed, but I thought that was what our elected "representatives" were supposed to be doing -- looking out for us and the public good. They are supposed to be our lobbyists, balancing the influence of coroporations and government staffers. And we do have citizens' groups at the national, state and particularly local levels trying to get in there for us, but the consistent cold shoulder shown those groups by our "representatives" is a problem.

[devans00]

I vote for getting rid of legal corporate personhood and putting caps on how much money can come from each entity who wants to give money on an issue.

Easier said than done, I know, but at least we can start with a vision.

[waltn]

Yes, I would like to see legal corporate "personhood" re-examined. Has it done any good for America or has it taken us down the road to ruin? Where did this idea of legal corporate "personhood" arise? Who has benefitted from it?

Listen to Jeff Madrick on the economic crisis and how corporate "financialization" has ruined America. He's a guest on Doug's show here: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/48787

This is one of the most lucid explanations of how our economy has been corrupted by corporate shenanigans. Madrick has some really good ideas about what we can do to help ourselves going forward.

[peterg76]

"lobbying alone is not evil"

I disagree. There are laws that make lobbying legal, because otherwise it would treason.

But there is a need for voters to find a place in the system. Obama can't do it all alone.

[seanparnell]

Um, one of those laws that "make lobbying legal" is called the First Amendment. You may have heard of it?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org

[williamlherring]

One might consider that the special interests couldn't affect us that much if the politicians weren't willing to sell out to them.

[Primadonna]

Campaign finance reform ... NOW!

[maxgen]

We should establish a strong campaign reform program and recognize we may need Constitutional amendments to have true freedom in America. Without exception, enforce the laws against fraud in elections and bribery of officials. Get corporations out of elections. We own the air waves. Mandate that TV stations and other media contribute free time to candidates and provide subsidies in National elections to equalize the funding of competitive candidates.

[TheSnarkingLot]

Yes. This is a concern that has been worrying me for some time now. It is, of course, nothing new, really, but if we are to hope for the "change" we've been promised..­.

One would hope these "special interests" could at least have the decency to lay off for a year or so, and realize the country is in jeopardy and their goodies and wish lists are secondary, tertiary, not important now in the least.

One would hope.

http://TheSnarkingLot.blogspot.com

[devans00]

Are you kidding?

Nothing trumps the almighty dollar to these corporations. Not human life. Not the environment. Not the future.

Afterall, they don't have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, neighbors, etc. that have to live in the consequences of their actions.

[tbone99]

You're preaching to the choir here , buddy.

Special interests thrive in darkness and the undercover side of
candidates who talk about family values while they take thousands from pornographers , casinos and big oil. People who want to be lied to with sweet words are not intelligent enough to see beyond them and they definitely aren't interested in having to do their homework before voting.

[PatrickWalker]

"People who want to be lied to with sweet words are not intelligent enough to see beyond them and they definitely aren't interested in having to do their homework before voting."

That applies to both Democrats and Republicans, especially in the election of 2008...

[MEC43]

We don't need less speech, we need more sunlight. If a person, group or company funds more than a relatively small amount for a p.r. campaign or lobbying effort, there should be mandates for extensive and detailed disclosure about such funding and the disclosed information should be publicly available in an easily digestible format.

[taikan]

Lessig's campaign, although noble in purpose, suffers from two flaws. The more significant flaw is that it focuses on progressives (such as Lessig, Trippi and the vast majority of people who regularly visit this site). As a result, the candidates from whom funding most likely will be withheld are likely to be Democrats, rather than Republicans. Even if the Democrats denied funding are among the less progressive members of their party, such as Dianne Feinstein, withholding campaign funds from them can only support their Republican opponents who, if elected, are likely to be even less supportive of any progressive cause. The other flaw is that Lessig's campaign is based on a fiction regarding Obama's fundraising. Rather than raising most of his campaign funds from small donors (i.e., those who donated less than $200), in fact Obama raised far more money from those who donated $200 or more than from those who donated lesser sums.

[lvdragonlady]

Lobbying was originally setup to aid the people in outlying area, that could not get to Congress to prompt their ideas or needs, when this country first came into being.
The lobbying that is done now, does NOTHING to help the American people. All is does is prompt the corporations and their needs not America's needs.

OUTLAW LOBBYISTS.

[seanparnell]

In other words, because you don't like or agree with the causes/perspectives that "lobbyists" engage in, you think the First Amendment should be overturned to outlaw the practice of citizens banding together to promote their common interests to their government?

I think some people call the supression of political speech "fascism" (or at least a key component of fascism), but it's a free country so I guess you can advocate what you want.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
campaignfreedom.orgeedom.org

[Sundialsvc4]

"Any civil officer ... shall be impeached ... for high crimes or misdemeanors ... (including) bribery ..."
-- Article 2, Section 4

[apduncan1]

The fact that Pres. Obama funded his campaign with small donors' money is a welcome sign... we can do it and we will change the system.

[dayala]

thank you Mr. Lessig.
I have signed up.

true to Obama's campaign promises, he can only lead so much with regards to the special interest groups and lobbyists, the time has come, especially NOW for the American People to rise up and fight back....YE­S WE CAN!...YES WE WILL!