Obama Hearts Nuke Giant Exelon

by Taylor Marsh

Well isn't this a cozy little group: Obama, Exelon, and their consultant, Obama's main man David Axelrod. A partnership made in heaven for the nuclear giant Exelon, which has given "at least $227,000" to Obama's campaign that eventually got them legislation from the Illinois Senator written with their best interests in mind. If this was a story about Clinton rewriting legislation to benefit one of her biggest campaign contributors, who also happened to be Big Nuke, there would be blaring headlines across the web. That it revolves around nuclear leaks and helping provide cover for Exelon, a big biz corporate contributor for Obama, against the best interest of a community, is not a small issue either. You cannot buy this type of free pass from the traditional media. They have to be willing to be complicit in it, because any way you slice it this is a huge story.

The report in the New York Times is alarming. For one thing, you've got to wonder why he told a whopper in Iowa when the records are so easily revealed. Of course, to win. But when it concerns radioactive leaks and the protection of citizens, we're talking about the morality of personal politics and professional ethics. Guess Obama knows the press has been asleep where he's concerned and counted on that continuing. Oops.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. ... ..

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

This is what has bothered me about Obama from the start. The let's make a deal approach to bipartisanship. I'm all for compromise when it's required, but the type of stuff the Times talks about is a problem for Democrats who believe we've got better ideas, answers and solutions, and should hold off caving to wingnuts, especially the nuclear industry.

But I guess when you've got Exelon, based in Illinois, giving "at least $227,000" to your U.S. Senate and presidential campaigns, you've got to take care of your big biz contributor, including taking the teeth out of legislation, making mandatory reporting voluntary instead. How very convenient for Exelon. Frank M. Clark, executive vice president to Exelon, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director there, are among his largest fund-raisers, according to the Times. John W. Rowe, also an Obama contributor, is chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is -- get ready for it -- the nuclear power industry's lobbying group.

Back to what Obama told Iowans:

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it." ... ..

Of David Axelrod:

In addition, Mr. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod's company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

So amidst Obama's defense, which is in the article, what's the bottom line? For me it's this:

In interviews over the past two weeks, Obama aides insisted that the revisions did not substantively alter the bill. In fact, it was left drastically different.

In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission "shall consider" -- not require -- immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.

By then, the task force had already concluded that "existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate."

The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants. ... ..

I'm against nuclear energy playing any major role in our energy solutions until we find out what to do with waste. Clinton isn't strong enough for me on this issue either, but compared to Obama she's the Mother Teresa of alternative energy. I also think that transporting nuclear waste to a dump site is a terrorist target of lip smacking proportions. So to hear that Obama, who is tied in with Exelon, as was David Axelrod, is willing to lie to Iowans to protect his nuclear baggage, is at the very least troublesome. But to learn about the realities of his legislation and how tight his relationship is to the nuclear power industry, well, it adds yet another let's make a deal negative on to all the other ones I've proven over the last year. It also makes me nervous. It should you too.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[shchartley]

Bang-up job, Ms. Marsh. Oh, I guess by now you heard that Mr. Penn consults for Exelon, who paid his consulting firm, which is basically an arm of Sen. Clinton's campaign, $250,000 as recently as last week. Oh, right, and that Sen. Clinton was a co-sponsor of that bill. Right, and that last bit that the bill would have died in committee, under a Republican chairman, without the changes and there would have been no shot at improved regulation. So I'm sure that the fair and balanced MarshBlog will be printing an update/retraction soon, correct? Oh, wait, sorry, right, that wouldn't be a transparent and craven partisan attack on Sen. Clinton's adversaries, so it would have no place in this blog. My mistake!

[JohnnieBee]

What about the fact that Mark Penn's (head of the clinton camp) company represents Exelon?

[WintonyMay]

Ms. Marsh:

You and Paul Krugman are amazing, but contorted, journalists. Somehow, with 'a straight face', you are able to begin your character and policy discussions about the Obama and Clinton candidacies with your pre-set theses. Then, you synthesize and analyze the 'facts' that you present, with an obvious result, everytime. To me, there seems to be a fundamental dishonesty to that approach, where you fail, in any such discussion, to disclose your affinity to one or the other candidate. Unless you must think that enough of your readers are non discerning and given to accepting your conclusions, unquestioningly.

Essentally, in this post, where you have cherry-picked the facts, 'where is the beef'?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Fresh slant:

It's time America had a sane conversation about the insanity of being dependent on fereign earl.

And if that means a BALANCED conversation about nuclear power (no source of energy other than conservation being risk-free), then let's have at it.

Me? I'm not nominally pro-nuke. Until you look at what being pro-coal or pro-oil REALLY looks like. And then...

[milmom]

I am so sick of everyone quoting the war vote. As a Military Mother who at the time received like the rest of America information from
Bush regarding Operation get the Villains with Weapons of Mass Destruction. The decision was made so moved past it! I do not care who did/did't vote, the ultimate decision came down to Bush. And my Son was sent to Iraq 3xs and is now making the preparation to leave again in March (thanks Bush). My point is? A mistake was made that I am sure no one will make again. Its like fool me once shame on you, fool me
twice. Get it? And what person
political/parental who has not made a decision good/bad that has NOT affected the people around them? Expl: The mother who opened a myspace account to see what a young lady was saying about her daughter, do you think it occurred to her it would result in the death of that young lady? NO! So if you want me to Vote for someone because he did not vote for the war in Iraq than think again. As far as I am concerned he has no right to the White House as his father has done nothing compared to our sons/fathe­rs/grandfa­thers/cous­ins has fought for. Nor will I vote for someone who has much to hide. So please get off your soap box "Why did Hillary with all her so call experience vote to go to war? Do you trust someone to make important decisions without even reading the intelligence? Chefrasta"
The answer is YES I will vote for this person who has learned her lesson and who WAS NOT alone in this VOTE! We were NOT there so we don't know WHO READ WHAT! Next time you want to hide behind the War Vote you better have someone you Love in there that is protecting your right to be an ASS of MASS Proportions!
Proud Mother of 2 Military Children protecting your Rights and Freedom so that you can sleep better at night...

[msilen]

Hillary as President of the United States of American views all of us as her children and for that reason, mothers are notorious for ferociously protecting their children from dangerous situation. When she speaks about caring for each and every one of us, As A President She Means It and As A Woman She Means It !
Hillary is the Real Deal the real change for the future of America She cares for you your children and your children’s children…THE ENVIRONMENT IS VERY HEAVY ON HER AGENDA AND ALTERNATE ENERGY…SHE WILL BRING THE KIND OF CHANGE WE ALL NEED WE WANT TO FEEL PROUD AND HOPEFUL AGAIN OUR COUNTRY NEEDS SOME NURTURING. Hillary will do what’s needed to protect her children and to bring Peace and Prosperity back to a country that’s been broken into pieces

[Bertrude]

People keep saying Huffpo is pro-Obama, but it only seem that way because all of the Clinton writers rather trash Obama than promote Hillary. It is like hey we have a crappy canidate, but look at the crap on this guy. It is politics as usual trash all canidates and the one with the least amount of dirt is the nominee. Sorry Clinton backers, we Obama backers are about HOPE.

[SShaw490]

So you imply that Obama rewrote the legislation to benefit Exelon? If he was going to do that, why introduce it at all and make public Exelon's reporting issues? And if it was rewritten to benefit Exelon, isn't it interesting that Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor and also an Exelon beneficiary?

This is ridiculous - just like the story stated, the legislation was rewritten so it could be passed out of committee. If you have a beef, maybe it should be with whoever appointed James Inhofe (the most rabid anti-envir­onmentalis­t in the world) Chairman of the Senate Environmental committee...

Obama tried to enact legislation that would benefit the people of Illinois. He hit the same roadblock that Hillary Clinton and every other progressive has hit for the last 14 years in Congress. There's no story in that.

[tbone99]

Although Hillary is far from being the perfect candidate -every minute of her past has been raked over the coals by vicious politicos and we know what we're getting. Everything she's been accused of has been found to be lacking in any kind of factual basis, its mostly innuendo.

We're still receiving the goods on Obama-who knows what the Repugs are holding up their sleeve- as if this nuclear collaboration wasn't enough to scare the heck out of us.His covering it up is especially troublesome, and makes him look like a master manipulator while presenting himself as open and above board.

[lgillooly]

Does anyone in their right mind think the Republicans are going to work with Obama? They will rip him to shreds in the General election. We need a Clinton/Obama ticket. She is tough and he is inspirational and maybe,just maybe,they can beat the Press,talk radio and McCain.But you have to be crazy if you think they will not go for the throat.

[timeforachangenow]

the fact that Obama is holding himself up to be infallable is the scariest part of his shtick...

if he was more "normal" I think he would stand a better chance...

I guess when you look at it from a young person's viewpoint you can ignore the facts on the ground and optimize all you want...

let's get REAL for a change instead of the "belief" politics that this last administration has pushed on us and maybe FINALLY we can return to being the proud...st­rong...and the free...and the brave...once more...

me thinks it is long past...

TimeforachangeNOW

[comeonnow]

After actually reading the NY Times article let me get this straight: Obama went after Exelon with the Bill and the fight/bad press has succeeded in getting Exelon to voluntarily report leaks. And this is a negative how?

I guess Ms. Marsh is suggesting that Illinois would be better off if Obama had done nothing at all?

[Amomma]

People, we really need to get out of Iraq. I'm a Democrat first. I realize Obama is inspiring. But the New York Times is wondering and so am I.

[BarryChamplain]

This truly reminds me of a conversation I had with an intelligent professional type of the Democratic persuasion, the day after Bill Clinton's election.

We were pondering why we were all feeling a common, almost ethereal sense of joy that day, transcending just "my guy got elected".

The conclusion seemed to be that after 8 years of the Reagan Revolution­/hijacking of our national soul, 4 years of Poppy's sniveling neocon/spookism, and a 12-year, media-painted landscape of a perpetually-aligned and happy Republican World, Bill Clinton had become the repository for all the things we'd hoped he'd be.

Even if he never committed to it, specifically. At some level, we believed he'd just feel the zeitgeist and respond accordingly. We put all our hopes and dreams of being liberated from the "long, national nightmare" on him, regardless of whether he'd ever given anyone reason to believe that he would ever fight their good fight. He became our blank canvas. We WANTED to believe.

So, this is nothing new. We're not gonna be getting nirvana, here. It's not gonna happen. So it's really a very simple choice, now: would President Obama make for a better America than President McCain?

That's the only question left to ask yourself as an individual, at this point. If the answer is "no", okay... simply don't vote. And shut up.

[JackieandFritz]

Good God, the Billary camp sure has gotten nasty. Is that a prerequisite to be a supporter?

You guys ought to take a look at life from the happy side of the street.

Yes We Can!