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

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

If bi-partisanship means cutting deals with a party of law-breaking bullies, I'm not sure being for it is anything to write home about.

How about some NON-partisan support for accountability, the rule of law, and the US Constitution?

Remind me again which one's the triangulator?

[RAVEN13]

There are apparently many questions for Sen.
Obama to answer. Those of us who like him,
whether we now support him or not need asked.
The MSM, along with Arianna, seem determined to
protect and serve him up as the nominee.
I don't see Paul Krugman facing off other economists to discuss their opinions on the health care plans.
I have listened to CSPAN callers from Chicago
have not so nice things to say about Obama's
time in Chicago Politics and its continuing
level of corruption. I was suprised, that same
day, by several callers who turned out to be independents and republicans who stated their
preference for Sen.Clinton. Why, because, the
"memo" to the MSM seems to be Clinton can't
"attract" independents or republican voters.
Won't be able to unify the country. Day after day the persistent drumbeat of less positive terms used to describe the Clinton campaign -v-
the Obama campaign.
It is not for the media to decide what is important and set the agenda. It is up to us.
And, it certainly not up to celebrity endor-
sers. This is SO serious for us all. We must
be able to come together.
Oh, and the tear... please, stop making an issue of momentary emotion. Romney was on Meet
the Press, HOW MANY TIMES did he well up talking to Tim Russert? Bush cried in China.
Stop already, do we expect emotionaless lead-
ers? No, obviously not. The woman opened up
a little, in NH, and it has been analyzed, mo-
tives assigned, and looked at ten ways over.
Its amazing, I hear these people and because
they've written a book, they sit and tell you
like they what's going in her head. What Bull!
The woman is lovely, caring and compassionate.
Make up your mind.

[ATLiberal]

So, he had to back down and compromise on his initial legislation. And one of his advisors is connected to a particular corporation. And he presented his legislation in a positive light that was misleading.

For the sake of argument, I will give you all that. Now, how does that differ from HRC and the way she presents her positions?? And her seasoned crew of insider DC advisers?? And her many compromises with Repubs to put together legislation?? If you are trying to draw serious distinctions between candidates, this doesn't seem to be the way to do it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Lon]

So according to the article there is a difference of opinion as to whether Obama's actions improved reporting by the Nuclear industry or was indifferent on balance. This is the great scandal that shows he was in the tank to big business? And that was in a Republican led Senate.

Is there really some doubt as to why this has not become a major scandal? I mean besides among the small number of Clinton supporters who are desperate for an Obama scandal because they have no positive case to make for their own candidate?

[AnninCA]

It does make me nervous. I keep asking these questions, but the absolute determination of Obama supporters to hold onto a highly unrealistic view of their candidate tells me they really prefer the fantasy of him more than the real politician.

Traditionally, when candidates are busted for telling whoppers, the public doesn't like that one bit. They vote accordingly.

However, this year, he's keeping everybody busy at the "parties" with Oprah.

Nobody is looking too carefully at what they just bought.

[jvarga]

Gee Obama hearts nuclear power and Clinton hearts cluster bombs. Like you, I also think that before we expand the use of nuclear power we ought to have a plan for storage of waste. Obama seems to disagree.

However, I also think that cluster bombs are a pretty terrible way to go about killing innocent civilians. Clinton seems to disagree.

Too bad Edwards dropped out I guess.

[bjames]

Once again cheers to the Clinton cool-aid drinkers! They point out half the truth because they can't defend Hillary and her corperate ties. for instance Hillary has taken more money from defence contractors than any other candidate from either party. This is important to understand in the context that most of the nuclear junk produced by this country, come from military contractors! now lets not get started on all the corperate interests that Hillary recieves money from, I am sure theres not enough space here to list them all!

[feelfree]

Howard Kurtz mentioned the article that appeared on the front page of the NYT on his show Reliable Sources. He said it would probably get 1/1000 the coverage that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama received.

He's right.

I'm wondering what was in Cheney's energy bill that would benefit Exelon.

His actions are speaking louder than his words.

[Jim R]

I'd say Obama needs to answer some questions before we kick Hillary to the curb and buy the grandiose speeches.

The record does matter; Republicans won't be giving Obama the same pass the MSM has.

[bjames]

I love how this article ignores the fact that Hillary has taken more money from defense contractors then any other candidate for either party. She's taken more money from the pill pushers, insurance companies and so on. As John Edwards has pointed out, she defends a broken system where influence is bought by corperate interests. Even if what you say is true about Obama and his alleged ties to this piticular corperation, it pails in comparision to the Corperate money that Senator Clinton has taken. the Gop is being wise to put forth McCain as their nominee. If Hillary is put forth as the democratic nominee, the Gop will win! mark my words!

[hopeless277]

The more I listen to Clinton supporters, the more I get the feeling that they attack well but really have no defense. If Hillary votes her conscience, then she has the same conscience that GWB does. THAT is what REALLY bothers me. The same corporate masters that bankrolled Bush are bankrolling Clinton. THAT really bothers me too. At least with Obama we can make a fresh start without Monica, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Jennifer Flowers, failed healthcare plans, NAFTA, Telecom bill, Don't Ask Don't Tell and many, many more sad legacies of the Clinton years. I, personally, would rather leave that behind. To those who would love to have those fights all over again I say no, we have enough to do. Besides, if Hillary were to put aside her bottomless ambition, she would see what lots of us are seeing, a return to the past is counterproductive to moving into the future.

[methepeople]

once again, taylor, i ask: do you really want to go there? granted the accusations against obama may be well founded and perhaps true, but the closet filled with skeletons from back-room deals and the like will POUR out of the Clintons. you've reported on rezko, lets see: there are at least 10 rezko-types laying in wait for hillary-haters. and remind me again what happened to vince foster? exelon? please. it's not going to take much digging to figure out how many 'compromises' have been made to the detriment of our citizens and our planet by ms. clinton.

[salamanda]

Knows how to "reach across the aisle" and *work* with others. Indeed.

[MartiP]

So Obama is touting as an achievement legislation that was altered to suit Exelon, and he signed off on Cheney's "oil company welfare" energy bill as well.

But he is a great progressive, and a paragon of virtue and new politics, unlike that other dirty politician. Riiiiiiiiight.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why some Democrats still think this guy will fight the corporations. He has yet to DO it, not once. He caves to them every time.

[chefrasta]

I get it Hilary can do no wrong so you resort to attacking Obama.But I ask you a couple questions,On the most important vote one can make, 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 on matters that are important to this country?