"Reformers" Compromising For Cash

Obama, McCain Both Relying On Those They Criticize To Help Fund Campaigns

(The Politico)  By The Politico's Jeanne Cummings.

---

Donning the white hats of campaign finance reformers, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are positioning themselves as the presidential candidates least likely to be bossed around by special interests if they win the Oval Office.

But the reality of presidential-level fundraising is driving both camps into the arms of the very lobbyists who are the agents of those interests. McCain, whose disappointing first-quarter fundraising total has rocked his standing in the GOP primary lineup, abandoned all pretense of being the untainted one after assigning an overhaul of his campaign finance operation to two well-connected Washington lobbyists, including one who has been singled out for helping clients secure the very budget earmarks that the senator rails against on the campaign trail.

Obama's moves have been more subtle. He has vowed not to take money from federally registered lobbyists. But that leaves wide latitude for his lobbyist friends in Illinois to pony up cash, and his campaign is informing Washington lobbyists that they'd be happy to take checks from their spouses or clients.

"It's very depressing to see the extensive use of lobbyists as the only way to be competitive," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a nonpartisan group that tracks political giving, who has worked with McCain, Obama and other contenders to push through reforms. The federal fundraising program designed in 1974 to eliminate the need for big outside contributions "has failed," she added. "I'm sure there are alternatives, but they may not allow the candidates to be competitive."

Indeed, to candidates under pressure to raise unprecedented amounts of cash for the 2008 primaries, Washington's lobby community and its network of donors is too tantalizing to ignore. According to analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, the nation's capital ranked third among prime donation destinations in the 2004 presidential cycle, doling out nearly $165 million to candidates. California topped the list by generating $241 million in campaign checks. New York came in second with nearly $179 million in donations. In 2006, a nonpresidential year, Washington took over the top spot by forking over more than $180 million to congressional lawmakers — even though the District of Columbia does not have equal representation in Congress to the 50 states.

To get a notion of just how outsized the lobbyist community's role is in all that giving, consider these numbers: In July 2004, California ranked No. 1 in population with nearly 36 million residents, New York came in third with slightly more than 19 million, while Washington was home to 553,523 people, just passing the least-populated state, Wyoming, with 506,529 residents, according to census figures. (Residents of the Equality State donated $4 million to candidates in 2004.)

Lobbyists don't just give generously to candidates; they also serve as conduits for others. That is why the campaigns of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Mitt Romney and others actively recruited supporters from the community. Republican Rudy Giuliani's campaign benefited from an event hosted in part by James F. Miller, who once lobbied alongside former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the center of a scandal last year.

What separates Obama and McCain from the rest is that they have used the issue to define their campaigns and their candidacies. Like Obama, Democrat John Edwards has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists and political action committees, or PACs.

Obama invited special scrutiny of his fundraising the day he announced. "As people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics and the lobbyists and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play," he said.

His decision to refuse PAC and lobbyist money is a departure from his Senate race two years ago. Then, he accepted nearly $130,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Soon after arriving in Washington, however, he sought a lead role in advocating ethics reform and reducing the influence of special interests.

To adhere to that, Obama announced the no-federal-lobbyist-money rule. But it seems his fundraisers, under pressure to keep pace with the Clinton camp, have decided to follow the letter of that rule rather than embrace its full spirit. Thus, a current lobbyist can't give, but a former lobbyist — even a recent one — can. Of course, there is the spouse exemption, even if the money comes from a joint account.

The policy has rubbed some lobbyists the wrong way. One reports getting a call from an Obama representative that seemed to be a solicitation for a donation. When the lobbyist cut him off and pointed out that he was registered, the fundraiser said he was aware of that but "your spouse can contribute, and we want to reach out to your network," the lobbyist recalled, adding that he was "pretty taken aback."

The fuzzy lines also were evident last week when Obama headlined a fundraiser at Union Station. Invitations were forwarded around town to many lobbying shops, even though most of the folks who work in them are banned from giving. Among the event's chairs and hosts were four former lobbyists, including recent advocates for big oil and power companies.

Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, acknowledged that the system is imperfect. "It's a symbolic step, but nobody is claiming it solves the problem," he said.

McCain's return to presidential fundraising has been equally awkward. He is one of the namesakes on the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that banned corporations and unions from giving unlimited donations to the political parties and imposed limits on television advertising and other political activities by interest groups in the last weeks of a campaign. That law infuriated some conservative advocacy groups, which haven't forgiven McCain or rallied around his campaign waving their checkbooks. His bottom line also is hurt by the fact that the candidate himself does not like making calls and appearances for cash.

The ironic consequence is that a McCain campaign that aims to revive the maverick, reformist image of the senator's maiden presidential bid in 2000 now is more dependent on the aid of his lobbyist fundraisers than are some other presidential contenders.

Tom Loeffler, a former congressman from Texas, and Wayne Berman, a former official in the administration of George H.W. Bush, are the two lobbyists charged with creating a new McCain fundraising apparatus modeled after the bundling operations that fueled George W. Bush's campaigns. Loeffler and Berman earned Ranger status on the Bush team, which meant they generated at least $200,000 in donations to the Bush-Cheney operation.

"John McCain has known Tom Loeffler for over 25 years, and their relationship is based on mutual friendship, respect and credibility," said Danny Diaz, a McCain spokesman.

Friendship aside, Loeffler represents an awkward pick for McCain, given that his lobbying history has been the target of conservative anti-pork organizations long aligned with the senator. In a speech to Citizens Against Government Waste last month, McCain criticized the practice of quietly slipping pet projects into huge spending bills and took a shot at his own party for allowing it to happen. "I think the Republican Party lost the last election because of our failure to control spending and the earmarking which led to corruption, which led to a member of Congress going to jail," he said.

McCain's speech coincided with the release of the organization's new book, "The Congressional Pig Book," which highlighted earmarks. Among the entries: the Loeffler firm's roster of Texas municipal clients, including Houston and San Antonio, which received $40 million in earmarks between 2003 and 2006 for roads, rivers and technology projects.

[realpatriot1]

I checked my facts again...yes he did.

[okamichan13]

realpatriot1,

maybe you should check your facts regarding Edwards again. He has NEVER taken PAC money.

[realpatriot1]

hopetrumps,

I hear what you're saying about Edwards not taking PAC money like the rest. However, I remember he started off 4 years ago by promising to not take any PAC funds and then caved when push came to shove.

We have the system that we have and we need to hold all of these candidates accountable for making it a priority to change the system. We have a year and a half to hold Congress's feet to the fire which is the only place that real change can come from.

Under the current system, Mr. Smith would have to take PAC money to compete. The best that we can hope to ascertain in this environment is who seems to be the least influenced on policy by their contributors than by the public interst. It's a matter of degree.

We'll know more on that score when we get beyond the beauty pagent/baby kissing portion of the campaign and they start getting pinned down to actual positions.

[igmondl]

my approach is to vote for the most unknown or poorest candidate and never an incumbent. the only way to take money out of the game is to make it disadvantage.

as soon as money = speech, it was game over. the real problem is with the overwhelming majority of moronic american voters who have very little money and pay very little attention voting for those that have the most money to buy the most presence.

i also never vote for attorneys. government is predominantly common sense. why do we need lawyers in congress. as in most things it is the fault of the people that things are the way they are. why can't they vote for someone like themselves - poor and getting poorer, non-professional working class. note that 69% of americans think their rep is pretty good. that in itself says there will be no change.

of course another good idea is term limits. only vote for those who agree to quit their post when the term limit is up.

i suggest 12 years - 3 pres terms, 2 senate terms and 6 rep terms. if someone did all 3. they'd still get 36 years in. the problem is that this becomes shuffleboard because 69% think their rep is pretty good.

too much said.

[realpatriot1]

nyckate,

Sorry I missed Charlie(someone New Yorkers and North Carolinians can both be proud of) last night.

Unfortunately, bedtime for realpatriot, like Bonzo comes too early for Charlie.

[dogband]

Money wins elections. Pure and simple, raise the most money, win the election. This is the root flaw. Correct this flaw then move on.

Limit candidates to a pre-specified amount of air time on all channels, say 5000 minutes. Use your 5000 minutes, then no more commercials on TV.

Let each candidate have his/her own website, with technology moving ahead, I could easily educate myself about the candidates better with a website than I can with television. Limit every candidat with a pre-sprecified amount of air miles for travel. Use them and wherever you choose, but when the 1 million air miles are gone, your travel is over.

Level the playing field, somehow, and my ideas are probably... well... stupid. But somehow make the playing field level, and take money out of the picture.

[nyckate]

realpatriot1 - really interesting talk last night on Charlie Rose - he had Harold Ford Jr. on - and pointed out that Clinton was the one that balanced the budget and brought smarter/better spending to government - all of which has been completely undone by Bush. Bill Clinton was infinately more fiscally responsible than Bush.

[nyckate]

pwrslm - what problem did democrats ignore for 8 years?? Are you aware that GOP was in control for much of CLintons tenure??

And did you forget the bombing of Iraq by Clinton - not one life was lost - that's cause Bill is way way smarter than ole'georgie boy.

And did you forget the bombing of the facctory in Sudan to try and get bin Laden??

You know who squeled like stuck pigs? Yep - your GOP - so no idea why or how you forgot that - you must have blocked it out - guess its hard when you look at Georgie Porgie and see nothing but absolute failure.

[nyckate]

pwrslm - The Whitewater Deal?? You mean the real estate deal that was similar to the millions of other real estate deals in teh US at that time? Are you really this silly that you can only regurgitate stupid, useless, baseless soundbites from Rush and DeLay??? Come on now -sheesh - I'll bet you're still more outraged over Clinton's BJ than you are about lack of armour vests for the troops.

[forthepeopl1]

let it be said here first..

I have sent a 10,000 word statement to the heads of both partys. and also sent a copy to the vp, and whitehouse. stating that if they in anyway back down on this bill,and fold like ******* to this traitorest president/vp/rove/rumsfeld/ that
they will see a REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY TO THE LIKES THAT THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN..

I told them the only bill that should be sign by the president is a bill he owes to all americans i thinks its around 3.000,000,000,000,0000,000,00,000,00,00,


00,00,00,.
so go and arrest all of them. and america will stand behide you. you all will go down as hero.

we need not to be in iraq,iran,or any were in the middleeast.

to the president of the united states of america. you are not a dictator, no ones is listen to all the lies anymore. any true american in this country is gearing up to have you and your crime buddies taken out by force.

you have to be stoped!!!! as i am a vet. i only wish was i was still in so i could make sure no more of my brothers and sisters get murdered by you and cheney,rumsfeld,rove,and so on.

how come no more outside speaches?? what worried about something??? good its going to get worst so keep it up you chimp

nobodys listen to you asap. like i ask yesterday were have you served?? go ahead bigboy go and sign up? whimp,coward,pussie,chimp,like your fathers bush,cheney,rove,rumsfeld,and your mother connie.better rethink comming out chimp.i hope you do.....

[forthepeopl1]

let it be said here first..

I have sent a 10,000 word statement to the heads of both partys. and also sent a copy to the vp, and whitehouse. stating that if they in anyway back down on this bill,and fold like ******* to this traitorest president/vp/rove/rumsfeld/ that
they will see a REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY TO THE LIKES THAT THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN..

I told them the only bill that should be sign by the president is a bill he owes to all americans i thinks its around 3.000,000,000,000,0000,000,00,000,00,00,


00,00,00,.
so go and arrest all of them. and america will stand behide you. you all will go down as hero.

we need not to be in iraq,iran,or any were in the middleeast.

to the president of the united states of america. you are not a dictator, no ones is listen to all the lies anymore. any true american in this country is gearing up to have you and your crime buddies taken out by force.

you have to be stoped!!!! as i am a vet. i only wish was i was still in so i could make sure no more of my brothers and sisters get murdered by you and cheney,rumsfeld,rove,and so on.

how come no more outside speaches?? what worried about something??? good its going to get worst so keep it up you chimp

nobodys listen to you asap. like i ask yesterday were have you served?? go ahead bigboy go and sign up? whimp,coward,pussie,chimp,like your fathers bush,cheney,rove,rumsfeld,and your mother connie. bad move comming out, better retink that....

[realpatriot1]

I have the feeling that my frame of reference takes in more of the last 50 years than yours.

When was the last time the Republicans balanced a federal budget? Don't tell me it was the Republican Congress because Clinton balanced the budget PRIOR to the 1994 election. He did it along with a Democratic Congress. He did it by reversing Reagan & Bush's policies.

When Clinton attacked Bin Laden with cruise missles the Congressional Republicans took to the floor and called it wagging the dog...they thought Monica-gate was more important!

How about building a coalition and conducting a war? Clinton screwed up in Somalia and then learned from his mistakes. He won the war in Kosovo with zero American casualties. What Republican Hawk can claim that?

You talk about Democrats in Congress doing nothing... 3 words for you-"Contract With America!"

[akg96]

The reason McCain & Obama are attacked in this article is simply because they are the threats to the insider, "good 'ol boy" club that has been running things lately. These "rulers" prefer Hillary Clinton or someone else who would be less likely to win. But they most adore Romney - their boy.

[akg96]

The reason McCain & Obama are attacked in this article is simply because they are the threats to the insider, "good 'ol boy" club that has been running things lately. These "rulers" prefer Hillary Clinton or someone else who would be less likely to win. But they most adore Romney - their boy.

[pwrslm]

I've come to believe that the Democrats do a better job on all those scores.
Posted by realpatriot1


Thats not true.

Just because Democrats spent 8 years ignoring a problem doesnt make them champions of the peace. It only means the these motions they are going through are nothing more than grasping opportunistic straws for power. They are still as ignorant of Truth and Justice as they were over the last 50 years.

[realpatriot1]

pwrslm,

Yes, I do think the Democrats are better. I don't think they're perfect but I think they're better.


I was younger when I was a Republican and I was influenced by my parents who believed that Republicans were more fiscally responsible, better for the economy, and got us out of wars while democrats got us into wars. I've come to believe that the Democrats do a better job on all those scores.

[consciousnes]

It is really depressing to know that the Presidency of the United States can be bought like a pair of shoes. What is even worse is that the majority of the American public actually believes what they read in the news paper and what they see and hear on the air ways.

[pwrslm]

Personally, I used to be a Republican and now i'm a Democrat. When the GOP changed its principles I kept mine.
Posted by realpatriot1

Thats like saying you went from the party of the ignorant and unknowing thieves to the party of the thieves that were unknowing and ignorant because of what?

You think they are better?

If you believe that, you should have been in on the Whitewater deal.

[realpatriot1]

superpatr898,

Thank you for cleaning up your language somewhat.

The Democrats were the party of the old confederacy;leave it to you to not see that the GOP is the party of the new confederacy. Personally, I used to be a Republican and now i'm a Democrat. When the GOP changed its principles I kept mine.

You claim that the Democrats are the part of crooks,cowards, and bigots as though the GOP is immune from the afflictions...keep fooling yourself and yourself alone. You harp on Byrd who renounced the Klan 40 years ago(the only Democrat you can name), yet even you have a whole list of Republican "Confederates" at the ready.

You know who's really phony...YOU!

[frankly6]

Superpatr898

Congratulations, I couldn't find one true statement in your post. You are absolutely consistent. Are you a paid lyer or do you do it for free?