Obama's Donation Ban Irks Some Dems

Politico: Many Congressional Candidates Feel They Can't Turn Their Backs On Money From Lobbyists And PACs

(The Politico)  This story was written by Ryan Grim and Victoria McGrane.

---

Sen. Barack Obama’s ban on contributions from lobbyists and PACs has irritated Democratic lobbyists and fundraisers, who say that Democratic congressional candidates can’t - and won’t - turn their backs on such a steady stream of campaign cash. 

“Quite honestly, we’re taking what we can get,” said a top aide to a House Democratic candidate facing a competitive race in November. “The amount of money needed for a campaign today is just so huge that you really have to look under every rock.” 

At a campaign appearance in Virginia last week, Obama said that lobbyists don’t fund his campaign and “will not fund our party,” either. The Democratic National Committee will play by Obama’s rule, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said last week that they would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists and PACs; spokesmen for the committees said new ethics rules already provide plenty of transparency. 

Although some lawmakers adopt their own giving rules, including bans on lobbyist and corporate PAC giving, Democrats in Congress haven’t exactly rushed to embrace Obama’s rule. 

It’s a pragmatic decision. Congressional campaigns - both Democratic and Republican - generally rely much more on PAC and lobbyist money than presidential campaigns do. 

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic House candidates have received more than $103 million from PACs this election cycle. 

Sheila Krumholz, the center’s executive director, says House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has received a higher percentage of his campaign contributions from PACs this cycle than has any other member of Congress. 

Democratic Senate candidates have taken in about $20.5 million from PACs. By contrast, the 12 Democratic presidential candidates combined have raised just $2.5 million from PACs - a tiny share of the $547 million they’ve raised to date. 

Democratic lobbyists complain that Obama’s ban has failed to account for the realities confronting candidates who lack the fundraising appeal of an electrifying presidential candidate. 

“I’m curious how much [the Obama campaign] thought about this decision,” said one Democratic lobbyist. “I take Obama at his word that he’s serious about changing the culture of Washington. But he’s also got to realize that right now, he’s the Babe Ruth of politics. You’ve got a lot of other people out there who are AAA ballplayers; they don’t have the ability to do what he’s doing in terms of raising money and wowing crowds.” 

Another Democratic lobbyist said Obama’s ban effectively tars everyone who can’t live up to it.

“Now you’re implying that the House and Senate Democrats - and Republicans - are scumbags that take lobbyist money,” the lobbyist fumed. 

Republicans wasted no time in highlighting the disconnect between the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee and the congressional campaign committees. 

“They plead for donations on K Street with a tin cup in their hands and then have the audacity to self-righteously proclaim themselves agents of ‘change’ and cheer Obama on as he bashes lobbyists in Washington on the campaign trail,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. 

But the GOP won’t go as far as to directly challenge congressional Democrats to give up the money. That’s because the Republicans need the PAC and lobbyist checks just as much as the Democrats do.

House Republicans have raised $66 million from PACs so far this cycle; Senate Republicans have collected close to $27 million from PACs.

Unless Republicans are willing to wlk away from that money themselves, Democrats say GOP candidates will have a hard time making hay out of anyone else’s failure to live up to the Obama model.

Add it all up, and seasoned fundraisers say they don’t expect to see congressional candidates from either party embracing Obama-style bans anytime soon. Indeed, by prohibiting PAC and lobbyist contributions from flowing into his campaign or the DNC, Obama’s decree could actually increase PAC and lobbyist giving to the congressional committees and individual campaigns.

Giving up that money would “be a one-day positive news story and that’s it,” said a former Democratic Party fundraiser. “So you’d get one little bump out of it [and] nobody would remember in November.”

But even if Obama’s ban doesn’t have an impact on the overall money game, many Washington insiders view the condemnations of their professions by the campaigns of both Obama and Sen. John McCain as overly simplistic and counterproductive.

“There’s nothing wrong with lobbyist and PAC money, because the government can’t be bought,” said Nicholas Allard, co-chairman of the public policy department at lobbying firm Patton Boggs and a veteran of many Democratic campaigns, including former Vice President Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid.

Allard said lobbyists volunteer their time and make political contributions because they love the thrill of politics, want to support their party and even hope to secure a position within an administration or congressional staff - not to win influence for clients.

While he regrets some of the implications of Obama’s and McCain’s positions on lobbyists, Allard sees a very positive sign in Obama’s fundraising prowess and the confidence with which he can ban contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs.

Not only has Obama shown he can use the Internet to raise more money, at a faster pace, from more people - most of whom live outside the Beltway - he’s also used the Web to connect with voters, reducing at least some of the need for spending on expensive television ads - the part of modern campaigns largely responsible for the escalating cost, Allard said.

If that trend extends down to congressional races - and Allard thinks it will - the appearance and reality of fat cat donors and industry bundlers trading cash for favors will lessen on its own.

“It’s incredible how Sen. Obama has democratized the fundraising process,” Allard said. “You’re going to look back at this election like the Kennedy-Nixon debate,” which historians say marked the advent of television’s campaign dominance, “as the benchmark of a new media taking over.”

[kansas1946]

%u201CQuite honestly, we%u2019re taking what we can get,%u201D said a top aide to a House Democratic candidate facing a competitive race in November. %u201CThe amount of money needed for a campaign today is just so huge that you really have to look under every rock.%u201D
****************************************

"Under every rock" is right. That is where the lobbyist worms and special interest roaches, live. Good for Obama. If he doesn''t need it, then he is better off not selling his soul to those bums.

[rowdywicca]

Lookout Obama, the democrats will be throwing under the bus soon! LMAO!

[Cyril100]

It will only be necessary to see exactly who is accepting all the PAC money - since it is those politicans who will necessarily have to repay those debts to special interest gtoups at the expense of ordinary taxpayers we only have to elect them one time and then throw them out on their ear when up for reelection.

[lochlan-2009]

"Democratic lobbyists complain that Obama%u2019s ban has failed to account for the realities confronting candidates who lack the fundraising appeal of an electrifying presidential candidate."

%u201CNow you%u2019re implying that the House and Senate Democrats - and Republicans - are scumbags that take lobbyist money,%u201D the lobbyist fumed."

Source considered.

Careful Democrats, Americans are p1ssed with the unprecedented level of corruption and kickbacks in DC, do you really want to side with the GOP on this issue. We know there are piles of money there, if you touch it however, you''re just a greedy, bribed representative, whose morals clearly show you aren''t qualified for the position.

BAN ALL LOBBYING!!!!

[missingamerica]

%u201CThe amount of money needed for a campaign today is just so huge that you really have to look under every rock.%u201D

Exactly. And you know what kind of stuff you often find under rocks...

[jack3213]

For those who think Obama would do well in choosing Clinton as VP you are dead wrong. It will not only show how weak he is, but that he could not do it without her. IT also would show that the Unity you all speak of is not only in vain, but superficial, and inaccurate- neither are qualified or experianced. Bill Clinton does not deserve to be back in the White House- as first anything- after being impeached, and Hilllary is not a wise woman for staying with the disgusting cheat. If you want your taxes raised sky high then vote for a Democrat, you will surely regret that decision. This country needs to fogive Bush and the Republicans and think clearly on how more qualified they are as a whole. The Democratic Congress made you promises two years ago and have not come through. Have you all forgotten or are you enjoying the life in the dark enough to be disenchanted next January with a man who went to a Church for 20 years that preached hatred of this country he now wants to lead? OMG- wake up. MCCAIN 2008-2012

[nkgilb]

Barack Obama the 44th president of the United state of America! Amen to that! l am julie and l endorse this message.
We love you Barack Obama!!!

[bfjones666]

GreatDriveW: Even if a president gets 4 of those things accomplished it would be huge change from the current administration.

[hadenufff]

GreatDriveW your a nitwit. It''s easy to make a list of impossible dreams. Now why don''t you explain to the class just how this blowhard, who hasn''t accomplished anything, is going to do the ten things on your wish list? Obummer is all for hope and change alright. He''s hoping you won''t figure out how big a con and liar he is, and he''ll change into whatever you want to believe in. He''s all smoke and mirrors.

[obama4janito]

Countrywide''s very own Jim Johnson - Destroyer of the American Dream. Just ask scores of Foreclosed Americans. Better yet, just ask Ed McMahon.

And trusted friend and adviser along with so many other America-haters to one Barry Obama.

Obama claims he wants change? Sure he does. Yours and Mine.

He has enough already from the Nazi Soros and millions of stupid, gullible Americans. It''s time he gave the money back - to US, not to Jungle Bunny Michelle or Uncle Jerry.

Obama in ''08 - for White House Janitor.

[mycommentspg]

Money, money, money is what politics is all about. Obama''s ban has big holes in it. Congress needs to act and put real restrictions and bans in place. http://mycommentspage.blogspot.com/

[obama4janito]

Add just two more:

Paid off by MoveOn.Org, an organization subsidized by the Nazi Collaborator George Soros.

And endorsed by Osama Bin Laden, Jeremiah Wright and Hamas.

Care to sing "Kumbaya" with Ahmedinejedad as he prepares to Nuke New York? That''s what Obama stands for.

Obama in ''08 - For White House Janitor. Nothing More, Nothing Less.

[obama4janito]

One Reason, No, make that TWO Reasons not to vote for Obama despite the stupidity of GreatDriveWhat?

COWARDICE AND RACIAL HYPOCRISY.

Obama in ''08 - For White House Janitor. Nothing more, nothing less.

Enuff said.

[greatdrivew]

Here are ten reasons why I''m Voting for Obama in November. By the way, they''re in no particular order.

1. No pandering to special interest groups.
2. Affordable, high-quality health care for all.
3. An enlightened withdrawal from Iraq.
4. Economic sanity, reason and justice.
5. A foreign policy of diplomacy and dialogue.
6. The Supreme Court, and thus, amongst other things, the right to choose.
7. Turning the page on the divisive, stagnant politics of yesterday.
8. A renewable and clean energy revolution.
9. A White House that speaks honestly with us, instead of treating us as adversaries.
10. A Politics of hope and change, not fear and distraction.

[likeitis5050]

So? Follow the money. Where there is a will there is a way and it just has to LOOK like you''re doing something NEW...the end result is the same. Politicians...geeee.ze.

[antoniof123]

You have my vote PERIOD!

Go Obama!!!!

[kat1park]

I support the ban on lobbyist and PAC money. This is what drew me to Obama in the first place, so it matters to me that there is a real shift in Washington away from serving others best interests to serving the best interests of the people. It''s not about demonizing lobbyists and PACs. They idea that they give so much money to politicians because they are just excited about politics is just a blatant lie. They do it in order to influence policy. Instead of congress worrying about where they are going to get the money to campaign, they should campaign on being a part of the change and set up their own Web sites. They may not raise as much money as Obama, but they don''t need as much money as Obama. They just need enough. Trust me, people want change. These congressmen have a better chance of getting elected by coming on board than they do by sticking with the status quo. As Obama has proved, when you take a stand, you would be surprised at how many people will come to your aid and back your cause. It sounds to me like these congressmen have depended on this money for so long, they don''t know how they will make it without it. That''s the hold that these lobbyists and PACs have on Washington and it''s time to break it.

[bluestardad]

THE MIDDLE EAST LOBBIES ARE SCREAMING BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING FOR MANY POLITICIANS ON BOTH SIDES!

FIND OUT WHO THEY ARE AND DRIVE THEM FROM AMERICA!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[singingrick]

Go Obama!

[seah5]

LOL

Obama trying to run from his past.