by dem dem, Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:42:46 PM EDT
John Edwards and Barrack Obama have made a big deal about how they don't take "dirty" political money from registered lobbyists. But, what they dont tell you is that they are more than happy to take big checks from DC's most inside insiders.
If they actually believe that the big problem in Politics is "big money" , why is there this blatant hypocritical double standard for whom they will take money from?
All of the major Democratic candidates are getting over half their fund raising money in checks of over $1000. (and yes, this includes Barrack Obama, who has made it seem that he has raised most of his money in $5 bills.)
From my experience in politics, (and in my earliest days - I worked as, everyone does in the beginning, as a fundraiser at times) many, actually, most of these donors will - sometime call on the member or politician...for something. (Not that this means that they are asking for bad things, often its for tickets to something, a Capital flag or for a meeting for a fine and civic cause) It is completely misleading for those in power, like Edwards and Obama, who clearly know this - to draw this artificial line. I know big time and very higly paid Washington insiders, none of whom are registered lobbyists, who are helping Barrack, Edwards...and also, Dodd and Biden...or ALL of the major candidates. These people are paid by clients to influence politicians, this does not mean that they lobby on legislative issues. Explain to me please, the big difference between the two. Please understand, the majority of the biggest money makers in DC and on K street - arent lobbyists - they live, thrive and prosper under the vaguest of insider titles...they are the "consultants".
I looked at Obamas list and there were a slew of DC consultants and corporate reps there that I knew. It is well known that Barrack's fundraisers have met with some of K Streets biggest players and asked them for their own personal fundraising contact list and solicited these lobbyists to get checks from their spouses and other family members because they were going to make "an issue" about "refusing" lobbyist contributions. The insincerity of those actions led to a couple of stories in the Wash Post and Chicago Tribune early in this campaign.(Plus, if you wanna see big money at play, look at Obama's list of his Chicago and Illinois supporters...) On Edward's list there were some of the biggest and richest (and smarmiest) lawyers in all of Washington, DC. (Remember, that Edward's own Trial Lawyers Assoc. worked - hand in hand - with the health Insurance Assoc of America to kill health care reform in the 90s)
If you think that Hillary is dirty here, whilst Obama and Edwards are clear....well, I think you ought to learn more about how the political system really works in this age.
This "new" attack by Edwards and Obama and their fans is nothing but the oldest type of politics. Attacking another's morality and character for doing something that the attacker knows, perfectly well, that they are doing themselves.
By the way, in effort for full disclosure, I myself have been a registered lobbyist. I lobbied for labor rights in new legislation for a member union of the AFL CIO. That is nothing to be ashamed of. Rather, I am quite proud of our work and efforts.
I sure wouldn't feel that way if I was one of the slew of Edward's campaign contributors who worked with the Trial Lawyers Association to kill the Health Care Initiative in 1993. They did this just so they could have the "right" to make tens of millions of dollars in fees in the very lucrative medical malpractice industry.
It seems that my idea of who's dirty and who's clean differs greatly with two of the multi millionaires who are running to be the nominee of our Democratic Party to be President of these United States.