Print

[Reaper527]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ed_obamas_rise/

QUOTE

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

i'm going to say the same thing i've said every place else i've posted this link. i don't necessarily have a huge problem with him taking lobbyist money, i do however have a problem with him taking the money, saying he isn't, and then condemning all the other candidates and calling them "more of the same". he is lying to the american people, plain and simple.

[SICKdimension]

Yes, he did take lobbyist money as a senator, up until his run for presidency. He is not taking lobbyist money now. His website says the same thing, so I see no lie here.

QUOTE

The Associated Press | June 05, 2008
With Barack Obama as their future nominee, the Democratic National Committee is adopting his policy of no longer accepting donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees.

The change will make the party and the candidate have a consistent position. Obama often says banning the donations is one way to help keep him free of the influence of Washington insiders.

[http://www.barackobama.com/2008/06/05/dnc_bans_lobbyist_money.php]

[Reaper527]

technicalities.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/25/obam...-david-axelrod/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8052802499.html

he has his lobbyist staff, and there have been plenty of stories of him taking money from lobbyists wives, and business partners. instead of taking money "from" lobbyists, he takes money "raised by" lobbyists.

here is an article about his lobbyist donations from february of this year.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checke...e_lobbying.html

here are the bullet points

QUOTE

# They still take money from state lobbyists.

# They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.

# They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.

# As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)

# They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.

like i said, no lobbyists is pure rhetoric

This post has been edited by Reaper527: Jun 10 2008, 08:03 PM

[SICKdimension]

That's a bit of a stretch you're trying to prove. The point of Obama's new rule that the DNC can no longer accept donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees is that he won't be pressured to bow to their requests. A federal lobbyist or political action committee is registered, so it is easy to spot who they are and deny their donation. Tracking someone who used to be a lobbyist or may be in the future gets much harder. Tracking donations from a lobbyist's wife or friend or co-worker gets near impossible, and for those that get through, their issues that they are lobbying for are irrelevant, so that Obama does not feel responsible to vote a certain way because a lobbyist's wife donated $2,300. I feel Obama's stance of not caving to the pressures of lobbyists or PACs is a commendable approach and searching for the few donations that slip through by someone that is not a federal lobbyist but may have ties to one is missing the point of what Obama is trying to accomplish here.