The Exceptions To Obama’s Ethics Rules

Moments after Barack Obama announced new ethics rules Wednesday, the Republican National Committee gleefully emailed reporters with some opposition research. Obama had announced that recently registered lobbyists could not work in either the agency they lobbied or on the subject matters they were hired to lobby. But as the RNC promptly pointed out, at least two Obama nominees violated his own rule.

William J. Lynn III, Obama’s proposed number two at the Defense Department, had recently lobbied the pentagon for Raytheon, a major weapons manufacturer. William Corr, who was nominated as number two at the Department of Health and Human Services, had recently lobbied the agency for the Campaign for Tobacco Free-Kids.

Asked about the contradiction, Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs admitted the obvious, saying the new rules were made to be occasionally broken. “Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions,” Gibbs told the Associated Press. “Our waiver provisions are designed to allow uniquely qualified individuals like Bill Corr and Bill Lynn to serve the public interest in these critical times.” (See waiver provision here, Sec. 3(b))

Of course, Obama never mentioned this in his announcement. And while it remains true that Obama’s rules are much tougher than those of President Bush, it is unclear how many other exceptions may yet arise. Meanwhile, the exceptions have begun to cause ripples in at least one of the nominees’ confirmations. Here is what Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, a member of the Armed Services Committee, told CQ: “I have no reason to impugn Mr. Lynn’s integrity, but it’s a problem,” she said, though her staff later said she did not plan to hold up the nomination.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Robert F. Bukaty / AP

    With Saturday Victories, Romney Retakes Control of the GOP Narrative

    Mitt Romney, the perpetually questioned front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, had a rough week. Three embarrassing losses to Rick Santorum in Tuesday’s non-binding contests led to questions about Romney’s conservative bona fides just in time for GOP activists, gathering at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, to collectively grumble about it. But in two narrow, largely symbolic victories on Saturday, Romney reclaimed the headlines. Never mind the details. He was winning again.

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Robert F. Bukaty / AP

    Maine GOP Chairman Says Romney Wins State’s Caucuses

    Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster says Mitt Romney has won the Maine caucuses by a slim margin, giving him a much needed boost following losses in three other contests in the past week.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Oops…
    .
    Well at least the exceptions to the rules are being made in daylight, more or less.
    .
    So do the Republicans who released this have actual objections to the nominees or is it the rules that they oppose?

  • michaelscherer

    paul, they are playing the long game, just trying to score points where they can.

  • plukasiak

    michael, were these rules generally known for a while and this is just the official announcement?
    _
    I sure hope so, because while most appointees probably won’t have a problem, they have been building their own teams for weeks (if not months) and with 7000 plus Plum Book jobs available, a whole lot of people who were told they had jobs (and had been making the necessary arrangements) are going to be in trouble.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Here is the thing, we knew about these “new” prohibitions on lobbyists for weeks if not months and we also knew about at least one exception to the rule with Corr for awhile too. How is this now “new” news? To be honest with you I am more happy with the rule about people who leave office not being able to lobby the White House after they leave while Obama is still in office than I am about not hiring former lobbyists to begin with.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    Good for McKaskill and the Republicans. The new rules have meaning, and they should kick up some dust over these appointments. As Gibbs notes, there is room for reasonable exceptions in this first year, but not without meaningful debate. I’m tired of Show Rules. Messy is good.

  • kathy

    You’ve correctly captured the reality by saying the RNC “gleefully” emailed reporters. This is schoolboy tactics, and it’s the reason Obama quoted scripture: “when I became a man I put away childish things.” Time for some members of the Republican Party to grow up fast.
    .

  • kathy

    So how do you guys feel about Barack not letting the broadcast media into the second oath? They’re crying foul on “transparency,” but I don’t think transparency is the same thing as having the video cameras running. Nothing was hidden. I’m thinking it’s reasonable that Obama didn’t want a youtube of the second oath to supplant the Inauguration ceremony.
    .
    I also think it was a dubious decision to accommodate the crazies who thought he wasn’t really president, though if they were going to, the sooner the better. But are they implicitly acknowledging he wasn’t president? What about the orders he signed Tuesday – are they going to go back and redo those?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    @kathy,
    .
    It nevertheless IS a legitimate beef. Besides, the fact that Obama has a zit or two is helpful in getting past the ‘messiah’ BS that represents their second most effective attack.

  • gysgt213

    I’m I the only that sees a slight difference with a lobbyist for an organization like Smoke Free Kids and a lobbyist for a major weapons company? It seems to me that we taken the word “lobbyist” put it in a negative context and now we can think our way of a wet paper bag because of the negative association. This is the same thing that was done with the term “special interest.”

  • plukasiak

    You’ve correctly captured the reality by saying the RNC “gleefully” emailed reporters. This is schoolboy tactics…
    _
    you say this as if Team Obama didn’t “gleefully” exploit every flub by Hillary Clinton and McCain/Palin….

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    kathy
    .
    Nothing about redoing the ceremony implicitly acknowledges anything. It was a CYA move to head off any of what I am sure were going to be a flurry of frivilous lawsuits over this like the ones over his birth certificate. Think of it this way, in order for anyone to prove he wasn’t really president when he signed those initial orders they would have to take it to the court where the Chief Justice is the guy who lead him through the oath. Somehow I doubt Roberts will impugn his own reputation that way by admitting he phucked it up.

  • sqr1

    Good God, Lukasiak, give it up! Hillary lost.
    .
    Most people understand the difference between a politics of elections and the politics of governance. Hint: In a political campaign, Hillary took an off-the-cuff remark at a private fundraiser that contained the word “cling” and “gleefully” made it the centerpiece of her campaign for a month. In the politics of governance, Hillary “gleefully” gave up a Senate seat to join Obama’s cabinet.
    .
    When the GOP and the PUMAs learn the difference between the two they will deserve to be listened to…but not a moment before.

  • FlownOver

    OMG! Obama’s letting someone in his administration who lobbied against kids smoking!
    .
    Lynn, so far the only former lobbyist for a for-profit interest, is a classic “exception that proves the rule.” As long as we can count those on the number of fingers we used to wave goodbye to Bush I see no threat to the republic. We might even be able to survive a few more, if they’re so qualified as to merit a spotlighted “waiver.”
    .
    Meanwhile, anything the Republicans say about this should be annotated with a list of all the Bush administration’s industry tools who couldn’t have met the Obama standard.

  • sqr1

    As for the merits of lobbyists and political appointees, I disagree that rules are made to be broken. I’m not saying that Lynn shouldn’t be appointed, just that the “rule” should incorporate the exception and that the exception should be clearly articulable.
    .
    In addition, the confirmation language should state exactly what the waiver is for or that no waiver is required. OOH, it might make it slightly harder to confirm some appointees because the opposition would have to not only confirm the appointee but expressly ratify the waiver. OTOH, it would remove the “gotcha” factor and make the debate about the merits.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    I be thinkin’ th’”Smoke-Free Kids” organization be a CYA smokescreen tossed up by th’ tobacco industry? Me memory be not wha’ it were afore th’ dreaded menopause struck me right blank-headed, but I be thinkin’ I heered tha’ somewhere…

  • mccainfluffer

    Michael. Thanks for utilizing your finely honed stenography skills to convey the RNC’s message.

    As for the issue, I am not expecting perfection from Obama. It would be great if he could have 100% compliance – Given the nature of our political system, it’s a difficult task. I will give him points for at least trying and compared to what we have had over the last eight years. I think it’s a good start.

  • Paul-no not that one

    So is this post about actual conflict of interest issues or the republicans pushing the story to reporters like MS?

  • sqr1

    Of course, Obama never mentioned this in his announcement.
    .
    Here’s the other problem. You can’t blame the GOP for playing “gotcha” if Obama invites them to do so. It is always dangerous to promise more than you can deliver. Bill Clinton’s administration put the past 5 GOP administrations to shame. But “the most ethical administration in history”? A dumb promise that invited the GOP to punch holes in it.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    The step after “1. Set standard” is “2. Apply standard.” Lynn lobbied for Raytheon and is set to be #2 at Defense? That’s relevant. Must we love Obama so much that we ignore his own new rule? No. Let the rule have its intended effect.

  • Andy from MA

    Kathy, I think Roberts would have cracked under the pressure of the cameras. That’s why cameras are not allowed in the SCOTUS. ;) It was in front of the press pool. It was reported. Electronic journos, get an effing life.

  • gysgt213

    What is really cool about all of this is the fact that the media will now discuss how Obama is not living up to his own rules much more than the past administration’s breaking of the law.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Aye gunny, let’s be keepin’ our lights on th’ prize…an’ th’ prize be th’ trappin’ o’ President Obama. Don’t be lookin’ o’er there where th’ Constitution be a shredded – th’ press (an’ th’ addlepated republicans) be havin’ a double-standard t’ be a playin’.

  • plukasiak

    Hint: In a political campaign, Hillary took an off-the-cuff remark at a private fundraiser that contained the word “cling” and “gleefully” made it the centerpiece of her campaign for a month. In the politics of governance, Hillary “gleefully” gave up a Senate seat to join Obama’s cabinet.
    _
    The Obamacult sure thrives, doesn’t it.
    _
    Hint — its not about Clinton, its about the false assumption (heard last when Bush II was inaugurated) that “the adults are in charge now”. The people behind Obama are just as childish and vindictive as the GOP — nothing has “changed” in that regard, and nothing will ever change when it comes to politicians “gleefully” pointing out obvious hypocrisy in their opponents.
    _
    (I mean, lets not forget what Team Obama just did to Howard Dean — now that was childish….)

  • Andy from MA

    It’s nice to see that the MSM are back after an eight year vacation.

  • gysgt213

    This is already the 2nd day of the Obama Administration and we are need deep in a faux scandel. He has 98 days left to right the ship.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    I didn’t know the information below about Lynn before the new rule. I know it now — find it highly relevant — and would like to see it thoroughly discussed. Go, Sen. McKaskill.

    The Honorable William J. Lynn is senior vice president of Government Operations and Strategy at Raytheon Company. He was elected an officer of the company in May 2005. Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN), with 2007 sales of $21.3 billion, is a technology leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 72,000 people worldwide. Lynn’s responsibilities include company liaison with the executive and legislative branches of the federal govern- ment, as well as state and local government relations. He also directs the corporate strategy office, where he is responsible for the development of companywide strategic plans. [Link]

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Avast mateys! I be mistaken! I now be learnin’ t’ check th’ link AFORE openin me pipes :) .
    .
    Here be th’ link: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/index.php
    .
    I’m hopin’ it be workin’. I’m offerin’ me sincere apologyt’ me fellow Swamplanders.

  • Ohg Rea Tone

    This is an example of the sort of sniping that will occur if the Obama administration investigate war crimes by the previous administration. Should politics even be considered in criminal investigations?. ……..

    http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/01/22/indicting-george-bush-for-war-crimes/

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    pourme
    .
    Not trying to be funny here but why do you find it highly relevant now? I suppose if Lynn threw Raytheon some business it would be relevant but then again I believe the DOD is about to go through some major cost cutting. But I want to get your take on the potential pitfalls.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    Behold! The sudden awakening! The press corpse awakes from its two-term slumber and suddenly becomes …a “watchdog”!!
    .

    Twitter / Jay Rosen : Jake Tapper on Charlie Rose said he and one or two others in the press corps choose to report on Obama on their feet rather than knees..

    .
    Behold! Even the President of the Jake Tapper Fan Club has gotten up off his knees!!
    .
    And Behold!
    .
    <blockquote"Twitter / Jay Rosen : One more thing on the same CJR piece about transparency. It calls the press-without any irony-the “voice of the people.” Seriously. It does..
    .
    Though, we have to wonder what has really changed when all “Watchdog” Michael is doing is reprinting “gleeful” Republican emails. The lofty rhetoric was nice while it lasted.

  • wvng

    It’s been a while since kathy said this: You’ve correctly captured the reality by saying the RNC “gleefully” emailed reporters. This is schoolboy tactics, and it’s the reason Obama quoted scripture: “when I became a man I put away childish things.” Time for some members of the Republican Party to grow up fast.
    .
    Seemed worth saying again. As does this gem from gunny: What is really cool about all of this is the fact that the media will now discuss how Obama is not living up to his own rules much more than the past administration’s breaking of the law.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    I find it highly relevant for obvious reasons. What contracts does Raytheon have currently with DoD? What contracts under bid? What systems under consideration would benefit Raytheon? How are Lynn’s views in general influenced by his history of employment by and advocacy for weapons manufacturers?

  • James, Los Angeles

    (ASIDE: The preview is nice and all, and I hate to grouse too much about its shortcomings, but you can’t really preview EVERYTHING that you’ve written. Only the first few lines. Sigh.)

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    So is this post about actual conflict of interest issues or the republicans pushing the story to reporters like MS?
    .
    The latter. But is there a conflict of interest nonetheless? Gibbs has a point. But then the waiver process has to be transparent as well. And the place where we have the biggest problems of corruption is in military procurement.
    .
    The case for the guy from the stop kids from smoking lobby is also not entirely irrelvant, if the organization receives government funding. Looking at the web site http://www.tobaccofreekids.org it looks like a privately funded advocacy organization. NARAL not Planned Parenthood. The latter receives funding for delivery of reproductive services
    .
    Still, the waivers should be posted on the web site.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    but you can’t really preview EVERYTHING that you’ve written. Only the first few lines.
    .
    Are you sure it is not just latency you’re seeing? Stuart’s review of the code showed that it goes through the post character by character, which means that the rendering process gets slower as the post length increases.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    To be clear, I’m not opposing Lynn — just saying hooray for the rule and its impact on someone like Lynn. The beneficial impact of a regulation like this is wholly blunted if you don’t take it seriously for people nominated by “one of us.” It’s always someone’s “us” and yesterday’s Halliburton is today’s Raytheon. I’m with McKaskill. The issues are real. Let it play out. If Lynn is right, he’ll come out seeming right.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    On gunny’s note, the excuse the press always gave is that the democrats weren’t making accusations, so there was nothing for them to report. I’ve always doubted that, but I suppose it’s possible that the Democrats didn’t bother with oppo research.
    .
    I’ll leave unremarked the picture this paints of journalism.
    .
    Oh, and Jay Rosen tweets a link to this CJR piece that seems to be complaining that the press is not getting special access to public information from the administration.
    .
    This is sorta the flip side of Kathy’s comment regarding the completely unnewsworthy repeat of the oath.

  • plukasiak

    I didn’t know the information below about Lynn before the new rule. I know it now — find it highly relevant — and would like to see it thoroughly discussed. Go, Sen. McKaskill.
    _
    nice catch PMC. This is a perfect example of “revolving door” political appointments — the guy works for the DoD, gets a top job at Raytheon as a lobbyist thanks to his contacts at the Pentagon, then turns around and gets another DoD job. This is precisely why these lobbying rules exist; I’m far less concerned with “lobbyists” per se than I am with someone like Lynn, who exploits his DoD contacts. The problem isn’t Raytheon, its that Lynn will be looking for another job at some point….

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Sorry, James. Didn’t see you’d put that up.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Are you sure it is not just latency you’re seeing? Stuart’s review of the code showed that it goes through the post character by character, which means that the rendering process gets slower as the post length increases.

    .
    Pretty sure, jayack. There comes a point in a longish post where it doesn’t preview the whole thing. Not sure what latency is. I should wait longer to see if it appears?
    .

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    The problem isn’t Raytheon, its that Lynn will be looking for another job at some point….
    .
    And that he was crafting strategies to win Raytheon business that he will now be evaluating the efficacy of, perhaps present by a person he was mentoring just a little while ago.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    pourme
    .
    Well I think we agree about whether or not he will funnel money to Raytheon but there is also the flipside that he may know quite a bit about not only Raytheon but also its competitors in terms of the quality of the weapons being made that someone without his background might not be as well versed in. I think the rule overall is a good one but I do think there should be exceptions for the simple fact that many times the best thinkers in many industries are in fact working as lobbyists because well if you know a lot of sh!t about defense what other industry are you going to work in? Its a very fine line no doubt, but one I think is worth walking in the right situation.

  • FlownOver

    jayack –

    I guess I just don’t get it. How is “a privately funded advocacy organization” problematic if it only advocates such an indisputably laudable aim? Even Planned Parenthood has significant opposition on the basis of principle, while I don’t see anyone arguing for children’s tobacco use.

  • rose83

    pourme, interesting link.
    .
    Kathy, I really don’t get the childish thing. He set a standard and didn’t meet it, and in the case of Lynn he’s fallen far from that standard. It’s perfectly fair to criticize him for nominating a major defense lobbyist to the second highest position in the DOD. Also, isn’t this what we want Republicans to be doing? Making reasonable and fair criticisms of Obama? That’s the job of an opposition party. If we criticize them now it’s like we’re just automatically criticizing Republicans every time they speak. And don’t worry, we won’t have a shortage of Republicans attacks to fairly criticize!
    .
    plukasiak, Obama’s imperfections don’t make him equivalent to Bush. It’s not like there’s a binary standard where on one side there’s perfection and on the other side there’s Bush. There’s a big range in the middle where virtually all of the Obama administration are.
    .
    That said… at some point people need to stop judging Obama and Democrats in comparison to Bush and Republicans. That’s too easy a standard. Do we really want journalists to spend the next 4 years saying, “Wow this guy is so much better than Bush?”
    .
    James, you might try copying and pasting a long section of text and then typing a few additional letters to see if the preview works and at what speed it functions.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    I’m all for transparency and restriction of the revolving door, and I think that exceptions for exceptional people can be accommodated. I agree these kinds of exceptions should be made available for public viewing on the website, which will probably be the case. Has anyone looked? I imagine those guys are pretty busy the past couple of days, so I’m willing to grant them a period of time to catch up.
    .
    I just find it so extremely ironic that the press has suddenly decided to get off their collective knees to suddenly become (cough) “watchdogs.” It’s just a transparent admission of how aware they have been, despite their defensive justifications, of their utter, profound failures of the past 8 years.
    .
    Even now they dare not speak of the worst deeds of the criminal cartel that was the Bush Administration. If Scherer was honest, he’d mention the lobbyists who populated the Bush Administration, you know, for “balance.”
    .

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    I should wait longer to see if it appears?
    .
    Yes. Also a carriage return is needed to force the rendering. (You’d think that same capability could be applied to putting in [br] tag, but apparently not.)
    .

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    How is “a privately funded advocacy organization” problematic if it only advocates such an indisputably laudable aim? Even Planned Parenthood has significant opposition on the basis of principle, while I don’t see anyone arguing for children’s tobacco use.
    .
    The organization’s advocacy goals are broader than just stopping kids’ tobacco use. As I said, if there is no funding involved, I don’t think that matters terribly much, even if the person in question were a lobbyist for a nuclear power advocacy group. If it’s pure issue lobbying, I don’t see a big problem; you need policy experts, and that is one of the useful roles lobbyists play.
    .
    That of course leaves aside the fact that tobacco companies are all for kids’ smoking.

  • gysgt213

    Even more surprisingly for spouters of conventional wisdom, a majority of Americans (50-47%) believe that the Obama administration should investigate whether the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees was illegal. When asked: “Do you think the Obama administration should or should not investigate whether any laws were broken in the way terrorism suspects were treated under the Bush administration?,” Democrats overwhelmingly favor such investigations (69%), while Republicans oppose them by the same margin, and independents are slightly against.
    .
    Relatedly, Americans would have opposed (52-42%) the issuance of pardons by Bush to those “who carried out his administration’s policy on the treatment of terrorism suspects.” The poll confined itself in these questions to investigations into detainee abuse, and did not ask about investigations into other Bush crimes, such as illegal spying, obstruction of justice and various DOJ crimes.
    .
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?source=rss

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Also, isn’t this what we want Republicans to be doing? Making reasonable and fair criticisms of Obama?
    .
    Actually, what we want is for them to honestly get engaged in the policy-making process to improve legislation as it operates in the real world.
    .
    Yes, indeed, we do want people to point out when ethics rules are circumvented or violated. Yes, indeed, we want them to do so even when they are Republicans.
    .
    But reading the tone of MS’s post, can you not see a rather childish game of “gotcha” here? The tone is not “this is a serious issue of possible conflict of interest.” Rather it’s “Nyah, nyah. Caught you.”
    .
    Wow. That rendering is SLOW. That short paragraph at the end hung for a good 4 or 5 seconds.
    .
    Underestimate. By Ipod stopwatch puts it at 10:56 seconds.

  • Matt

    So the ethics rules are a glorious move from Obama except when they threaten his exceptional judgment of character in administration appointments…

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    My hopeless man-crush Jack Reed gives Lynn a thumbs-up, so I’m on board:

    Another senior member of the panel who initially was rumored to be favored for the secretary of Defense position, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), said that Lynn is “superbly” prepared for the job. [Link]

  • ogliberal

    As much as I hate to see the GOP “gleeful”, they do have a point. The Corr dude – well, I just don’t see any evil in hiring a guy to HHS who worked for an organization that apparently tries to prevent kids from smoking. But the Lynn appointment is a bit troublesome. If you are going to make rules, you should follow them as best as possible. Is there nobody else who can do the job Lynn has been selected to perform? Even if he is the best person for the job, if your goal is to hire the most qualified people for every position – and I have no problem with that – then don’t put in place a rule that might prevent you from doing so. That said, I think you can fill every spot with highly qualified people and still follow the rules you established.

    I know Lynn served in the Clinton Pentagon and I assume he’s a Dem but I have to think that the GOP – despite their attempt to score cheap political points via this “gotcha” (and they know the media loves “gotchas”) – actually likes the nomination. I mean, when has the GOP ever NOT liked a defense contractor? Seems to me that the GOP has their biggest problems – outside of Holder, that is – with the more moderate folks Obama selected…the folks that are supposed to make the GOP happy, the folks that show that Obama isn’t a raging communist. Geithner is an example – until the tax stuff came up, the GOP and conservatives were quite happy with his selection. I actually heard more concerns about him from the left than from the right. On the foreign policy front, the GOP seemed pretty happy with the Hillary pick for SoS. Yet Cornyn held up the vote for a day and Demint and Vitter voted against her.

    This is all theater and all of these folks will get confirmed. Unfortunately, with the Lynn nomination, the Obama ethics rule about not appointing lobbyists looks a bit like theater as well.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Well, now I am wondering if this is being misreported, or distorted by Obama spin. Here’s the relevant part of the executive order
    .

    “2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

    “3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:
    .
    (a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
    .
    (b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
    .
    (c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
    .
    “4. Revolving Door Ban Appointees Leaving Government. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions for a period of 2 years following the end of my appointment.
    .
    “5. Revolving Door Ban Appointees Leaving Government to Lobby. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 4, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to lobby any covered executive branch official or non career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.

    .
    That I have to insert manual breaks into pasted material is really embarassing.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Ah.
    .
    3c seems to be the relevant clause. No mention of a waiver process that I can see….

  • rose83

    But reading the tone of MS’s post, can you not see a rather childish game of “gotcha” here? The tone is not “this is a serious issue of possible conflict of interest.” Rather it’s “Nyah, nyah. Caught you.”
    .
    jayackroyd, first that’s certainly how MS describes it, with his use of the word “gleefully.” But we can’t say for sure that’s the true tone of the Republicans’ criticism since MS didn’t include any quotations from the emails. I wouldn’t automatically believe MS if he claimed that fair Democratic criticisms were made “gleefully.” Second, isn’t it actually childish to respond to a fair criticism by essentially saying, “I don’t like your tone?”

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Hey, MS, Rose has a point. Can you post the text of the email?

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Hot damn we have progress!
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll011709.html
    .
    35a. (HALF SAMPLE) Do you think the Obama administration should or should not investigate whether any laws were broken in the way terrorism suspects were treated under the Bush administration?
    Should Should not No opinion
    1/16/09 50 47 2
    35b. (HALF SAMPLE) Would you support or oppose Bush issuing a pardon to prevent criminal charges against anyone in the federal government who carried out his administration’s policy on the treatment of terrorism suspects?
    Support Oppose No opinion
    1/16/09 42 52 6

  • gysgt213

    “MS didn’t include any quotations from the emails.”
    .
    Well wouldn’t it be better for Michael do just do his own independent reporting on issues because they are important for us to know and discuss? With so much focus on the email(s) from the RNC it leads me to believe that there would have been no interest on Michael’s part to post about this at all.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    hahahahaha
    .
    Looking at the rnc site looking for a release on this, I don’t find it. But the link to whitehouse.gov is still there.

  • Paul-no not that one

    jay, thanks for finding the relevant section.
    3c seems pretty straight forward as it applies to Lynn.
    .
    MS, please observe what reporting and context looks like.

  • rose83

    Well wouldn’t it be better for Michael do just do his own independent reporting on issues because they are important for us to know and discuss?
    .
    gysgt213, agreed.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Yeah, gunny, it would have been a better story to post the link to the bio pourmecoffee linked to. That said, reading the link, I can see why they may believe he’s uniquely qualified:
    .

    Prior to joining DFI in 2001, Lynn served four years as the UnderSecretary of Defense (Comptroller). In that position, he was the chief financial officer for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the principal advisor to the Secretaryof Defense for all budgetary and fiscal matters. From 1993 to 1997, Lynn was the director of program analysis and evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,where he oversaw all aspects of the DoD’s strategic planning process.
    .
    Lynn was awarded three DoD medals for distinguished public service, the Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffand awards from the Army, Navy and Air Force. He also received the 2000 Distinguished Federal Leadership Awardfrom the Association of Government Accountants for his efforts to improve defense accounting practices.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    The Obama team is trying to work around it, but at least they are doing so in the light of the day:

    Obama’s transition office acknowledged that appointing a lobbyist did not, on the face of it, seem in line with the president-elect’s ethics stance but that Lynn’s qualifications and the recommendations that came from both Republicans and Democrats made him the top candidate. “Because Mr. Lynn came so highly recommended from experts across the political spectrum, the president-elect felt it was critical that he fill this position,” said Obama transition spokesman Tommy Vietor [Link]

    I’d like to see him get some tough questions on the record by McKaskill and others, too. Transparency.

  • gysgt213

    “The Bush administration used meta-data (things like length of phone call that have nothing to do with terrorism) to pick which communications to actually open and read, and then they opened and read them.
    .
    And of course, everyone’s communications–everyone’s–were included in the totality of communications that might be tapped.
    .
    Including–especially–journalists. We knew that both Christiane Amanpour and Lawrence Wright’s communications were tapped. Well, apparently so were every other journalists’.
    .
    Tice figured out that they were getting journalists’ communications when he realized that they were separating out all the journalists’ communications–but then ensuring that those communications were still collected 24/7.
    .
    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/21/russell-tice-confirms-everything-weve-surmised-about-bushs-illegal-wiretap-program/#more-36382

  • shepherdwong

    “William Corr, who was nominated as number two at the Department of Health and Human Services, had recently lobbied the agency for the Campaign for Tobacco Free-Kids.”
    .
    OMG! The conflict! The agony! How dare they seek to place that “lobbyist” in charge of the people’s health.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Thanks, gunny. It’ll be interesting to see whether knowing that he’s been tapped, for years, will change Joe Klein’s take on this.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    Actually, jayack @Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 11:12 am:

    .
    It appears at it is (b) that is the relevant issue:
    .
    (b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls;
    .
    Scherer and the gleeful Republicans haven’t yet said or demonstrated whether Lynn “participated in the specific issue area” for which he is nominated.
    .
    Michael, it appears you have a little more, er, reporting to do.
    .

  • michaelscherer

    I updated post with a link to the Exec. Order, pointing to the waiver provision in section 3 (b).

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    pmc-
    .
    One of the ways in which they have been consistent, and different from the Bush administration, is they haven’t told stupid lies yet. The Bush administration response to a situation like this would be to deny that the guy was a lobbyist.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    Man, that was quick, Scherer.
    .

  • mccainfluffer

    Will there be a Swampland post about the latest revelations about NSA spying on all Americans? Or do we have to wait for the RNC to chime in on the issue?

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    jayackroyd
    .
    Yeah I will bet Joe Klein is somewhere sh!tting a brick right now knowing that it wasn’t just the “others” who were spied on but likely himself as well. I predict another come to jesus transformation with a post in the very near future decrying the “draconian, McCarthyist, Nixonian” measures used by the Bush administration.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Thanks, MS. I shouldn’t have stopped reading quite so soon. Here’s the waiver text:

    Sec. 3. Waiver.
    .
    (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.
    .
    (b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
    .
    Well, it’s there. It’s a national security concern. Yes, it should be discussed in hearings. Funding the stimulus will depend on cleaning up DoD, reducing expenditures, and stop wasting money on stuff that doesn’t work. So it’s also an exigent economy concern.

  • sqr1

    You’re not helping you’re case p_luk. I believe there is a 12 step program for PUMAs though. Seek help.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    James–
    .
    I read those three subclauses as “ORs” not “ANDs”.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    Note:
    US intel nominee promises no unlawful surveillance – Yahoo! News

    WASHINGTON (AFP) – Retired US admiral Dennis Blair pledged Thursday that he would not support unlawful surveillance activities if confirmed as President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence.
    .
    “I do not and will not support any surveillance activities that circumvent established processes without lawful authorization,” Blair said at his Senate confirmation hearing.
    .
    Blair was alluding to the previous administration’s practice of intercepting certain US telephone communications without warrants from a special court.

    .
    Good news.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    If you want Joe Klein to flip on surveillance, that’s easy. Just have someone pro-surveillance personally insult him. He seems to be very motivated by personal vendetta.

  • shepherdwong

    “I predict another come to jesus transformation with a post in the very near future decrying the “draconian, McCarthyist, Nixonian” measures used by the Bush administration.”
    .
    I predict that it won’t be the Bush Administration they’ll be excoriating. Sorry, I’ve seen this movie before.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    jayack,
    .
    thanks for your research on this issue. I think it’s been a healthy discussion. I feel at peace with the nomination but certainly understand that some people don’t. Thanks for your excellent reporting.
    .

  • rose83

    If you want Joe Klein to flip on surveillance, that’s easy. Just have someone pro-surveillance personally insult him. He seems to be very motivated by personal vendetta.
    .
    pourme, cruel but perceptive. I’m signing off now…

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    James–
    .
    This is exactly what the CJR piece was whining about. By putting out the executive orders, in public and easily accessed, it becomes more difficult for the beltway press to control the narrative. Doing so should also change what reporters do. Rather than run a rehashed email from a party operative, followed by a recycled story from a wire service, it’s far better to use that email to look at the people involved, the executive order, and then write an original story linked to the executive order.
    .
    This is a big issue, as pluk pointed out, because the way these guys make the six and seven figure salaries is by going in and out of the revolving door, the time in increasing your value when you’re out.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    jayack, well I’m generally not a fan of the revolving door culture in DC myself. I think the specific issue with Lynn was hashed out some weeks ago right after Gates’ nomination, and his (Lynn’s) exceptional qualifications were noted.
    .
    I’m fairly forgiving of blog posts but sure, it would have been swell if Michael had looked up the waiver language himself instead of rushing to post the Republican gotcha, leaving his commenters to do the heavy lifting. But that’s what we came to expect with Scherer. I’m kind of surprised that Jennifer Loven didn’t include that information in her piece when AP rushed to print with Republican objections. She’s generally a pretty good wire reporter, but of course restrained by Fournierism. If she purposefully left it out, it was quite a terrible oversight.

  • Andy from MA

    pourme, you left out the anti semite insult for Klein. You’re such a mensche, too!

  • http://www.jasonhayes.org/?p=3140 The most transparent … | Jason Hayes – Musing

    [...] Obama’s pick for the #2 spot at HHS (to go along with his #1 pick “special public policy advisor” to Alston Bird, Tom Daschle and registered lobbyist for Baker Donelson, Linda Daschle) is none other than, William Corr, who was nominated as number two at the Department of Health and Human Services, had recently lobbied the agency for the Campaign for Tobacco Free-Kids. [...]

  • http://yesletstalkaboutthis.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/realities-of-governance/ Realities of Governance « Yes, Let’s Talk About This

    [...] a powerful popular sentiment, but it’s simply impractical in terms of actual governance (as Obama has discovered). Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Mandate?The Truth of Obama’s “Hope [...]

  • http://capitalismtoday.blog.wku.edu/2011/02/03/exempted-from-the-rule-of-law/ Exempted from the Rule of Law? « Capitalism Today

    [...] course, exemptions to Obama’s rules should come as no surprise. There were exceptions for President Obama’s ethics rules. There were exemptions to the reading of Miranda rules for terror suspects. There were exceptions to [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus