Campaign Donors Working On Policy At The White House

MIkey,
.
You DID write a similar story back when Enron was meeting with Dick Cheney to write energy policy during the past Administration, didn’t you?
.
You knwo, Enron, that company that was pillaging the state of CA at the time with its manipulations of rates…

Not to defend Enron, but doesn’t California also share some of the blame for that fisaco? As I recall when they “deregulated” their energy markets they prohibited the utility companies from entering into long term energy supply contracts. Had they been allowed to do that it would have made Enron’s manipulation of the spot market a moot point.

Meet the new boss, same as the old…..

I have done a bunch of previous campaign finance reporting. Worked on the 2000 version of the Mother Jones 400, which is sadly no longer online, and included discussion of the Enron crowd, among others.

shakrai-Re/ Enron and California, check out Smartest Guys in the Room if you have the chance.

Not to defend Enron…
.
Except… you just did.
.
Is this a case of “don’t blame the crook, blame the victim for being so tempting a target”?
.
Oh, I agree, “de-regulation” has cause a LOT of the problems this country is having financially right now. I guess we just tempted the crooks among us ‘way past the point at which a reasonable person could be expected to remain honest. Maybe there’s just a lot of us who are being unreasonably honest?
.
Silly us…

Thanks for the response, Michael. I DO appreciate it.

Yes Another Look at them not us. The biggest joke is having Andy Stern on the Budget Deficit Commission.

But let’s re-hash Cheney/Enron. BTW the Enron guys are in prison. The folks who defrauded Fannie/Freddie Raines and Gorelick walked away with millions and a federal pension.

Ah, free, right on schedule. Good morning.
.
Nice to have you and your sunny disposition among us.

I actually appreciate media covering these kind of stories.
.
“The issue here has less to do with the merits of the specific policies than the apparent role that campaign contributions play in our political system”
.
While appearances do matter you say this is not about policy but about “apparent” influence. I think that’s where better transparency has helped.

Yes, somebody needs to give you a glimpse of reality

Not sure what you mean? How did transparency help with the HC bills? It certainly didn’t stop special interests or even slow them

When we see specific legilsation which bans outright the lobbyist and special interest groups from Washington, then and only then will you see an end to their influence.
.
If progressives truly believed in “regulating”, they would first call for these corrupt, quid-pro-quo practices to stop. When individuals and voters return to the prominent place they belong as the most important thing to any politician, Republican or Democrat, then we shall see change we can believe in from Washington.
.
The facade you speak of from this Administration is just that, Michael. A facade. They may appear to have made changes, but in reality it is nothing more than good ‘ol Washington, with a mix of Chicago thuggery, politics.
.
Not until November happens, when the movement to “throw the bums out” occurs will they open their eyes and ears.
.
Just because you open up the White House visiting logs, and Andy Stern’s name appears more than anyone else, can you call this “change we can believe in”. The transparency is clear, Andy Stern is now on the Budget Deficit Commission. A move I am sure will no longer require his name to be put on the White House visitors log. Now he is simply part of the Administration.
.
Anyone for the fox in the henhouse analogies? But, it could be worse I suppose. It could be a self-described Communist like Van Jones.

Why is it that every time the Obama Administration is caught doing something that appears to be wrong, the liberal’s response is always that the Republicans did the same thing or did it first?
You sound like a bunch of third graders all pointing and saying its Johnny fault. He did it first.
If something is obviously wrong it’s dishonest to defend it regardless of who else has done it.
If you Liberals want to be taken seriously you need to stop defending the Obama Administration when it is in the wrong or use facts that prove its actions are really in the best interest of the country.

Michael Scherer:

A prominent Democratic lobbyist I spoke with was even more blunt…

…about everything but his own identity.
.
Why would you allow these sorts of naked accusations to be shielded by anonymity, Michael Scherer?
.
How are readers supposed to know that this person doesn’t simply represent opposing interests?
.
They’re a lobbyist talking about a big campaign donor…that’s like anonymously quoting Achmed Chalabi’s thoughts on Saddams nuclear program.
.
All you got was an inflammatory “Lincoln Bedroom” quote?
.
Why couldn’t you get somebody to go on the record, Michael Scherer, so we could talk about real things going on, not metaphors from nameless, faceless accusers?

Thanks for saying it shakrai – people, when are we gonna get that we are being played by both sides? Well meaning types on both sides are used by power brokers (the Bushes by Cheneys and Rumsfelds, the Obamas by Soros, Stern, GE, etc. — power brokers will always want power and money, and they look for an in wherever they can. Stop arguing sides on this, but look for ways to disincentivize (not a word – sorry) these types from taking advantage of us–we the people. THAT’s why limited government is the better of the options – keep it small and where you can actually be a part of it — on the local level. So you can see the whites of their eyes… Please hear us — before it’s too late. They’re playing all of the idealogues out there. Yes, there IS a conspiracy — greedy unprincipled types are out there, always have been, always will be. Strengthen your families, teach your children to be moral, principled people, and demand it of your local leaders and chop this monstrosity of a Fed government down to a manageable size. Change we can believe in happens in our homes, our neighborhoods and our communities — not in Washington.

When we see specific legilsation which bans outright the lobbyist and special interest groups from Washington, then and only then will you see an end to their influence.
.
Hey, I’m ALL for that, Rusty.
.
But you do realize THAT “lobbying reform” would destroy the GOP as a viable party, don’t you?

afguy:

You really need to stop inhaling. What do you think would happen to the Demo party? Service Union, Teachers union, MoveOn, AARP, ABA, Trial Lawyers, LaRaza, NAACP and on and on.

Hey all this ethics and transparency stuff reminded me of something I’ve been thinking about:

I know Evan Bayh throws a tantrum every time someone suggests that his wife’s position on all these corporate boards (6??) is related to getting access to him.

-How long after his retirement will it take for these corporations to decide they no longer need Susan Bayh on their boards?

I think we are looking at 6 months for the first shoe to drop and within a year and a half she will be down to one board.

And, next question, who’ll be selected to replace her?
.
Another wife of an influential Senator?

Not sure. How long did it take them with Daschle’s wife?

The more I read your comments the more I think you’re Glenn Greenwald incognito. I’m sure you’ll take that as a compliment (his is my favorite blog, fyi).

Has there been a moajor issue that Obama has stood behind yet? I mean give something other than lip service to?.
.
Which way is the wind blowing, and from who?

Yes, that’s a great compliment, thank you.

Great point. I figure MS has a very different definition of “blunt” than those of us in flyover country.

There are obvious reasons that this lobbyist would not speak to me on the record. If the person did, the lobbyist could be punished by the White House, with which the lobbyist needs to appeal to to get access for clients. So the choice for me is either to not include the concern/frustration/perspective among the lobbying world–the people who know all about buying access–or to allow the lobbyist to speak without identification. I chose the latter.

Um….did you notice how the Cornback Kickback dropped the approval rating of the bill and gave an insane boost to Republican fortunes….all because of transparency on the bill? How is that not helpful? It shined a light on corruption in Washington and how the game is played and it will make Washington far more hesitant to pull the same stunt again.
.
I suppose it is once again proof that Republicans are incapable of thinking of anything more than the immediate benefit. Since transparency didn’t actually kill HCR and thus deprive Obama of his coming major victory, transparency was a total failure.

ed: “immediate benefit to them”

Michael Scherer:
.
Thanks so much for responding to commentary…but:
.
You’re acting as if the revelation of a metaphor (“It’s the Lincoln Bedroom with a little more cover”) is the same as naming names, dates, times, agendas, conclusions or other facts.
.
This isn’t whistleblowing you’re protecting, here, it’s an evidence-less accusation.
.
If the choice is between “not include the concern/frustration/perspective among the lobbying world,” and allowing shadowy parties to launch unsupported accusations, then I, as a reader, would prefer the former, because the latter results in a worse systemic consequence –access to you, who can then influence me according to the interests of lobbyists.
.
Seriously, you can’t truly believe that you’re doing your readers a big favor by not withholding the frustrations of nameless lobbyists from us, do you? Is that really what you’re meant to do as a reporter, make certain that we’re fully up to date on how some anonymous, interested participants in semi-legitimate policy influencing feel about things at the moment?
.
Again, if this person was willing to name names, dates, and the influence being sought and possibly obtained, then we’re talking about something else, something that truly merits the deep concern over noble truth-tellers’ career fortunes you’ve shown. Unfortunately for your audience, that’s simply not what “It’s the Lincoln Bedroom with a little more cover” amounts to.
.
Give us real evidence, not merely what people are saying behind each others’ backs, and then the granting of anonymity will begin to regain our trust, instead of squandering it. Surely that’s what the practice was meant to achieve in the first place, right?
.
I appreciate the opportunity to make this point clear to you, Michael Scherer, thanks so much.

When we see specific legilsation which bans outright the lobbyist and special interest groups from Washington, then and only then will you see an end to their influence.
.
Yeah, something drastic has to be done.
.
If progressives truly believed in “regulating”, they would first call for these corrupt, quid-pro-quo practices to stop
.
They are.
.
when the movement to “throw the bums out” occurs will they open their eyes and ears.
.
We’d be replacing bums with bums (after replacing the old bums). It’s gotten a bit better, I guess… whoopie. I’d like to see a libertarian and progressive party emerge… starve the R and D institutions.

SZ-I share your concern/frustration with blind quoting. It is overused in the extreme.
.
But what I’m not clear on is why when KT used it for what I feel were not convincing reasons and gave certainly a less thorough response to you than Scherer you said-

“Completely understood, KT.
.
Thanks so much”
.
What do you feel is the standard for using anonymous quotes?

Speaking of which…
.
Phil Gramm’s wife joined Enron’s board after he wrote the Commodity Futures Moderization Act… You know, the act that de-regulated investment banking and shielded over the counter derivatives, commodities trading, credit derivatives, credit defaults, and swaps from Fed regs; oh yeah, then he became a bank lobbyist.
.
jus sayin’

PNNTO:
.
That’s a great question.
.
You mean this conversation (link to commentary & thread in question):

KT:

What many Democrats on Capitol Hill most fear right now…is that this new bill would be a dramatic scaling-back of the whole endeavor, to a more piecemeal approach that would not go nearly as far to cover the uninsured.

Who are these “many Democrats”?
.
What kind of Democrat are they, i.e. are they the Ron Wyden kind of Democrat or the Max Baucus kind of Democrat? Is Bernie Sanders worried or is Blanche Lincoln?
.
When you say they’re worried about an approach that “would not go nearly as far to cover the uninsured,” is that code for worries that Obama won’t include questionably popular measures like the individual mandate –after Senators have already voted for it?

Tumulty responded:

Some of them are in leadership offices. I can’t be more specific than that.

, and I wrote back:

Completely understood, KT.

So, what’s the difference, you ask?
.
Well, the first difference is that Tumulty was telling us what anonymous government officials were saying about themselves, not other people.
.
These weren’t accusations against others, Tumulty was describing what these Democrats themselves said made them fearful of a different approach. That’s an entirely different matter than anonymous accusations of semi-legal bribery, isn’t it?
.
I believe that Scherer has much, much more of an obligation to require that people who relay hearsay in terms of “the Lincoln Bedroom,” i.e. the context of a largely baseless Whitewater-style scandal-mongering campaign of the ’90s, do so on the record, unless they’re truly acting as whistleblowers with real inside information (names, dates, facts). Tumulty wasn’t printing accusations against others which, if not perfectly true, would amount to libel, she was printing what some people said about how they felt about an iteration of legislation.
.
The second difference is that I believe Tumulty answered the question I posed.
.
When I asked her “are they the Ron Wyden kind of Democrat or the Max Baucus kind of Democrat?,” and she answered “Some of them are in leadership offices,” that tells us that it’s not Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders, doesn’t it?
.
I would have preferred if she had updated her post to say

“What Democrats on Capitol Hill, [most importantly including some in leadership offices,] most fear right now…”

, but I understand that I can’t always impose those kind of demands on a professional reporter, because I’m not her editor.
.
It would have been best if Tumulty had put Democratic leadership on the record, of course, but this is a situation in which much, much more care must be given to allowing interested parties access to journalists who can then broadcast broad accusations of chicanery.
.
Does that make sense to you, PNNTO?

SZ, I very much appreciate your response.
.
The specifics of the two examples we are using are less interesting to me than the ground rules for anonymous quoting/sourcing. It is far too often used for score settling/axe grinding and agenda pushing.
.
As to the specifics I agree with your take on MS’s use (although I do understand his explanation even if I don’t agree with his decision) not entirely with you on KT. When it comes to elected officials I expect more on the record not less, after all unlike lobbyist the voters can do something about our members of Congress.
.
How hard do reporters really push when someone wants to go off the record? We will never know.
.
Again thanks for the thoughtful response, SZ

Afghanistan.

He’s really in favor of bailing out the banks, but keeping the financial system essentially intact as it is.

OK, OK and, wire-taps, waiting for his reversal on Terrorists Trials.

Third-way Centrism and bi-partisanship.

Here is a hint: He doesn’t stand up for anything that be believes for one of 2 reasons. He believes in nothing or the public backlash on every piece of nonsense he tries.

pintortwo:

Is that like Maxine Waters getting bailout money to a bank that her husband is an investor in or Fannie being defended by Barney Frank after his “partner” was hired?

just sayin

The holy than thou attitude of the left is laughable. They are corrupt on both sides.

freeinpa:
.
You’re wrong about that. Obama is a firmly committed centrist ideologue.
.
He really believes in executing Tom Daschle’s and Bob Dole’s health care reform with the blessing of the Republican minority, and he will do virtually anything to make that happen, no matter how bad for the actual policy it is.
.
Only someone so radically dedicated to an ideological principle –bipartisan centrism– could ignore the reality of the GOP’s dishonest negotiating for a year, and pass legislation that threatens to take a big crap all over his own party.
.
He acts in this counter-productive “pragmatic” fashion because his ideology defines pragmatism as something completely unworkable, given the reality of the extreme rightism of the Republican minority.
.
Obama really believes this sh*t. It’s real.

Pafro: I think you are off base on Bayh and his wife.

The revolving door of influence is far more sophisticated than you suggest.

Rather than cutting off Bayh’s wife now that he is no longer a Senator, I expect that corporations will shower Evan Bayh and his wife with far more loot.

This is why influence peddling is so pernicious today. Because you often can’t point to a specific quid pro quo.

There is an implicit bribe being offered to all elected officials. The way it works is that you play ball while in office and then, when you retire, you are hired as a lobbyist or consultant and showered with millions to go play golf and show up to cocktail parties.

Sure, the corporations could cut off the gravy train to the Bayh family but that would ruin their influence on the next generation of politicians. You want the opposite. You want Bayh’s replacement to see Bayh drown in a bath of cash when he leaves office so that the replacement understands what is at stake.

Cenk Uygur made a great analogy when he asked what the public reaction would be if when 50% or more of professional sports’ referees retired they were hired by Las Vegas casinos with highly-paid consultancy gigs. Obviously, people would assume that it was a reward for a job well done.

The issue here has less to do with the merits of the specific policies than the apparent role that campaign contributions play in our political system. “When you have campaign donors on these advisory boards,” says Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, “it has the appearance of being an inside special-interest opportunity.”

Hope this thread isn’t too dead, wasn’t able to chime in earlier, but I have a problem with this. It seems to me until we have public financing for campaigns this kind of thing will happen. As long as it is public that the donor is on the board, I’m not sure how big a deal it is. It seems as though Doerr has significant expertise in the field and is a good choice.

Do we expect candidates to refuse contributions because they might want to ask the person at some future time to do something in their administration? He wasn’t asked to be the Secretary of Energy. And, he could still be asked and then would have to be confirmed by congress. Since congress chooses to block most nominees for anything these days, do you want congress to approve all appointments to anything?

Come on free, “holier than thou”? I called both parties “bums” above and hoped that they get “starved” by the assention of other parties. In many instances I say that Ds are an improvement over Rs (like saying I prefer the taste of Coke over Pepsi, while acknowledging both will rot your teeth if that’s all you drink). My opinions and experience show up in my posts and I trend a certain way. But I’ve certainly trashed Obama and the Ds when appropriate.
.
My comment re Gramm is apt. Enron’s been mentioned, wives mentioned, bank reform to be discussed soon– and that act is a big deal. It stands on its own perfectly fine.
.
You sure that your attitude is above reproach?

pintortwo:

“I’d like to see a libertarian and progressive party emerge… starve the R and D institutions”

I am half with you on the first and completely with you on the latter.

pintortwo

“My opinions and experience show up in my posts and I trend a certain way. But I’ve certainly trashed Obama and the Ds when appropriate”

I agree with your assessment. My comments were a general statement to your post and were more directed to some others.

SZ:

Seriously a centrist idealogue. Please. A man who, if you examine statements he made in college, folks he hung out with in college, speeches he made and folks he has sprinkled across his administration, is no where near being a centrist of any sort.

That is a fantasy liberals spread.

Cheers!

One would think everyone can tell the difference between TRANSPARENCY and the fact someone let the cat out of the bag on the corn husker deal..as well as the LA deal.. the administration was HOPING to keep it hidden.. here’s the thing they are making payoff’s for votes.. it’s as simple as that.. it’s as criminal as paying off a judge, or police officer.. and I think the people have had enough of it.. we want things done the way we serfs for the most part have to get them done honestly.. and for sure not by stealing the taxpayers money for payoff’s.. there are just as many lobbyists on the hill s there ever was, as a matter of fact they have gotten high seats like Andy Stern.. It’s a shame we have to not only pay our government top dollar and a landslide of perks we have to watch them harder than a druggie in a drug store..

1. The Supreme court can overrule it’s own rulings.

2. The Constitution can be amended. This would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and ratification by three-quarters of the states (actually, at least 39).

Optionally, Congress can rewrite a law to conform with Constitutional standards, which is the most frequent response to the Supreme Court overturning a law.

Now the subject I think was on the abortion ruling.. and FEAR..which I was only partially right on since I forget it would have to be a Constitutional amendment.. but it goes back to my point that the Republicans and Democrats BOTH use the FEAR.. the Left says oh the Right wants to take away the right of abortion and the Right says they will fight to do so.. they are both telling what is a lie.. they can do as Bush did stop full term abortions but neither can do much about the Supreme Courts ruling on it.. or take away the choice to do so.. Therefore my point that fear mongering is alive and thriving on BOTH sides the isle.. BTW the polar bears are just fine.. so much for the FEAR MONGERING of GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE which the latter of the two has ALWAYS occurred and the first one is not real but made up by the Left for monetary rasons ..