No More Lobbyist Contributions to the Democratic Party, says Obama

[RobMoney$]

It's been less than two days since he crossed the delegate threshold to become the Democratic presidential nominee and Sen. Barack Obama's mark on the party is already being felt.

On Good Morning America Thursday, ABC News' Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported "the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists, will no longer take contributions from PACs" in keeping with Obama's well-publicized policy.

Howard Dean:
"The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people's priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests."


Unprecedented.
I would love to see a day when candidates accept money from individuals only. Forget Industry, PACs, Labor Unions, etc., they're all soulless organizations.
It's high time our representatives remain beholden to their constituents and not the almighty dollar.

But I ain't buying it, not as long as the GOP isn't offering to match this.
It's a nice soundbite, but neither party is going to axe out their big donors from party access.

[DroppinScience]

But I ain't buying it, not as long as the GOP isn't offering to match this.
It's a nice soundbite, but neither party is going to axe out their big donors from party access.

Unfortunately, you're right. The truth of the matter is that both parties are subjected to too much of the whim of lobbyists and not so much the will of the people who elected them to Washington. I appreciate gestures to have more ethics when it comes to lobbying, but I don't think we'll see the end of Jack Abramoffs anytime soon.

[funk63]

sand

[alien autopsy]

didnt that asshole just speak at AIPAC the other day?

[Bob]

didnt that asshole just speak at AIPAC the other day?

i don't know, did he? i'm not sure, you haven't mentioned it enough times yet

[DroppinScience]

didnt that asshole just speak at AIPAC the other day?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/05/9433/

Obama Walks Fine Line at Major Pro-Israel Meet
by Khody Akhavi

WASHINGTON - Speaking last year at the same forum, he received scattered boos. But as Senator Barack Obama strode towards the podium Wednesday morning at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he was greeted with a standing ovation.0605 02 1 2

The applause kept coming throughout his half-hour address. And when it was over, the cheering persisted.

If Obama appeared confident, it was perhaps because he had clinched the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party the previous evening, even if his adversary, Senator Hillary Clinton, would still not formally concede.

Obama spoke directly before the junior senator from New York on Wednesday and used his newfound position of strength to stress peace, dialogue, and diplomacy. They are themes that are not traditionally favoured at AIPAC, widely considered the most influential foreign policy lobby group in Washington, and which has been historically sceptical of the value of negotiations between Israel and its neighbours.

“A secure, lasting peace is in Israel’s interest. It is in America’s national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security,” said Obama.

“And I won’t wait until the waning days of my presidency,” he added in a clear dig at President George W. Bush, an AIPAC favourite for his unstinting support of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The audience applauded.

The annual AIPAC conference is a test of loyalty for high-level officials, the year’s most important event for a powerful group attempting to affect U.S. policy towards the Middle East.

To critics, the conference is a pander party, drawing an extraordinary number of high-level U.S. officials who — for political reasons — pledge their unwavering support for Israel, even if that “support” goes against what the Israeli government and majority of the population want.

But Obama’s speech in many ways marked a shift in the usual approach, as it seemed the Illinois senator was encouraging the AIPAC faithful to support his positions, rather than submitting to what the group’s policy agenda otherwise suggested.

“His speech was remarkably different in tone and substance from any other speaker that you heard at the conference,” said Trita Parsi, who heads the National Iranian American Council. “Instead of staying away from the issue, he made a strong case, he didn’t back down from the fact that diplomacy would not only be valuable to U.S. interests, but is also good for Israel’s security.”

While much of the conference — indeed, Senator John McCain’s address to the same audience two days before — was devoted to the intentions and perceived existential threat posed by Iran, Obama offered a few suggestions on what Israel itself could do to advance the cause of peace with Palestinians in its own backyard.

“Israel can,” he said, “ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the [President George W.] Bush administration at Annapolis.”

Obama also lent his support to the Israeli government’s indirect peace talks with neighbouring Syria, in contrast to the very tepid response offered by the Bush administration. McCain failed to even mention it on Monday.

And when it came to Iran — Public Enemy Number One at the AIPAC conference — Obama said he had no illusions about pursuing diplomacy with Tehran but would reintroduce diplomacy as a tool of statecraft to succeed, not just to contain “failure”.

“Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilise others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation,” he said.

“We will present a clear choice [to Iran]. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear programme, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.”

Obama’s speech offered a stark contrast to his Republican adversary, Senator John McCain, who in an address to the same audience on Monday maintained the bellicose rhetoric of the Bush administration and mocked Obama’s willingness to engage Iran diplomatically.

“Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents,” McCain went on, “as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.”

But Obama’s speech was not pander-free, however. One comment appeared aimed at appeasing hardliners within the AIPAC’s leadership: “Jerusalem must remain the capital of Israel, and must remain undivided,” said Obama.

Even the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected any final settlement in which Palestinians do not share — at least part of — Jerusalem.

In an unusually pointed speech before AIPAC on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called talking to Iran pointless unless Tehran suspends the country’s uranium enrichment programme.

When it came her turn to speak, the haggard and deflated Clinton, who is expected to formally acknowledge Obama’s victory by the end of the week, came one step closer to acknowledging Obama’s win but did not refer to him as the nominee.

“Let me be very clear,” she said, “I know Senator Obama will be a good friend of Israel.” That assertion, which was not included in her prepared remarks, appeared designed to help rally Jewish support for Obama’s now virtually certain candidacy. During the primary season, Clinton consistently did better among Jewish voters, particularly among older Jews whose participation in elections is particularly high.

While Jews account for only three percent of the population, they are concentrated in such key swing states as Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California.

Financial contributions from Jewish donors account for as much as 20 percent of Republican campaign funds and as much as 40 percent of Democratic funds, according to a recent article by the Forward, the largest nationally circulated Jewish newspaper in the U.S.

[Bob]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/05/9433/

he spoke at AIPAC dude. AIPAC lalalalallalalalala aipacaipacaipac i'm not listening to you

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, I don't see the end of lobbyist contributions actually happening. And once they do start to roll in, then people will start pointing the finger of blame.

Well, let's hope he can keep good on his word....

[King PSYZ]

let's say he does achieve the end of lobbiest influence on the party, I'd say that's a fairly good step towards the change promised no?

the kind of screwjacks into acepting bribes for political action will be disueded from entering government service, or at least for the democrats.

the republicans will then be forced to follow suit or face a large voter backlash.

we shall see I guess...

[RobMoney$]

the republicans will then be forced to follow suit or face a large voter backlash.


...or their campaigns will be so fluid from all the big business money they'll be able to outspend the Dems and just essentially buy elections.


Most dullards vote for whoever runs the most TV ads.

[Schmeltz]

The problem is the imagined separation between "individuals" and "industry, PACs, labour unions," and so on. Industry and labour unions and any other collective lobbyist organization you can imagine are all made up of individuals who happen to act in a common interest, and lobbyists are only their individual representatives who happen to occupy a convenient place in the political network.

There will always be lobbying so long as two people can work together more efficiently than a single person can. If you don't like the form that lobbying has taken in your country, then change it. But you might have to lobby for it. If Barack Obama can muster the political muscle necessary to alter the manner in which Americans lobby for change from their elected representatives, he will forge a place for himself in history. It's idealistic, but perhaps your country is ready for an idealism centred on something besides bombing the shit out of desperately poor brown people.

[saz]

he spoke at AIPAC dude. AIPAC lalalalallalalalala aipacaipacaipac i'm not listening to you


Chief among his own pledges, Obama said he would "never take military action off the table" in defending America's interests or those of Israel. "Do not be confused," he instructed the crowd. He also called on Egypt to cut off the smuggling of weapons into Hamas-controlled Gaza, described the return of Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah as a priority of U.S. policy, and said he would never "compromise when it comes to Israel's security." He also identified Jerusalem as Israel's capital at the end of any two-state solution.

The presumptive Democratic nominee noted that he had opposed holding elections in the Palestinian territories in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot -- a stance that drew cheers.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/clinton-tag-teams-with-ob_n_105168.html)


so much for negotiating with hamas and trying to bring about a lasting peace. i guess we also won't be hearing much from obama regarding the israeli military killing innocent palestinian civlians, that they're holding thousands of palestinians in israeli prisons, or the further expansion of israeli settlements into palestinian land.

anyways, i find it very weird that the democratic nominee believes it is neccessary to pander to aipac the day after the primaries concluded. why all of a sudden? the day after? wtf? what is also weird is why was hillary speaking there as well? she didn't win. i suppose then when you're talking to aipac, you're pretty much talking to the washington establishment.

most importantly though, the palestinians have zero friends in washington except for jimmy carter. like noam chomsky said: it's the us and israel against the palestinians. there is very little or next to no good will in washington towards the palestinians, and obama once seemed to sympathize with them and care about their interests.

[yeahwho]

There will always be lobbying so long as two people can work together more efficiently than a single person can. If you don't like the form that lobbying has taken in your country, then change it. But you might have to lobby for it.

good idea, the search is on for the most powerful anti-lobbyist, preferably with a super-power, like thumb breaking or knee cappin'. So all the other representatives see the canes and big thumb casts.

[yeahwho]

or wedgies

[QueenAdrock]

...or their campaigns will be so fluid from all the big business money they'll be able to outspend the Dems and just essentially buy elections.


Most dullards vote for whoever runs the most TV ads.

Normally I'd agree with such sentiment, but you yourself pointed out that Obama outspent Hillary in many states where it was close, or she won. I think it'll depend on more than just TV ads. Or maybe it's that Obama didn't run attack ads, thus him not getting the number of votes that was in tune with what he spent. "I'm a good, positive candidate" doesn't have as much impact on the voters as "The other opponent will eat your children." I know voters like voting based on fear of candidates.

[alien autopsy]

there will never be an end to lobbying in washington. and as long as israel is around, AIPAC will be around. his remarks at aiac prove that he is not up to anything special, or original with policy towards the middle east. he will continue on the american legacy of sending billions of dollars to israel terrorists each year to bulldoze palestinian homes. we'll still be in iraq. and we keep picking the fight with iran.