Obama "No Lobbyists In My Administration"

Firstly, Obama didn't actually say he wouldn't hire lobbyists into his administration. It's a bit more complicated than that. His actual promise was that those that he did hire into his administration could not work in a field that they lobbied in for the past year, and that, while in the administration, they could not take part in lobbying activities. I fail to see how Rauhm Emanuel's position with Freddie Mac, which ended in 2001, in any way indicates a renege of Obama's stance on not hiring lobbyists. Not only did his involvement with Freddie Mac end over 7 years ago, but I don't see what being a board member for a loan committee has to do with the role of Chief of Staff. In this case, Obama has broken no promise. As for Tom Daschle - he's technically not a lobbyist. By this I mean he's not registered as a lobbyist, though he does work for a lobbying firm as an advisor. There's a bit of a gray area there. Though if you want to lump in an adviser to a lobbying firm as a lobbyist, then by all means do so. Obama's choice, in this case, wobbles precariously on the line. It is quite obvious the man has biased ties to health care, and to lobbying (though he may not be a lobbyist himself). He would have definitely been better off as White House Chief of Staff, because then there would have been no question that Obama was staying true to his "no-special interest" policy.

Exactly what promises has he broken so far? Much has already been made of Emanuel's having served on the board of Freddie Mac for a whole 13 months in 2000. A spokesperson said Emanuel "believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics." Daschle was a policy adviser for a law and lobbying firm. Do you have any evidence his PAC donated money to the Obama campaign? I don't see how there would be a conflict if Daschle made a donation as a private citizen. I think we should at least let the guy take office before accusing him of breaking promises he couldn't possibly have broken before even being sworn in. I know you probably will doubt my word here but once he is in office I'll be paying attention as much as you will. We may not always agree on what we disagree with but I'm sure there will be things Obama does with which I disagree. Annie

I know what you mean. That was a bold statement he made and one I liked. He ran on this statement HARD during the primary saying that was how he was different than hilary....he would not have lobbyist in his administration. He used it again HARD against McCain and his lobbyist ties in the general.Say again and again how he would do better and not have any lobbyist ties with his cabinet picks. The was a big cornerstone of his campaign. And he broke it less than two months after he became president elect (he knew he was never going to keep it) and BEFORE he ever got sworn in. I wonder what else he knowing lied about. Both candidates had a transition like team in place during the general. That way the trasition would be easier in this time of war and ecomonic crisis no matter who won. So while Obama was out on the trail making this promise about lobbyist....he already knew who we wanted for the cabinet positions or at least had a short list....full of lobbyist and people with lobbyist ties. He knew he was lying when the words came out of his mouth. But you do not see the press or any real major media making a big deal out it. Looks like he can lie and break campaign promises and no one cares.

yet another attack on the first amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The caps indicate the clause that give lobbyists their jobs. I would make no argument that foreign countries and foreign interests have a right to lobbyists. US citizens, companies and interests do. The constant attempts to paint lobbyists as an evil plague on Washington is just one more way of trying to take away the peoples right to redress of grievances. Whether it is a lobbyist for HCI or the NRA, Texaco or the Sierra Club, NOW or National Right to Life. These lobbyists take our views and needs to the legislators and make sure they don't forget them. You could have all the people in your town write Washington about the need for a new bridge on the nearby interstate and they could send new letters once a week to make sure people in DC don't forget the need. Or you could hire a lobbyist to go there and promote your needs to every congressman he sees every day for the next year until congress approves the improvement project. Lobbyists are our voice in Washington. You thought that was what you congressmen did? Try writing letters to every one in the congress and senate. I've done it myself. Most, but not all, of the congressmen in my state responded. A couple from out of state responded. Most sent automated replies saying they do not accept correspondence or calls from people outside their district. I got responses from 10 congressmen and 2 senators(only one of them was from my state). If you want all of the government to hear you hire a lobbyist.