Obama team announces new rules on lobbyists

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

President-elect Obama's aides are announcing new rules to govern the conduct of lobbyists during the transition to power, including steps to limit their involvement in areas where they have sought to influence policy in the past year.

According to John Podesta, a top transition aide, federal lobbyists will be prohibited from any lobbying while they are at work on the transition.

Also, if anyone involved in the transition later becomes a lobbyist, they would not be able to lobby the new administration for one year on matters on which they worked for the president-elect.

The rules also stipulate that federal lobbyists may not contribute financially to the transition.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/ap_on_el_pr/transition_lobbyists_1

---

some other things from CBSMarketwatch not mentioned
Obama to work rapidly on 'low-carbon' energy plans: Podesda
Obama 'hard at work' on cabinet appointments: Podesta
Obama believes economic recovery plan needed soon: Podesta
Podesta: lobbyists can't contribute to Obama transition
Obama's first priority will be to stabilize economy: Podesta
Obama won't meet G20 leaders this weekend: Podesta


Obama Transition Team's Rules for Lobbyists
http://thepage.time.com/obama-transition-teams-rules-for-lobbyists/

http://thepage.time.com/2008/11/11/transition-update-tuesday/?xid=rss-page

[liberal N proud]

1. It's a step in the right direction

[AndyA]

2. Oh, I was hoping they would be beat senseless and

tossed to the curb. (But just the bad ones.)

:rofl:

[lib_wit_it]

27. Sounds fair. Then again, they've done far worse to the country, so they deserve far worse! nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. So long as he doesn't give them a seat at the table, I'm cool with not beating them senseless,

otherwise, let the beatings commence. :evilgrin:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. LOL! I WISH! nt

[dhpgetsit]

3. I sure hope he continues to drive corporate lobbying out of business.

:kick:

[groundloop]

4. Does this mean...

that Big Oil won't get to hide behind closed doors to write our energy policy anymore? How dare he !!!!

[damntexdem]

5. I have another needed rule: they get blindfolds before being put before the wall.

And one DC street will be renamed: OK Corral Street.

;-)

[KakistocracyHater]

20. no! no martyrs allowed

sentence them properly but keep them for life in prison.

[cal04]

6. Obama Transition To Be Most Transparent In History, Official Pledges

John Podesta, co-chairman of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, Tuesday pledged to run the "most open and transparent" transition in history.

Podesta said the transition would not accept money from federal lobbyists and has put in place a strict series of ethics rules to govern the transition team. He added that employees of the transition who work on policy would be banned from lobbying the Obama Administration on those topics for a year.

The budget for the transition is expected to run to $12 million, less than half of which has been allocated by Congress.

Podesta added that rules for fundraising for the presidential inauguration would likely be similar to the transition, but would be announced later.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20081111%5cACQRTT200811111520RTTRADERUSEQUITY_1004.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Obama%20Transition%20To%20Be%20Most%20Transparent%20In%20History,%20Official%20Pledges

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. One sounds unconstitutional.

"Also, if anyone involved in the transition later becomes a lobbyist, they would not be able to lobby the new administration for one year on matters on which they worked for the president-elect."

The people have a right to petition their government. I don't think you can or should stop people from doing that.

[crispini]

9. Working for pay to petition your government on behalf of a client

isn't exactly the same thing as writing your elected representatives a letter.

[BR_Parkway]

11. Guess it all depends on what you sign and agree to to take a certain

position.

[loyalsister]

13. It's an unfortunate concession

They are making some concessions by giving in to the possibility of hiring former and potential lobbyists. I am of the opinion that they should make every effort to steer clear of hiring individuals who are inclined to seek jobs in that field.
I am not sure if this is simply a disclamer on what may happen in the future or on hiring known lobbyists, which would be my first disappointment with this administration.
I have to admit, however that it is not easy to do because anyone who tries to influence the government on a particular policy could reasonably be considered a "lobbyist" whether they make money doing it or not.
It is possible that they may be trying to avoid some technical difficulties there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Here's the problem

There are three things you can do if you're involved in politics: Run for office, be a staffer, or be a lobbyist. There aren't a boatload of options, frankly. "Inclination" goes only so far as you need a job to pay your bills, just like anyone else. Then again, if they're willing to find a home for transition staffers either within the party or in a Congressional office, that's fine, but like any industry, you take jobs where you can get them.

[loyalsister]

25. I see your point,

but there's more to it. It depends on how focused a person is.
If a person has a particular personal focus and that is manifest in "lobbying" efforts in whatever form they may take, be it corporate or philanthropic, it may present a potential for conflicts of interest not unlike what we saw with the oil companies and Cheney.
This is not about individuals. It is up to them to find their jobs. I have never been so outraged as when I have seen state legislators leave office to become lobbyists and basically start writing bills for various businesses. If I am outraged by that, should I not be outraged when it happens in my favor? I believe in consistency. This is about broad systemic changes that have been discussed.

[ksimons]

40. I think it's great our next President got there without being a lobbyist

Hope people realize that just because being a paparazzi is one of the jobs involved in being in entertainment, doesn't mean we all have to try to be one. In fact, I'd hope it would be considered the lowest paying, least rewarding job in the bunch. Hopefully lobbying becomes the same!

(crossing fingers and such)

[Bread and Circus]

42. Please refer me to the place in the Constitution regarding corporate lobbyists

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Please refer to one place regarding political parties. (nt)

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. People? That's good one! Don't you mean large corporations?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. No, I mean people.

Google "National Association of"

Those are groups representing regular, every day people, not corporations. There are hundreds of them, and nearly all of them have Washington representation. You are probably represented in your interests by many of them, you just don't know it. And guess what? The majority of them don't even give to campaigns legitimately because they can't afford to!

Take the time to educate yourself about what goes on in your government rather than taking shrill rhetoric for truth.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. No. I know your political hue from a previous post of yours, buddy.

And it's ugly.

First, I'm British, so it's not my country. But what happens in it affects the world.

Second, are you such a half-wit that you don't realise that the big corporations have been exerting an extraordinarily influence over successive administrations, as pernicious as it has been powerful. THEY'VE BEEN RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT, DUMBO!

How do you think the seeds of this depression were sown! Corporate-inspired deregulation. You're on the wrong forum.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. So dumbo, you're not from here, yet you try to claim you know what's going on?

Laughable. Concern yourself more with your own country. You can do better than Brown and Blair. You really think you know more about the government than someone who's worked in and around it for years, eh?

If you can figure it out, look at the list of registered lobbyists. You'll find all you need to know about the average lobbyist there.

[Zhade]

38. From what I've read, he often knows more about how this country actually works than you do.

NT!

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. "you're not from here, yet you try to claim you know what's going on?"

Well, guess who's the real Dumbo!

"You really think you know more about the government than someone who's worked in and around it for years, eh?" That's what I thought, Jughead. You're a lobbyist. Or as close to them as makes no difference. Eat your heart. You're in for a whipping from an honest administration! Tee Hee. Never mind, diddums. Just don't cry over it on DU and expect anything but derision.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. ....

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Joe Chi Minh]

50. You're so dumb - no - I was going to say you don't even know when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Now I think I have to at least give you credit for that.

It was like me going on a right-wing site and trying to teach them about the virtues and merits of socialism. You're not quite as green as you're cabbage-looking. If somewhat slow.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. There are hundreds of lobbyists representing interests based in the U.K.

I suggest if you care so deeply about it that you encourage all U.K. lobbying within the United States to cease immediately.

Furthermore, did you do as I had asked and looked up how many lobbyists represent the people and their interests rather than corporate interests? Here's guessing you didn't.

Finally, I'd like for you to educate me, in detail, as to how, exactly, lobbyists wield inordinate influence over the government through legal means. I'm not talking about the Abromoffs of the world, whom dish out bribes and do things that are illegal, I'm talking about the thousands of legitimate, law-abiding lobbyists that represent interests such as those held by teachers and students, service workers, towns and municipalities, people concerned about health care, veterans, the impoverished, immigrants, minorities, and just about every other segment of the population you can imagine. While you're at it, why not educate me as to why our Congressmen are exempt from blame for both taking the bribes and for being so weak-willed that they cave instantaneously to lobbyist demands. Oh, and can you even tell me what a lobbyist really does on a day-to-day basis?

Frankly, you're calling me the moron, but you've yet to make anything BUT a shrill argument based upon.... well? Not much of anything except a few headlines. So please, show me how much smarter you are than me. I'd be delighted to find out.

[Joe Chi Minh]

53. Your very first question illustrates the tawdry simulacrum of integrity

you appear to be vaunting, expressing great compassin of the little guys, with their lobbyists. No mention of the Big Pharma and medical insurance lobbies, for example, who have held back the introduction of a free, universal health-service in the richest country in the world, to the horror of the rest the of the Western World, even half-civilised as it is. Or the incredible proportion of the national GDP won for the military-industial complex by its lobbysists, amounting to more than the rest of the world combined. Or the "no strings attached", non-accountable bail-outs to this maladministration's friends in the banking sector. The main players would have been the strongest kind of lobbyists in existence: personal friends of Bush or friends of theirs.

But here is the sentence that gives away your extraordinarily meretricious superficiality:

"I suggest if you care so deeply about it that you encourage all U.K. lobbying within the United States to cease immediately."

If I could do that, I can't tell you how happy I would be! And guess what? I also believe Obama's movement in the direction of a de-globalisation of American jobs is extremely meritorious. It is high time our respective leaders started looking after their own people! PROTECTIONISM WORKS. IT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE. But you need to rebuild your manufacturing industry.

In the US, itself, you have an enormous, self-sufficient, economic bloc. But with the potential of the development in a Christian manner of Canada and South America as one giant market, you truly would have a New World. Heck, Keynes considered that even Britain, small as she is, could be economically self-sufficient. Though I don't expect he envisaged a complete cessation of exports.

Not everyone thinks only in terms of their own narrow self-interest and that of their own country, but as long as you labour under that misapprehension, your understanding is also going to remain partial and ugly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. Nice dodge.

But you still didn't really say anything, nor did you acknowledge that the work of many lobbyists on behalf of the people. You seem to be utterly obsessed with a rather small, but albeit moderately powerful segment of the group, and that power is vastly exaggerated. Again, you fail miserably at making a critical analysis of the situation, citing reasons and evidence for your claims. All you do is highlight a one reasonable example with little regard to the fact that public support for universal health care is tenuous, at best, and two examples that completely fail to acknowledge either public demand or a reasonable debate as to actual national need. I'd venture an assumption based on your comments that we'd both be against increased military spending, but there at least exists at least a legitimate opposing argument. As for the bailout, I sense that we vastly disagree, but your further comments belie your lack of understanding for simple economics. In this case as well, however, you seem to discount out-of-hand that there would ever be a legitimate debate on such a topic and that the actions taken were done SOLELY because of lobbyist control, which is flatly false.

You display an outrageous propensity to make assumptions based upon a few comments, so let me address some of those statements of yours. First of all, I don't harbor any narrow self-interest - I don't even know where you'd come up with such a comment, but no reasonable nation would ever be so myopic in their approach. Then again, this whole sub-thread started because you like to make ignorant assumptions based upon incredibly little evidence, so I'm not surprised you would conclude as such.

Secondly, economic self-sufficiency is hardly the goal of anything but a 3rd world nation. Perhaps you don't, but most people seek to thrive, not merely survive. Were we to follow the route you suggest, we would indeed be economically self-sufficient, and would be even if we were to cease nearly all international trade. Conditions would be far less than ideal, however, and no responsible custodian would ever subject his/her people to such a policy. It makes no sense whatsoever to limit your trade to only a handful of nations. Perhaps you missed the part about supply and demand in your high school civics course (if you indeed ever graduated from secondary education), but limiting the number of people that demand your product doesn't exactly make for sound economic policy and would create enormous deflation. In our own nation, the onset of the Great Depression was greatly accelerated by protectionist actions which lead to rampant deflation. If you'd like to cite any kind of precedent for protectionism actually benefitting a nation, please feel free to do so, but once again, I'll note that you're making assertions based upon no evidence whatsoever.

So here's your last chance - show us your brilliance, oh great master! Let us bathe in your intellectual prowess and expose us for the simpletons that we are!

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. You're the last person I'd want to impress, because you are so slow on the uptake,

Most people would have spotted straight away that I was deploring your expectation that I would favour my country's material affluence over that of the US. Scant wonder therefore that you keep on maundering over my refusal to pore over the apparently numerous, but relatively small, special-interest lobbyists, in the presence of the Leviathans I cited, whose clients drain the economy on a truly unimaginable scale.

March 5, 2008, Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute and Editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review, wrote:

"During national emergencies or non-emergency military buildups such as that of the 1980s, the military leadership invariably argues that defense spending must be increased as a fraction of GDP. Then, when the emergency fades or the buildup is completed, the argument becomes that the ratio must not be permitted to decline. This sequence of events is a recipe for upward-ratcheting growth of the defense share of GDP, regardless of its reasonableness in relation to dealing with actual foreign threats. It’s no wonder the U.S. military has so many golf courses, executive jets for top-ranking officers, and more than 700 bases scattered around the world, most of them wholly superfluous in relation to defending the American people.

It is long past time for the media and the American people to stop being taken in by shopworn rhetorical trickery such as that attending the ritual discussion of defense spending relative to GDP. Its only real purpose is to minimize the magnitude of a defense budget that has swollen to absurdly gigantic proportions. Why can’t the Department of Defense today defend the country for a smaller annual amount than it needed to defend the country during the Cold War, when we faced an enemy with large, modern armed forces and thousands of accurate, nuclear-armed ICBMs?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Higgs
Send email

Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute and Editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, and he has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. He has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation. He is the author of many books, including Depression, War, and Cold War.

Are you suggesting that, leaving aside Insurance, BANKING, and Big Pharma and the rest of Big Business, the small, more responsibly and humanely-oriented lobbyists can compare in the overall scale of the money they extricate from the government with the defence industry lobbyists? Oh, and bear in mind that the price of oil always soars in times of war.

So pardon me if I don't defer to your anomalously lopsided agenda, won't you?

Higgs' whole article is here: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2143

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. Ad hominem, ad hominem, verb, ad hominem.

That's your formula, is it not? Keep it up, you're doing a heckuva a job. By the way, your reading comprehension could obviously use a boost. Why would you cite defense spending as your ONLY piece of evidence when I told you that I agreed with you on that? Great work, genius. Want to prove to me that the sky is blue or that the world is round while you're at it? Let's go for something easier - prove that water is wet.

You argue about the scale of the operations big business has at their disposal, and no rational human being would dispute that. Lobbying efforts are not their biggest area of impact. It's their ability to funnel campaign contributions that is of much greater value to politicians and is the true source of their inordinate influence. Second to that is their ability move public opinion through massive advertising and public relations operations. You say smaller outfits are outmanned in lobbying efforts, but you aren't even bothering to notice that they're not even playing these other games because they can't afford to in the first place. You're not seeing the forest through the trees. And don't bother to try to ban campaign finance - the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that the right to free speech is extended to corporate citizens.

Fact is, lobbying is one of the ONLY avenues smaller outfits have to advocate their causes because it's cost effective, quite frankly. A small office of 5 people can get a lot done in Washington DC with very limited resources. I've seen plenty of groups with a budget of only about $500k per year and only 1.5 lobbyists, no support staff, no advertising, and barely any printed materials be very successful in accomplishing all of our legislative goals.

I know you take great pleasure in using your peashooter to snipe at things you can't even see, much less understand, but you clearly, CLEARLY do not know what you're talking about here.

And with that, I'm ending this one-sided conversation. Pat yourself on the back for your mythical victories all you want - I could care less. I'm not engaging with a closed minded ignoramus any longer.

[Joe Chi Minh]

64. I'm glad you realise it's futile for both of us. You recourse to endless transparent,

strawmen and non sequiturs becomes tiresome in the end. And you have no other recourse. It helps, after all, to have truth on your side.

It's why the ad hominem accusation doesn't quite resonate. Where I've impugned your character, it was by citing your own words. But whereas I orignally thought of you as just a crass oaf, you actually seem quite a likeable, if misguided, sort of character. So don't be bitter. It's past the point-scoring point now, and I kind of regret having the last word. So I won't be too chagrined if you put up your concluding two penn'orth. And only a little, if you don't.

[LanternWaste]

55. But that's the rub, isn't it?

"I'm not talking about the Abromoffs of the world..."

But that's the rub, isn't it? Those are precisely the parasites that Obama seems to be attempting to discard in both form and format through this bit of reform. Those are the very parasites that need to be expurgated from the system to allow both the appearance of transparency and legitimacy of function, and in doing so, will make the actual lobbyists more effective and more efficient at their jobs.

Seems to me that if a campaign staffer signs a contract with an implicit denial-clause for one year, it's more than legal...



But hey-- I'm just another moron who doesn't hold a candle to your self-advertised expertise on the matter... :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. So you kill all lobbyists because of a few guys that got caught and convicted?

It would occur to me that the successful prosecution of Abromoff was a victory for the system, not a failure. Further restriction obviously wouldn't have dissuaded him from taking the action, so of what value is the new regulation to those of ill-intent? None, frankly. The failure was neither with the threat of being sent to jail, nor with the ability of the government to prosecute such corruption. The current laws actually worked quite well in that regard - otherwise, you'd not have heard of it at all. The failure was in this individual believing (wrongly) that they could get away with it.

All you're doing is making it harder for the legit guys to do their job or to take a job (nevermind, of course, that those involved in politics are humans like everyone else and might need to actually make a living.) You'll always have those that try to work outside the law - whenever power and money are involved, corruption is a fact of life. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater, nor can you or should you deny the people the right to petition their government.

[LanternWaste]

58. A denial-clause is "killing all lobbyists"?

A temporary denial-clause in a contract is "killing all lobbyists"?

Or (and I find this more likely) are you simply inferring much more than should be ascribed in what I wrote...? Because from where I sit, I made zero judgments or recommendations in my response as to what the final verdict on lobbyists should or should not be... :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. I apologize if I ascribed notions held earlier in the discussion to you.

As you might imagine, if you jump in mid-conversation in defense of someone, one might reasonably, but obviously incorrectly, assume that you support the entirety of the argument you're defending unless you say otherwise. For that I am sorry.

[LanternWaste]

61. Not quite in defense of someone

Not quite jumping in in defense of someone-- but more in opposition to statements of absolutism...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. Then I'm confused.

I'm the one saying that lobbying and lobbyists are NOT absolutely evil and should be removed from the system, whereas others here seem to be doing so. If you're against statements of absolutism, I would think you rebutted the wrong horse.

[LanternWaste]

63. There are many horses....

Correct horse. There are many horses.

[heliarc]

37. even when there is a clear conflict of interest?

I hear you, but revolving doors are a huge problem in Washington... I'm in favor of this move. I know for a fact that my interests are the little guy lobbyists and anything that stops the revolving doors for Big Corporations is a plus in my book.

[dave29]

8. It's a Rovian trap!!@!!$!$

it makes far too much sense for this to be policy

[Chulanowa]

26. Indeed it is!

Or was it...

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. What is the penalty if they get caught?

[8 track mind]

18. i don't know, but .....

I could sure think of a few things. Flung by a catapult from the rose garden on live TV would be my first choice
:rofl:

[Javaman]

12. Man, 2 months seems a like really long time. Obama is itching to burst from the gate. nt

[Roy]

44. Yup, and the media is fervishly trying to cut him off at the pass

I don't think it will work though.

Damn.... The grownups are finally in charge!

But, the really good news is, the repubs are saying that they must double down on the same shit that caused them to get kicked out of office this time.

They have really convinced themselves that only they are entitled to elected office.

[hangman86]

14. Oh man!

Kick out the people who've actually been running the country all these years!

Sounds pretty radical to me. And necessary.:-)

[felinetta]

15. I am lovin' it!

[harun]

17. While this won't stop much lobbying it sends the right message (n/t)

[antimatter98]

19. Good first step... and I hope for more on this issue n/t

[Bette Noir]

23. What? Our new Pres wants to reduce corruption?

Who'da thunk?

[bjobotts]

24. Now that is a change I can believe in.A "start" in the right direction.

[DeepModem Mom]

29. Obama Lays Out Ethics Rules for Transition

Source: Washington Post

President-elect Barack Obama today released a series of ethics guidelines for those working in the transition operation, a continuation of the anti-lobbying policies adopted by the Illinois Senator during his primary and general election campaigns.

The ethics rules -- no federal lobbyist can raise or contribute money for the transition efforts, no one who has lobbied in the last 12 months can advise the transition on the policy area on which they lobbied, no one involved in the policy work of the transition can lobby on that issue for a calendar year -- were announced by transition co-chair John Podesta during a press briefing for reporters this afternoon.

Podesta cast the new ethics rules as a leading indicator of what he termed "the most open and transparent transition in history." Podesta added that members of the transition team will sign an ethics code laying out the specific principles announced today....

***

Obama Ethics Rules

* Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.

* Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.

* If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.

* If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the Transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration for 12 months on matters on which they worked.

* A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/obama_lays_out_ethics_rules.html

[demnan]

30. He sure didn't waste any time

cleaning things up. K&R

[meow2u3]

31. When Obama said lobbyist weren't going to run the White House anymore

He sure as hell is making good on that promise. WTG, BO!!!
:kick:

k&r

[Joe Chi Minh]

51. The thought of the terrible level of unemployment among the lobbyists

is heart-breaking though, isn't it?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skwmom]

33. A one year ban is better than no ban, but not much better.

You can get a person a job and then lobby that person in 12 months. The ban should be for the duration of Obama's presidency.

[MyOwnPeace]

34. As Letterman said...........

"Does anybody mind if he starts early?" :-) :-)

[LincolnRepublican]

36. This is hardly worth mentioning

I am a big fan of BO but those expecting radical reform are going to be disappointed. Lobbyists need to be banned from Washington. Not told they can't lobby for a year. More cronyism.

[heliarc]

39. There are many lobbies...

Not just Pharmco and Big Defense... There are Women's organizations, and Gay and Lesbian groups... Indian affairs groups Religious entities... All sorts of people in this country pay lobbyists to petition the government, and lobbying government is part of democracy...

The problem is the revolving door, and this is a concrete step to controlling traffic.

[Overseas]

45. K&R -- Nice move. ///nt

[blindpig]

49. Who needs lobbyists?

When ya got the real thing on your advisory team, why not cut out the middle man?

A government of bankers, mebbe they can spare us some change.

[Zorra]

65. No republican would ever do anything like this. It's so totally anti-conservative. n/t