Edwards completely wrong on lobbyists

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/lobbyists.democrats/index.html?iref=werecommend

Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton is being taken to task by her two closest rivals for accepting $400,000 in campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

Over the weekend, Clinton was booed by an audience of liberal bloggers in Chicago when she defended taking money from Washington lobbyists, something both Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards have vowed not to do.

--snip--

"A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers -- yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people," Clinton said.

--snip--
Edwards' response was to ask, "How many people in this room have a Washington lobbyist working for you?"

"You are not represented by Washington lobbyists. We need to cut these people off," he said, to cheers.

--------------------------------------------
Edwards was flatly wrong and played to peoples' ignorance in the process. Clinton was right - most lobbyists do represent real Americans. I know - I AM one of those lobbyists. I represent millions of American students, teachers, and education administrators. I can tell you for a fact that even among our most astute members, ones that know what it is I actually do, would barely be cognizant of the fact that they do have a lobbyist working for them, mostly due to inherent ignorance of what a lobbyist actually is in the first place.

Everyone here should do themselves a favor and google the phrase "national association". There are literally thousands of these organizations, and almost every single one of them has a lobbyist. They represent nurses, unions, counties, children, educators, broadcasters, the mentally ill, ad infinitum. You don't realize this, but there is a good chance that there's a lobbyist that represents at least one interest of every single man, woman, and child in this nation. YOU are most likely being represented by a lobbyist yourself and you don't even know it. Edwards is playing on your ignorance to make a political point.

I am a fan of neither Edwards nor Clinton. Neither is likely to get my primary vote (I currently don't have a candidate, still waiting for Gore.) I put this disclaimer to ward off those who think I'm merely bashing Edwards because I don't like him or because I'm a fan of Clinton's. This is definitely not the case.

[Virginia Dare]

1. Very good point....n/t

[rpannier]

2. I know there are and I'm quite aware that some do

But the lobbying system is corrupt and most of that money is quid-pro-quo.

I'm sorry. I'm with Edwards on this one. The system needs a serious overhaul.

[Dawgs]

3. You're right. My wife is also a lobbyist, but...

Most Americans have been conditioned to believe that all lobbyists are bad, and anyone politician that works with them is even worse. So, I don't think this will come across very well with the general public.

[burf]

4. I have no problem with

lobbyists representing anyone. It's the campaign contributions I have a problem with. Folks, particularly corporations, don't just give away money out of the goodness of their hearts. They are gonna want something in return.

[napi21]

15. That's not necessarily true. Think about it this way.

Assume 95% of all DUers decide that we all chose Kucinich as our candidate because we LOVE his health care plan. So we set up a fund and each and every DUer send in $10.00. 90,000 DUers @ $10.00 each...that's $900,000!!!! We get ONE DUer to deliver that BIG CHECK. Other than maybe getting OUR cndidate to be the Dem. in the general election, what direct influence wrould we really have?

[napi21]

5. That was well said. I tried to get the same message across the

other day here on DU and I failed. A handfull of dishonest Congressmen have destroyed the title "lobbyist".

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I agree, and was kind of shocked by Edwards' ...

attack.

Hillary danced around Labor as being a huge lobby, refusing to identify any "people's lobbyists" at all, and definitely danced around industry money, but Edwards, the great spokesman for the little guy, acts as if Common Cause, FCNL, People for the American Way, and the AFL-CIO never existed.

I havne't decided whether I love or hate campaigns-- it makes politicianms look so much like... politicians.

[Chef]

7. Lobby vs. Graft

You are correct. I belong to a n association that lobby's congress heavily for housing low income families. But, we can't donate to their campaigns as a group or as member organizations. Only as individuals. The real problem is the lobbies that represents an organization or company that can donate money to candidates. Especially those that receive money through government contracts.

lobbing is ok. Lobbing with cash is not though legal.

[MessiahRp]

8. There needs to be a distinction made between advocacy lobbyists and corporate lobbyists..

The corporate ones are the bad guys who lobby on behalf of big business over the regular Joe.

Rp

[durrrty libby]

9. KIcked and Recommended for enlightenment of the masses

[mirrera]

10. Lobby-fine/money-no.

I think, and I am quite ignorant on the subject, there is nothing wrong with lobbying. We can't all talk to congress directly, so being part of a group that has a professional spokesperson makes sense. We could just leave the money out of the equation and problem solved. I would like to know that the spokesperson was persuasive because their cause was just, not because they bought their way in through gifts and meals and contributions.

In a nutshell, Clinton Edwards and Obama were all absolutely right (Edwards did play on people's ignorance. The question should have been "How many of you FEEL like you have a lobbyist, or your Lobbyist gets equal time")

Clinton- Lobbyists represent a wide segment of Americans

Edwards- We should not take contributions from Lobbyists it looks bad...

Obama- The drug lobby and the insurance lobby have undue influence...


No argument there.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Publicly financed elections are the way to go.

[BridgeTheGap]

11. Just like the term "special interests" - it's not the lobbyists

It's the money doled out to campaigns and anyone who says that this isn't a "quid pro quo" situation is not facing reality.
I have been a "citizen lobbyist" for an advocacy organization. It was on a voluntary basis and the organization did not contribute to campaigns.
Citizens should lobby their government. Government officials or candidates should not take money from them. It's legal corruption - plain and simple - and that's what Edwards should have pointed out.
Hillary has proven herself amenable to this part of our system. The reason we don't have healthcare for everyone (which should be a right and not a privelege) is because of the huge lobbying effort of the healthcare / insurance /pharmaceutical industries that also includes contributions to campaigns.
This is far more dangerous to the Republic than "terra,terra,terra" - they're coming to get you shit.
We have to start voting for people who don't take this money - and we need to donate our money to those we support.

[NoFederales]

12. Corporate money corrupts the political process. Corporate money is about

influence peddling, perks for the peddlers and the pols who begin to slop at the same trough. The only thing more insidious than this are the secret influence peddlers that work in the "think tanks" to pull strings for the peddlers and pols who wish to dangle from the strings like so many cheap carnie baubles and trinkets.

The American Republic may have passed off its responsibilities to elected representatives, but it sure didn't mean to grant political power to the monied elite who value riches over the public welfare. Corporate money should be shut out of politics.

NoFederales

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Did you read the thread at all?

[NoFederales]

14. It's about the money. nm

NoFederales

[Cameron27]

16. I agree and I hope she brings this up tonight.

[asjr]

17. Democrats have an abundance of riches

in the presidential slate. They do not need to bash one another. It saddens me to think this may go on for another year. Albert Gore, we need you. Imagine what our country would have been if the felonious five on the SCOTUS had not taken away the chance for a decent government. The media are having a field day with this. But the also had a field day in 2000. I do not know the candidate I will vote for but the media will not tell me.

[SaveElmer]

18. Thanks for posting...I knew there were lobbyists here...

And was curious what they thought of Edwards comments...

[stevedz313]

19. .

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Okay...

Got anything else to say?

[ronnykmarshall]

21. Not for long.

[Hawkowl]

22. Yours is a republican argument

I'm not attacking you. I think you just took the Edwards comments as "against lobbyists" when his comments were against "accepting lobbyists money". Corporations should not be allowed to make campaign contributions period. Corporations should be stripped of their legal "person" status.

Republicans rail against "special interests" which is code for lobbyists who represent those other than corporations. It is all blurring the lines, so rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, we allow the baby to drown in corporate money. To mix metaphors.

[sandnsea]

23. How much money did you raise this year?

How many fundraisers for politicians have you hosted this month?

How much money did you bundle this week?

Oh yeah, YOU aren't who Edwards and Obama are talking about and shame on you for muddling up the issue.

Unless you are out there dialing for dollars, and then shame on you, period.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Re-read Edwards quote.

I'm not muddling anything. He is intentionally misrepresenting the issue to play on the ignorance of the voters. Period. That is fact. Shame on you for being an apologist for deceitful politics.