Edwards Calls on Iowans to Pledge to Not Caucus for Anyone Who Takes Lobbyist Money

[pstans]

At a campaign stop at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown on Saturday afternoon, John Edwards drew strong distinctions between him and Hillary Clinton by calling on Iowans to pledge to not caucus for anyone who takes money from lobbyists.

Edwards said trading corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats won't fix the situation in Washington. Edwards announced that he has never taken money from Washington lobbyists, which drew loud applause from the crowd of over 200. Edwards told the audience that they can do something about this by pledging to not caucus for anyone who takes money from lobbyists. Edwards used a Rural American Forum that Hillary Clinton recently held at Monsanto's Lobbying Headquarters in Washington DC as an example of what is wrong...

I'm not sure where they got the people from, but if I want to talk to rural Americans I come to Iowa.

Earlier in the day, Sen. Edwards campaigned in his 99th county this year, making him the first candidate to campaign in every county in the state this election cycle.

The overriding theme of Edwards stop was that our nation is better than this. He began his speech talking about the recent documentary about World War II by Ken Burns and cited the incredible accomplishments and sacrifices Americans made. He said Americans today have responded in amazing ways to Katrina and to 9/11. However, little progress has been made with over half the schools in New Orleans still closed and a hole in the ground still at ground zero. Edwards cited two factors for this. First, corruption in Government that is demonstrated by no bid contracts. The second reason is trade policies that favor corporations over worker's rights and environmental standards.

Edwards took a half dozen questions from the audience. The first question was about health care. Edwards outlined the basics of his health care plan and then started talking about the need to care for our Veterans, which drew very loud applause from the crowd at the Iowa Veterans Home. Edwards said we need to have guaranteed funding for the Veterans Administration. Another line concerning health care from Edwards that garnered loud applause was when he said he would tell Congress, members of his administration, including the Cabinet, that if they don't pass a health care bill, so every American would be covered, by July of 2009 then he will use his power as President and take their health care coverage away.

An interesting question came from a man who is the son of a UAW worker about a quote from Sen. Edwards book, Home, about the dignity of hard worker Sen. Edwards learned working in the mill in the summers when he was growing up. Sen. Edwards responded by saying...

Today we glorify those who make millions and those aren't the ones who have made American great, it is those who work hard everyday that have made American great. It is time to show respect and dignity to those that work for a living.

Edwards closed by saying all the candidates have their policy statements, but what really matters is who the voters can trust. He said President Bush has squandered the trust of the American people and the world and it is vital that our next President can be trusted.

[Debi]

1. Thanks for the report pstans!

:hi:

[HereSince1628]

2. On that side issue-- didn'tTommy Thompson hit every county in Iowa

before the Iowa State Fair? For all the good it did him.

If you asked me...the way to win the Iowa vote is to promise a tax rebate on the purchase of golf carts. I've never seen a place with more old golf carts. When I lived out by the Raccoon River it simply left me wondering if any Iowa-ones ever walked to the mailbox anymore.

[Cha]

5. That was then ..this is now..

We'll see if Edwards gets any traction on this even though he's not touting rebates on new golf carts. :)

[Cha]

3. That's a good way to put it...

"Edwards Calls on Iowans to Pledge to Not Caucus for Anyone Who Takes Lobbyist Money"

And, if they do..please 'splain why?

[cali]

7. looks desperate to me

and it kinda irritates me too. What does he mean by lobbyist money? Environmental groups and other groups I support could fall into that category.

[Adelante]

8. He uses the corporate jet of the former head of the trial lawyers' lobby

at cut-rate prices in a huge in-kind contribution. I guess that's okay :shrug:

[Ninga]

14. Trial lawyers are a sight better than corporate lawyers any day of the week.

Good for him to get a cut-rate price and a huge in-kind contribution.

[Adelante]

15. If Clinton or Obama were doing this, there would be hell to pay on DU

“They’re essentially getting an in-kind subsidy or contribution for their travel from the people who own these planes and the question is what are the plane owners getting in return?” he said, noting the wealthy owners of corporate planes are eating the bulk of the cost of operating the plane for the candidate.

Other campaign reform groups agree candidates who pay only the price of a first-class ticket instead of full charter fare to ride on a corporate jet are getting an incredible deal — and other think that could seem unethical.

“Candidates should be paying fair market value for the use of corporate jets,” said Fred Worthheimer of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan campaign reform advocacy group that is lobbying for closing the FEC loophole.

“Corporations are providing substantial financial benefits by providing their jets for candidates at first-class airfare which is greatly reduced from the cost of chartering an airplane,” Wothheimer said.

snip

The Edwards campaign has paid more than $430,000 to Fred Baron for the use of his private plane, according FEC documents.

Baron, a successful asbestos trial lawyer, is a former president of the Association of American Trial Lawyers and is currently the national finance chair of Edwards’ ‘08 presidential bid.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Travel/Decision2008/Story?id=3520500&page=1

[Ninga]

18. Trial lawyers are not corporations. That would be like saying donations are from

lobbyist's.

[Adelante]

19. They may not be corporations, some are, but they are businesses in an industry

The legal industry, like any other, have memberships in lobbying entities. The difference between industry bundlers and a PAC or lobby is a piece of paper. So I do say bundled donations are from lobbies or PACs - just don't call them what they are. It's a loophole in the law and one that does great damage to our democracy. Any candidate who makes a claim of not taking money from lobbyists or PACs, while taking money and favors from industry bundlers, is blowing smoke and they know it. Their supporters should know it, too, and not defend it.

[Ninga]

20. I have a house party for Edwards. People come and write checks. Some give cash. I write the check

I am a bundler.

I am a citizen lobby.

[Adelante]

21. Do you seriously think so?

That you and your house party are the same as an industry bundler?

[Ninga]

22. I like your question. Of course I do think so. I can be a big name whose "industry" has not

lobbied my candidate, but if I chose to give, hold a house party, etc......then does my industry become the lobby seeking influence?

What is a lobby....a group that seeks to influence the legislative process of this country.


So if individual trial lawyers, give the max to Edwards, is that not different than the organized, businesses on K street in DC, who are paid big time by the health, energy, and corporate world to influence elected officials??


:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. It moves into the gray area though

when you are receiving campaign favors from the former head of an influential national profession lobbyists group. A lobby group by definition is not just individuals, it represents an entire trade and face it; lawyers have a lot more influence in and effect on the system than let's say Cartoon Illustraters. An Ex National Head of a national lobby is not necessarily any less politically involved as a high level influence peddler than a current Head of a national lobby. All "industries" have revoloving doors and people rotate in and out of lead positions but remain powerful players. It's about having and using connections to powerful people and the public never quite knowing what implied promises were made in return. In other words it is about exactly what Edwards is warning us all against.

Edwards is doing nothing wrong by accepting this type of support from the former head of an influential lobby group, he simply is trying to remain economically viable as a candidate in a system that is hard wired to give influence to monied interests.

[Adelante]

27. It certainly is wrong, it's just not illegal

But for a candidate calling out others, it's mind-bending and even insulting.

[Adelante]

25. Bundlers are not individual trial lawyers

They are partners organized to collect from employees the same way insurance executives or pharmaceutical executives or Wall Street executives do for the purpose of buying influence with candidates. If that weren't so, there would be no reason to base bundling on employee or industry giving; employees would give or not give individually as people rather than as part of an industry or professional group. When the financial chair of a campaign is also the former president of the professional group's Washington lobby and himself one of its biggest bundlers, it raises questions to my mind, because I do not believe industry bundlers are anything but a lobby or a PAC except in name and loophole. So when a candidate takes bundled money from industry or professional groups while crowing how they don't take PAC or lobby money, it's meaningless chatter meant for the gullible public and for devoted supporters who don't want to question their candidate. And I don't only mean Edwards, either.

It is not the same as individuals donating at a house party.

But I'm going to leave this here. If you are satisfied with your notion that there is no difference, it explains sufficiently why campaign financing reforms go absolutely nowhere.

Thanks for the civil discussion, though. It's rare. :hi:

[Ninga]

28. Kindly expand the meaning of "they are partners "organized" to collect.....

Do they organize and file their status with the IRS?

Do they organize and declare they are a PAC?


Kindly explain.


:shrug:

[goodgd_yall]

4. K & R n/t

[Tejanocrat]

6. k & r # 5! Great plan -- Edwards, Obama, Kucinich rule!

[IndianaGreen]

9. I ask Iowans not to vote for someone that would still have combat troops in Iraq in 2012

and definitely, don't vote for someone that trusts Bush enough to give him authority to do to Iran what he did to Iraq. Kyl-Lieberman is a big red flag!

[Froward69]

17. Hear Here!!!

[MethuenProgressive]

10. It looks like Edwards is also accusing Clinton of taking bribes:

He told voters at several stops that they can help end the influence of drug company lobbyists and other special interests even before the election.

"If you, New Hampshire primary voters, said starting today, 'I will not vote for a candidate for president who takes millions of dollars from Washington lobbyists, period, it would stop. I'm telling you, it would stop," he said at a Concord middle school. "This is not about punishing anyone. This is about making the system work."

Edwards has tried to portray Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who sits atop the Democratic presidential field, as beholden to Washington lobbyists because she accepts their money; he does not.

He said that in his days as a trial lawyer he would have been charged with bribery had he offered money to jurors he was trying to win over.

"In Washington, when they do it, it's called politics," Edwards said.

If he's not accusing her of taking bribes, just what is he saying?

[bread_and_roses]

11. Maybe just telling it like it is? Do you seriously doubt that corporate $$ buy

legislation? I don't. Why else would they spend it? It's an "investment" from which they expect a profit.

As for lumping environmentalists and such in with corporate lobbyists, I think one can make a distinction between those who gain a personal profit from legislation favoring them and those who do not.

[Inspired]

12. Maybe he is saying she can't be trusted?

If so, I agree 100%.

[Catchawave]

35. The health care industry has donated almost 2 mil to her campaign...

What do you call that ?

[Nutmegger]

13. Giving this some DU R&K love!

:thumbsup::loveya::kick:

[MichDem10]

16. Return America to Main Street not Wall Street!

[Ninga]

23. How about putting K street in DC out of business while we are at it?? Get those

fat lobby business shut down!!!

[Mass]

26. So, he is not taking money from trade unions lobbyists?\nt

[bread_and_roses]

32. Like unions are exactly the same as corporations?

Which union member makes a personal profit (not wage, profit) from the unions' lobbying? And which union exists solely to make profits?

A corporation exists for one reason - to make profits. No matter the cost to the common good, including the fate of the earth.

Citizens coming together to promote policy from which they derive no personal profit is fundamentally different than corporations lobbying for legislation that promotes profit and private wealth.

As for their relative weight in the political scale:

http://www.politicswest.com/7973/gops_right_work_vs_your_right_know_facts

Harsanyi cites an anti-union front group to claim that unions spent $925 million on "political expenditures" during the 2004 election cycle, and that such an factually suspect figure "illustrates a great deal of political influence." But as we all know, "political influence" is relative. $925 million sounds like a lot of money - but it sounds like a little when you compare it to the billions that corporations spend on politics. As I report in Hostile Takeover, the data shows that for every one dollar contributed by labor unions business interests gave $15. When looking at just individual contributions to lawmakers, the gap is even more pronounced: Business executives out-contributed labor leaders and staff by a factor of 1,000 to 1. This data is quite literally not disputed by any newspapers media organizations, or nonpartisan watchdog groups. It is not disputed, in other words, by anyone other than a handful of operatives working inside a few right-wing, corporate-funded organizations. The idea that unions' political contributions make them as powerful or more powerful than Corporate America in the political process is so silly and so factually absurd that no respectable journalist with any integrity would even imply such a thing.

[Mass]

33. The OP says lobbyists, not corporations.

Not sure if this is the OP or the Edwards campaign's choice of words, but there are all sorts of lobbyists (unions, environmentalist groups, ...) in the country and some lobby for things that are good.

Swearing off the lobbyists is stupid or shows a candidate who thinks people are stupid and not able to understand the difference.

[bread_and_roses]

34. look at the top spenders in lobbyists

and it is plain where the money is:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp

I too am unclear as to poster/Edwards words, but I think the meaning is clear from the context - ie, Clinton holding the meeting at a poisonous agribusiness multi-national's offices.

[MGKrebs]

29. Not sure what kind of coalition Edwards will be able to put together,

put apparently it won't be including corn (ethanol) farmers.

[democratsin08]

30. edwards is a liar

does he take money from unions and trial lawyers? if im not mistaken they fund multitudes of lobbyists.

[MGKrebs]

31. Apparently he's not taking their cash, but

he's taking all the in-kind help he can get. But that doesn't get them any influence. Only cash does. Or something like that. I think.