If Dean is taking money from lobbyists how come he criticizes Kerry for it?

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040203/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_lobbyists

Lobbyists Upset by Campaigning Barbs

<snip>An analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington found that Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, accepted the most campaign money from lobbyists over the past 15 years of anyone in the Senate: about $638,000.


However, an Associated Press review of the candidates' 2003 presidential campaign finance reports found Dean and Edwards among those who accepted lobbyist contributions.


Dean received at least $8,300 from donors identifying themselves as lobbyists; Edwards, at least $6,200; and Kerry, at least $4,500.


Among other Democrats in the race, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites)'s presidential campaign raised at least $40,200 from lobbyists. Wesley Clark (news - web sites), a former lobbyist, collected at least $6,100.

more

[maddezmom]

1. hmmm, interesting isn't it. :)

[D G]

4. "Physician, heal thyself?"

;) Seriously, have any of these Dems spoken up about Bush's contributions from lobbyists? That's what anyone accused should do, IMO - whip it around and point at Bush. Quit pointing at other Dems when it's all peanuts compared to the corporate trough the GOP feeds from.

[HFishbine]

7. Who is going to point that finger at Bush?

The candidate who has accepted more special interest money than any senator in the past fifteen years? The candidate who lies when he says he doesn't accept lobbyists money?

If we have expectations that our candidate is going to call Bush on his bogus war, the patriot act, No Child Left Behind, and his special interest funding, we better not nominate a candidate who lives in a glass house.

[girl gone mad]

9. you said it. n/t

[sistersofmercy]

2. Well, that's a very good question!

[HFishbine]

3. The distinctions

Most of Dean's contributions are from small donors. More than any other candidate. $8,300 does not put his allegiances in jeopardy. Dean's, and my, complaint is the hypocrisy of the other candidates.

When Kerry has received more special interest money than any other senator in the last fifteen years, it rings a little hollow for him to say he's going to kick the special interests out of Washington.

Edwards' transgressions are even more egregious. When he says "I don't take money from lobbyists," he is knowingly lying.

[NNN0LHI]

6. If taking money from lobbyists equates with selling out that only means...

...that Dean sold out cheaper than others did. I don't see the plus.

Don

[HFishbine]

10. Let's start with your "if"

It's what's known in debating circles as a strawman. My point was not that accepting money from lobbyists equates with selling out. Those were your words in order to deflect the argument I posited. Let's return to the original point.

To have accepted more special interest money than any other senator in the past fifteen years, and then assert that one is going to rid Washington of special interests, is disengenous at best; hypocritical at worst.

To have accepted money from lobbyists and then say time and time again that one hasn't, is even worse. It's a bald face lie.

[cindyw]

13. Your ignoring a fun fact. There is a reason Kerry has gotten the most

from special interests in individual contributions. He does not accept PAC money. Special Interests usually pool their money in PACs. Because KErry does not take PAC money all of his donations have to be individual. Thus making it look like he takes more money from special interests. When in fact, others simply take the money through PAC contributions.

[displacedtexan]

5. Dean's advisors haven't been good enough for him.

Dean is not stupid. He deserved much better advisors during the campaign months leading up to Iowa.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Interestingly enough, Kerry accepted the least amount from lobbyists.

However, they all pale in comparison with President Bush who raised at least $294,000 from lobbyists, his reports show.

Bush has delivered quite handsomely for the corporate contributors who fuel his campaigns.

We Dems have go to throw these bastards out in November.

[sandnsea]

18. It is interesting

Very interesting, I think. Glad the Kerry campaign got on top of this.

[Nazgul35]

11. Do the math...

8,300 divided by 41,000,000 = 0.02% of total contributions....

How much influence does that buy?

[NNN0LHI]

15. Read the article again

Dean received at least $8,300 from donors identifying themselves as lobbyists...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Because it appeals to the anger vote whether his charges are true or not

The main reason anger isn't always the most rational emotion with which to fuel a campaign.

hell there was a post the other day mentioning Kerry took campaign contributions from Newscorp...something Dean also did...interesting, eh?

[mopinko]

14. let's make a distinction here

the problem is not so much taking money from people, it is taking money, and giving back something that is stolen/takes away from the common good. it's not the quid, it's the pro quo. when howard was gov, he accepted a contribution from astra zenica (sp?), a vermont pharma co. when they would not negotiate a good enough price on a popular drug, it was struck from the formulary. so, quid, but to quo.
likewise, unions are not a special interest because just about anything you CAN give a union enhances the common good.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. He catered to Monsanto and DID

appear to do a quid pro quo...there is a thread about it started by BLM yesterday complete with facts and legislative history..again something Dean supporters smeared Kerry with without making sure their own candidate had "clean hands."

Monsanto's legal team began 1998 by taking on the State of Vermont and its attempts to pass a very weak rBGH law that merely required Monsanto to register with the state and make its client list available to state authorities so "rBGH-free" claims could be verified. The company responded by publicly threatening to sue the state and stop selling its products in Vermont if the bill passed. Governor Howard Dean, feeling the lobbying heat from Monsanto and its rBGH-addicted farmers in Vermont, came to Monsanto's defense and pulled the plug on the measure by threatening a veto. The legislature then went on to further soften an already spineless bill by removing the section that required the drug manufacturer's client list. Eventually, after yet another legal threat and a "closed-door" meeting with Governor Dean, Monsanto backed off and let the near-meaningless legislation go into effect.

[sandnsea]

19. ANWR, CAFE standards???

No, unions do not always enhance the common good.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Hmmm. 'hide this thread' button must be getting quite a workout

judging by how fast this thread dropped.

[maxr4clark]

20. Let's see, how can I follow the DU rules and answer this...

Oh yeah, stick to statements about my candidate.

Clark was registered as a lobbyist, yes. As a "lobbyist" he acted as a salesman for a company, Axciom or Acxiom (I can never remember which), which provides data to the CAPPS II program that CAPPS II will use to identify and track terrorists. Axciom asked Clark to help them find out who to tell about their data when the found that they had information about 11 of the 18 terrorists associated with the 9/11 attacks. He did, and the articles about his actions on their behalf say that he stressed the importance of individual privacy rights in meetings on the use of the data.

Lockheed-Martin is the company making CAPPS II, they just use Axciom's data. If CAPPS II is misusing the data, that is Lockheed-Martin's fault, not Acxiom's and not Clark's.

This kind of "lobbying" is not the sort of thing that Edwards or Dean or Kerry are complaining about, where people in government get jobs lobbying the part of the government they just left. Clark helped Axciom get a sub-contract with Lockheed-Martin, who had already been assigned the job of updating their existing CAPPS program into CAPPS II. Lockheed-Martin's contract is with the FBI, I believe, not the DoD. Clark was therefore not "lobbying" the part of the government that he had just left.

Clark was doing his patriotic duty, helping an American company participate in making our country a safer place to travel.

[HFishbine]

21. Actually

Clark was not "lobbying" Lockhead Martin. He was indeed lobbying the government. The Commerce Department and the Department of Homeland Security to be specific.

Clark posts one page of his lobbyist registration on his web site. Curiously though, the second page of the document, the one that shows who he lobbied and why is not posted. One has to look elswhere to find the second page of that document. (1)

Clark may have had the best of intentions in "making our country a safer place to travel." But in truth, he was helping the government establish what the Washington Post described as "one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government," and which the ACLU describes as "a most un-American system of internal border controls."

Furthermore, Clark had a chance to go on record with his concerns about privacy and CAPPS II. Hundreds or people did. (2). Clark didn't.

Instead, Clark said during the New Hampshire debate "Had I still been on that board (of Acxiom) when all this was going through, I would have insisted that ACLU and others be brought in to pre-approve CAPPS II." (3)

The only problem is, Clark WAS on the board "when all this was going through." CAPPS II was proposed in January, 2003. (4) Clark didn't resign from the board of Acxiom until October 9, 2003 (5).

1) sopr.senate.gov/2003/01/000/342/000342438.gif

2) http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm (Enter docket # 1437)

3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer

4) http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CAPPSII_PRIVACY_ACT_NOTICE.pdf

5) http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA

[mitchum]

22. Hypocrisy?

[TLM]

23. You gotta love this....

Kerry takes the most money from lobbyists of anybody in the senate, and has a notorious campaign finance history of busting limits and taking in as much money as he could get his hands on in the days before new rules went into effect... yet he campaigns on claims to get special interest influence out of Washington.

And the only defense that these folks can come up with... is that Dean took $8,300 from lobbyists. Meanwhile Kerry rakes in $638,000.

Talk about a double standard... apparently Dean is a horrible corporate sell out for taking 8k from lobbyists out of 40 million... yet Kerry is an anti-corporate crusader who will banish special interest money from DC because he took in 75 times that amount during his time in the senate.