TPMtv: YearlyKos Chapter 14 (Hillary defends taking money from lobbysists)

[jefferson_dem]

Run time: 08:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5njRbQIJt_s   Posted on YouTube: August 04, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 05, 2007 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 1331

 
Presidential Leadership Forum: Hillary defends taking money from Lobbyists.

[swag]

1. Pretty good booing there.

I can hear Jane Hamsher and Duncan Black all the way over here.

[penguin7]

2. At the end Edwards defends taking money from Wall Street.

[JDPriestly]

3. The real thing.

The money from people who work on Wall Street -- I assume that is within the campaign limits for individuals. The problem with lobbyists' money is that it tends to exceed what would normally be given by individuals based on their liking a candidate. In 2004, I was working for a large law firm. Several of us liked Wesley Clark and donated modest amounts of money to his campaign. We had to disclose the name of the firm we worked for. That did not mean that our firm backed him. It did not. That is why you have to differentiate between donations from lobbyists and donations from private individuals who work for corporations. If people who happen to work on Wall Street give to Edwards, you have to know whether they are just giving on their own behalf. People have the right to give on their own behalf and it should not reflect negatively on the candidate. Lobbyists do not give on their own behalf.

[penguin7]

4. Yeah right!

Edward's answer was that the candidates have to take money from nurses, teachers, doctors and those on wall street in order to have a serious campaign.

This was disingenuous with his supposed claim that he is working for those with less money. Obviously only the very rich can give $2300. So he is making the logical leap that these contributions do not influence.

Also the 17 million that the lawyers have contributed to this election is a very serious problem with our government. Lawyers write the laws, and most politicians are lawyers and then they contribute very heavily. There is a serious conflict of interest here, and the legal system is corrupt as all hell. And this is no Republican talking point as the GOP wants the legal system to be corrupt just as the Democrats. They just want a different slant on the corruption. Lawyers contribute a fortune to politicians and it is a very serious problem.

The money that wall street gives is also a very serious problem, but not as serious as the legal money in my opinion.

[JDPriestly]

5. "lawyers write the laws"?

Just being a lawyer does not mean you are rich. Many lawyers grub away seven days a week in tiny cubby hole offices and have no say whatsoever about anything. Lots of lawyers work in public interest fields.

The public view of who lawyers are and what they do is based on the experience of the lucky few who make it to the top. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for lawyers, we would have a chaotic society. Our society would be very violent.

Many lawyers are genuinely progressive. That is not surprising if you stop to realize that the primary job of lawyers is to help people avoid conflict and help them resolve conflict when it arises.

A couple of weeks ago, I was sitting at a garden party. A doctor's wife started badmouthing lawyers saying how we gouge and charge so much. I explained that many lawyers do a lot of pro bono work. My friends were startled to hear about some of the pro bono projects I have worked on. Most of us lawyers are neither rich nor powerful. We work to help people.


There is a huge difference between the money that comes from lobbyists who represent organized industries or corporations and the money that comes from individual professionals. Lawyers and stock brokers have the same right as everyone else to give personal donations to the candidates of their choice.

As for lawyers writing laws, who better understands law and how to write it? Traditionally, people who want to work in politics get law degrees. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all lawyers. Many of our greatest presidents have been lawyers.

[penguin7]

8. If you claim the legal system is not corrupt,

I aint buying it.

Politicians are for the most part lawyers, and politicians write the laws. This is a serious conflict of interest, so we can know just from this fact that the system is corrupt. We can look at the specifics of all areas of the law to see it.

Of course, lawyers are people like everyone else, good and bad ones. SO of course there are many lawyers that have done good works for society. This does not change the fact that the basic system is corrupt.

Lastly, the $4600 campaign limit gives more voice to the wealthy. The average guy can not give this kind of money to a campaign. Wall street bankers and wealthy lawyers do have this kind of dough, and this further corrupts the system.

The candidates that have the most money have received a very large percentage from folks that gave the maximum.

[JDPriestly]

10. Obviously I can't change your mind on lawyers.

I just hope you never need one. As for the $4600 campaign limit, I agree that it is far too high.

[penguin7]

11. When people need lawyers, that is when people really start disliking them.

I hang around people that are not lawyers for the most part though.

[lame54]

6. let's get rid of k street

we'll worry about wall street after that

GO EDWARDS

p.s. lobbyist represent the american people? - does hillary think we're stupid?

[rabies1]

7. No one seems to be fooled by Hillary

Obama and surprisingly Dodd come off quite well but why I wonder don't more people go for Kucinich? He looks like an incredibly sharp man, who has to battle for any air time, yet he doesn't disappoint when he gets his chance.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Welcome to DU!

I agree about Kucinich. He's a man who walks his talk.