Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUsing campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of Washington.
He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans."
"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."
But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.
In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.
Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past.
"He's leading by example and taking steps that he feels need to be taken on the national stage to clean up the undue influence of Washington lobbyists on the policies and priorities of Washington," Psaki said. "His leadership on this issue is an evolving process."
Psaki said Obama believes that healthcare lobbyists have blocked progress toward universal health coverage, and that oil company lobbyists have blocked badly needed changes to America's energy policies.
Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.
This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.
"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."
From the day he entered the presidential race, Obama has projected an outside-the-Beltway persona, positioning himself as the Washington change agent that Americans are pining for. Last week, his campaign began running a new TV spot in Iowa, in which the narrator says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."
In the Democrats' previous debate, on July 23, Obama was unequivocal when challenged by former Alaska senator Mike Gravel about who his donors were.
"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."
And on June 25, right before the second quarter ended, Obama sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to contribute to his campaign to make up for the lack of special-interest money.
"Candidates typically spend a week like this -- right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline -- on the phone day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks," the e-mail said. "Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."
Obama's main Democratic target on the issue of lobbyist and PAC contributions has been Clinton, whom Obama has been working to paint as a figurehead for the broken politics of Washington. Through June, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton had collected $413,000 from lobbyists and $533,000 from PACs -- leading all 2008 presidential contenders in both categories. Clinton has also raised about $3 million from PACs and $400,000 from lobbyists for her Senate campaigns, according to the group.
Clinton's campaign declined to comment.
Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa, said Obama, given his record of raising special-interest money throughout his political career, was taking a "gamble" in holding himself up as a beacon of purity.
"He probably will be hurt if he's put in a position where he's trying to draw very fine distinctions between his present campaign and his past behavior," Squire said.
Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists -- nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone.
And some good-government activists say that, past fund-raising practices aside, Obama has genuinely been a champion for ethics and campaign reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and in Congress.
"On the one hand, sure, he rose to power as many people do in this town, which is to raise money from the people who have the money," said Gary Kalman, of the advocacy group US PIRG.
At the same time, he added, Obama has championed public financing for elections and he fought hard to pass the federal ethics reform bill.
© Copyright 2007 The Boston Globe
20 Comments so far
Show All"I'm sick and tired of hearing that Kucinich hasn't got a chance from people who agree with his policies but won't vote for him. If everyone who agreed with his policies would support him, he'd be the candidate that can't be beat."
These people won't vote for Kucinich because they're braindead, and prejudging/judging him subconciously and conciously based on his height/appearence... the same way THEY ARE judging and looking at Obama and others with approval because of their appearences.
Yes the mob is fickle, and their votes are heavily based on superficial and irrelevant factors, whether they're aware of it or not. Some even said they won't vote for OBama because of his name. By and large humans conciously and subconciously judge one another primarily on appearences- and that includes Race, Gender, Height, looks, tone of voice, fluency of voice, accent etc... the list goes on.
If you'll recall, Kucinich was able to stay in the entire 2004 race without taking any contributions from corporations and special interests. Other candidates bailed out left and right citing campaign funding as the reason.
What does that tell us about fiscal responsibility? The Bush administration has already got us on the brink of the same bankruptcy the dismantled the Soviet Union. We've got to get somebody into office who can prioritize spending, cut fat and get us out of debt. I'm sick and tired of hearing that Kucinich hasn't got a chance from people who agree with his policies but won't vote for him. If everyone who agreed with his policies would support him, he'd be the candidate that can't be beat.
Monet, Money, Money! The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of ALL EVIL. Someone wrote recently that only registered voters should be able to make campaign contributions. What a great idea.
I contribute to PACS regularly. The PAC's I contribute to are what I would consider "good" PACS like environmental and pro-choice groups. It is naive to believe that candidates shouldn't take PAC money. They should take it if they want to win. Do you think Guiliani or McCain don't take PAC money? Of course they do. What you should be looking at is WHAT PAC's are your candidates taking money from. What causes do they represent. One of my concerns about Obama is is lack of experience at the national political level. PAC's are a reality of the election process and as long as everyone else is taking PAC money so should "our" candidates.
Even though I am a black man (non-American), I could not vote for Obama. He is simply too flaky. There is no substance to the man!
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=S
"Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists — nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone."
Who Voted to Invade and Occupy Iraq?
Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd. Why Should We Listen to Them and Their Campaigns' Political Hacks?
Progressives Shouldn't Be Fooled by the Clinton Campaign. "Big Pimping" Kucinich has no chance in hell of winning, and I say that as a former supporter and Green Party organizer. Now looking at the serious candidates who will manage us out of Iraq that leaves Barack Obama. Progressives need to get serious and quit playing the naive pacifism games and the word games. Even the Green Party voted to invade and occupy Kosovo to stop genocide- which is what it was in Bosnia as well, my father was there and took the classified photos of the hundreds of bodies thrown into roadside ditches and the bodies hanging from the rafters of the Sarajevo Olympic Ice Rink. Acting to intervene in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban was the correct policy, and acting to overthrow them in Pakistan would be as well. We have to draw the line as Progressives between Supporting Monarchy (Saudi Arabia), Military Dictatorship (Musharraf's Pakistan since 1999, Egypt, Syria), and Theocracy (Israel, Iran, and the Taliban), and Supporting Democracy (elected Hamas and Hezbollah governments). To stop drawing these lines blurs the entire political philosophical identity of ourselves that we ourselves have crafted over 200 years as a democratically engaged public with a constitution that bestows us rights we fight for. Blurring that identity gives rise to all kinds of obscene comparisons: The United States is like the Stalinist USSR; fascistic tendencies that rationalize defending all kinds of antidemocratic forms of government: Monarchy (Saudi Arabia), Military Dictatorship (Musharraf's Pakistan since 1999, Egypt, Syria), and Theocracy (Israel, Iran, and the Taliban).
I support Obama because he supports engagement with foreign leaders, and believes we need a 'democratic ally' in Pakistan, not just an 'ally'. Everyone should take this seriously, especially looking at what a lack of engagement with the democratically elected government of Palestine, (Hamas), has led to. Obama is the clear choice if you support civil society in the world, and do not want to explain away Kucinich's de facto support for the Taliban in withdrawing from Afghanistan. We don't need isolationism in a globalized world, we need engagement that reflects our commitments to democracy and social uplift, a foreign policy that is also realistic about the state of the world as it is today and the priorities of our national security- the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan who under Reagan received vast funding and military knowledge.
Barak Hussein ObombPakistan (unilaterally). Progressives shouldn't be making excuses for this guy. Vote Kucinich.
The government needs to raise the poverty rate up to $30,000 per person.
If he gets elected I will not need to work because he will give me 15 - 20 an hour to do squat.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
K Street has ATM's every five feet here in DC. I am not joking! There are a ton of banks on K Street for a reason!
I think Edwards had the best line when he said if you pay a jury, it's bribery; but when you pay a Congressman, it's politics.
I wonder what Hillary's definition of "real american" is?
I'm not suprised and wonder why others are. Politics is based in rhetoric...read Plato's Gorgias if you don't believe me...it's been rooted in rhetoric since ancient Greece. Lobbyists and their groups get paid more than any politican and oftentimes more than anyone in D.C. Politics and America is ruled by the dollar. You cannot be the president or any political position without the most money. You simply cannot catch the news media's eye without money. You will not win without it. The news media will narrow down the candidates for you based on how much money they're throwing around.
Kucinich has my vote, on the issues and on his financial integrity. I'm grateful for an article exploring the question I've long had about Obama: "Who's buying the gas for this bandwagon?"
That said, I think it's misleading and disingenuous to lump all PACs and lobbyists together and call them evil 'special interests'. That's a GOP ploy, which obliterates the difference between a lobbyist for Exxon and a lobbyist for GreenPeace.
Please remember to smell a rat whenever union money is presented as a 'special interest' influence equivalent to Big Pharma cash - unless you're a member of the class that lives off your inheritance or investments.
PACs, ditto. The way the campaign laws are set up, EVERYONE needs a PAC. It's critical to discern who's making the PAC go, and where the money's coming in from. I send money to the Progressive Dems of America PAC, and wish I could afford more.
I'm hoping someone will take Hellman's ball and run with it, and look a little deeper into how a black man presenting himself as a progressive got airtime in the first place. No one becomes a top-tier presidential candidate anymore without more money than the grassroots can provide, and a corporate-friendly message to insure corporate media attention.
I became concerned about Obama when I heard the Kagans had come out in support of him. His quarter fundraising totals were withheld until all else had announced. Makes me think they didn't want to spend anymore than necessary.
And although he is saying Iraq is wrong, he's spouting the "bomb Iran" line, just as the neocons would want, and lo and behold, now Pakistan, like a page out of PNAC.
Too bad. I really liked him.
It appeared for a while that Fox & CNN, etc. were trying to pair up Obama & Clinton. Most scenes from the CNN debate of Hillary had Obama over her shoulder, and they reinforced each other onstage. Also, Gingrich stated that this was the Dem ticket, and all msm has been promoting this as "the race" for some time.
But something has changed. A drastic shift occurred during MSNBC's debate.
John Kerry got skewered by admitting that he had changed his mind over time.
If Obama has learned something about the power of lobbyists to influence legislation, I appreciate his using that knowledge to change course.
We will see how he does in staying the course of a community organizer vs. a political puppet.
His first job is to get nominated, if he fails at that, then perhaps he isn't right for the job. (Yet.)
I dont trust this guy wherever he gets his money from.
and my instincts are usually pretty good.
I didn't follow the 2000 election, and had never heard of "dubya", but when I watched him make his acceptance speech, how he wasn't a nation builder, etc etc ad naseum, I turned to my wife and said:
"This guy is lying through his teeth, and will take the USA to war within 12 months."
he didn't even make it to 12.
"Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists — nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone."
Why is this on the bottom of the article and not at the top.
The end of the article says the PAC and Lobbyist contributions were in the past, now he relies on the internet and grass roots. But all the comments on CD and the MSM will be "Obama takes PAC and Lobbyist money".
Either you haven't read the whole article or you believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.
To the writers of this article: How is that different from Edwards, Clinton, Romney, Guiliani, and the rest who also all take PAC money? They all represent special interests and not the interests of the American people!
The one candidate that really doesn't take this money..that has no strings... Dennis Kucinich!
I don't donate to candidates because I don't have enough to buy any help from them.
Rich people that screw over the workers and poor worldwide know what they are paying for and they get it.