See, I always said democrats were better at corruption and this proof!

Proof I tells you!

Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Don't let simplistic populist rhetoric define reality. In general, it's corporate lobbying that's most troubling.

downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.

//mudslinging

This is bad news, for Obama

Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

Because sometimes people want to communicate their desires to Washington and would like someone versed in Washington politics to communicate the message as effectively as possible.

Romney's a douche and we all know that Obama is going to win easily, but this is a non-story. We all know that with the CU ruling, the real donors and money is in Super PACs. Registered lobbyists are small fish now.

I heard once that Obama had a lobbyist hold the door for him therefore both sides are bad and all you libs have to Vote Republican.

Obama's usual ploy. Drop a napalm bomb of information right before the weekend, and let all the talking heads fester for a few days without being able to defending their chosen one so easily.

Well played.

downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Why is it surprising?

Even if the Obama campaign were to accept lobbyist donations, the President does not create legislation; he's more like the goalie. And it's highly unlikely that Obama will block any legislation that secures or assists people in health and family planning.

Therefore PP gets a much, much bigger bang for their buck by supporting or opposing Congressional candidates.

Infernalist
Romney's a douche and we all know that Obama is going to win easily, but this is a non-story



libs......lol

Expolaris: Obama's usual ploy. Drop a napalm bomb of information right before the weekend, and let all the talking heads fester for a few days without being able to defending their chosen one so easily.

Well played.

He's controlled the narrative since the very beginning. the GOP just doesn't know how to respond to their own tactics being used against them.

MFL: Infernalist
Romney's a douche and we all know that Obama is going to win easily, but this is a non-story

[t2.gstatic.com image 219x230]

libs......lol

Yeah, I'm one of those common pro-death penalty, anti-gun control Liberals.

Expolaris: Obama's usual ploy. Drop a napalm bomb of information right before the weekend, and let all the talking heads fester for a few days without being able to defending their chosen one so easily.

Well played.

Think he will go sherman on them, maybe even nuclear?

Let's look at the whole campaign, shall we?

Lobbying firm donations favor Obama $14,059,717 to Romney's $6,702,739.

That's outrageous. See my outrage?

Antimatter: Expolaris: Obama's usual ploy. Drop a napalm bomb of information right before the weekend, and let all the talking heads fester for a few days without being able to defending their chosen one so easily.

Well played.

He's controlled the narrative since the very beginning. the GOP just doesn't know how to respond to their own tactics being used against them.

Why should they? The Democrats have played the whole "Take the moral high ground and ignore those drooling idiots" defense since the mid-90s. All that accomplished was to encourage the GOP to pump up the dirty tactics to an eleven.

Now, for the first time since Clinton, they're having their own tricks and methods used against them and they don't know what to do. It's very satisfying to see.

Obama will win, but by a depressingly narrow margin.

That said, I'm pleased to hear that Republicans are dropping LOADS of cash on Romney based on the sadly justifiable belief that elections can be bought. Worse, their gnashing about high taxes on "job creators" will only amplify after November: "Taxing us isn't fair, we went broke trying to rig the election!"

HakunaMatata: Glad im voting or the guy who isnt beholden to lobbyists.

/or at least less beholden



I KNEW ZER0BAMA WAS EVIL!!!!

Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

Believe it or not, some of them do serve a purpose. They have expertise in a particular area of industry and/or regulation, and can help to craft legislation that doesn't have some stupid/ridiculous provisions. Otherwise, you get those stories of "I build houses, and the government passed this dumb law that says I have to do something silly, because they don't understand construction" etc.

Oh, wait, this is fark. "They're all parasites and thieves and should be hung by their dangly bits"

MisterRonbo: Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

Believe it or not, some of them do serve a purpose. They have expertise in a particular area of industry and/or regulation, and can help to craft legislation that doesn't have some stupid/ridiculous provisions. Otherwise, you get those stories of "I build houses, and the government passed this dumb law that says I have to do something silly, because they don't understand construction" etc.

Oh, wait, this is fark. "They're all parasites and thieves and should be hung by their dangly bits"

The concept is sound:

The citizenry are entitled to the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

In other words, they have the 'right' to complain and the right to have the government sit there and listen to their complaints.

The problem comes from the fact that the government decided that allowing money to enter the equation was a good idea.

Because they are working in the White House

MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either.

And we have John Edwards to thank for setting that standard.

Heckuva guy that Edwards. What ever happened to him?

I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

At least it's now obvious one man cannot make a difference. The next annual presidental address should be announced as "ExxonMobil presents The 2013 State of the Union". Why hide it anymore?

Romney is amoral and corrupt. Film at 11.

Wendy's Chili: MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either.

And we have John Edwards to thank for setting that standard.

Heckuva guy that Edwards. What ever happened to him?

Are you trying to say that Edwards' fall was because he didn't accept money from lobbyists? If that's not what you're trying to say, then what relevance did your post have to the conversation at hand?

Antimatter
He's controlled the narrative since the very beginning. the GOP just doesn't know how to respond to their own tactics being used against them.

lol whut?

The democrats always "controll the narrative" with the mainstream media. Where have you been?

The fact that Obama has dropped millions in attack adds and his pals at NBC have carried his water while Romney's numbers are going up. I mean shiat NBC had to oversample Dems by 11% in their last poll to keep the whole "Obama's got this in the bag" narrative alive.

Libtards "conveniently" "forgetting" all the money Obama has received from ACORN? Must be a day that ends in y.

*I meant African American

MacEnvy: Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.


So Obama only accepts donations from lobbyists that are circumventing the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Transparency!!

Wonder what the score is in the "shady billionaire Jewish casino magnate who previously supported another canidate" donation game.

/Obama has one of those right?

MFL: Antimatter
He's controlled the narrative since the very beginning. the GOP just doesn't know how to respond to their own tactics being used against them.

lol whut?

The democrats always "controll the narrative" with the mainstream media. Where have you been?

The fact that Obama has dropped millions in attack adds and his pals at NBC have carried his water while Romney's numbers are going up. I mean shiat NBC had to oversample Dems by 11% in their last poll to keep the whole "Obama's got this in the bag" narrative alive.

Back to make more brainless claims then disappear into the night when they are refuted I see

phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

Are you familiar with the term "Bagman"?

Epoch_Zero: Romney is amoral and corrupt. Film at 11.

Are all Mormons going to blindly vote for him? I'm wondering if any of them looked at his vulture capitalism, flip-flopping, and constant stream of lies, and said "um, I don't think I can vote for such an immoral person."

/assuming "yes"

This election I'm a bit surprised to see the R's pushing so hard to the right. Usually that only occurs in the mid-terms. I'm not entirely sure that's the wisest move for them to make as we are a mostly centralist so it may come back to bite them in the butt.

Info from HuffyPo, so no ultra-left slant here to see. Move along, lemmings.

RolandGunner: So Obama only accepts donations from lobbyists that are circumventing the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Transparency!!

Infernalist: The problem comes from the fact that the government decided that allowing money to enter the equation was a good idea.

You think that was somebody in Govt who came up with idea?

MFL: The democrats always "controll the narrative" with the mainstream media. Where have you been?

That's why the Swiftboaters got no attention whatsoever.

And we never saw Dukakis in a tank turret.

And knew nothing about Clinton's possible extramarital affairs until he was out of office.

Hetfield: Libtards "conveniently" "forgetting" all the money Obama has received from ACORN? Must be a day that ends in y.

0/10. Too blatant.

DeltaPunch: Epoch_Zero: Romney is amoral and corrupt. Film at 11.

Are all Mormons going to blindly vote for him? I'm wondering if any of them looked at his vulture capitalism, flip-flopping, and constant stream of lies, and said "um, I don't think I can vote for such an immoral person."

/assuming "yes"

I'm sure some Mormons will vote against him, or not vote at all, but it'll likely be dwarfed by the amount that do. Humans are tribal creatures, and religions are some of the most influential tribes.

Equalize the playing field. Ban all private contributions and give all candidates the same public funds. How they want to spend those funds is up to them.

rufus-t-firefly: And knew nothing about Clinton's possible extramarital affairs until he was out of office.

Like nobody knew about them before the contract was taken out on his character.

shotglasss: Info from HuffyPo, so no ultra-left slant here to see. Move along, lemmings.

How do you slant dollar amounts that a campaign reports?

Seven-hundred forty-eight Washington lobbyists and dozens of corporate and lobbying firm PACs have already given $1.87 million to benefit Romney through his campaign or through the victory committee sending funds to the Republican National Committee and a host of state parties, according to records filed with the Secretary of the Senate. The majority of that -- $1.32 million -- was raised in the past six months and disclosed in the last few days of July. These lobbyists have also been central to his campaign's finance operation, raising $5.25 million from their friends, family and clients.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee do not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists.

There you go - that whole quote is in italics, so now it's slanted.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

rufus-t-firefly: shotglasss: Info from HuffyPo, so no ultra-left slant here to see. Move along, lemmings.

How do you slant dollar amounts that a campaign reports?

Seven-hundred forty-eight Washington lobbyists and dozens of corporate and lobbying firm PACs have already given $1.87 million to benefit Romney through his campaign or through the victory committee sending funds to the Republican National Committee and a host of state parties, according to records filed with the Secretary of the Senate. The majority of that -- $1.32 million -- was raised in the past six months and disclosed in the last few days of July. These lobbyists have also been central to his campaign's finance operation, raising $5.25 million from their friends, family and clients.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee do not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists.

There you go - that whole quote is in italics, so now it's slanted.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

But but.. it's slanted to the right, not left...

phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Yes, black liberals are gonna jump ship and vote for Romney because Obama didn't give them reparations or something.

The disappointment to which you refer is the disappointment in the Republicans who have brought the gears of Washington to a grinding halt just to spite the black democrat.

Rmoney is repeating his disastrous dispute with Teddy Kennedy in 1994 by sparring daily with an old (fellow Mormoonie) warhorse like Harry Reid. Reid has a thicker skin than the honey Badger, and he don't give a shiat neither.

Just keep bringing it on on Mittens! You can win this one. And , God forbid, what if there really is a Bain partner out there who's ready to come forward with the grimy details of Rmoney's double dealing at Bane. This is definitely the best theatre since the campaign started.

(O'donell got in on the act last on CNBC by calling Rmnoey a tax shelter felon who availed himself of the one-time Federal Swiss account disclosure amnesty. So even if Mitsy subsequently paid up, the amended returns will show he responded to the amnesty, having committed a felony in his original filings.)

RolandGunner: Let's look at the whole campaign, shall we?

Lobbying firm donations favor Obama $14,059,717 to Romney's $6,702,739.

That's outrageous. See my outrage?

I find it fascinating that your "look at the whole campaign" actually looks at a very tiny sector of the campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/sectors.php?sector=F

The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

You know he's raising more money than he did in 2008, right?

Snatch Bandergrip: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Yes, black liberals are gonna jump ship and vote for Romney because Obama didn't give them reparations or something.

The disappointment to which you refer is the disappointment in the Republicans who have brought the gears of Washington to a grinding halt just to spite the black democrat.

There is some disappointment out there that Obama didn't fight harder, or that he isn't quite as left as some people believe. I, personally, was deeply disappointed that the public option wasn't even on the table in the healthcare debate, and at Obama's failure to roll back some of Bush's power grabs. But if you think any of those people (myself included) are going to vote for Romney, of all people, you're sorely mistaken. Obama may not be acting swiftly enough to solve the problem, but Romney is the problem.

Cat Food Sandwiches: The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

Because you can get more with a kind word and a donation than you can with a kind word alone?

Snatch Bandergrip: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Yes, black liberals are gonna jump ship and vote for Romney because Obama didn't give them reparations or something.

The disappointment to which you refer is the disappointment in the Republicans who have brought the gears of Washington to a grinding halt just to spite the black democrat.

Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans. That's just more disappointment and no way to waste your vote.

The novelty thing will wear off, people will realized this isn't about race/color. It already has begun.

HeartBurnKid: Snatch Bandergrip: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Yes, black liberals are gonna jump ship and vote for Romney because Obama didn't give them reparations or something.

The disappointment to which you refer is the disappointment in the Republicans who have brought the gears of Washington to a grinding halt just to spite the black democrat.

There is some disappointment out there that Obama didn't fight harder, or that he isn't quite as left as some people believe. I, personally, was deeply disappointed that the public option wasn't even on the table in the healthcare debate, and at Obama's failure to roll back some of Bush's power grabs. But if you think any of those people (myself included) are going to vote for Romney, of all people, you're sorely mistaken. Obama may not be acting swiftly enough to solve the problem, but Romney is the problem.

And bing-o was his name-o.

MFL: Antimatter
He's controlled the narrative since the very beginning. the GOP just doesn't know how to respond to their own tactics being used against them.

lol whut?

The democrats always "controll the narrative" with the mainstream media. Where have you been?

The fact that Obama has dropped millions in attack adds and his pals at NBC have carried his water while Romney's numbers are going up. I mean shiat NBC had to oversample Dems by 11% in their last poll to keep the whole "Obama's got this in the bag" narrative alive.

let_me_laugh_even_harder.jpg

The corporate media is the living embodiment of BSABSVR.

Wasn't this a non-story for libs in the previous election when Obama was spending 5x the money that McCain was?

phreezen:

Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans.

So you are saying not to Vote for Romney?

Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

[dtdstudios.com image 843x403]

What the hell do tax returns have to do with lobbyists?

Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

[dtdstudios.com image 843x403]

What the hell do tax returns have to do with lobbyists?

Transparency.

Do try to keep up.

DeltaPunch: Are all Mormons blacks going to blindly vote for him? I'm wondering if any of them looked at his vulture capitalism, flip-flopping, and constant stream of lies, inability to create an economic atmosphere that has made their lives better and said "um, I don't think I can vote for such an immoral ineffective person."

/assuming "yes"

I don't have a problem with lobbyists per se, but they should not be allowed to contribute in any way shape or form to any politician, political hopeful or group that gives money to either of those two things and if they do, it should be a felony with prison time.

It's not free speech, it's bribery. Just bribery.

Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

[dtdstudios.com image 843x403]

What the hell do tax returns have to do with lobbyists?

Transparency.

Do try to keep up.

Did Romney promise transparency?

Jubeebee: Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

It's a fundamental principle of our republic that the people are able to communicate their needs and concerns to elected officials.

The problem comes when the people who make a living at this make their main method of communicating their clients' needs and concerns is one step away from outright bribery, and the amount of money needed to run for office and win necessitates taking said bribes.

We should just legalize bribery, then require all bribery to be publicly known/reported.

phreezen: Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans

Instead, vote for 4 more years of the Republicans who are to blame.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

[dtdstudios.com image 843x403]

What the hell do tax returns have to do with lobbyists?

Transparency.

Do try to keep up.

Did Romney promise transparency?

So Romney will not be transparent. That's good to know.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

[dtdstudios.com image 843x403]

What the hell do tax returns have to do with lobbyists?

Transparency.

Do try to keep up.

Did Romney promise transparency?

So you are saying that Romney promises to extensively hide facts from the American people? This is a winning strategy.

I can't speak for Romney, but we know Obama lied about lobbyists:


The Times of India claimed that Barack Obama had appointed seventeen lobbyists to high government positions in the first 14 days of his administration. Politico provided a list of twelve of these last week, a handy reference with which we can start building our lists of "exceptions" to the Obama Administration Ethics Policy:

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:
•Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
•Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
•William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
•William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
•David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
•Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
•Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
•Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
•Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
•Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
•Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
•Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

This doesn't count Tom Daschle, who never registered as a lobbyist but got paid millions for his political connections in pursuit of preferential treatment for his clients in the health-care industry. The AP notes this in today's look at the Lobbyist Administration:


Sloan and others said embarrassments over Daschle, one of several top Obama appointees with a history of influencing government for clients, should not detract from the president's first-day vow to sharply limit the role of lobbyists in his administration.

Daschle, a former senator tapped to head Health and Human Services, is not technically a lobbyist. But he was paid more than $5.2 million over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications.

Fred Wertheimer of Democracy21 is one of Washington's best-known advocates of more open and honest government. He called Obama's executive order "unprecedented and almost revolutionary in nature" and "a direct attack on the culture of Washington and the way business is done here."

"A few waivers will not undermine it," he said, provided they are justified and limited.

Limited? It's been less than two weeks since Obama took office, and he's appointed a lobbyist a day to a government position. What kind of governing philosophy is that, if not a big "For Sale" sign on the White House, at least according to Obama's own anti-lobbyist rhetoric on the campaign trail? A lobbyist a day helps keeps accountability away.

Wertheimer demonstrates all that is wrong with these ersatz watchdog groups who really only are interested in partisan outcomes. Can anyone seriously believe that Wertheimer would have had the same orgasmic reaction if George Bush had written that ethics policy and spent every day afterwards violating it? Does he really expect anyone to believe that words matter more than action?

Well, the media might buy it, gauging by their coverage of this issue, but perhaps not for long. If the AP has started to point it out, even this mildly, others may soon follow.

Philip Francis Queeg: phreezen:

Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans.

So you are saying not to Vote for Romney?

You can blame President Romney all you want. Don't make excuses for Obama.

qorkfiend: RolandGunner: Let's look at the whole campaign, shall we?

Lobbying firm donations favor Obama $14,059,717 to Romney's $6,702,739.

That's outrageous. See my outrage?

I find it fascinating that your "look at the whole campaign" actually looks at a very tiny sector of the campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/sectors.php?sector=F

This article makes it seem as if Obama has received nothing from lobbyists, when in fact he has received twice as much as Romney has.

By the way, sorry for quoting that, everyone. I forgot about a number of the election year regulars from 2008 and 2010.

My bad.

phreezen: Philip Francis Queeg: phreezen:

Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans.

So you are saying not to Vote for Romney?

You can blame President Romney all you want. Don't make excuses for Obama.

President Romneyy will be fully to blame for every single unemployed person in America the moment he takes the oath of office right? If the next day unemployment is over 8% that will be solely his failure.

phreezen: Snatch Bandergrip: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Yes, black liberals are gonna jump ship and vote for Romney because Obama didn't give them reparations or something.

The disappointment to which you refer is the disappointment in the Republicans who have brought the gears of Washington to a grinding halt just to spite the black democrat.

Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans. That's just more disappointment and no way to waste your vote.

The novelty thing will wear off, people will realized this isn't about race/color. It already has begun.

Please give me one reason to vote for Mitt Romney that is not "He's not Obama."

xtragrind: Wasn't this a non-story for libs in the previous election when Obama was spending 5x the money that McCain was?

Exactly. Sara Palin is automatically President...

Wendy's Chili: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

You know he's raising more money than he did in 2008, right?

Last time I've heard he is short. I could be wrong but this Link

Cletus C.: DeltaPunch: Are all Mormons blacks going to blindly vote for him? I'm wondering if any of them looked at his vulture capitalism, flip-flopping, and constant stream of lies, inability to create an economic atmosphere that has made their lives better and said "um, I don't think I can vote for such an immoral ineffective person."

/assuming "yes"

Yes, I'm sure it's in their best interest to vote for the guy who wants more massive tax cuts for the rich and higher taxes for the middle and lower classes.

phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Africans can't vote in US elections........ although fundraisers in foreign countries are apparently allowed.

HeartBurnKid: Snatch Bandergrip: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Yes, black liberals are gonna jump ship and vote for Romney because Obama didn't give them reparations or something.

The disappointment to which you refer is the disappointment in the Republicans who have brought the gears of Washington to a grinding halt just to spite the black democrat.

There is some disappointment out there that Obama didn't fight harder, or that he isn't quite as left as some people believe. I, personally, was deeply disappointed that the public option wasn't even on the table in the healthcare debate, and at Obama's failure to roll back some of Bush's power grabs. But if you think any of those people (myself included) are going to vote for Romney, of all people, you're sorely mistaken. Obama may not be acting swiftly enough to solve the problem, but Romney is the problem.

Oh, I concur 100%. I wasn't sure if your post was in response to me or phreezen. But yeah, I wish Obama was more to the left, and I wish public option was an option to the public (which, if I were to judge by Farkers, is the rare anomaly of something common Dems and Pubs actually agree on). And Obama's responses to the Patriot Act, SOPA/PIPA, and pursuing the Wall Street farkers who sunk us are indeed disappointing; it's just that on all fronts, the Republicans' answers to these issues are substantially worse.

real numbers beg to differ

/still nowhere near as much

phreezen: Philip Francis Queeg: phreezen:

Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans.

So you are saying not to Vote for Romney?

You can blame President Romney all you want. Don't make excuses for Obama.

Oh look, nobody is. You're bad at this.

huh, won't let me use the link

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php

zenobia: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Africans can't vote in US elections........ although fundraisers in foreign countries are apparently allowed.

That was a mistake and I already made a correction on it. Look up. But ok...you are desperate.

MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs_detail.php?id=N000096 3 8&cycle=2012

that seems off...

Obama is better than Romney by a long shot, but he's not that much better.
Dems take plenty of shady cash too. If this headline can be 'proven' true, I'm sure it's done with smoke and mirrors.

phreezen:
Account created: 2012-06-29 21:02:11

Just what we needed around here. Such a breath of fresh air!

-_-
:slow-jerk.gif:

Next you'll tell me Romney's trip overseas involved a bunch of backroom dealings with billionaire international financiers.

fark'emfeed'emfish: MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs_detail.php?id=N000096 3 8&cycle=2012

What are you trying to show me? That doesn't bring anything up on any of the 3 browsers I tried it in.

This just in... Romney campaign gets money from groups that liberals don't approve of and this means something to somebody.

Snatch Bandergrip: Please give me one reason to vote for Mitt Romney that is not "He's not Obama."

Just one?

Bain Capital, with Mitt Rmoney at the helm, bankrupted companies while increasing their dividend rate.

His willingness to outsource, alone, would be enough reason.

Snatch Bandergrip: Oh, I concur 100%. I wasn't sure if your post was in response to me or phreezen. But yeah, I wish Obama was more to the left, and I wish public option was an option to the public (which, if I were to judge by Farkers, is the rare anomaly of something common Dems and Pubs actually agree on). And Obama's responses to the Patriot Act, SOPA/PIPA, and pursuing the Wall Street farkers who sunk us are indeed disappointing; it's just that on all fronts, the Republicans' answers to these issues are substantially worse.

Well said.

Cat Food Sandwiches: Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped

Breitbart'd

I always kind of thought that the intended situation is that the real 'Lobbyists' were the elected officials.

And... well, then time and money and growth happened. Whoopsie.

It is so hard to determine which candidate is less corrupt.

I know I have to vote for evil, but who is less evil?

I'm startin' to think maybe it doesn't matter anymore.

randomjsa: This just in... Romney campaign gets money from groups that liberals don't approve of and this means something to somebody.

You are such a one trick dressage horse.

Snatch Bandergrip: phreezen: Snatch Bandergrip: phreezen: I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

Yes, black liberals are gonna jump ship and vote for Romney because Obama didn't give them reparations or something.

The disappointment to which you refer is the disappointment in the Republicans who have brought the gears of Washington to a grinding halt just to spite the black democrat.

Don't vote for 4 more years of blaming Republicans. That's just more disappointment and no way to waste your vote.

The novelty thing will wear off, people will realized this isn't about race/color. It already has begun.

Please give me one reason to vote for Mitt Romney that is not "He's not Obama."

He's white.

Wait, that would be because it's a race issue. You tricky bastard!

MacEnvy: fark'emfeed'emfish: MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs_detail.php?id=N000096 3 8&cycle=2012

What are you trying to show me? That doesn't bring anything up on any of the 3 browsers I tried it in.

Fixed

/OP had spaces in the URL

MFL: Infernalist
Romney's a douche and we all know that Obama is going to win easily, but this is a non-story

[t2.gstatic.com image 219x230]

libs......lol


Lol, "lib" paranoia... Hint: Democrats aren't even close to liberal. They are moderate/right.

MacEnvy: Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Don't let simplistic populist rhetoric define reality. In general, it's corporate lobbying that's most troubling.

Well said.

Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: Ed Finnerty: Cat Food Sandwiches: The most transparent administration in history meets their lobbyists at a nearby coffee house.

[dtdstudios.com image 843x403]

What the hell do tax returns have to do with lobbyists?

Transparency.

Do try to keep up.

Did Romney promise transparency?

So Romney will not be transparent. That's good to know.

Transparent aluminum doesn't get invented for another 63 years.

sprawl15:
Transparent aluminum doesn't get invented for another 63 years.

-26 years

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: MacEnvy: fark'emfeed'emfish: MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs_detail.php?id=N000096 3 8&cycle=2012

What are you trying to show me? That doesn't bring anything up on any of the 3 browsers I tried it in.

Fixed

/OP had spaces in the URL

Okay. Looks like they must be state lobbyists? Which means who gives a flying fark if they donate to federal campaigns.

sprawl15: Transparent aluminum doesn't get invented for another 63 years.

Right about the time Skynet becomes self-aware...

0FART BUTTBONG0

The All-Powerful Atheismo: sprawl15:
Transparent aluminum doesn't get invented for another 63 years.

-26 years


"...and exactly how did you come to this conclusion, exactly?"

MacEnvy: Okay. Looks like they must be state lobbyists? Which means who gives a flying fark if they donate to federal campaigns.

No idea, I just fixed the URL.

/Bored

MacEnvy: RolandGunner: So Obama only accepts donations from lobbyists that are circumventing the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Transparency!!

[img1.fark.net image 54x11]



It's been established by OpenSecrets.Org that Obama has received twice as much Lobbyist money as Romney. If the Obamapologist argument is that Obama doesn't receive money from registered lobbyists then it means he accepts lobbyist money from people who haven't registered with the federal regulatory board, thereby bypassing the regulation.

RolandGunner: It's been established by OpenSecrets.Org that Obama has received twice as much Lobbyist money as Romney. If the Obamapologist argument is that Obama doesn't receive money from registered lobbyists then it means he accepts lobbyist money from people who haven't registered with the federal regulatory board, thereby bypassing the regulation.

[citation needed]. Put up or shut up.

qorkfiend: RolandGunner: Let's look at the whole campaign, shall we?

Lobbying firm donations favor Obama $14,059,717 to Romney's $6,702,739.

That's outrageous. See my outrage?

I find it fascinating that your "look at the whole campaign" actually looks at a very tiny sector of the campaign.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/sectors.php?sector=F


Yes, I looked at Lobbyist campaign donations because that is what this thread is about.

MacEnvy: fark'emfeed'emfish: MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs_detail.php?id=N000096 3 8&cycle=2012

What are you trying to show me? That doesn't bring anything up on any of the 3 browsers I tried it in.

oh... yeah, you gotta delete the spaces between 6 3 8, it's a list of lobbyist donations to obama current to july 21st this year. Maybe they're not federally registered or donating in their official capacity? Anyway it's less than 200 grand, but it's still there and in need of recognition. I'm just kind of curious how that becomes nothing.

fark'emfeed'emfish: oh... yeah, you gotta delete the spaces between 6 3 8, it's a list of lobbyist donations to obama current to july 21st this year. Maybe they're not federally registered or donating in their official capacity? Anyway it's less than 200 grand, but it's still there and in need of recognition. I'm just kind of curious how that becomes nothing.

He can count to Potato!

phreezen

I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

I believe this is a troll - or you are just amazingly stupid.

If it's a troll, I give it about a 3.

I gotta agree with Roland on this one. This is an accounting trick, not anything real.

fark'emfeed'emfish: MacEnvy: fark'emfeed'emfish: MacEnvy: downstairs: MacEnvy: You realize that not all lobbyists are tobacco and oil people, right? Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, poverty assistance advocates ... all lobbyists.

Are they registered? I'm surprised... just from your random set of examples... that Planned Parenthood hasn't donated to Obama, considering the whole contraceptive debate and all.

Not taking sides here, just surprised.

Obama isn't accepting donations from registered lobbyists. He didn't last time either. That's why his total from them is $0. It has nothing to do with whether they want to donate or not.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs_detail.php?id=N000096 3 8&cycle=2012

What are you trying to show me? That doesn't bring anything up on any of the 3 browsers I tried it in.

oh... yeah, you gotta delete the spaces between 6 3 8, it's a list of lobbyist donations to obama current to july 21st this year. Maybe they're not federally registered or donating in their official capacity? Anyway it's less than 200 grand, but it's still there and in need of recognition. I'm just kind of curious how that becomes nothing.

The site is a bit light on details. Were they contributions to the candidate, or affiliated PACs? Not that there's much difference, but if they're all to PACs the campaign can say they haven't taken any lobbyist money and still be the best kind of correct.

randomjsa: This just in... Romney campaign gets money from groups that liberals don't approve of and this means something to somebody.

I'm sure being the honest, upstanding and forthright individual you are that you said exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton and conservative complainers back in 1996....

/ or maybe everybody knows you're a sorry, partisan hack and doesn't take you seriously anymore

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I gotta agree with Roland on this one.

Open Secrets itself disagrees with Roland. Of course, if you're going to trust a person who thinks the industry category "Lawyers and Lobbyists" is identical to the set of Federally registered lobbyists, you're not going to bother reading OpenSecrets' methodology, skipping the parts that he also skipped.

You have to realize that RolandGunner is a moron. Then his posts make a lot more sense.

Not really a big deal since Obama is still receiving money from lobbyists and special interests. My outrage-o-meter is not registering anything on this BS.

MacEnvy: RolandGunner: It's been established by OpenSecrets.Org that Obama has received twice as much Lobbyist money as Romney. If the Obamapologist argument is that Obama doesn't receive money from registered lobbyists then it means he accepts lobbyist money from people who haven't registered with the federal regulatory board, thereby bypassing the regulation.

[citation needed]. Put up or shut up.



I'm not the one making the claim that Obama doesn't take campaign donations from registered lobbyists. I'm simply pointing out that since he has taken $14million from lobbyists then they must have been unregistered lobbyists by simple deduction.

The other, more likely alternative is that the claim that Obama doesn't take money from registered lobbyists is false. I am simply running with another poster's silly claim to it's logical conclusion.

brandied: phreezen

I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

I believe this is a troll - or you are just amazingly stupid.

If it's a troll, I give it about a 3.

It must be... because it's unconscionable... UNCONSCIONABLE... that there are viewpoints out there that exist that differ from yours.

sprawl15: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I gotta agree with Roland on this one.

Open Secrets itself disagrees with Roland. Of course, if you're going to trust a person who thinks the industry category "Lawyers and Lobbyists" is identical to the set of Federally registered lobbyists, you're not going to bother reading OpenSecrets' methodology, skipping the parts that he also skipped.

You have to realize that RolandGunner is a moron. Then his posts make a lot more sense.


Well imagine that, turns out the first alternative I gave is correct.

FTFA: "Obama's vow has drawn scrutiny because it relies on the relatively narrow definition of lobbyist laid out in the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act. That has allowed his re-election effort to collect millions of dollars from bundlers who, though not registered lobbyists, are active in the influence industry."

So while Obama is not taking money from registered lobbyists he is taking money from lobbyists all the same.

So basically the Obama campaign has done a better job of diverting donations from PR unfriendly sources into super PACS so they can look clean?

RolandGunner: So while Obama is not taking money from registered lobbyists

So you agree with the headline:

Total campaign contributions received from registered lobbyists: Rmoney: $1,870,000, Obama: $0

Are you going to apologize to the thread for your derailment?

Followup: are you going to bother reading the OpenSecrets methodology so you don't sound like a total retard when you claim that anyone who works for a lawyer or a lobbyist counts as a individual Federally registered as a lobbyist?

Jubeebee: Mugato: This has nothing to do with partisanship or even politics in general but how do lobbyists even justify their existence? I have to deal with movie studio execs and I think they're evil and useless but farking lobbyists, WTF? Why? Why are you here?

It's a fundamental principle of our republic that the people are able to communicate their needs and concerns to elected officials.

The problem comes when the people who make a living at this make their main method of communicating their clients' needs and concerns is one step away from outright bribery, and the amount of money needed to run for office and win necessitates taking said bribes.

Aren't they saying the presidential campaigns this time around will cost $6b? If you can see any route for that to work without massive amounts of corruption going on all sides, it would be nice to know, because I can't see any way except that it makes corruption of the political process mandatory and endemic, and that it will only get worse as the cost keeps rising.

This isn't that much money. Why are we considering this to be a lot? Is it that we lack a sense of scale?

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I'm sure being the honest, upstanding and forthright individual you are that you said exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton and conservative complainers back in 1996....

/ or maybe everybody knows you're a sorry, partisan hack and doesn't take you seriously anymore

Whom was Clinton taking money from that conservatives complained about? I seem to recall that Clinton was accused of taking money from China, but that never really went anywhere.

Then again, Clinton was credibly accused of rape and we hear even less about that.

WHY DOES 0BAMA HATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!?!??!?!11one


/am I doing it right. I want to be a FARK right wing idiot.

RolandGunner: Let's look at the whole campaign, shall we?

Lobbying firm donations favor Obama $14,059,717 to Romney's $6,702,739.

That's outrageous. See my outrage?

Nice bit of lying there. That includes NON-LOBBYIST LAWYERS. You somehow "forgot" to mention that. I wonder why.

DeltaPunch: Cletus C.: DeltaPunch: Are all Mormons blacks going to blindly vote for him? I'm wondering if any of them looked at his vulture capitalism, flip-flopping, and constant stream of lies, inability to create an economic atmosphere that has made their lives better and said "um, I don't think I can vote for such an immoral ineffective person."

/assuming "yes"

Yes, I'm sure it's in their best interest to vote for the guy who wants more massive tax cuts for the rich and higher taxes for the middle and lower classes.

Versus the guy who promised them hope but delivered them nothing but worse. Sure.

scottydoesntknow:



I'd do the R, but I'd be thinking about the money

Shows you who his friends are huh subby?

/Romney's a twatwaffle whos's going nowhere near the white house.

brandied: phreezen

I believe whose who voted for Obama the first time around saw him as a novelty and nothing more. Especially those in the African community. After reality set in, most are very disappointed with him. His struggle for campaign donations is a reflection of his approval by those that supported him. And those that champion him are distancing themselves.

I believe this is a troll - or you are just amazingly stupid.

If it's a troll, I give it about a 3.

"The African community"?!??!?!

I'd give it a -1 just for that remark.

Buying their place in the Rmoney party van.

Lobbying in politics is bribery and lobbyists should be prosecuted for it.

FuturePastNow: Lobbying in politics is bribery and lobbyists should be prosecuted for it.

Even if no money changes hands? You can't prosecute someone for talking to someone else for a while in an effort to get him to change his mind.

Gotcha. Obama will only get his $250 million for the campaign from individual $1 donations. Reality is who cares. Politics is corrupt and we pay the price.

Gyrfalcon: FuturePastNow: Lobbying in politics is bribery and lobbyists should be prosecuted for it.

Even if no money changes hands? You can't prosecute someone for talking to someone else for a while in an effort to get him to change his mind.

Talk is talk.

If anything changes hands, though, it should be a criminal act. Even if the lobbyist just picks up the tab at the bar.

FuturePastNow: Gyrfalcon: FuturePastNow: Lobbying in politics is bribery and lobbyists should be prosecuted for it.

Even if no money changes hands? You can't prosecute someone for talking to someone else for a while in an effort to get him to change his mind.

Talk is talk.

If anything changes hands, though, it should be a criminal act. Even if the lobbyist just picks up the tab at the bar.

But what if he doesn't? What if it goes on his expense report and he never actually paid a dime for the drinks? And what if he pays for nothing but the politician says, "I think I'll change my vote so that guy owes me a favor," is that a successful bribe?

I don't think you've thought this through.

Simple. The lobbyists just send their money to Obama friendly PACs instead.