Nabb1: superbeerchan: Nabb1:

So, people who organized fundraising activities are BAD!

Bundlers are no worse (or better) than lobbyists.

You Can't Fix Stupid: Okay, let me see if I have this straight:

Fact: Dick Cheney consulted with energy producers while working on energy policy.
Response: ZOMFG!! Cheney sold the government to the oil companies!!!11eleventy!

Fact: Obama's largest donors and bundlers are running the transition team that will build his administration.
Response: Yawn....

That about right?

/this is where you tell me my user name is apropos

Nabb1: quickdraw: Really? I see a big difference. Bundlers talk a lot of different people into donating cash to a campaign they already support. Lobbyists work for a special interest group in order to gain access and special favors for that group - regardless of their personal feelings on the matter.

Its like the difference between a foot soldier and a mercenary.

Buying influence is still buying influence. Not all lobbyists are per se evil stuffing cash in envelopes and laughing in smoke filled rooms, nor are bundlers all innocent true believers. Hence, the reason I say they are no better or worse than lobbyists. If someone raises half a million dollars for you and then gets a position in your office, it's going to smack of a quid pro quo, and if you choose to do so anyway, you can't feign surprise when it raises some eyebrows.

Nabb1: GWLush: Correct me if I am wrong but weren't these people part of Clinton's transition team? They have the experience to help Obama transition. They also happen to be really good fundraisers. Comparing them to lobbyists is silly. What legislation are they looking for Obama to pass?

Again, it's the appearance of a quid pro quo, and I imagine that it's not so much legislation as a hand in setting policy for the new administration. Oh, I'm sure J.P. Morgan and Citigroup have no vested interest in current affairs and policy decisions the new President may make, no, sir.

jerry2a: When the guy you don't like does it, it's cronyism...when the guy you like does it, it's called loyalty.

Nabb1: BooBoo23: Nabb1:
Again, it's the appearance of a quid pro quo,

Dude, you're seriously stretching.

Stretching that a Chicago politician might be giving a little bit back to some big fundraisers? Yeah, I probably am.

Nabb1: burndtdan: this argument falls apart once you realize there was not the significant quid to account for the pro quo, as it were. as i pointed out earlier, the sum of all their donations was not significant to his full fundraising, meaning he would have no incentive to offer them a position as an adviser unless he felt they were qualified to give good advice.

Half a million dollars is not significant? Gosh, I thought anyone earning that much was "rich," but now it's insignificant? It's the APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. You say something to the effect, "I'm not going to staff my transition team with lobbyists" and then you staff it with people who raised money for you and who also happen to have key positions in financial institutions at a time of economic chaos, and we're all supposed to just accept it at face value and not raise an eyebrow? Do you think I just rolled in off the turnip truck? Maybe following New Orleans politics for more than a decade has made me more suspicious than the average person. After all, Chicago politicians aren't nearly as bad as New Orleans politicians...

Nabb1: Obdicut: Nabb1: Bundlers are no worse (or better) than lobbyists.

That's farking insane.

Can you explain, please? In a way that doesn't completely and utterly trash the 1st amendment?

What does the last part mean? I also explained it earlier, probably not to your satisfaction, of course. Bundlers pool large sums of money for candidates. Lobbyists pool large sums of money for candidates. Both have some decent folks with honest intentions and both have some shady influence peddlers. The only way to tell the difference is to scrutinize them.

Nabb1: GWLush: THEY ARE NOT LOBBYISTS! So what they work for financial institutions? What do they stand to gain? A bailout? Paulson already said that money isn't going to banks. There is a big difference between lobbyists and these people.

Of course they are different in how they operte, but at the end of the day, the both provide money to politicians. Some do it out of goodness, some do it for the influence. How are you going to know if you don't take a good hard look at them? Isn't that what this transparency in government is supposed to be about?

Nabb1: GWLush: THEY ARE NOT LOBBYISTS! So what they work for financial institutions? What do they stand to gain? A bailout? Paulson already said that money isn't going to banks. There is a big difference between lobbyists and these people.

Of course they are different in how they operte, but at the end of the day, the both provide money to politicians. Some do it out of goodness, some do it for the influence. How are you going to know if you don't take a good hard look at them? Isn't that what this transparency in government is supposed to be about?

Nabb1: GWLush: And tranparency is what Obama is doing by not allowing Lobbyists on his team. What do you need to take a hard look at? What do these five people stand to gain?

I guess a position of influence on an incoming Presidential administration does nothing for them? Interesting take.

This is going to be a four year thing isn't it?

I think it should be a permanent thing no matter whom is in office. Do you not care from whom a President chooses to seek counsel on policy matters and whether or not there may be some sort of undo influence? Why do you give Obama a free pass on this?