Is there any adjective better to describe Obama than duplicitous? He must think I am stupid. He must think we are all just plain dumb. Does he really think he stands apart from anyone else because he doesn’t take money from oil companies. He is right; he doesn’t take money from oil companies. Neither does Hillary Clinton. Nor did oilmen George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or even George Herbert Walker Bush. You would have to go back to Theodore Roosevelt to get someone who did because since 1907 and the Tillman Act it has been illegal for any politician to receive contributions directly from corporations. So instead, politicians resort to three round about ways to secure funding: PACs, lobbyists, and bundlers.
To read more on how Obama does on these scores, please continue to read.
PACs are actually not a significant source of campaign cash for any Presidential campaign, they have historically been more important in Congressional races than in Presidential races. Bigger bang for the buck since there are limits on contributions. So passing on PAC cash, in particular, is more in the realm of another duplicitous Obama rhetorical device than any financial sacrifice. PACs aren’t bankrolling Clinton nor did they pay any large role in the campaigns of their former rivals according to a Politico analysis of campaign finance reports filed this year with the Federal Election Commission. The Clinton campaign has accepted $747,000 from PACs — more than any other Democratic candidate — but that represents less than 1% of her total fundraising haul.
And of course, PACs played a large role in getting Obama to the US Senate and will do so again if he loses the nomination and runs for re-election in 2010. And his comments on PACs obsure the fact that his own PAC, the Hope Fund, is one of the largest PACs around. In fact, it is this PAC that Obama is using as a weapon to woo uncommitted or “errant” members of Congress. As with Georgia Representative John Lewis, the message is support me or I will find someone to challenge you in a primary. Finally, Obama is the only leading presidential candidate who had made 2008 election cycle campaign contributions to federal candidates, as of January 1. Since January 2005, he has given three times as much to federal candidates (sitting Senators and Representatives and, possibly, challengers) as Sen. Hillary Clinton (HILLPAC). Who says he hasn’t been running for President since 2004 or is it 1971? Remember, those incumbent Democrats are super-delegates in August. Here is a comparison of Clinton versus Obama PAC contributions to Senate and Congressional candidates: Obama vs. Clinton PAC Contributions Very old school politics for the man who says he represents a new style of politics if you ask me.
He is also a grand deception when it comes to lobbyists. Take Sidley-Austin LLP, his wife’s former law firm. It is the sixth largest law firm with over a billion dollars in revenues and more than 1800 lawyers many of whom are registered lobbyists. In their health care practice alone they have over two dozen registered lobbyists:
Sidley-Austin Government Affairs
And they have 40 different practices.
And they bundle money for Obama. Tom Cole in the Illinois office has raised over $50,000; John Levi also in Chicago over $200,000; Kathryn Thompson in the DC office over $50,000 And these figures are for YE 2007. The figures are likely near 50% more now.
Here is what Obama does: He gets money from the lawyers at Sidley-Austin that are not registered lobbyists, many of them former lobbyists taking a hiatus. Law firms are partnerships were compensation is pooled so the work of one attorney benefits the rest. So while Obama does not directly take money from the registered lobbyists at Sidley-Austin it is all just a game, a wink and a nod.
And so who are Sidley-Austin’s clients? For starters, hedge funds like another of Obama’s bundlers, Citadel Investment Trust of Chicago. In fact in 2007, Institutional Investor named Sidley Austin the “best overall law firm” serving the hedge fund industry for the second consecutive year and was also recognized as the number one law firm in the subcategory of “regulatory and compliance expertise.” Read their press release: Sidley-Austin named Best Overall Law Firm serving Hedge Funds by Institutional Investor Magazine
But primarily Sidley Austin’s clients are the global elite Fortune 500 companies that dominate the global economy. Plus ça change. Vive la difference!
And like Sidley-Austin, he has at least 16 other law firms with registered lobbyists doing the same thing. In August 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama “raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital.” Again the same duplicitous ruse: get money from the lawyers who are not registered lobbyists.
List of Bundlers for Presidential Candidates
And Obama is careful to use the words “Washington” lobbyists because he takes money from Springfield lobbyists. For example, Obama took $2000 from two Springfield, Illinois lobbyists for Exelon, which spent $500,000 to influence policy in Washington in 2006 and gave $160,000 directly to Obama in 2007. Talk about duplicitous parsing.
As for oil companies employees, Obama has done very well thank you very much. Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful. Not bad for a man who claims he doesn’t take money from oil companies.
Here’s how bundlers work since I have been bundled in my days as a Wall Street Equity Analyst. You will get an email from your CEO or department boss inviting you to an event for a candidate. There you are “urged” to make a contribution on behalf of the candidate. You’ll hear a pitch from the candidate on how I am good for the country and one from your boss on how the candidate will be good for the firm. Geez, when you put it that way. It is akin to guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Corporations don’t finance Presidential candidates, corporate hotshots finance Presidential candidates. Is there any difference?