The Washington Post has an excellent look at visits by lobbyists to senior officials in the Obama administration, based on White House visitor records. An excerpt:
More than any president before him, Obama pledged to change the political culture that has fueled the influence of lobbyists. He barred recent lobbyists from joining his administration and banned them from advisory boards throughout the executive branch. The president went so far as to forbid what had been staples of political interaction — federal employees could no longer accept free admission to receptions and conferences sponsored by lobbying groups.
"A lot of folks," Obama said last month, "see the amounts of money that are being spent and the special interests that dominate and the lobbyists that always have access, and they say to themselves, maybe I don’t count."
The White House visitor records make it clear that Obama’s senior officials are granting that access to some of K Street’s most influential representatives. In many cases, those lobbyists have long-standing connections to the president or his aides. Republican lobbyists coming to visit are rare, while Democratic lobbyists are common, whether they are representing corporate clients or liberal causes.
Is lobbying greater under Obama than under his predecessors? It's impossible to know, because President Obama is the first president to release records of White House visitors. Score one for transparency, and score one for the lobbyists, too.
You may recall that msnbc.com covered the issue of White House visitor logs, pressing repeatedly for the White House to release all the records. That still hasn't happened. Records of visitors for the first eight months of the Obama presidency have not been released.
Here's the Post story, by reporter T.W. Farnam
You can search for names of visitors
The Obama administration released records to settle a lawsuit, and another lawsuit is pending to try to force the White House to release all the records. The president's attorneys continue to make the claim, as previous administrations had made, that the records are not covered under the Freedom of Information Act, despite two federal court decisions calling for all the records to be released. So the disclosures made so far are, in the White House view, voluntary. Presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney has not said whether he will release White House visitor logs.
Stories in our msnbc.com series on the White House visitor logs:
Leave a Comment:
regardless of politicial affiliation transparency will only exist when we flush the septic tank that is Washington- vote out the incumbent for the next 6 years and behold we will have new government
There are easy solutions. Listen, I get that special interest groups need representation. So as an example, Obama along with his labor secretary decided that disallowing farmer's children from working under the age of 18 would become law. So no mowing, milking cows, picking corn etc. Obama and his Labor Secretary apparently need an education about farm life. Both have never lived on a farm, and know nothing about that world and yet they arrogantly decided how life should be for thousands of farms across the US. Clearly those folks need representation in Washington to protect themselves against onerous laws that will kill farming even further in this country. The avg age of a farmer here in the US is 55. And yet ag is the one bright spot in our economy. The reason for this law was to appease labor unions that want to unionize the farming industry. There are thousands of such groups that need to be able to speak with clarity about their industry so as not to feel the strong arm of this government when they overreach.
However, special interest groups like the environmental groups are big enough to have a lot of clout and stop jobs, projects from happening because campaign contributions and thus votes. Same with unions that get to come and go since Day 1 with this president.
Here is the big problem. We elect a president that is suppose to represent everybody. So instead of just picking democrats to allow into the Oval Office, that door should be open to all groups regardless of party. Obama can still have his far left views, but he at least should be required to hear from others that like it or not he still represents. Instead as noted in this article, the door is closed. That is why this country is divided. Each party ONLY speaks with their own and never thinks to include other voices.
I purposely post on left wing sites even though I am a fiscal conservative. I do so because I am frankly waiting to hear the other voice when it makes sense. As president, I would never shut the door to unions, or the environmentalists, but they wouldn't get special treatment either. They would be treated like all Americans should be treated which is with respect.
Theboys,
Hear, hear! I'm a far left socialist liberal and I still agree with you 100%. (Apart from calling Obama far left. He's as centrist as they come.)
But absolutely, there as a huge disconnect when parties don't listen to opposition.
This goes throughout the system, from the individual voter to the President. I think before as issue vote on a ballot could be counted, you'd be required to understand both side of the issue (at least in summary). So e.g. have the supporters give a 25 word pro argument for 'yes' and 25 word 'con' argument for no, and similarly the opposition give a 25 word 'con' argument for yes, and 25 word 'pro' argument for no. Whatever your vote is you have to copy both the supporting and opposing arguments down word for word for that side of the vote, in order for your vote to be counted at all.
Then you won't have ridiculous cases like the NC vote on gay marriage, where afterwards the majority of voters claimed that they did not know that it would affect civil unions as well. Now whatever your specific believe is on the matter, I don't think either of us wants to live in a society where we depend on people not knowing what they're voting for. Or for that matter, even just allowing people to use "I didn't know" as an excuse afterwards. If you are forced to know / internalize both views, you would not have an excuse when the things you thought you voted for go downhill.
Similarly before a statesmen can pass a law, they'd be required to acknowledge the other side(s) of an issue, and they have to publically repeat the opposition argument and why they don't agree with that. That I think would suddently make a lot of people very uncomfortable especially when they cast votes that appease only a small lobby group while annoying the majority of their electorate.
E.g. tax subsidies for oil company - the far majority of voters, both democrat and republican is against this, yet this is one thing that always gets extended. Now go and force a congressmen/president to stand up and go and defend why he would vote in favor of that, implictly allowing his opposition to run that clip over and over on TV during election season, and suddenly he would re-think whether it's such a good idea to defy his electorate. AS. IT. SHOULD. BE. If the congressmen / president truly believes it's the right thing to do, he should be able to form a coherent argument which he can present to his constituency, and convince them through real leadership.
legitimate lobbying is part of democracy..what's good for GM is good for America?
As Al Capp put it so many years ago in his L'il Abner comic strip (the Doonesbury of its day), that was later set to music in the Broadway musical of the same name,
"What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the U S A!"
(Gen. Bullmoose was Capp's pseudonym for General Motors).
The rallying cry for all elections for 6 years is "RE-ELECT NO ONE".
****UPDATE: Breitbart.com Report Details That Obama Official Spokesperson, via Literary Agency, Claimed He Was Born in Kenya Up Until 2007. See below for details, but in essence, the PR firm advertised Obama as a Kenyan born, Indonesia & Hawaii raised politico for a period of 16 years.
Who is Barack Obama? The question remains contentious, but a new smoking gun piece of evidence makes certain that so-called “birthers” won’t be going anywhere. It has now emerged that Barack Obama’s own authorized biography while president of the Harvard Law Review says he was “born in Kenya” and raised in both Indonesia and Hawaii. This is prima facie evidence that the public has been sold on a big lie. It further only reinforces the mountains of related evidence that has surfaced, not the least of which is Michele Obama’s own public statements about their returning to Barack’s “homeland” in Africa to conduct a public AIDS test stunt. Wow!
Breitbart.com broke the story as part of their “vetting” series that has coincided with the untimely death of Andrew Breitbart himself.
I saw this late last week. I'd like someone - anyone from the Democratic party to address this, please.
And also, please, look up the information for yourself before replying that this might be a bogus, planted piece of evidence. Please also refrain from blasting the entity who broke the story & focus solely on the evidence being talked about.
You have to prove your a us citizen before allowed to work at mcdonalds, so I'm pretty sure the same rules apply when running for President of the USA!
Arnold can be govener of Cali, so I am pretty sure it doesnt fng matter where he was born. Time for America to change, and For the Better!
Rock and Roll Mr President!
Maybe Rev Wright said it best when he said that Obama was selected before he was elected. Think about that. When was he selected and by whom to have a political career in the US? So how far back was he selected? Was Wright trying to tell us something? Perhaps.
You either knowingly or lazily do not print that this information was retracted.
Breitfart is dead and gone and forgotten and the opinions of moronic birthers are irrelevant.
The article was about lobbyist. The white house is full of them.Its just one corrupt person after anouther.
Oh and yes we need term limits for congress to get rid of the dead corrupt wood.
Your doctor just phoned in your prescription - in the future make sure to keep your refills current.
Term limits would do nothing to fix our system. What's broken isn't how long someone can be voted in by their constituency, or how much they might make in pay for being your representative. We already have solutions to both problems, and they can be found right there in the constitution. No, the problem is that a majority, I think a vast majority, of Americans long ago decided that a limited government wasn't such a good idea.
Ben Franklin, among many other contemporaries, understood that the only way for our republic to survive was for people to reject (upon discovery) the idea of voting themselves other people's money. It's free stuff that is our problem, whether it's disparate tax rates which allow some people to pay no net federal income taxes despite having an income, or actual direct free stuff payments, like welfare, or school funding, from the federal level when the constitution makes no mention of this authority, which will kill our republic. And rob us of our liberty.
You want fewer lobbyists showering those in office with cash? Then ask your government to do less for you. With less money to spend to make your life "better", fewer lobbyists will climb over one another to get their piece of the pie.
Or, if you prefer, we can continue to complain that we elect the wrong people, that we shouldn't be free to support who we want with our vote, our money, or our voice. And why not? This idea of needing just one more government law, or government program, to insure our republican nirvana, has been a staple for short-sighted Americans for decades. You want to kill liberty? Just regulate it out of existence. Term limits is just the next nail in that coffin.
WHATS THE DIFFERENCE ,, LOBBYING IS BRIBERY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. The only way to slow it down is Term LIMITS for EVERYONE !
Lobbyists! the new white meat! not just for breakfast anymore!
Where did that Stimulus money go, Who got the Bailouts, Corporations now exempt from taxes, Dem. receiving lobbyists, fits together now! Nothing Changed another Empty Campaign Promise to sucker the voters.
Please dems, just don't tell me this surprises you. Maybe it's time we all get the message here that one party is no different than the other party except for the names of the guys behind the scenes who actually run things.
Obama and change? Romney and HIS business background? Give me a break.
Yah how about Timmy i dont have a clue Gietner? He was suppose to watch wall street,screwed that up and got a job promotion.That GE fella got laws making regular light bulbs illegal then advises Obummer on stuff.
This whole livin on debt thinking in washington is gonna end bad.You all better get ready for harder times cause these genius folks in washington arent gonna help you.Since theres no term limits,a bunch of these folks are the ones who voted for all the crap thats caused so many problems.Its like the fox telling you he has the hen house problems under control.
Obama announces,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no more "visitor logs"!!!!!
Solves problem of people keeping track of lobbyists, felons and organized crime bosses visiting White House,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hurray messiah.
Our great President Obama & team kindly review the post published by "Standard & Poor's" on May 18th, 2012....Immigration Helps US City Economies and Labor Markets........It clearly states that the widely-held notion that immigrants bring down a city's credit rating--because they are less educated, low income or both--is refuted by a new report, which shows that U. S. cities with "significant immigration" saw their credit rating improve over the last decade......To make a case that immigration causes governments to go broke or jurisdictions to have budget overruns is a simplistic argument...There are undoubtedly costs to these government, but there is also an overall increase in economic activity and a stabilizing impact on the labor markets.
GBA,
. Do you mean legal imm's. or illegal ones?
President Obama we need (CIR) now!!!......Regardless of whether foreign immigration or domestic migration, as long as there is population growth that seems to be the one factor that drives economic activity>>>>>>
Scum bag says one thing does another! He was raised that way, knows nothing else.
Obama was elected by majority vote. After 18 months the same majority vote took the power of congress away from him. The reason, he says one thing does another just like the essence of this article. Very ugly person!
Lobbying is one thing buy in and paying off directly or indirectly is another. While I realize that all white house business should not be public knowledge lest it become something terrorist will use against us, everything should not be kept from us voters who put politicians in office. As for those still bytching about the birthplace of our President. Get the F@ck over it. It has already been addressed and satisfied. President Obama is a natural born AMERICAN citizen. To those like republican Ken Bennett still making allegations that he isn't: Give it up. You are only making your self look desperate, stupid, hateful and yes RACIST. I would never want such an low down dirty POS like you in high office anyway. You and your entourage would make Watergate look like small stuff. These type people are not looking for the truth. They are looking to eliminate the competition any way they can because dirty people can't win fair and square and they don't have enough of a conscience to want to.
My point is clear and there is key information for those who can read with understanding. If any reader doesn't know who Bennett is or about his obsession with our President's birth certificate, they should Bing it. If any reader doesn't know what a lobbyist is, they should come from under their rock, and educate themselves before commenting. This site is to "Enter your comment" on such things (no reference list need) not for writing a thesis paper or an entire editorial, which I see you love doing. Not Koolman
The only solution is to remove all money from politics. Have a general fund that is divided equally based on a formula for each type of race. No money can be contributed from any source (including yourself). This would eliminate lobbyists contributing money and it would open the door for any American to run for office on equal footing (financially).
This way you are bound to represent the people not the corporations.
Lying f**king ni**er. That sums it up.
Hey, "ho", Obama's momma is just as white as yours. Does that make you a "f**king ni**er"? and I quote or rather copied and pasted lol. We know who his mother is but his father you can't be as sure. Ignorant people tend to be dumb, insecure, cowards. Your rock called, now go back and crawl back under it.
I wondered where all the "foxys" went when they shut down the comment section on that site. guess now I know. Birthers, Hahahahahahahahahahah.
If you have any brains you will vote Obama and friends out of office...
When he is out of office I ll tell you what I think of him...
Is this a surprise?? obama - the TURD hasnt kept even one campain promise- another obama lie, surprise surprise
Hey 99% American People, listen to the black sheep calling the white sheep black! The corrupt Republican corporate political puppets are CRYING THE BLUES! They stole from us for so long, they don't even realize that it is wrong, because even at this very instant they are PLOTTING AGAINST an Obama re-election!
ALL THE MORE REASON, to make sure we, the 99% are REGISTERED VOTERS and vote 100% STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC, the lives we save WILL be OURS & our CHILDREN!!
Nice try. Have you not seen the Romney commercials highlighting the fact that Obama's Administration is inundated with Wall Street cronies.
Why haven't these crooks been prosecuted? Why vote for any Democrat much less a straight ticket. Puhleeze.
Thouht you all hated the rich. Yet Obama and company have managed to bear the burden of being millionaires. Like the drivel of John Edwards talking about the "two Americas" (rich and poor), yet his mom was a postal worker and his father a plant manager and is worth upwards of 100 million dollars. Brave man to deal with the "evils" of riches everyday.
I just have one question: what flavor of kool-aid are you currently drinking?
This is exactly why I and thousands of others do not care if we vote or not. Many big decisions made in Washington or bought and paid for by wealthy people and many times those decisions have an effect on the little guy therefore it is almost a waste of time to vote. Disenfranchising the average voter is what lobbist do and any politician that says it doesn't is not an honest soul. Its just not fair and not morally right.
He has to crank up his money-making machine so he can pay for air time that is very expensive to talk about Romney. He has no accomplishment so he has to talk about Romney. If he has accomplishments, he wouldn't need to talk about Romney. His accomplishments will do all the talking for him. Can't be done because he has failed miserably.
File this one under DUH...