• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry

Prof. Peabody

Debate MMA
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
325
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry

By T.W. Farnam,

Before 9 a.m., a group of lobbyists began showing up at the White House security gates with the chief executives of their companies, all of whom serve on President Obama’s jobs council, to be checked in for a roundtable with the president.

The visitor logs for Jan. 17 — one of the most recent days available — show that the lobbying industry Obama has vowed to constrain is a regular presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The records also suggest that lobbyists with personal connections to the White House enjoy the easiest access.

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.

White House visitor logs show lobbying going strong - The Washington Post

The Obama White House appears to have turned into a cesspool of liberal lobbyists. I could swear Obama said Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but with the easy access it appears they are. I can only wonder what it's going to take before liberals realize Obama gave 'em a royal snow job back in 2008?
 
The Obama White House appears to have turned into a cesspool of liberal lobbyists. I could swear Obama said Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but with the easy access it appears they are. I can only wonder what it's going to take before liberals realize Obama gave 'em a royal snow job back in 2008?

Its the same **** for whatever president, this just didnt magically start with Obama.
And "liberal lobbyists"? :doh
Lets read off the groups represented by the lobbyists shall we?:
Goldman Sachs
Biotechnology Industry Organization
General Mills
Beef Products Inc
Federal Forest Resource Coalition
The Washington Post Co
Downey McGrath Group, a lobbying firm whose clients include Time Warner Cable and Herbalife
Credit Union National Association

Yea i wonder if you even read this article... I kinda doubt you did form the jeest of things. But the only "liberal group" (which really isnt that liberal more about civil liberties being protected) was the ACLU. That was the only "liberal group" mentioned in the article. The rest were a bunch of capitalists out to make a quick buck and pass legislation the helps them out....

Massive fail.
 
Its the same **** for whatever president, this just didnt magically start with Obama.
And "liberal lobbyists"? :doh
Lets read off the groups represented by the lobbyists shall we?:
Goldman Sachs
Biotechnology Industry Organization
General Mills
Beef Products Inc
Federal Forest Resource Coalition
The Washington Post Co
Downey McGrath Group, a lobbying firm whose clients include Time Warner Cable and Herbalife
Credit Union National Association

Yea i wonder if you even read this article... I kinda doubt you did form the jeest of things. But the only "liberal group" (which really isnt that liberal more about civil liberties being protected) was the ACLU. That was the only "liberal group" mentioned in the article. The rest were a bunch of capitalists out to make a quick buck and pass legislation the helps them out....

Massive fail.

I'm sorry you failed to address my post. But, Goldman Sachs......

Top Contributors

Senator Barack Obama 2007 - 2008

University of California.....$909,283
Goldman Sachs................$874,207 <-------Sub Prime investments
Harvard University...........$717,230
Microsoft Corp...............$714,108
Google Inc...................$701,099
JPMorgan Chase & Co..........$581,460 <-------Sub Prime investments
Citigroup Inc................$581,216 <-------Sub Prime investments
National Amusements Inc......$543,859
Time Warner..................$508,148
Sidley Austin LLP............$492,445
Stanford University..........$481,199
Skadden, Arps et al,,,,,,,,,,$473,424
Wilmerhale Llp...............$466,679
UBS AG.......................$454,795 <-------Sub Prime investments
Latham & Watkins.............$426,924
Columbia University..........$426,516
Morgan Stanley...............$425,102 <-------Sub Prime investments
IBM Corp.....................$415,196
University of Chicago........$414,555
US Government................$400,819

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Try rereading the whole article.
 
I'm sorry you failed to address my post.
No i adressed them perfectly fine and clear. You claimed, "The Obama White House appears to have turned into a cesspool of liberal lobbyists. I could swear Obama said Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but with the easy access it appears they are".
But the only "liberal organization" listed in the article was the ACLU. Which is about civil liberties, now if defending civil liberties is liberal then i guess that is the only liberal organization.
It addresses your point perfectly fine. If you fail to see this then you kinda need to pay attention more.

But, Goldman Sachs......
What about them? They are not liberal... They are a giant banking firm AKA Capitalists...


Top Contributors

Senator Barack Obama 2007 - 2008

University of California.....$909,283
Goldman Sachs................$874,207 <-------Sub Prime investments
Harvard University...........$717,230
Microsoft Corp...............$714,108
Google Inc...................$701,099
JPMorgan Chase & Co..........$581,460 <-------Sub Prime investments
Citigroup Inc................$581,216 <-------Sub Prime investments
National Amusements Inc......$543,859
Time Warner..................$508,148
Sidley Austin LLP............$492,445
Stanford University..........$481,199
Skadden, Arps et al,,,,,,,,,,$473,424
Wilmerhale Llp...............$466,679
UBS AG.......................$454,795 <-------Sub Prime investments
Latham & Watkins.............$426,924
Columbia University..........$426,516
Morgan Stanley...............$425,102 <-------Sub Prime investments
IBM Corp.....................$415,196
University of Chicago........$414,555
US Government................$400,819

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Try rereading the whole article.

I did read the whole article you apparently didnt. I didnt know that investment firms and banking firms, and various other corporations, and technology and communications groups were "liberal".

I think you need to re-read your OP bud...
 
No i adressed them perfectly fine and clear. You claimed, "The Obama White House appears to have turned into a cesspool of liberal lobbyists. I could swear Obama said Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but with the easy access it appears they are".
But the only "liberal organization" listed in the article was the ACLU. Which is about civil liberties, now if defending civil liberties is liberal then i guess that is the only liberal organization.
It addresses your point perfectly fine. If you fail to see this then you kinda need to pay attention more.


What about them? They are not liberal... They are a giant banking firm AKA Capitalists...




I did read the whole article you apparently didnt. I didnt know that investment firms and banking firms, and various other corporations, and technology and communications groups were "liberal".

I think you need to re-read your OP bud...

I know exactly what I said. However your interpretation of what constitutes a "liberal" organization is different from mine. That simply is a matter of opinion and doesn't make me wrong and you right.
 
I know exactly what I said. However your interpretation of what constitutes a "liberal" organization is different from mine. That simply is a matter of opinion and doesn't make me wrong and you right.

Your giving no reason to hold these organizations as "liberal"... What is your reasoning? You have not given a reason...
Look at this to GWB top contributors:

Morgan Stanley $603,480
Merrill Lynch $586,254
PricewaterhouseCoopers $514,250
UBS AG $474,325
Goldman Sachs $394,600
Lehman Brothers $361,525
MBNA Corp $350,350
Credit Suisse Group $326,040
Citigroup Inc $320,820
Bear Stearns $313,150
Ernst & Young $305,140
US Government $295,786
Deloitte LLP $292,250
Wachovia Corp $279,310
US Dept of Defense $279,157
Ameriquest Capital $253,130
US Dept of State $225,330
Blank Rome LLP $225,150
Bank of America $218,261
AT&T Inc $214,920

A lot of similarities in those two lists? Does that somehow make them "liberal and Conservative" at the same time? Or are they just capitalists corporatists out for some legislation and buy over bills and views and politicians?
 
Your giving no reason to hold these organizations as "liberal"... What is your reasoning? You have not given a reason...
Look at this to GWB top contributors:

Morgan Stanley $603,480
Merrill Lynch $586,254
PricewaterhouseCoopers $514,250
UBS AG $474,325
Goldman Sachs $394,600
Lehman Brothers $361,525
MBNA Corp $350,350
Credit Suisse Group $326,040
Citigroup Inc $320,820
Bear Stearns $313,150
Ernst & Young $305,140
US Government $295,786
Deloitte LLP $292,250
Wachovia Corp $279,310
US Dept of Defense $279,157
Ameriquest Capital $253,130
US Dept of State $225,330
Blank Rome LLP $225,150
Bank of America $218,261
AT&T Inc $214,920

A lot of similarities in those two lists? Does that somehow make them "liberal and Conservative" at the same time? Or are they just capitalists corporatists out for some legislation and buy over bills and views and politicians?

That was simply one example.

You really need to read the whole article at the Post.

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.

Lobbyist Marshal Matz, for example, who served as an unpaid adviser to Obama’s 2008 campaign, has been to the White House roughly two dozen times in the past 2 1 / 2 years. He has brought along the general counsel for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the chief executive of cereal maker General Mills and pro bono clients, including advocates for farmers in Africa.

White House visitor logs show lobbying going strong - The Washington Post

Sorry.
 
That was simply one example.

You really need to read the whole article at the Post.



Sorry.

Oh man he allows democrat lobbyists in because they are on his side!
Do you not know how lobbyists work?
 
isn't the person with the most visits the former prez of the seui....... lobbying for his union...just saw no mention of them.?
 
The Obama White House appears to have turned into a cesspool of liberal lobbyists. I could swear Obama said Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but with the easy access it appears they are. I can only wonder what it's going to take before liberals realize Obama gave 'em a royal snow job back in 2008?

I'd like to see that record for all Presidents.
 
Oh man he allows democrat lobbyists in because they are on his side!
Do you not know how lobbyists work?

So when Obama said he was going to change the way Washington does business, was that a lie, a false statement or a mis-statement?
 
So when Obama said he was going to change the way Washington does business, was that a lie, a false statement or a mis-statement?

I was about to make that point. Obama was supposed to be different and ran on exactly that. Another failed promise I would have to suppose.
 
I was about to make that point. Obama was supposed to be different and ran on exactly that. Another failed promise I would have to suppose.

That's going to hurt him to no end in November.
 
Meanwhile, not a bitch, or even a peep, about the Koch Brothers. :mrgreen:
 
Meanwhile, not a bitch, or even a peep, about the Koch Brothers. :mrgreen:

If you cant see the moral issue of running on something then blatantly violating it versus just accepting donations, Im not sure what you hope to accomplish.
 
So when Obama said he was going to change the way Washington does business, was that a lie, a false statement or a mis-statement?

Of course!
Welcome to politics!
Obama aint different at all.
 
Meanwhile, not a bitch, or even a peep, about the Koch Brothers. :mrgreen:
Did the Koch Bros visit the White House recently? I hadn't heard they lobbied Obama.
 
Last edited:
it's disingenuous to pretend that lobbying is anything new.

i have always disliked that money could buy legislation. but since corporations are people, i guess it's ok.
 
it's disingenuous to pretend that lobbying is anything new.

i have always disliked that money could buy legislation. but since corporations are people, i guess it's ok.

I agree with you completely had Obama not claimed to change the way Washington does business and that Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House when he was campaigning in 2008. So did he lie, make a false statement or a mis-statement?
 
The Obama White House appears to have turned into a cesspool of liberal lobbyists. I could swear Obama said Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but with the easy access it appears they are. I can only wonder what it's going to take before liberals realize Obama gave 'em a royal snow job back in 2008?


I believe this is what the Obama Admin calls - "Change you can believe in". :mrgreen:
 
Lobbyists meet with the President. Lobbyists peddle influence. Lobbyists have weight.

These are not slights against Obama. These things directly are unlikely to hurt, nor should hurt, Obama. As our resident socialist points out, its common place politics.

HOWEVER...

That's why they will indirectly hurt Obama. One of the strengths of Obama's 08 campaign and one of the things that created the cultural phenomena that was the Obama Campaign was the belief and aura that he was something OTHER than a Politician, that he was different, that he was true "change" from the normal going ons of DC. What we've seen in 4 years, and really from the first few weeks of his tenure even, is that Obama's a politician...no different than every other politician before him and after him. That's not a slight or knock against him...politicians are usually who get into politics. However, when one spends an entire campaign putting forth an image of being something other than that, then once one takes that mask off there's no putting it back on again. One of the large draws of the 08 Obama ticket is a laughable notion at this point and is a tool that they now have to discard from their toolbox or be rightly ridiculed if they seek to take it out again.
 
I agree with you completely had Obama not claimed to change the way Washington does business and that Lobbyists wouldn't run his White House when he was campaigning in 2008. So did he lie, make a false statement or a mis-statement?

he did the same thing every other president has done : went in with lofty goals of changing the system, and he found that one person couldn't remove the influence of money any more than one person can change the direction of the Mississippi river. i find the situation unfortunate, because money shouldn't be able to buy legislation. it's difficult to find one person or one party to blame for that reality, though.
 
he did the same thing every other president has done : went in with lofty goals of changing the system, and he found that one person couldn't remove the influence of money any more than one person can change the direction of the Mississippi river. i find the situation unfortunate, because money shouldn't be able to buy legislation. it's difficult to find one person or one party to blame for that reality, though.



I could be wrong, but I don't remember other Presidents making the statement Obama made (00:20 second mark) about lobbyists not running his White House.
 
Back
Top Bottom