Lobbyists & special interests have strangle-hold on agenda
Sen. Clinton and I have both offer detailed proposals to try to deal with [numerous problems]. Some of them are the same. Some, we have differences of opinion. But understand that what is lacking right now is not good ideas.
The problem we have is that
Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die. They go to die because the lobbyists and special interests have a strangle-hold on the agenda in Washington. They go to die in
Washington because too many politicians are interested in scoring political points rather than bridging differences in order to get things done.
And so the central premise of this campaign is that we can bring this country together, that we can
push against the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda in Washington, that we can be straight with the American people about how we're going to solve these problems and enlist them in taking back their government.
Consistently in favor of more disclosure around earmarks
I've been consistently in favor of more disclosure around earmarks. Keep in mind, a lot of these are worthy projects in our states. I have actively pursued projects that I think are important. But I want to make sure that they're not done in
the dark of night, that they're not done in committee, that everybody stands up and says, "this is the kind of spending that I think is important." I have consistently supported those efforts. I will push for those as president of the US.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin
Feb 21, 2008
Created a publicly searchable database on earmarks spending
Q: A recent report said you were responsible for $91 million in earmarks. You have refused to say where the money went.
A: No, that's not true. We've actually disclosed all our earmarks. We'll be happy to provide you with that information, because
I believe very strongly in transparency. One of the things that I did was to pass a bill with Tom Coburn, very conservative Republican but a sincere fiscal conservative. We got together and created what we call Google for Government.
It's a searchable database, where every single dollar of federal spending is posted on the Internet, so that ordinary voters can take a look. If they see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it's going and who sponsored it. If they see a
no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out, too. The idea is that we open up the process so that the American people can make judgments about whether or not government is doing what it's supposed to be doing with its taxpayer money.
Need a government that listens to the people again
My belief is the will of the voters, expressed in this long election process, is what ultimately will determine who our next nominee is going to be. What I think is most important to the voters is that we have a government that is listening to them again
They feel as if they've been shut out. When I meet mothers who are trying to figure out how to get health care for their kids, it's not just the desperation of that single mom. It's also that when they try to find some help, oftentimes they're hitting a
brick wall. They don't get a sense that the debates that are happening in Washington right now relate to them at all. What they believe is that people are trying to get on TV and they're trying to score points and they're trying to win elections, and
that they're not interested in knocking down the barriers that stand between the American people and their dreams. They want their government back, and that's what I intend to provide them when I'm nominated for president of the US.
Give D.C. the opportunity to elect its own representatives
Q: In the nation's capital, a lot of residents feel that the nation's leaders are not paying much attention to their home city.
A: The first thing I would do would be to move forward with an agenda to make sure that we give
D.C. the opportunity to elect its own representatives and have some political power on Capitol Hill. Representation would make a big difference. I want to deal with the homeless situation here in Washington, D.C.
I think it is a travesty that we've got men--and increasingly women--families, across the street and the in shadow of this great capital, that shows a lack of concern, not just for the capital, but for
American, when we are allowing something like that to happen. And as president of the United States I would be offended to drive by it. It's something that we are going to focus on directly.
Shine light on federal contracts, earmarks, & proposed bills
THE PROBLEM
Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration.
OBAMA'S PLAN
Shine Light on Washington Lobbying: Create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings.
Create a Public "Contracts and Influence" Database: Disclose how much
federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting.
Sunlight Before Signing:As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to comment online for five days.
Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification.
Capping credit card interest rates at 30% is not enough
I thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had had no hearings on that bill. It had not gone through the Banking Committee. I don't know about a lot of folks, if they've got a credit card, are paying 29 percent. So under this
provision, that would've been fine. There had been no discussion about how we were going to structure this and this was something that had not gone through the committee and we hadn't talked about. It didn't make sense for us to cap interest rates.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate
Jan 21, 2008
Never took money from federal lobbyists or their companies
I don't take PAC money. I don't take money from federal lobbyists. I'm not taking money from their companies. It is true that there are employees of all sorts of companies that have given to my campaign because, frankly, I've raised a lot of money, and
sometimes in $25, $50, $100 donations. But that does mean that I've gotten a bunch of money from drug lobbyists. It's important to make that distinction. With respect to universal coverage, understand what this debate is about.
This is a legitimate policy debate. I respect the positions that Edwards and Clinton have taken. They have decided that we should mandate coverage for all adults. I believe that the problem--and understand what that means. A mandate means that, in some
fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. Edwards has been honest that that may mean taking money out of people's paychecks in order to make sure that they're covered. Clinton has not been clear about how that mandate would be enforced.
Release people in bankruptcy due to health care problems
We have to release people who are in bankruptcy as a consequence of health care. We've got to give them a break.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
Jan 15, 2008
I opposed both the 2001 and 2005 bankruptcy bills
I opposed both the 2001 and 2005 bankruptcy bills. They were bad ideas, because they were pushed by the credit card companies, they were pushed by the mortgage companies, and they put the interests of those banks and financial institutions ahead
of the interests of the American people.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
Jan 15, 2008
Accountability and oversight over the financial markets
The sub-prime lending mess, part of the reason it happened was because we had an administration that does not believe in any kind of oversight. You've got to disclose if you've got a teaser rate and suddenly their mortgage payments are going to
jack up & they can't pay for them. I intend to restore a sense of accountability and regulatory oversight over the financial markets. We have the best financial markets in the world, but only if they are transparent and accountable and people trust them.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
Jan 15, 2008
Modify some of the fraudulent & predatory lending practices
We've got to modify some fraudulent & predatory lending practices. I put in a bill to make that happen because it does affect communities. Unless we are able to rid the influence of special interest lobbies, we're going to continue to see bad
legislation like that. I've put forward a $10 billion housing fund that can help bridge people who have been responsible in making their payments. We've got to make sure they can get the kinds of help they need to stay in their homes & make the payments.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
Jan 15, 2008
Bad idea to over-classify information
Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional?
A: I believe the Administration's use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea.
We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy--which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power
Dec 20, 2007
Bush's signing statements are a clear abuse of prerogative
Q: Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
A: Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew
Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use
such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.
The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws--more than any president in history--is a clear abuse of this prerogative.
Public submits policy ideas on Obama's "My Policy" website
What could community politics look like under an Obama presidency? Perhaps it might be a national day of neighborhood meetings: designating some Saturday as a meeting day for neighbors to get together, discuss the key problems in their community,
and identify what they want to be done in order to change their society. Perhaps it could be a series of national town meetings available live online and via public TV on specific topics, designed to bring together policy experts, government officials,
and the public. Perhaps it could be a national suggestion box, where Obama encouraged emails offering the best ideas for improving society, such as the "My Policy" section of
Obama's website urging anyone to submit policy proposals to him. Perhaps it could be advice and information for people who want to run for public offices, such as a database searchable by location of available posts.
Create "Google for Government" to track government spending
Obama and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) teamed up to pass a law that will lift the veil of secrecy in Washington by creating a Google-like search engine that will allow regular people to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans online.
Obama also introduced legislation that would shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each project earmark, along with a written justification, at least 72 hours before a full Senate vote.
Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project.
In 2007, Obama co-introduced a bipartisan plan described as the "gold standard for reform." The ethics package that passed the Senate included
a number of Obama's provisions, including bans on subsidized travel on corporate jets, meals and gifts from lobbyists; disclosure of project earmark sponsors and recipients; and disclosure requirements for campaign contributions that lobbyists "bundle."
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers"
Aug 26, 2007
Prayer can't prevent disasters; good policy can handle them
Q: Do you believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina could have been prevented?
A: I believe in the power of prayer. And part of what I believe in is that, through prayer, not only can we strengthen ourselves in
adversity, but that we can also find the empathy and the compassion and the will to deal with the problems that we do control. Most of the issues that we're debating here today are ones that we have the power to change.
We may not have the power to prevent a hurricane, but we do have the power to make sure that the levees are properly reinforced and we've got a sound emergency plan. And so, part of what I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act
on those things that I can control. And that's what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government. We've got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions.
1998: First law passed, 52-4, stripping legislator perks
Legislatively, Obama managed to pass a decent number of laws for a first-term lawmaker in the minority party. His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from
soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests.
The senate's Democratic leader offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit fo
the do-good persona projected by Obama. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. One colleague angrily denounced the bill,
saying that it impinged on lawmakers' inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue by an overwhelming 52-4 vote.
The bill lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to restrictions.
2004: Used state money for seemingly political mailing
[Before the 2004 primaries] an Obama flyer dubbed "Legislative Update" looked suspiciously like campaign advertising, although its cost was borne by state taxpayers. The flyer had been mailed to every household in Obama's state senate district under even
more suspicious circumstances. It arrived in mailboxes just days before an ethics law prohibited elected officials running for office from dispersing such taxpayer-funded literature.
[A Chicago Tribune story] began like this: "Obama claims the mantle o
a reformer, but he spent $17,191 in state taxpayer money on a mailer that had the look and feel of a campaign flier. The mailing went out just days before a new ban on the pre-election dissemination of such state-paid constituent newsletters went into
effect, part of a package of ethics reforms that Obama takes credit for getting passed."
The story never implied illegality, but said that he appeared to have breached "the spirit of the law." Obama said to the author, "Okay, I'll give you that."
Registered 150,000 new minority voters in Chicago in 1992
Q: What would you do to ensure that all Americans are able to cast a free & unfettered vote and that that vote be counted?
A: You know, when I moved to Chicago to organize minority communities, I saw what happened when folks don't have enough political
power. So when I got out of law school, I organized the voter registration drive and we registered 150,000 new voters in 1992. Then I became a civil rights attorney, enforcing voting rights against the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum
Jul 12, 2007
Half of us don't vote; time for taking it back
Politics has never been pure, but there's a sense that over the last several years, the race for money & influence & power has left the hopes and concerns of most Americans in the dust. All you see from Washington is another scandal or petty argument.
And so we get discouraged. Half of us don't vote. The half of us who do vote were voting against somebody instead of voting for something.
We know what fills the void: the lobbyists, the influence peddlers with the cash and connections.
It's the pharmaceutical companies that get to write our drug bills. It's the oil lobbyists that get to meet with the same White House that silences the scientists who've warned us about the destruction of our planet. They write the checks and you get
stuck with the bills. They get the access; you get to write a letter. They think they own this government, but we are here to tell them today that our government is not for sale and we are taking it back, right here and right now. We are taking it back.
Together with Oklahoma Sen. Jim Coburn, Obama co-sponsored S.2590, "a bill to require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving federal funds." The bill requires creation of a website with a freely searchable database of entities
receiving Congressional earmarks. The bill was signed into law in Sept. 2006.
Pro: This is logical, cost-efficient, and sensible. A future president should be committed to transparency in government spending.
Con: he's spoiling the fun
for everyone. "One man's pork is another man's beef." Without Congressional earmarks, where would we be? In a strange land where members of Congress could not rely on earmarked appropriations to do favors for friends and entrench themselves in
office.
Pro: This is patriotic. Section 3 of S.2590 excludes classified information from the Act's purview, so there is no danger that the Coburn-Obama Act will gore and sacred bulls.
Filibuster has long tradition, but used to harm civil rights
Throughout the Senate's modern history, the filibuster has been a guarded prerogative, one of the distinguishing features that separates the Senate from the House and serves as a firewall against the dangers of majority overreach.
There is another,
grimmer history to the filibuster, one that carries special relevance for me. For almost a century, the filibuster was the South's weapon of choice in its efforts to protect Jim Crow from federal interference, the blockade that effectively gutted the 14t
& 15th Amendments. Decade after decade, courtly, erudite men like Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia used the filibuster to choke off any and every piece of civil rights legislation before the Senate, whether voting rights bills, or fair employment
bills, or anti-lynching bills. With words, with rules, with procedures & precedents--with law--Southern senators had succeeded in perpetuating black subjugation in ways that mere violence never could. For many blacks, the filibuster had snuffed out hope.
Kerry cares a lot about diversity in the party. And I think that certainly made a difference.
I also think that the manner in which we won our primary in Illinois was a hopeful sign, because the conventional wisdom was that I would get the black vote and then a sliver of white vote,
and instead we won in places people didn't expect us to win, in suburban areas, in rural areas. And it indicates that people are really ready for a message for change.
What they want is somebody who has a positive message, who has a tone in their politics that says, "We can disagree with the other side without being disagreeable."
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News
Jul 25, 2004
Campaign race baiting works in both directions
Black politicians discovered what white politicians had known for a very long time: that race-baiting could make up for a host of limitations. Younger leaders, eager to make a name for themselves, upped the ante, peddling conspiracy theories all over tow
-the Koreans were funding the Klan, Jewish doctors were injecting black babies with AIDS. It was a shortcut to fame, if not always fortune; like sex or violence on TV, black rage always found a ready market. Nobody I spoke with in the neighborhood seemed
to take such talk very seriously. As it was, many had already given up the hope that politics could actually improve their lives, much less make demands on them. To them, a ballot, if cast at all, was simply a ticket to a good show. Black had no real
power to act on the occasional slips into anti-Semitism or Asian-bashing, people would tell me; and anyway, black folks needed a chance to let off a little steam every once in a while-what do you think those folks say about us behind our backs?
Ended corporate jet travel subsidized by lobbyists
THE PROBLEM
Lobbyists Write National Policies: For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy.
OBAMA'S PLAN
Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.
OBAMA'S RECORD
Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel,
mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law.
No lobbyist money; no PAC money; fund campaigns instead
I don't take money from federal lobbyists. I don't take money from PACs. In reducing special interest lobbying, I alone of the candidates here have actually taken away the power of lobbyists. A law I passed this year says to lobbyists, if you
are taking money from anybody and putting it together and then giving it to a member of Congress, that has to be disclosed. Ultimately what I'd like to see is a system of public financing of campaigns, and I'm a cosponsor of the proposal.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas
Jan 15, 2008
Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless
Q: You've been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics. The Boston Globe in August reported: "In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate
contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms.
There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric.
A: I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. I have raised money in order to
bankroll my campaigns. But what I have been consistent about is fighting to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. I am the only candidate in this race who has really pushed hard to reduce the influence of lobbyists.
Reduced cost TV ads for candidates; $85M presidential limit
Obama has suggested public financing of elections, reduced-cost TV ads for candidates, and limits on the revolving door for congressional staffers who become lobbyists. He sought to ban gifts from lobbyists and corporate-financed travel.
To show his commitment, Obama even gave up one of his favorite perks: low-cost travel on private planes donated by lobbyists. He accounced that he would "pay the full costs of a flight taken on someone else's private plan, rather than pay the much
cheaper price of a first-class ticket."
Obama supported numerous reforms that his colleagues would not embrace, including proposals to prohibit paid coordination of lobbying, ban lawmakers from negotiating future employment as lobbyists, prohibit
earmarks in which a member of Congress has a financial interest, and ban the use of earmarks to buy votes.
So far, John McCain has been the only Republican to agree to Obama's proposal to limit general election spending to $85 million.
Ok to take $5 donations from drug company employees
Q: Do you accept campaign contributions from insurance executives?
A: I don't accept money from federal registered lobbyists and from federal PACs. Now, I'm sure that we've received money from people who work at insurance companies or work at drug
companies, because we're getting contributions of $5, $10, $100 from all sorts of people. We don't want to finance our campaign by people whose professional job it is to influence legislation in Washington. The drug companies, the insurance companies
spent a billion dollars over the last 10 years blocking reform. That's how we ended up with a prescription drug bill that is better for drug companies than it is for our seniors. So it is an imperfect system. Money is the original sin of politics, & when
you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money because otherwise you can't compete. But it's less important what your health-care plan is, than are you able to overcome the special-interest-driven agendas?
Public campaign financing with free television & radio time
Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. In February 2007,
Obama proposed a plan that requires major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the General Election.
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers"
Aug 26, 2007
No "bundled" money from federal-registered lobbyists
Q: You have taken a firm stand against accepting money from lobbyists, yet you allow them to raise money for you and "bundle" it. What's the difference between those things?
A: No, no, I do not have federal-registered lobbyists bundling for me,
just like I don't take PAC money. People need to know who we are going to fight for. The reason I'm in public life, the reason that I am running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
Aug 8, 2007
Campaigns last too long & cost too much
Campaigns last too long and they cost too much money. And they're disproportionately influenced by Washington insiders, which is why it's not going to be enough just to change political parties [in the presidency]. But we also have to make sure that
we are mobilizing Americans across race & regions, if we're actually going to bring these changes about. Change doesn't happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up. It's because millions of voices get mobilized and organized.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum
Aug 8, 2007
Doesn't take PAC money or federal lobbyists' money
Q: [to Kucinich] What do you have that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do not have?
KUCINICH: The new doctrine that I'm going to promote throughout this campaign is that we'll use the science of human relations and diplomacy to settle your
differences without committing the young men and women to war, unless it's absolutely necessary.
CLINTON: The issue is: Which of us is ready to lead on day one? I have 35 years of being an instrument and agent of change.
OBAMA: I don't think this is
just a Republican problem. I think this is a problem that spans the parties. And we don't just need a change in political parties in Washington. We've got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason
I don't take PAC money, I don't take federal lobbyists' money is because we've got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests. And that is something that I've got a track record doing.
People know his "bundlers" because he pushed disclosure law
OBAMA: [to Gravel]: We don't just need a change in political parties in Washington. We've got to have a change in attitudes of those who are representing the people. And part of the reason I don't take PAC money, I don't take federal lobbyists' money is
because we've got to get the national interests up front as opposed to the special interests.
GRAVEL: Barack Obama says he doesn't take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is? And, besides that, he has received
$195,000 from the head of a foreign-owned bank who has lobbyists in Washington.
OBAMA: Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money. And the bundlers--the reason you know who is raising money for me, Mike, is because
I have pushed through a law this past session to disclose that. And that's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States.
FactCheck: no lobbyist money; yes from bundlers who lobby
A testy exchange between Gravel and Obama requires some clarification. Gravel claimed, "Barack Obama said he doesn't take money from lobbyists [but] he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is?"
Gravel and Obama weren't actually contradicting
each other. However, Obama's policy is an ethical tightrope. Obama's official policy is: "The Obama campaign does not accept donations or fundraising help from federal lobbyists or PACs." Obama, however, is sticking to a strict interpretation of his ban
on lobbyist contributions.
[The largest bundler was] Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. Those contributions don't violate the letter of Obama's pledge, even though
UBS, like most large corporations, has lobbyists in Washington. Obama voluntarily listed Wolf, along with 254 other "bundlers" (influential types who agree to encourage and collect individual contributions) on his Web site.
First bill ever passed was campaign finance reform
Q: You've promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals. Aren't you practicing
the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?
A: We have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some unethical behavior and I have denounced it. But I have a track record of bringing people around this
new kind of politics, since I was in the state legislature. The first bill I ever passed was campaign finance reform legislation--the first in a generation in Illinois. Now, in the US Senate we were able to work to strengthen the lobbying ethics reform
bill, despite the resistance of some of my colleagues in both parties. And, in terms of how we've been running this campaign, we have seen that I have not taken money from federal registered lobbyists. We are not taking money from PACs.
FactCheck: no lobbyist money, yes from lobbyist spouses
Obama said, "I have not taken money from federal registered lobbyists. We're not taking money from PACs." It's true that Obama hasn't accepted any money from political action committees. And a campaign spokesman said that the campaign has returned
$50,566 from 49 donors whom it had identified as lobbyists.
Nevertheless, Obama accepts money from lobbyists' spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren't registered to lobby, senior
executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year.
The campaign says it is making a "best effort" to stay away from tainted money. "It isn't a perfect solution to the problem and it isn't even a perfect symbol," a spokesman said.
Hopefund PAC pushes government to honor sacred commitments
At [Obama's PAC] Hopefund, our hope says that government alone cannot teach our kids to learn--but that government must honor its sacred commitment to provide the best schools.
Our hope says government must play a constructive role in investing in
our communities.
Our hope says tax breaks can be a very useful tool, but that they should be used to reward the creation of jobs rather than companies that ship them overseas.
Our hope says health care is every human being's right, and when the
free market fails us, the government must step in to correct its abuses.
Our hope says the liberties of every person are sacred, but that those liberties must be defended--with military might abroad when absolutely necessary, but also with courage and
vigilance at home.
"Hope," as we understand it, does not mean government solving our problems. It means government changing its priorities just enough to give every child a decent shot at life and keep the doors of opportunity open for all.
Source: PAC website, HopeFundAmerica.com, "About Barack"
Nov 17, 2006
Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money
Few lobbyists proffer an explicit quid pro quo to elected officials. Their influence comes from having more access than the average voter, having better information, and more staying power when it comes to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code
that means billions for their clients.
For most politicians, money is not about maintaining status and power. It is about scaring off challengers and fighting off the fear. Money cannot guarantee a victory, but without money, you are pretty much
guaranteed to lose.
When I decided to run for the Senate, I found myself spending time with people of means. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks.
But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class.
I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the sense that I spent more time above the fray, outside the world of hardship of the people that I had entered public life to serve.
FactCheck: Yes, Obama cast 130 "present" votes in IL Senate
Clinton was mostly right when she attacked Obama for casting 130 "present" votes as an Illinois state senator. But she was wrong when she added, "the Chicago Tribune, his hometown paper, said that all of those present votes was taking a pass. It was for
political reasons."
It's true that Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, rather than casting a yes or no vote, an option in the state Legislature. But the article that said he "essentially took a pass" was an op-ed piece quoting a Clinton endorser,
not the Chicago Tribune's editorial board.
Beyond that, there's some substance to Clinton's general criticism. Obama says some of his votes were part of intricate parliamentary maneuvering, not just avoiding political heat. The NY Times found a mixed
record: "Sometimes the 'present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. But in at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive."
Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.
Cloture vote on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act:
Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.
[Washington DC currently has a "delegate" to the US House, whose vote does not count. Utah had complained that the 2000 census did not count many Utahns on Mormon missions abroad].
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the
Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.
Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act;
Bill S. 1257
; vote number 2007-339
on Sep 18, 2007
Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.
A motion to table (kill) an amendment to clarify the application of the gift rule to lobbyists. Voting NAY would define employees of lobbying companies as registered lobbyists and therefore subject to the gift ban. Voting YEA would apply the gift ban only to specific people who registered as lobbyists.
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.
For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?
Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.
Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.
An amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity. Voting YEA would establish the new office, and voting NAY would keep ethics investigations within the existing Senate Ethics Committee.
Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations
and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.
Election reform is #1 priority to prevent disenfranchisement.
Obama adopted the CBC principles:
Election Reform is the CBC’s Number One Legislative Priority. What happened in Election 2000 is no way to elect the President – the most powerful position in the world. For the sake of our democracy, it is imperative that Election Reform be the top priority of every Member of Congress, and every American. As the world’s oldest and leading democracy, the outcome of our elections should never be in doubt. We must ensure that every vote cast is counted and that everyone who is eligible to vote is allowed to vote. Election reform is not a black issue or white issue, it is a red, white & blue issue. Voting is the most fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution and must be protected.
Voter Education and Participation. African-Americans turned out to vote in Election 2000 in record numbers, many for the first time. This accomplishment, however, was undercut by allegations of voter intimidation, inaccurate voter registration lists, flawed
ballot designs, and antiquated voting machinery. All of these problems led to confusion before, during and after the election. The CBC will partner with state & local governments, civic & religious organizations and higher education institutions to prevent voter intimidation, as well as to enhance and improve voter registration, education and participation.
Congress Must Act. Congress has the power, authority and absolute obligation to assure that the apparent disenfranchisement does not ever happen again. The CBC is committed to passing a strong and effective election reform package. Legislation should address ballot design, modern voting machines, an accurate vote-counting mechanism that allows for recounts, the restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders, assistance for bilingual and disabled persons who vote, and ensure the most accurate voter registration rolls on election day so that every one who is eligible to vote can vote, and have that vote counted.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus press release 01-CBC7 on Jan 6, 2001
Sponsored bill criminalizing deceptive info about elections.
Obama sponsored criminalizing false or deceptive info about elections
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends federal criminal law to prohibit any person from knowingly deceiving any other person regarding:
the time, place, or manner of conducting any federal election; or
the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election.
Creates a private right of action for any person aggrieved by a violation of such prohibition. Prescribes a criminal penalty for such deceptive acts.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: Voter participation is fundamental to our democracy, and we must do all we can to encourage those who can to vote. I also hope voters go to the polls with accurate information about what is on the ballot, where they are supposed to vote, and what our Nation's voting laws are.
It might surprise some of you to know, but even in this awesome age of technological advancement and easy access to information, there are folks who will stop at nothing to try to deceive people
and keep them away from the polls. These deceptive practices all too often target and exploit vulnerable populations, like minorities, the disabled, or the poor.
Deceptive practices often rely on a few tried and true tricks. Voters are often warned that an unpaid parking ticket will lead to their arrest or that folks with family members who have been convicted of a crime are ineligible to vote. Of course, these warnings have no basis in fact, and they are made with one goal and one goal only: to keep Americans away from the polls.
The bill I am introducing today provides the clear statutory language and authority needed to get allegations of deceptive practices investigated. It establishes harsh penalties for those found to have perpetrated them. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation are real problems and demand real solutions like those offered in my bill.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.
Source: Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (S.1975/H.R.4463) 05-S1975 on Nov 8, 2005
Sponsored resolution rejecting photo ID for voting.
Obama sponsored rejecting photo ID requirements for voting
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Expresses the sense of Congress that:
a requirement that U.S. citizens obtain photo identification cards before being able to vote has not been shown to ensure ballot integrity and places an undue burden on citizens' legitimate voting rights; (
the Department of Justice should challenge any state law that limits a citizen's ability to vote based on discriminatory photo identification requirements; and
any effort to impose national photo identification requirements for voting should be rejected.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: I am submitting a resolution to express the Senate's strong disapproval of recent efforts to disenfranchise Americans. Unfortunately, too many electoral reform efforts seem intent on limiting access to the ballot as opposed to expanding it. In the mid-20th century, the poll tax was the preferred means of disenfranchising large minority populations, specifically
African Americans. Today, the poll tax is taking on a new form--a photo identification requirement for voters.
According to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, such a requirement would "impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban." Nevertheless, a number of States, including Georgia, have recently passed laws mandating government-issued photo identification for voters at the polls. Nationwide, at least 12% of eligible drivers do not have a driver's license. And Georgia has made it difficult for rural and urban folks to obtain their voter photo identification.
The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform acknowledges that there is "no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting."
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.
Source: Resolution on Voting (S.CON.RES.53) 05-SC53 on Sep 20, 2005
Sponsored bill to post earmarks on the Internet.
Obama sponsored posting earmarks on the Internet before voting on them
OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill attempts to limit earmarks by publicizing them. Rather than banning earmarks, this bill requires that earmarks and other last-minute add-ins get posted on the Internet. Posting provisions on the Internet for 3 days is intended to restrict lobbyists influence on earmarks that would otherwise go unnoticed.
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:
Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness Through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act or the CLEAN UP Act: Amends the Standing Rules of the Senate to:
Identify and explain separately each provision of a bill & identify the Member who proposed such provision.
Make each bill provision available to the general public by means of the
Internet for at least 72 hours before its consideration.
Prohibits consideration of an appropriation bill unless a list of all earmarks in the bill and accompanying reports is available in the same manner.
Allows a waiver of such prohibitions by a two-thirds majority vote of Members.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.
Source: CLEAN-UP Act (S.2179) 06-S2179 on Jan 18, 2006
Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections.
Obama sponsored prohibiting voter intimidation in federal elections
Makes it unlawful for anyone before or during a federal election to knowingly communicate false election-related information about that election, with the intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote. Increases from one year to five years' imprisonment the criminal penalty for intimidation of voters.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. OBAMA: This bill seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order to keep them away from the polls. It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor. We saw countless examples in this past election.
Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning them in
Spanish that, "if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration."
Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called "Virginia Elections Commission" informing them--falsely--that they were ineligible to vote.
Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a crime.
Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact, and are made with only one goal in mind--to keep Americans away from the polls. We see these problems election after election, and my hope is that this bill will finally stop these practices. This bill makes voter intimidation & deception punishable by law, and it contains strong penalties. The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes--people who are prevented from voting by misinformation--by establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed voters with accurate information so they can cast their votes in time.
Source: Voter Intimidation Prevention Act (H.R.1281 & S.453) 07-S453 on Mar 1, 2007
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting.
Obama co-sponsored prohibiting 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting
Rep. CONYERS: "Since the late 1950's, the pernicious practice of 'voter caging' has been used to discourage or prevent eligible voters from casting their vote. Recent elections have shown that caging tactics are not outdated, and in fact, have disenfranchised voters in recent midterm and Presidential elections. While caging efforts have traditionally been directed at minority communities, all voters are susceptible to these attempts at voter intimidation and suppression.
"The undemocratic practice of voter caging involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, the voter's name is placed on a 'caging list.' These caging lists are then used to challenge a voter's registration or eligibility.
"In my home State of Michigan, I have seen firsthand how caging efforts are used to harass, bully, and ultimately disenfranchise, eligible voters. With a
Michigan lawmaker advocating 'suppress the Detroit vote,' I cannot help but think that is synonymous with 'suppress the Black vote' as Detroit is 83% African American. These voter suppression campaigns always seem to target our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, low-income people, homeless people, and college students.
"Caging tactics meant to suppress the vote do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity."
S.2305: PROHIBITION ON VOTER CAGING: No State or local election official shall prevent an individual from registering or voting in any election for Federal office, or challenge an individual's registration status or eligibility to vote, if the sole basis for such decision or challenge is evidence consisting of a voter caging document or voter caging list; or an unverified match list.
Source: Caging Prohibition Act (S.2305/H.R.5038) 2007-S2305 on Nov 5, 2007
Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform.
Click here for policy papers on Government Reform.
