Month: April 2009

Not All Lobbyists Are Created Equally

The New York Times has an article today on the emergence of a problem area in the Obama administration’s nearly-blanket exclusion of lobbyists from holding positions in the administration. Essentially while President Obama’s campaign promise to shut out lobbyists has largely worked, it has also meant many uniquely talented individuals who have spent their career lobbying for non-profits, charities, and human rights groups are ineligible to roles they would be excessively well suited for. At issue is the simple reality that not all lobbyists are created equally. It is fairly nonsensical for administration officials to contend that someone who has spent a career working for Human Rights Watch is indistinguishable from someone who has spent their career lobbying for Philip Morris, Pfizer, or Wal-Mart.

The article reminded me of the exchange during the 2007 Yearly Kos Presidential Forum, where Hillary Clinton was heavily booed for saying she would continue to accept lobbyist contributions to her campaign.

While Clinton’s answer was politically problematic in front of a very progressive audience that largely, at that time, backed Obama and John Edwards, in hindsight the point she’s making should be quite clear. Lobbyists fighting for nurses, firefighters, child care workers, or victims of genocide simply are not the same as lobbyists for major corporations. Unfortunately for Clinton, while she was making a true assertion about different types of lobbyists, she would not extend that distinction to her finance department’s guidelines for accepting donations. That is, she used nurses to cover for pharmaceutical lobbyists and was largely punished for it politically.

Making exceptions to this policy wouldn’t be hard. An easy guideline would be to limit acceptable lobbyists to those that have worked in social services, human rights, labor unions, and environmental organizations. Or, on the other hand, you could exclude anyone who has lobbied on behalf of a Fortune 500 company or industry lobbying group. This would work because the problem isn’t constitutionally protected lobbying activities, but the influence of money on politics. I’ve never heard of Human Rights Watch being associated with someone like Jack Abramoff, though I can’t say the same for many business lobbies. Those are the areas whose influence the Obama administration should seek to reduce in their house, not people working honorably for human rights and charitable purposes.

Educating on Employee Free Choice, Part 28

IBEW Local 1597 member Mike Semm has an op-ed in the Grand Island Tribune about the need for the Employee Free Choice Act to be passed during these tough economic times. He begins by framing the economic crisis we’re in:

We know the economy has been broken since long before the latest financial tsunami.

Just look at the numbers – worker productivity soared over the last twenty-five years, leading to record profits.  And yet, wages have stayed flat.  Working people are struggling to stay afloat as health care costs spiral out of control.  Foreclosures are at an all time high.  Millions of jobs are gone and millions more are at stake.

So where did all those profits go?  You guessed it!  The wealth that we created, our life savings and our pensions, were unfairly used to fund the fairy tale financial schemes that were concocted on Wall Street.  As it turns out, you can’t really spin straw into gold.

Leading economists agree that we’re living in the worst economic crisis – and the greatest economic inequality – since the Great Depression.  Last year, the average CEO made in one workday what the average worker made in a year.

And goes on to show Employee Free Choice as key to the solution of this economic disparity.

A new Gallup poll shows that a solid majority of Americans support legislation that would make it easier for workers to form unions and negotiate for better health care, wages and job security.  Millions of Americans want to be able to form and join unions, but they shouldn’t have to risk their livelihoods in the process.

That’s why Congress recently introduced the Employee Free Choice Act – a common sense piece of legislation that will let workers decide how they want to form a union.  Workers would be able to choose between the two current methods of forming a union – either with an election or by gathering a majority of signed authorization cards.  The only difference
is that today, the boss gets to make that choice for you.

Instead of going through a typically long and costly ordeal, the Employee Free Choice Act will create a level playing field for workers and management to come to the table and negotiate a fair contract.

To be sure, some corporations would rather keep things the way they are.  A coalition of powerful corporate interests – including several bailout recipients – has amassed millions of dollars to try to defeat this critical legislation through several front groups.

Great piece, Mike! Thanks for making the case for Free Choice for your fellow workers.

Unambiguously Clear

Glenn Greenwald, per usual, has been great covering the release of the OLC torture memos and what responses should stem from them.

I think he really makes clear the point I was trying to make yesterday about the imperative for citizens to defend the rule of law in America:

Either we care about the rule of law or we don’t — and if we do, we’ll find the ways to demand its application to the politically powerful criminals who broke multiple laws over the last eight years.  Obama’s release of those torture memos yesterday makes that choice unambiguously clear and enables the right to choice to be made.

In the absence of clear political leadership to ensure that the rule of law is preserved and those who are guilty of crimes during the Bush administration are prosecuted for their actions, it’s up to the public to make up the difference. We must seek to compel elected officials to treat these violations with the seriousness they deserve and not hide behind courses of action that may be popular in the halls of Congress and with the deferential Beltway press corps.

The rights afforded to citizens in the Constitution exist as long as we demand violations of those rights be stopped and the violators held accountable. The same can be said of the rule of law in America. It exists only so long as we care to ensure it exists. The Bush administration – specifically the top lawyers of the OLC, Vice President Cheney and President Bush – acted to actively and persistently subvert our laws. The evidence has never been more clear.

I’ve yet to see activism in response to the OLC memos coalesce. But I hope it’s strong, forceful, and persistent. Every member of Congress should be a target. And people should be judged very critically for their responses when in opposition to the rule of law in America.

Big Fundraising Lead for Dodd

Some welcome news for Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd — he’s blowing his competitors out of the water in fundraising. Here’s the breakdown from the Courant:

Chris Dodd:

Dodd raised about $1.05 million in the first quarter of 2009, leaving him with a cash balance of nearly $1.4 million, according to a fundraising report he filed Wednesday with the Federal Elections Commission.

Sam Caligiuri:

Caligiuri reported collecting about $45,000 over the first quarter, mostly from individuals. After expenses, Caligiuri reported a balance of about $36,000.

Rob Simmons:

An aide said the Simmons campaign only recently opened a bank account and had no meaningful fundraising to report.

Also, there’s this key point for where Dodd’s money does not come from:

Notably, Dodd’s first-quarter fundraising report for the 2010 U.S. Senate election reflects no AIG contributions. …

Dodd returned $12,500 in contributions from political action committees or employees associated with firms benefiting from federal bailout money. He gave $1,000 that he received from an executive receiving an AIG bonus to a Mystic homeless shelter. Dodd also donated $2,500 that he received from convicted investment swindler Bernard Madoff to the Elie Wiesel Foundation.

Dodd had a much better quarter than I would have expected and this puts him on good footing to weather the serious challenge he has coming. It also shows that the Republicans challenging him are not yet able to turn their big media profiles into campaign contributions.

Next Steps on Torture

Now that the Obama administration has released what seem to be nearly full records of the OLC memos on torture, the question is what comes next. In his announcement of the release, President Obama said:

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.  …

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.

This is incredibly frustrating, especially at first blush. But Senator Russ Feingold notes that Obama leaves some loopholes in his statement on prosecutions.

The president has stated that it is not his administration’s intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice.  As I understand it, his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted.  The details made public in these memos paint a horrifying picture and reveal how the Bush administration’s lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture.  The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable.

I hope that Feingold is right about Obama’s statement and the prospect of accountability for Bybee, Yoo, Bradbury, and obviously former President Bush. I do not think that the intelligence operatives who tortured our nation’s prisoners should be held accountable for the illegal orders that were given to them by the Bush administration. Instead, we must hold these lawyers and the Decider himself accountable.

Peru recently sentenced former president Fujimori to 25 years in jail for his actions as president, including the use of death squads to kill Peruvian citizens. If they can hold their executive accountable for his crimes, there is zero reason that the rule of law is not strong enough to handle the investigation, trial, and potential sentencing of anyone in the Bush administration, including the president, who is reasonable for torture. None. And frankly it’s embarassing that there is even the slightest inclination in our political ruling class to ignore criminal behavior because of political inconvenience. I hope Feingold has the courage to press forward and demand accountability.