Obama supporter also a state lobbyist

Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:11 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats

From NBC's Mark Murray

In advance of tonight's gay-rights forum in Los Angeles, the Obama campaign released the names of its national LGBT leadership team. One of the names on the list is Michael Bauer, a Chicago-based PR consultant. On the press release, Bauer is identified as a community organizer. But a look at Illinois lobbying records shows that he's also a state lobbyist.

This revelation comes on the same day as a Boston Globe report that -- despite Obama's vow not to take contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs in his bid for the presidency -- he has received donations from lobbyists in the past.

First Read reached Bauer, who said he's been a registered state lobbyist since March, working on clean coal technology in Southern Illinois. Bauer maintains that it's not inconsistent for Obama to refuse money from federal lobbyists -- but then receive help (financial or otherwise) from state lobbyists. "He has nothing to do with the issue I'm doing within the Illinois legislature," Bauer said of Obama, who serves in the US Senate. "The fact is, I'm not a federal lobbyist."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton adds that Obama had a record of reform in the Illinois legislature and, if elected president, he wants to make ethics/lobbying reform one of his first priorities. And as a symbol of his commitment to this, Obama has promised not to receive contributions from lobbyists or PACs. This is not a "perfect" promise, Burton says, but it's an "important symbol" of what he wants to do.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Obama's answer is already on youtube given when he was asked today at Sacramento.

He said that:

1) He has no ties in the State so state lobbyists cannot influence him

2) His fundraising is not perfect, but he still has to compete

3) He drove reform while in the IL state senate against lobbyism

4) He helped Feingold write and push the law that just passed congress and W is threatening to veto.

While I despise "hollier-than-thou" attitudes and hope Obama does not overplay this point, the statement that Clinton made saying that lobbyists represent real people deserves to be hammered.

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:36 PM)

Obama doesn't accept money from federal/Washington lobbyist. Big difference.

This is another case of the media wanting to create a story where there's none at all.

Derrick, Scottsdale, AZ (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:37 PM)

I don't see why this is even a story. Lobbyists are people too. If this guy is an activist and a state lobbyist, and he's working for Obama in his capacity as an activist while no business he's working on could possibly be legislated on by Obama, where's the conflict of interest?

Bryan, Smithtown, NY (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:46 PM)

Obama has always maintained that his NATIONAL campaign will not accept money from NATIONAL (federal)lobbyists, so what is the issue? Obama has never said he did not receive money from STATE lobbyists in the past. So what again is the issue??

Another MSNBC smear job.

Chima Ordu, York, PA (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:46 PM)

Is it just me or have any of you detected a "gotcha" tone to the reporting on any of the candidates?

R or D - doesn't seem to matter. Rather than issue depth, we get headline "grabbers" and "gotcha" items. (Not just you, First Read! - this was just the opportunity I found to post this question.)

Seems the discussions are more on the specific words every uttered in the entire lifetime of a candidate than on real positions and true adherence or valid changing on those positions. (Yes - I totally agree that words are important and powerful but there is a limit.)

I want and have asked for more investigative journalism but is this kind of stuff really it? Doesn't this kind of steer us off into the "what the definition of "is" is" sort of discussions?

Am I alone in this viewpoint?

Independent, Texas (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:47 PM)

Let us try this again...The word is FEDERAL. He has never said he would not take help or money from state Lobbyist. Where is the story ??? Come back when you find a Federal Lobbyist on the payroll.

BTW why don't you give us a run down of what Hillary's FEDERAL LOBBYIST interst represent. So we know what she is buying.

lyn, MD (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:51 PM)

Obama said, and don't you guys screw it up that he doesn't accept Washington Lobbyist money which are comprised of Tabacco, Big Oil companies. State lobbyist are anything from teachers unions, and state government lobbyist. They are more advocates for certain policies and don't have the big bucks to fly congressmen to Ireland for golf and such. So now MSNBC is apart of the HRC smear campagin! I wonder what she said she would do for your parent corporation if she becomes president.

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:57 PM)

Obama's position is perfectly consistent. He has always said his Presidential campaign takes "no federal lobbyist money", and that is correct; had he said "no lobbyist money", he'd deserve this scrutiny (and a reprimand), but as it is, this is a pretty dumb gotcha game.

After all, I could say that a candidate should not take money from any lobbyists, or big corporations, or amass tens of millions of dollars to begin with because that's just an obscene amount of money to run for President. Although I would be right on all those counts, a candidate that adheres to all those standards CANNOT get elected in this election cycle, and supporting nonviable candidates means nothing would change in future cycles.

It makes sense to me to vote for candidates like Obama or Edwards who have made some sort of tangible sacrifice in their support of public financing; they've set "no federal money or PAC money" as the standard and they've stuck to it, while still competing with the federal lobbyist and PAC immersed Clinton campaign. Quibbling with the purity of standard itself is impractical and actually counterproductive to the ultimate goal of public financing, as I explained above.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 5:03 PM)

I think we're all preaching to the choir here, MSNBC wanted a shocking headline, which is the only thing most people will read. But found this and thought you all might be interested. While almost all Republicans viciously hate Hillary....

"Perhaps most surprising of all, Obama actually finished third as the preferred general election candidate of registered Republicans, at 6.7 percent, behind Romney (21.8 percent), and Giuliani (10 percent), but ahead of Thompson (5.2 percent) and McCain (1.8 percent). "
http://campaignsandelections.com/IA/articles/?ID=479

If we give him the primary, he WILL take the country.

Jennie Denver,CO (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 5:23 PM)

You know, this lobbyist sh&% and this nukes on the table sh*% is all a tad nitpicky. When are we going to start blasting the Republicans for making a f*&^%$# mess out of this wonderful country?

DCJOE (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 5:36 PM)

Obama-pologists. lol
Every story that doesn't agree with your faith-based campaign leaves you all sputtering and shooting the messenger. Everything that doesn't align with your world-view, is a smear job. Every Obama-pologist cries, "WHAT ABOUT CLINTON???!!! So, here you go; Ready, aim...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/foreigndesk/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=19305%22

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/09/poll-shows-clinton-holds-strong-lead/

I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd rush to defend the other candidate's equivocation and hypocrisies, just as blindly.

To LynMD, my grammatically-challenged friend, all you have to do is go to http://www.opensecrets.org/ to find out EVERYONE'S take from various lobbies, but I know you don't like to follow links.

How much has Obama received from the TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION?
More sputtering and Obama-poligies are sure to follow.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 5:48 PM)

Watch! Obama will blame staff, again, on this one!

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 5:53 PM)

nit nit nit nit nit nit nit nit nit

The news nitwork.
All the news that's nit to pick.
Nit Broadcasting Corporation

nuanced (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:11 PM)

How about the press first check facts before they report things.
The PAC is not Obama's. it is independent of the campaign and the campaign has made statements that they would like people to contribute to the campaign directly and have stated they do not approve of it.
But, no. the press insists on painting Obama to look bad before the real facts.
Just like no one in the press actually bothered to view the speech last week before opening their big mouths and opining on it. all of which was so far off the mark but, did the damage they hoped it would.
By the way, when is Hillary going to be vetted. If she wants to be president shouldn't she be held to same standards as the others? Instead of coddled?

diane (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:05 PM)

Lobbyists are people too.just ask Jack Abramoff,or Rory Reid,or Lawrence Pelosi.....

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:49 PM)

So if a state lobbyist from Wyoming wants to send a personal check to Obama's campaign he shouldn't take it? That is nonsense. The man doesn't lobby in his jurisdiction. Moreover he isn't donating money on behalf of some corporation.

Darrius, Arkansas (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 8:19 PM)

Lobbyists' job is to influence those in power to rule in their favors. If one believes a politician would be influenced by political contributions from lobbyists, by deduction, one would have to admit that the influence can be made by both state or federal lobbyists. Money is money, whether it is from federal or state lobbyists.
To remain truely independent, Consumer Reports does not accept advertising money, disregard of the source, period. We hope oneday our politicians can do the same.
Thanks NBC for pointing out the facts.

gigi (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:10 PM)

Obama. Slowly sinking. Soon will be gone.

Ed Measley, Gainsville FL (Sent Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:23 PM)

State lobbyist only influence the state in which they are in. President Obama will not beholden to nor does he have any power to pass state laws. This tells me that the HRC is becoming desperate.

sonya, atlanta,ga (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 4:47 AM)

Van u still tring hu. its me . Btw i was not asking you to explan the averages i was telling you so you showed how you were lieing or spining what ever you want to call it since your obvious job is a political hack for clinton . I actualy have a job so i only have a little time in the morning for this and wont go back and forth with you . but lets get this clear . i said that obama was up in sc , iowa ,And nh ifyou wanted to spin(which is your job ) truthfully you could have said yea but they are other polls that you can draw and average from . see you dont think pepole in here dont know politics . Every body knows the other poll used by ros. is not even close to reliable which is why no one ,not even the clinton drove media ever talks about so you put up your average whith a small quotation then what did you say " where do you get your polls obama website " " your are obam-boozeled" then put the web site up with the actual polls i recited iowa clint 26 ob27 SC clint 29 ob 33 Nh 29 29 Thats what i call a lie . My bad you profesionals call it spin . Holla At you after work ,your going to lose if you cant see it by know just keep fighting with everyone els (like 10 to 1 of you ) you will figure it out ,then you will have that same look wolfson had after the debate .

me (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 8:47 AM)

Obama says he doesn't get his money from the lobby wolfpack. Neither does John Edwards. Hillary will sell her soul for a buck. Hmmmmm, tough times in the democratic party.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 9:00 AM)

Actually, in a lot of instances, lobbyists DO represent real people or real interests. Things that people find important - oh, you know, like having clean air to breathe and safe schools for kids. It's not all big business, oil billionaires, etc. Sure, there are corporate lobbyists but there are also those who lobby on behalf of important causes.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 9:31 AM)

van i see your boy is editting the blog for you

me (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 9:33 AM)

Obama does have lots of corporate executives and business owners bundling (funnelling) huge amounts of money into his campaign. He gets it directly from the people with the money and the special interests, not through their "registered lobbyists". Is this any better than getting it through the lobbyists?

Lee, Illinois (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 10:52 AM)

It shouldn't be a question of State vs Federal lobby. Its who the lobby is for. In a perfect world, lobbies have no ability to influence. The best we can hope for is a President who can pick and choose when to bargain with these guys.

Kudos to the reporters - I don't care if it is a "gotcha" tone. Someone has to dig up all the dirt.

Judy, Tucson, Arizona (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 11:32 AM)

Politicians all deal with lobbyists and if they say they don't they are lying...welcome to politics.

F StLouis (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 11:33 AM)

Van,

I hope you enjoy reading "me"'s comments as much as I do. Rather, I should probably say trying to decipher "me"'s gibberish.

Populace,

Having gotten that out of the way, on to the real issue. There is a significant difference between federal lobbyists and state lobbyists. I have worked in my state's capitol, and I have been around state lobbyists. They don't lobby for big oil or HMOs. They lobby for their local interests (for the most part). They simply don't have the capacity to influence like the federal lobbyists do.

Also, he was not put on Obama's campaign because he is a state lobbyist. He was put there because his skills were needed.

I welcome civilized, intelligent debate. But let's do it about real issues.

Josh (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 12:00 PM)

Judy - I agree. There are some lobbies that, as I said in an earlier post, reprsent very worthy causes. Dozens, if not hundreds, of illnesses have lobbies. I'm sure all of you Imus fans and non-fans remember how hard-core he was about the autism bill. You don't think there were lobbyists down there working their tails off to get that passed?

I don't like thinking that our elected officials are bought and paid for. But I don't have any problem with a politician accepting a donation from a PAC or other lobbying organization that is trying to get legislation passed that helps sick children or reduces toxic waste or anything of that nature.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 12:01 PM)

Welcome to politics folks, its been going on for years, and its not gonna stop anytime soon.

Susan,Miami (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 12:36 PM)

Lee oh I mean Van, you are so astute. Lee post to short, Van post too long.....fool!

HOT DAM (Sent Friday, August 10, 2007 1:48 PM)

Pay attention.

Not only has Barack Obama accepted lobbyist gift-giving in his Senatorial career, but his platform to curtail US lobbyism refuses to target & punish the politicians that accept such bribes.

Read the fine print, people, especially when dealing with politicians that seem to good to be true. Stop Conformist Voting !!!

Joseph (Sent Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:52 PM)

Hillary brought out the fact that obama's staff person is a lobbyist and when asked why she is divulging this fact at that time, she mentioned something about 'a time to come out", is it time for the records of her time as first lady to come out? or have they not yet been altered enough to pass scrutiny?

james granata, holyoke, MA (Sent Monday, January 07, 2008 10:18 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=311542