AOC, progressives call on Senate not to confirm lobbyists or executives to future administrations

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

Progressive Democrats on Friday called on Senate leadership to oppose the confirmation of any nominee to an executive branch position who is a lobbyist or former lobbyist for any corporate client or who is a C-suite officer for a private corporation.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), 13 progressive members of Congress asked that they oppose these nominees for this administration "or any future administration."

Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Katie Porter (Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Rashida Tlaib (Minn.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), among others, signed on to the letter.

"Ending the practice of filling cabinet and sub-cabinet posts with current or former corporate officers and lobbyists is not to offer a commentary on each individual person's character. It is to make a statement of principle," they wrote.



Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ocasio-cortez-progressives-call-on-senate-not-to-confirm-lobbyists-or-executives-to-future-administration-posts/ar-BB1a6kw2?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=DELLDHP

[SKKY]

1. I'm down with this.

[DownriverDem]

26. Obama

had rules about that, didn't he? Has time expired? Focus on beating trump.

[NurseJackie]

2. I trust Joe Biden's ethics and principles. He'll choose the best and most qualified individuals.

"or any future administration."

That's a backhanded swipe at Joe Biden. Totally unnecessary. I trust Joe Biden's ethics and principles. He'll choose the best and most qualified individuals.

[jaxexpat]

16. okay, trust already. It won't stop the pressure on Joe to make.....

things happen. And it won't stop him from being the ultimate arbiter in a multitude of "lesser-evils" choices. This legislation could eliminate the temptation to promote from a pool KNOWN for their abundance of unworthy characters. Joe would probably welcome the guard rails. I know I would were I in his shoes.
Not a backward swipe so much as an offer of help. A thing that would be welcome from any person of good character. It would be an unwelcome curb for such as Trump. If Mitch and Trump prevail, any restraint would be welcome.

But then I'm not a faith sort of person.

[NurseJackie]

18. Oh good grief! More backhanded insults against Joe, eh? Why? What good purpose does it serve?

Not a backward swipe so much as an offer of help.

Oh good grief! More backhanded insults against Joe, eh? Why? It's just an obvious effort by some individual/s to spread fear and uncertainty and doubt about Joe Biden. What good purpose does it serve?

Why do it? Why now? What's the goal?

Joe is NOT an idiot. Joe is NOT corrupt. Joe is an ethical man with very high standards. Why pretend like he's not. Why pretend like he's "just the same" as the GOP?

Joe Biden will choose intelligent, strong, honest, ethical individuals that will help him and his administration to accomplish his agenda.

If Mitch and Trump prevail, any restraint would be welcome.

Then this will never see the light of day. Dead in the water. Sinking into the abyss.

[jaxexpat]

25. We apparently exist in two different language groups.

My tribe speaks pie-in-the-sky faithfulness to democratic principals, the All-gone-kin
You turn my words into bitter bile with campaign passion and horse race logic.
Are you of the "my way or high way" people? the Show-show-me

Look, it could very well be that the signers of the letter see a very clear future for our brittle democracy. Given their vantage and the fact they are HIGH on the conservative hate list, I cede some legitimacy to their point of view.

I have every hope that Mr Biden is as good as you say but have not met him. I am, however, somewhat familiar with the human condition and understand the negative rewards of poor and the profits of correct actions. All people, I guess, are candidates for redemption and subject to temptation as well. I place no faith in persons. That is reserved for science. Nor am I a diviner of character, that is reserved for long tempered intimate acquaintance and even then subject to skepticism and redress.

In any case, I don't see this as even a bump in the road to Biden 46. Certainly it didn't give nearly the same visceral impact as Comey's inanety that fateful Friday in 2016. As always, I could be wrong and I have a feeling that the more people hate AOC the less negative focus on Biden. After all, haters gotta' hate.

[NurseJackie]

39. Oh please... give me a break!

In any case, I don't see this as even a bump in the road to Biden 46.

This is an ALL HANDS ON DECK moment. We can't afford to leave anything to chance. We must ALL be united in a SINGLE GOAL of defeating Trump.

These types of publicity stunts only serve to show that the "organizers" have ZERO FAITH IN JOE BIDEN!! They're saying "we don't trust you, Joe" ... and that's wrong.

Not only is it wrong, it's another example of "both sides" bullshit. It's divisive and it only creates division and distrust. They should all know better, and so should everyone who's fist-pumping and cheering-on this type of crap. Why make excuses?

I place no faith in persons. (+ blah-blah-blah)

Yeah, right. That's just a very wordy way of saying that you don't trust our party's nominee. It's just a reinforcement of the negativity that's being shown to Joe Biden.

It's insulting and at this critical stage... LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE ELECTION DAY... why would anyone pull a shitty stunt like this? Why would anyone defend it? It's outrageous and selfish. My opinion those individuals is MUCH less today.

[jaxexpat]

48. Your breaks are given, blah+blah-blah

Biden will win and even without the aide of rabid hysterics.

[NurseJackie]

51. LOL

[mcar]

53. And from people who have far less experience in governance

They need to take a seat for now. Or get out on the campaign trail.

[NurseJackie]

83. They should know that the focus should be on JOE BIDEN and on WINNING...

... not one's self.

[betsuni]

45. I agree.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the nervousness about Never Trumpers doing ads for Biden. The idea that it's impossible for anyone to be an ex-Republican. To do anything without expecting a quid pro quo. That everyone's corrupt, both parties same.

Some people think Biden is going to fill his administration with Republicans, hand over the car keys. It's silly. I always immediately think, why then does Biden describe himself as a future transitional president and choose one of the most progressive senators as his VP?

[mjvpi]

3. When ever I argue with those who are 180 degrees out from me...

...getting money out of politics is one thing we CAN agree on. Get rid of dark money. Again, we agree on getting rid of the worthless, empty, negative adds at election time. Money in politics makes it all about winning and not working together.

[George II]

4. Terrible timing, did this need to happen less than three weeks before the election? Curiously....

....a few of those elected officials did/do take money from lobbyists.

What exactly is a "C-suite officer"? I worked in corporations for almost 50 years, never heard that term.

Nor have I heard of many of those organizations that signed on to that letter.

[NurseJackie]

6. It is a bizarre thing to be doing now. Why? What good purpose does it serve?

I can tell you that what it does do is leave me with an impression that this "group" has zero confidence in Joe Biden's ethics or integrity. It's an obvious insult, and even in the poor (awkward? intentional?) wording, it reeks of the "both-sides-are-the-same" nonsense... or that Joe Biden can't be trusted.

Yes indeed, it is terrible timing and the motivations for doing such a thing escape me.

[George II]

12. Well, one thing this means is that if Biden is elected, he won't be looking at Nina Turner....

....as a cabinet or lower office. Less than a month ago she founded her own lobbying company. I would presume she's either CEO or COO.

[NurseJackie]

22. Ha!

With or without... I do not think there's any chance that NT would have any role to play in a Biden administration.



She's too busy with half-a-bowl of -- something -- that she needs to deal with.

[sheshe2]

71. Perhaps she lost her appetite.

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. Now is the time to bring these issues up

It is non partisan. It is an action that would effect any future President, R or D. It is a direct assault on what Republican hordes scream about....The Swamp! Call their bluff. It is a very important topic that needs to be brought up during an election. When else???? When is a better time??? If Trump wins it would never see the light of day of course. If Biden wins, any proposition like this will be swept away in all the ecstasy and celebration. It will be the last thing Democrats will focus on. Which is unfortunate. It is still important to bring up NOW, while folks are the most engaged in federal politics.

[NurseJackie]

10. It's a backhanded swipe at Joe Biden.

When is a better time???

After the election when Joe is the winner and in the White House. That's when.

It will be the last thing Democrats will focus on.

Yet another swipe at Democrats. Charming.

It is non partisan.

More of the "both sides are the same" bullshit... it serves no good purpose. Especially now.

It's stunts like this that give people "permission" to not vote... or to cast "protest votes" for third-party candidates. Why would anyone want to do anything that makes the Democrats look bad? Or why do/say anything that indicates a distrust in Joe Biden's integrity.

[George II]

13. "It is non partisan." How many republicans signed that letter. Unless I missed it: 0.

[melman]

15. Wait

What?


Why would this be a problem for you?

[George II]

19. Who said it was a problem?

[melman]

21. You

[George II]

23. I'm sure you can direct me to where I said it was a problem.

[melman]

27. Don't worry

It was a rhetorical question.

[George II]

28. So then you know that I didn't say it was a problem to me. Glad we can agree on that.

[melman]

29. No that's actually not what that means at all

https://literarydevices.net/rhetorical-question/

[George II]

33. "a rhetorical question is asked when the questioner himself knows the answer already...."

How is it you KNOW something that wasn't said by me? Clairvoyance, extra-sensory perception, or just presumption?

[mcar]

55. Where did George say it was a problem?

[melman]

57. .

[mcar]

58. ..

[George II]

60. The go to response, i.e., "I got nothin'!!"

[mcar]

62. Apparently so

[George II]

11. It can be used for republicans to try to say that "Democrats are in disarray". I can almost see....

....the ads already.

Perhaps it's an action that would affect any future President, but we don't HAVE that future President yet! Stuff like this only strengthens trump's chances, it does nothing to help Biden.

"If Trump wins it would never see the light of day of course. If Biden wins, any proposition like this will be swept away in all the ecstasy and celebration."

The first half is true, the second half is totally false. Who do you want to win?

[NurseJackie]

14. Good question.

[mcar]

56. And to push the "Biden is bowing to the far left" idiocy

[George II]

59. trump has been using "the radical left" expression.

[mcar]

64. You know his team will jump on this

I have yet to see AOC or her compatriots criticizing Trump and the Republicans. Did I miss it?

[George II]

65. No, you didn't miss anything. And that's exactly what I'm worried about - I wouldn't be surprised...

...if there isn't an ad already in the can.

[NorthOf270]

30. Yeah, THIS will keep people from voting for Joe.

[George II]

31. Believe it or not there are many who haven't yet made up their minds. If everyone was set....

....with their choice, what's the point of campaigning, running ads, spending millions of dollars?

[NorthOf270]

32. If you haven't made up your mind and need big ads to sway you.....

.....you're not paying attention to this inside baseball shit either.

[George II]

37. So I ask again:

If everyone was set with their choice, what's the point of campaigning, running ads, spending millions of dollars?

[NorthOf270]

38. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with this thread.

Start another one asking that existential question.

[George II]

61. Really? Follow the thread. BTW, who are you?

[NorthOf270]

63. If it has someting to do with lobbyists stinking up politics....

....well, maybe you're finally on to something.

Not really sure why you're in favor of that. Most people aren't.

Anyway, I stand by my original statement. No alleged "undecided" is paying attention to this.

Have a great night.

Edit: Who am I?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10181413023



Not sure why do I have to show papers or something?

[George II]

66. I stand by my original question, which you have been ducking....

If everyone was set with their choice, what's the point of campaigning, running ads, spending millions of dollars?

[NorthOf270]

67. I'm looking at the polls and not seeing many "undecideds"

And I think if you look around the threads here, DU collectively mostly agree "undecideds" are not serious people. They either want attention from CNN or are concealing something.

Most polls are asking how set are you in your decision, and well over 90% are settled on who they are choosing. When a major candidate is regularly garnering over 50%, the cake is baked.

They certainly aren't paying attention to this story, like you very clearly are hung up on with for whatever reason. The President is a racist, bigoted Corona spreading failure, and you're wringing your hands over some wonks having policy discussion for when we have to rebuild this nation again.

I mean, why IS anyone spending all that money if THIS story is gonna be the one that makes them go "Gee, I dunno Dems seem confused and fighting maybe I will vote Trump after all he's done so well so far".

Quite frankly, saying I'm "ducking" is pretty offensive. I answered plenty as it is, you just don't like the answer.

Try to get some rest now.

[George II]

68. You NEVER addressed this:

If everyone was set with their choice, what's the point of campaigning, running ads, spending millions of dollars?

And I'm wide awake.

[NorthOf270]

69. I've answered it several times

I don't even know what it has to do with this topic.

Please leave me alone.

[George II]

70. In which post(s)?

[BainsBane]

72. 10% is a sizable percentage of undecideds

and they certainly are persuadable. It doesn't matter if they are serious people or not, if they vote. I agree with you, however, that this particular issue is unlikely to change any voter's mind. I think it would be hard to find someone who thinks lobbyists do our political system any good, except of course for the lobbyists themselves.

Of course, Trump is working overtime to tether Biden to the progressive wing of the party, but this particular initiative is unlikely to change the needle on that. In general, I agree that all of the party's factions should wait until after the election to start extracting pledges. We have to win the election before anything is possible.

[mcar]

54. They do, do they?

This makes it all the more ridiculous that they are doing this now.

[Old Okie]

5. C-suite

Per google, it is top corporate officers with C in title such as CEO,CFO,COO. etc

[jaxexpat]

17. He says, as he blows the smoke from the end of his Colt Google finger......

Well played, sharp shooter.

[NurseJackie]

20. Really? What's "well played" about sharing google search results?

[pecosbob]

7. Why, when we can have government of the CEOs, by the CEOs and for the CEOs?

[DeminPennswoods]

9. That's fine by me

Maybe nominate a few career civil servants who know how gov't works and can get what Biden wants done.

[beastie boy]

24. While it elevates their profile, the letter is meaningless.

And the header is misleading. They did not call on Senate to do anything. They asked McConnell and Schumer to oppose the nomination of lobbyists and executives. Big difference. Neither McConnell nor Schumer have controlling effect over what the Senate ultimately decides. At best, the letter is a well intended but misguided gaffe. At worst, it's merely a publicity stunt.

[murdock744]

34. Ugh the "Progressive wing" again

I wish they would sit down, shut up and get to the back of the line already... Vice President Biden has this!!

[bucolic_frolic]

35. Agree, more power to the people

The problem being that often these positions require a lot of knowledge and experience about what they manage. Just as novice lawmakers or novice judges have a learning curve, so do administrative positions.

[Wanderlust988]

36. What's wrong with executives?

Isn't that an awful broad stroke? There are many liberal businessmen and execs that might want to serve in public capacity. So is she saying there should be no exceptions, no matter what? Suppose you started your own company and became CEO and wanted to join Biden's administration? This would make it impossible?

[theaocp]

40. It sounds quite worth trying.

Especially based on previous experience with businessmen and execs. They tend to focus on profits before people.

[Wanderlust988]

41. Suppose you're an executive with a non-profit?

See how this can get ridiculous? Also, there are many people of color in high positions in corporate America that are liberal and want to work in public service. So if we go by AOC, then Biden can never even consider them no matter who they are??

[betsuni]

44. That's what the last sentence in the article says, Black and Latino lobbyists

say it will lead to less diversity.

[theaocp]

50. I also weigh it against the corruption witnessed through the blending of

corporate and government interests. You're acting as if they can't offer advice or help in any myriad of ways, outside of holding public office in this regard. As I said, I think it's worth trying.

[Sgent]

82. I agree

if you exclude any corporate executives (nonprofits too?) and lobbyists you severely handicap your administration. Everyone who comes in will be starting from ground zero and won't know the current lay of the land -- your talking about 6 months to a year after confirmation to be in the same place as someone with governmental / lobbyist experience.

On top of which it violates the first amendment right to petition the government.

I would be much more amenable to forbidding leaving high ranking US government officials from being lobbyists or jobs in industries that they regulated.

[betsuni]

42. It's "not to offer a commentary on each individual's character" it's "principle"

So someone who has had a particular job is assumed to be permanently corrupted and incapable of going from a for-profit to a government position regardless of their individual character and life history and political philosophy. Everyone's the same, all corrupt.

They should demand it be mandatory that any future nominee have been unemployed their whole lives because, like, no matter who you are, you're powerless to resist the corruption caused by capitalism. Just to be on the safe side.

"That letter has since been criticized by Black and Latino lobbyists, who said a ban of that sort would end up shutting out minorities and could make the administration less diverse if Democrats win back the White House."

[George II]

43. I wonder who they'd approve of as head of the Federal Reserve, a carnival barker?

[betsuni]

49. Carnival barker is too similar to a lobbyist (for Big Circus Establishment Status Quo).

Disqualifying.

[BainsBane]

73. The problem is people don't relinquish that connection

to the industry for which they worked. While in a presidential administration, they often shape and write legislation. The result is legislation written to benefit big business more than average citizens. There is a revolving door between government and K Street, and it doesn't benefit ordinary citizens.

I think the proposal a good idea, and I don't see it as being controversial for most people. Still, I wish they would wait until after the election to propose anything.

Seems to me a lot of this discussion has to do with what people think of the left-leaning wing of the party less than the issue itself. If I recall correctly, Hillary took a similar position in her campaign.

[betsuni]

74. Could you please give examples of this happening in Democratic administrations?

When did people with former industry connections shape and write legislation in the Obama administration?

It goes without saying that Republicans don't even write legislation, lobbyists and the think tanks funded by industries do. I don't see this as a both sides problem.

[BainsBane]

75. The ACA

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/obamacares-architects-reap-windfall-as-washington-lobbyists/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1

[betsuni]

76. The ACA with a public option passed the House. Was taken out in the Senate, didn't have the votes.

[BainsBane]

77. nonsequitur

The question was about lobbyists in Democratic administrations. That is a key part of the pattern of DC, not just in Republican administrations. That is why these legislators are proposing the reform.

There is copious amounts of coverage of this in the popular press as well as academic research. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=revolving+door+lobbyists&oq=revolving+door+lo

Politics revolves around money. That is the system, and it needs reform.

[betsuni]

78. Article you linked said the bill's mandate that everyone purchase insurance was "unaccompanied by

any public alternative" -- there was a public option in the bill.

Finance reform is a Democratic policy.

[BainsBane]

80. That doesn't change the fact

that the revolving door is so prevalent, as the link to countless articles in Google scholar demonstrates. You could read any one or dozen of those. It's not simply one piece of legislation that is written by lobbyists; it's most of them.

I'm in no way drawing equivalencies between Republicans and Democrats. The goal of the GOP is to further enrich the wealthy. Democrats do stand for government reform, which is why reforms like this are being proposed. Reform doesn't mean everything is already prefect. It means taking action to improve government. Reforms regarding lobbyists in government have already been enacted in many states around the country. https://www.citizen.org/article/slowing-the-federal-revolving-door/ It's a basic clean government provision.

Democrats support campaign finance reform, and they should support this. Hopefully Joe will. The Obama WH had restrictions on lobbyists, but in my view it needs to go further--at both the presidential and congressional level--so that their hands are off legislation. Most legislation, after all, is written in congress. Unlike campaign finance, SCOTUS doesn't control this. The party can, at least among its own.

[betsuni]

81. "Reform doesn't mean everything is already perfect."

What? That doesn't make any sense.

[George II]

85. Sorry, but the Glenn Greenwald byline was all I needed. He's been on a one-man tear against...

....Democrats and the US for decades.

[BainsBane]

87. Glen Greewald?

Last edited Sat Oct 17, 2020, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

You obviously didn't look at any of the 18,000 of academic articles I linked to, none of which was written by Glen Greenwald. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=the+revolving+door+lobbyists&btnG=

One can say they want big business lobbyists to continue to write legislation, that they don't care if they do, that they will reflexively oppose absolutely anything the "progressive" wing proposes--but claiming the revolving door doesn't exist is demonstrably false.

Latching on to canards like Glen Greenwald doesn't erase the fact that Google Scholar has 18,000 results for the term "revolving door" + lobbyists. It's a serious subject of study for social scientists and legal scholars.

I thought we were supposed to be a party that believed in science and knowledge? One might as well deny climate change.

[George II]

84. Some, very very few, don't relinquish that connection. But for the most part they do.

[marble falls]

46. I think its a good thing to do.

[jmowreader]

47. I don't know...

Barack Obama's Secretary of the Interior was Sally Jewell. She was a good Secretary. But her last job before being in the Cabinet was being CEO of the outdoor-equipment chain REI.

"You are xyz hence you are automatically evil" is NOT going to help us.

[mcar]

52. Oh goody, more fodder for the "Dems in disarray"

or "Biden is beholden to socialists" memes.

Could they have waited a month? Could they have?

[Indykatie]

79. This Feels Like A Cry for Attention When Everyone Else is Focused On Getting Biden Elected

[NurseJackie]

86. It is.

It serves no good purpose.

It's poorly-timed and unnecessary vanity showboating and grandstanding.

[ck4829]

88. K&R