White House loosens restrictions on lobbyists

[IDemo]

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama is loosening restrictions on lobbyists who want to serve on federal advisory boards, a White House official said on Tuesday, a setback to the president's efforts to tamp down special interest influence in Washington.

Obama came to office pledging to curtail the sway of lobbyists and banned lobbyists from serving on such panels, which guide government policy on a range of topics ranging from cancer to towing safety.

The president said he was doing so because the voices of paid representatives of interest groups were drowning out the views of ordinary citizens.

But many lobbyists felt they were being unfairly tarred by Obama's campaign to keep them out of public service. A lawsuit challenging the ban was initially dismissed, but a District of Columbia Circuit Court in January reinstated it.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/12/us-usa-whitehouse-lobbyists-idUSKBN0GC1XE20140812

[WhoWoodaKnew]

1. Oh crap

[myrna minx]

2. .

[Baitball Blogger]

3. FuuuuuuuuuuuuucKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

Obama, Why!?

What the hell happened to you?

[cstanleytech]

18. Why? Probably because of the lawsuit.

By reducing some of the restrictions though it might reduce the risk of the lawsuit prevailing.
Mind you I would prefer if lobbyists were permanently banned from using anything like trips or meals or any sort of gifts to bribe public officials but that wont happen anytime soon I suspect.

[Baitball Blogger]

20. You all need to find out what these lobbyists are doing back in their own

communities to understand why this is an imbalance of power that we will never be able to overcome.

In fact, why don't we set up a grievance board for people to report how lobbyists abuse community leadership roles. Since we all know they have direct access to high government politicians in the state or federal level, we're all terrified of the strings they can pull. It creates untenable situations in our communities. And now they're wheedling even more power!

[Fred Sanders]

26. Some trust Obama and some do not. I think he deserves our trust, and two more years to keep it,

do not forget that.
Hold your fire until at least after the midterms....is it so hard to get off the perpetual outrage drug?

[cstanleytech]

48. "is it so hard to get off the perpetual outrage drug?" It would appear for some that its next to

impossible.
It makes me wonder about some of the members here on the DU as the only places I have seen similar vitriol directed at President Obama are at websites like fox news or freerepublic.

[Fred Sanders]

57. I know, right? The faux and massive outrage is belonging at other sites...I think the pro-Warren

folks are getting things confused. A comment implied not being outraged made one a "brown shirt", no
doubt having little idea what that implies.

Ignorance is bliss, partial ignorance is hell.

" Lobbyists will be allowed to serve only on commissions and boards in a “representative” capacity — so long as they’re acting on behalf of a corporation, trade association or industry group and not as private citizens or representatives of the government."

Turn up the volume on the Obama Outrage Machine, that is weak stuff there to get outraged about.

[GeorgeGist]

37. ooo scary ...ooga booga

lawsuit

[christx30]

58. I don't think the

President has anything to fear from a lawsuit. He's shown he's pretty much immune to them in the past. When indefinite detention was struck down last year by a federal judge, one phone call from him got the judge to reinstate it. He might has well use that power he has for something good. How about a restriction that says a lobbyist is not allowed to give anything more valuable than a pack of gum. If a lobbyist wants to influence anything, he can use his words (and gum).

[cstanleytech]

60. I didnt say he was afraid just that he might have done this to weaken the chances of a court

throwing his attempt to reduce the influence of the lobbyist out entirely.

[bigwillq]

4. Hopey Changey

[Plucketeer]

10. I fell for it initially - I wasn't alone

Second term, I held my nose at the ballot box. Just imagine a Romney / Ryan team. And now we're gonna propel the anointed one... Run Bernie run!!!

[bigwillq]

11. Glad I didn't fall for it

although I did vote for Obama the first time around. I, fortunately, live in a very blue state (CT), so I can explore other options at times.

[RufusTFirefly]

12. Me too. Fool me once...

A long-time Democratic activist, it was the first non-Democratic presidential vote I ever cast. (And I fear it won't be the last.)




Sadly, I don't regret it.

[Fred Sanders]

22. You mistype Fox Nation in your browser?...repeating Palin crap here.....

Hardly the kind of stuff to cause right wing type unhingment:


"A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said the administration was revising its earlier guidance on lobbyists serving on federal advisory panels to clarify that lobbyists may now serve on such panels when they are representing the views of a particular group.

There are more than 1,000 federal advisory committees."

[bigwillq]

23. Just trying to keep up with all the Palin posts I see on DU

[RKP5637]

45. SOS, more and more ... and I thought he was going to be kinda another FDR. Damn was I

naive and stupid. ... but given the alternatives ...

[bigwillq]

47. Again, never bought into the hype

Obama is just another politician. He ran two great campaigns, though.

[RKP5637]

51. He certainly said all the right words, for the most part, during his campaigns. Yep, that's what

some of my friends called him, a media sensation.

[Auggie]

5. Highly disappointing ... one big thumbs down

[djean111]

6. I guess this is one of the things he can do now that he no longer has to be thinking about

reelection. And some wonder why others believe campaign talk from some is total bullshit.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Go ahead 'bots. Twist yourself in knots. n/t

[onecaliberal]

8. What in the holy hell?

[raouldukelives]

9. But they are the views of ordinary citizens. Or at least, the ones who invest in corporations.

They all align against that small sliver of us who refuse to form symbiotic relationships with corporate lobbyists and climate deniers.
And people wonder why liberals have no voice. In far too many cases, they pay and profit for them not too.

[DeadLetterOffice]

13. Lovely. Just what we need. Oy. n/t

[albino65]

14. To use the President's word: Bullshit n/t

[RVN VET]

15. Let me see if I understand this

Obama wants to tamp down special interest influence in Washington but his efforts have suffered a setback because Obama wants to loosen restrictions on lobbyists, representing those special influences, in Washington?

Wow. I bet Obama is going to be really pissed when he finds out that Obama opened the door for more lobbyist influence peddling

[bvar22]

16. Just in time for the Mid-Terms.

It is like they WANT to drive the Democrats away from the polls.



You will know them by their WORKS.

[blackspade]

17. What? They weren't loose enough?

[cosmicone]

19. Lesser of two evils

I feel for President Obama. If he does the right thing, he risks democrats winning the mid-term due to lack of financial support. If the democrats lose the senate that would be far far worse than appearing like a hypocrite.

Realistically, the empaneling takes 4-6 months, so no lobbyists will be on the panels until after the mid-term.

Let us support him even though this appears right-wingy. It will be a different ballgame after the elections.

GOTV!

[dorkzilla]

25. I REALLY want to believe what you're saying but...

...and not that I was in any danger of voting for Mittens but EVERYONE said "now that Obama doesn't have to get reelected we will see the TRUE progressive he really is".

Not to be a jerk, but I'm still waiting.

[840high]

31. I don't believe that.

[GeorgeGist]

38. So, so, uhhh ... what's the word???

[font size =5] pathetic.

[Scootaloo]

40. Well fuck it, why bother doign the right thign ever?

Just do whatever advances the party, regardless of the impact this has on the people of the country. That's what it's all about, isn't it?

Who needs principles, when you have partisanship? Who needs votes, when you can get bankrolls? Fuck the people, just cram lots of apparatchiks with D's next to their names into congress so the party elite can be wined and dined by their appreciative masters in the business class.

[RKP5637]

50. US, the country that just needs big $$$$$ and fuck the citizens, that's where we are more and

more. We the people have lost the country. Hell, Citizens United is certainly proof of that.

[Fred Sanders]

21. This site is becoming more like Fox News, "hopey-changey" being repeated here and echoed...what is

wrong with you people, are you at the wrong site, who sent you to chortle the
Obama is a failure crap?

[Demit]

30. No Fred, we're disappointed Democrats. Maybe it's you who's at the wrong site.

There's a website called the people's view that will ban anyone who criticizes Obama. You might be more comfortable there.

[L0oniX]

34. Not all of us wear brown shirts.

[GeorgeGist]

39. It's cherry picking time

in Michigan.

[myrna minx]

55. So, are you pleased with this decision?

Do you think we have a pressing need to provide more access to lobbyists? Why do you think the president chose to do this?

[dorkzilla]

24. What the ever-loving fuck?

[OnyxCollie]

27. Business at the coffee shop across the street will drop substantially.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Is that possible? nt

[840high]

29. Damn.

[Kilgore]

32. Makes me want to explode!!!

[Joe Turner]

33. I'm Shocked I tell ya

Apparently there can be no limits on revolving doors in DC. Conflict of Interest is so passé.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

35. WTF happened to this man?

Hillary next? No F'ing Way!

[GeorgeGist]

36. Interviewing ...

so soon?

[Unknown Beatle]

41. Nothing happened to Obama

that made him change his mind, he's just showing his true colors. He just obviously fooled people with his masterful rhetorical oration promising to reign in lobbying among other promises that he hasn't kept.

Still, the alternative would have been disastrous to the nation.

[Owl]

42. How could there even be a lawsuit! On what grounds?

[Cal Carpenter]

43. Quite an 'up-is-down' quality to that first sentence

Ugh.

[progressoid]

44. Well isn't that just fanfuckingtastic.

[jwirr]

46. Why? I can not think of one reason to do this.

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

49. There's got to be more to the story

It is from a biased source.

[Fred Sanders]

56. Judging from the "liberal" response at this "liberal"site, people do not want to know any more,

their outrage is complete and must not be disturbed.

Let disturbed people lie.

[noiretextatique]

62. please enlighten us

Thanks.

[SoapBox]

52. Oh...great...just great...

Like things aren't crooked and rotten enough.

[frylock]

53. GOTV!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. Only if you put the leading people from Greenpeace on the EPA.

[Orsino]

59. How many lobbyists does the president think are in "public service"? n/t

[stillwaiting]

61. Somebody needs to tell Obama that Obama is obstructing his mission.

I bet Obama is PISSED at Obama.

[valerief]

63. Because lobbyists don't control enough of this country already.