DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists -

[Nanjeanne]

The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington. Some suggested it could provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts.

“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.

<snip>

For the most part, they said, the DNC has returned to business as usual, pre-2008. The DNC has even named a finance director specifically for PAC donations who has recently emailed prospective donors to let them know that they can now contribute again, according to an email that was reviewed by The Washington Post.

<snip>

Reformers complain that the new rules have already changed Washington ethics. They provide opportunities for “influence-buying by Washington lobbyists with six-figure contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund,” said Wertheimer, suggesting that lobbyists could also face “political extortion” from those raising the money. He called on Obama to reverse the recent DNC decision to change the rules.

More . . . https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation

So . . . we now have even MORE money in politics. Good job DNC. Do you think Hillary will tell the DNC to cut it out - and honor President Obama's changes? *sarcasm*

[global1]

1. It's Like They Are Throwing Salt In The Open Wounds Of The American People.....

this is just outrageous.

[notadmblnd]

2. Not a chance that she would tell them to cut it out.

Especially since it appears that they changed the rules just for her.

So much for her wanting to get corporate money out of politics.

[TheBlackAdder]

3. Now Sanders can ask what other Obama policies will be rolled back to promote an HRC agenda! nt

[restorefreedom]

12. when is the next debate? this is getting.....

[global1]

4. This Is Just Another Example Of The Establishment Fueling Bernie's Political Revolution.....

Don't they realize how incensed the American People are about typical business as usual things like this. They are actually helping Bernie make his case. They are adding fuel to this fire and showing just how corrupt and rigged this system is. Moves like this are just "Fueling the Bern!!!!!"

Go Bernie!!!!

Feel The Bern!!!!

[Gregorian]

5. They're scared Bernie's got this nominatoin.

[Dragonfli]

6. This is good news for the candidate with the right sponsors! Debbie is only looking out

for who she works for.

[Empowerer]

7. This ban was far to widespread

All lobbyists are not evil. For example, every major civil rights organization lobbies Congress to advocate for civil rights. Because they cannot afford to hire outside lobbyist or lobbying firms, people on the staff do the lobbying and, therefore, have to register as lobbyists. As a result, none of those people can donate to the campaign. The same prohibition applied to getting jobs in the Administration - there are many good, solid people who would have been great assets to the federal agencies but they were barred from jobs because they had registered as lobbyists in the past few years. These people were not influence peddlers or big money people. They were grassroots activists who try to convince Congress to pass good laws and stop bad ones, to confirm fair, liberal judges, etc.

You know those grades that Sanders supporters like to tout - the high grades he gets from the NAACP, NARAL, etc.? Those grades are based solely on his voting record and that voting record is monitored by those organization's in-house lobbyists who not only keep an eye on how he's voting but also spend a lot of time talking to him about the bills they care about.

The blanket prohibition looks good on paper and sounds good in speeches, but in reality, it is much too broad and throws the baby out with the bathwater.

[TCJ70]

9. It doesn't just look good on paper...

...it IS good. Money in exchange for securing a vote, is bribery, regardless of the topic. If an organization/industry has a point to make, make it on its merits. Feel free to talk, convince, whatever. Money just makes the whole thing dirty.

[Empowerer]

10. So, if you're working for a small non-profit that fights hunger in your community

and who organizes your community residents to oppose a bill cutting food stamps. You make $35,000 a year and want to donate $50 to Bernie, you think you shouldn't be allowed because you're a registered lobbyist?

[TCJ70]

11. I have no problem with that...

...any hint of impropriety is not good. If you want to give money to a candidate, you better stop lobbying.

[Empowerer]

14. Here's the problem with that

Smaller organizations - the ones that fight the 1% and are already at a disadvantage - don't have the luxury of making that choice. Often, everyone there must do some lobbying - which is really just advocating to Congress on behalf of their constituents. Unlike big money places who can hire outside lobbyists, therefore keeping everyone on the inside "clean," these organizations have to do everything, including the lobbying.

Blanket rules like this actually benefit the big money companies to the disadvantage of smaller organizations. Like I said, it sounds good, but in reality, it's really unfair to them. There has to be some middle ground.

[BainsBane]

8. They weren't getting enough donations to fund the convention

The rhetoric against them certainly didn't help with that.

[Nanjeanne]

13. I guess everyone who supports this rollback must be bashing Obama!

Isn't that how it works? You don't like something Obama did and you say that - so you are bashing him?

Oh wait . . . that's only Sanders!