Politico article using FEC hold to say Obama is not really for his ethics bill

[karynnj]

Article titled: "Obama blocked own 'top Senate achievement'"

" Barack Obama boasted at Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate that, thanks to his work in the Senate, the public can find out which special interest lobbyists are raising money for candidates.

In fact, the public cannot — also as a result of Obama's work in the Senate.

He led a partisan confirmation battle that crippled the agency charged with implementing the new law requiring candidates to disclose lobbyists who collect big checks for candidates — a process known as “bundling.”
<snip>


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7929.html

The article goes on to be fairer, but there is a later reference that Obama is still claiming this (duh - it's good work) Some one on DU-P used it in a way to say Obama was not for the reform. Because we can't link - here's the defense I used - using Prosense's fantastic research on the guy who is being held.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man being blocked was responsible for allowing voter suppression - he is a really bad person.

The agency can not decide policy, but it is not completely at a standstill. That information will still be collected and will be available.

Read the links here - Do you want your candidate to vote for this guy? (Or, if you are an Edwards supporter - Do you want him there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This is asinine. The first time Obama brought it up. HRC et all made it an issue that it was not yet law. It had passed the Senate and a comparable bill had passed the House, but it was still in conference. It has now passed.

The next Clinton point was that it was Reid's bill and she belittled Obama's contribution. Here's the NYT from when it passed:

"Given the reliance of many lawmakers on lobbyists as fund-raisers, the idea of requiring them to disclose their roles usually meets stiff resistance on Capitol Hill — all of it behind the scenes and almost none of it in public. House passage is far from assured, and its adoption by the Senate by a roll-call vote of 96 to 2 followed some backroom resistance among senators in both parties to allowing the idea to come up for a vote at all.

The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up. And on Jan. 12, before the details of the proposal had been disclosed, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of his party’s fund-raising as head of the senatorial campaign committee, used a run-in on the Senate floor to deliver an angry rebuke to the disclosure idea’s lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, several people present or briefed on the confrontation said.

In a subsequent conversation, Mr. Schumer said he worried that the proposal could cramp fund-raising by placing an undue burden on potential bundlers, said aides who were briefed and a lawmaker familiar with their talk, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.

“Senator Obama has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,” said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill. Mr. Obama also this week started a bid for his party’s presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the third attempt to diminish Obama's real accomplishment.

[TayTay]

1. Wow, nice work.

This is great stuff. I can't believe some people, they will do anything to attack.

[beachmom]

2. Great post, Karynnj! I mean, these attacks are pathetic!

[karynnj]

3. Thank you both

I posted it here as the Clinton people seem to spam with the same things - but I haven't seen this anywhere else yet. It is clear that she realizes that he has a significant piece of legislation - and did it when he was in Congress a little over 2 years. She really doesn't. She claims everything that she co-sponsored. (Like the Feingold amendment on the last defense bill, where her name was added shortly before the vote after it had been introduced by the Feingold referencing the other sponsors.)