Sign our letter for real reform

Add your name (4.00 / 1)

I urge others to also sign the petition.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 05:39:47 AM CDT

Pretty one sided to assume that somebody who normally does the right thing is in the pocket (0.00 / 0)

   I have to question why people would be suspicious of decent men and politicians like RockerFeller and ..................oh lets say Gov. Manchin because they listen to all sides?  

   That is very similar to how nutso the right wing is going solely  because President Obama shook Chavez's hand.  Or listened to a speech by Ortega at a summit without walking out.  

   Naturally the telecoms were told by the government officials wanting their cooperation that they would be in the clear.  They were told it was legal under the patriot act and needed for national security.   Had congress opened up the possibility for the tele coms to be sued by private individuals the law suits over the wire tapping would have been endless.  Expensive and cost us all money by way of rates hikes to defend and pay off if suits were lost and hundreds of million in taxes for the legal system needed to hear them all. Rockerfeller and the majority of law makers were right to hear the telecom companies out on the issue. .................  Since when did listening to people become so out of fashion in this nation?

   Since when did we go to guilty until proven innocent?

 Also the original post says President Obama didn't take lobbyists or Pac money...........  That simply is not true.

 http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...
  The lists of donors to all candidates can be found hundreds of places around the net .  The above link is only one.  And they all pretty much agree on who gave money to whom.

  For instance.

 Barack Obama
University of California  $1,385,675
Goldman Sachs  $980,945
Microsoft Corp  $806,299
Harvard University  $793,460
Google Inc  $790,564

John McCain
Merrill Lynch  $371,295
Citigroup Inc  $320,251
Morgan Stanley  $271,152
Goldman Sachs  $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co  $225,557

Ralph Nader
Farouk Systems  $9,200
YMCA  $6,900
University of South Carolina  $6,850
Falconwood Corp  $6,600
University of Massachusetts  $5,150

   So what is a lobbyist?   Harvard and U of C giving so much money away for nothing?  ............  I seriously doubt it.  

   Notice even Nadar got campaign funds from U of M.  

   I am all for a system of Public financing of campaigns. .................  But first and fore most facts are what counts. And until such a system is in place all political candidates will continue to have to take money from "lobbyists" Big Business and people with agenda's they push...............  Because money talks in politics.  Without money they get ran over and cannot be elected.

  I suspect next Presidential election we will still see the list of Obama donors be full of corporate interests.

  Doesn't mean he has to do anything unethical for them once in office.  

---

by: wvpeach @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:57:56 AM CDT

two things (0.00 / 0)

first the illegal wire tapping started in March 2001, before 9/11 and way before the PATRIOT Act. Richard B. Cheney was appalled by the change in the balance of power as a result of Watergate and the Church and Pike Commissions. They did it because they thought it was their right, not because it was allowed under a law that had not been passed yet. why do you think the telcos needed immunity?

second, the senior Senator from Illinois says the Senate is owned by the banks, hence the demise of court assisted mortgage restructuring. without a healthy economy for the people the banks will have no customers. the cost of advertising have turned politicians into whores. even Obama said durign the campaign that even he swims in the same muddy waters. but according to my memory and SourceWatch, he did not take federal lobbyist money or PAC money. lots of people who know the Cal yell, yes. Gr-rr-rah, Gr-rr-rah, Gr-r, r-r-r, r-r-rah!

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 12:40:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Berkley from your source watch (0.00 / 0)

Campaign contributions related to lobbyists
While not taking campaign contributions from federal lobbyists themselves, Obama has raised significant amounts from individuals related to lobbyists:

"While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital," Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.[10]
"Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform the capitol, Mr. Obama makes his policy clear in fund-raising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from 'federal lobbyists.' ... The Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there. Nor does the ban apply to corporations [note: contributions from the employees of corporations] that have major lobby operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in state capitals including Springfield, Ill., Tallahassee, Fla., and Sacramento, Calif., although some deal with national clients and issues," Morain wrote.[11]
"Obama accepts money from lobbyists' spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren't registered to lobby, senior executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year. The campaign says it is making a 'best effort' to stay away from tainted money," according to FactCheck.org following the April 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate.[12]
Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama "gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different ... But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists," Morain wrote.[13]

[edit]Lobbyist bundlers
The following, according to Public Citizen/WhiteHouseForSale,[14] have been identified by the Obama campaign as bundlers who are also lobbyists who contributed to Obama for America.

Frank M. Clark[15] is chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As an Obama bundler, Clark raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on January 26, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000.[16]
Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank wrote July 4, 2007, in the Dissident Voice.[17]
"Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator.

    Exactly what I said ................ if you look at who gave Obama huge amounts of money for his presidential bid you get a whole lot of corporate interests just like with any other politician.   Your own source states the same. ......................  $159,800 from Nuclear power plant employees..............  I would laugh at that but that is not funny.  Wonder if the money glowed in the dark?  

---

by: wvpeach @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 21:42:17 PM CDT

no (0.00 / 0)

you said lobbyists

Also the original post says President Obama didn't take lobbyists or Pac money...........  That simply is not true.

not individuals related to lobbyists

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 01:09:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's all about truth. You cannot win a battle of ideologies without being 100% truthful. (0.00 / 0)

    Same thing berkley................  If my son works at a coal company that does not want to be known for contributing ...................and he gives the money to me to contribute.............. same damn thing.

   Just saying..............  trying to claim President Obama stayed clear of corporate interest money just simply is not true.   ...............  he took plenty. Just in round about ways.............. so?  That does not change anything one bit.

  Trying to act like it does just add's fuel to right wing fires...........  Truth is important and it's the only way to win this battle.  Truth is what we must have.

  Now to say that president Obama does not consider giving him money to mean he is beholding to those corporate interests ...............  That would be a true statement.

   But to say he didn't take money from corporate interests is simply incorrect.

  Lobbyists ,PAC's corporate interests all the same darn thing............. the average citizen knows that................... and they also know their is a reason the Nuclear Power industry got Obama money through supposedly "" their employees" ............. Is they hope to see a lot of new public funding for building Nuclear plants.  

---

by: wvpeach @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 11:51:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Berkley I would be very interested to see some info about the illegal wire tapping starting in 2001. (0.00 / 0)

   I am a pretty big cspan watcher and I never heard about that.

  Any reliable info on wiretapping going on before the patriot act I would like to see.

  Got any?  

---

by: wvpeach @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 21:44:12 PM CDT

some links (0.00 / 0)

Here's a diary with some links you can follow for more info: FISA fight resumes; why telecoms are not patriotic

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 21:58:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

interesting tidbit (0.00 / 0)

Telco immunity act gives immunity for actions starting 9/11/01. (I checked when the act passed Senate, the specific date was in there then... I never bothered to check again after it was signed, though).

Something I've always wanted to ask Sen. Rockefeller (but haven't been in right setting to ask him) is if he would support investigations into alleged warrantless wiretapping activities prior to 9/11/01.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 22:08:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

qwest refused, remember? (0.00 / 0)

NSA Sought Data Before 9/11

Beginning in February 2001, almost seven months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government's top electronic eavesdropping organization, the National Security Agency, asked a major U.S. telecommunications carrier for information about its customers and the flow of electronic traffic across its network, according to sources familiar with the request. The carrier, Qwest Communications, refused, believing that the request was illegal unless accompanied by a court order.

Telecom amnesty would forever foreclose investigation of vital issues

Nacchio -- who was convicted earlier this year of insider trading for selling his Qwest shares with insider knowledge that the company was about to lose substantial value -- is attempting to prove that, at the time he sold his shares, he anticipated that Qwest would receive highly lucrative government contracts (for surveillance and other programs) that were being negotiated almost immediately upon Bush's inauguration in 2001 -- months before the 9/11 attacks (the bulk of those projects was ultimately awarded to AT&T, Verizon and others).

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 01:32:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Berkley you do know we have always had the right to wire tap with a court order? (0.00 / 0)

   It's done all the time.  The DEA does it trying to make drug cases..............  and the NSA does it.

  The difference is Bush and co tried to say they shouldn't have to get a court order ........... the nation should trust them to do what is right.

  LOL Obviously laughable ............ because as soon as Bush was out of office it became public that almost every major journalist in America was under wire tap surveillance. A dangerous to democracy action to have those unethical " trust me morons " undertake.   Journalists have to be free to do their job without worry of government involvement .  That is a fourth important safe guard to our democracy.

  But Berkley........... again just like saying president Obama didn't take money that was tied to corporate interests during his campaign................  that would be untrue.

  And you said warrantless wire tapping was going on before 911...............  Now ah ha! ............  bravo berkley you've solved the case............  Now we can prosecute them all.   Just as fast as we have proof they committed the crime of warrantless wire tapping prior to the patriot act being passed they all go to jail. ....................  But unfortunately for us all Berkley that is not what any of the sources you gave said. ..........  Asking about wire tapping and actually performing warrantless wire tapping before the patriot act are two entirely different legal concepts..........  IE One is legal and one is illegal.

   So unless you have some proof that they were actually wire tapping illegally without court orders before 911 it would be incorrect to say they were.

  And if there was proof of that berkley........... Congress and people like Olberman, Maddow and folks wanting justice would be all over that. ...........  They have asked the question.............  But no proof has surfaced.
  And if that has happened that truth would make it's way into the light of day sooner rather than later.  Such a operation would involve several people at the tele coms and the NSA............  Somebody would go rogue and tell and then they would be joined by another and then another.
  If it ever happened and I don't doubt it did.  It either happened in very small ways..........  Or it happened under legal channels prior to the patriot act. Other wise somebody will spill the beans.
   

---

by: wvpeach @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 12:21:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Remember the movie Catch-22? (4.00 / 1)

You can't prove we were secretly wiretapping you illegally because it is a secret, which is so many were outraged by the telco immunity. Only the private lawsuits were bringing to anything that would be your proof, and this was shut off, but only from 9/11 forward. Then state secrets was being used to shut out other information. In the Al-Haramain Islamic charity case, the defense was inadvertently given under regular disclosure papers that the government wanted back. Their win in court in February may open the door on warrantless wiretapping.

Pres. Obama, and I still like typing that so-oo much, talked about the broad use of the state secret at his presser Tuesday. Hooray! I hope Obama administration takes a look at the trend toward the overuse of classification. I have had clearance, but a government that thinks all its actions can be shielded from the public is dangerous to the republic. And monitoring journalists? Remind you of anyone?

Of course I understand about wiretaps WITH warrants. It was the Cheney/Bush administration that went around FISA, which Cheney hated like all other restrictions on the executive after Pike/Church/Watergate. Notice how I keep coming back to Richard B. Cheney's take on the power of Article II despite laws passed by Article I, and the existence of special Article III courts?

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 15:25:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NSA is a vacuum (0.00 / 0)

TIA
Echleon
Carnivore
No Such Agency
they don't get warrants
Re-read Jay Rocke's letter
and claim they look at the conversation with key words without identifying information
backtracking into who called who before the "bomb" word was uttered
guilt by association--who would be exempt?

Spying should be the preview of the State Department like it was when my mother-in-law and Julia Child worked for it. Intelligence collection necessary for the DOD is definitely needed. Turing the US intelligence apparatus into a tool for political vendetta, or commercial espionage for favored industries, cannot be tolerated.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 15:47:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

wvpeach - questions... (0.00 / 0)

So, you're unimpressed with what Obama did... makes me wonder how you feel about money in politics in general. Many of us think money has a very corrosive effect in politics. I can't tell if you agree with that or not.

Are you happy with the status quo in the role of money in politics?

Do you think it is a good thing that the financial services industry has so much more influence on bankruptcy-related legislation than consumer rights organizations?

Are you happy with the amount of time the people who represent you in Washington spend raising money for re-election?

Do you think we would be better or worse off if there was a higher turnover rate in Congress? Do you like the way lobbyist/PAC fund-raising ability protects incumbents from challengers?

(FWIW my answers are: unhappy, not a good thing, unhappy, better off, and don't like.) I found Obama's restrictions more than symbolic but less than ideal. I'd like to see more candidates and fund-raising operations follow his lead. It's a good first step towards even more meaningful changes.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 21:55:14 PM CDT

I believe I said I support public financing of all campaigns in my post. (0.00 / 0)

   To repeat I support public financing of all campaigns. ............ meaning no private money involved and they all get the same funds and we give them plenty of air time to plead their case for election.

  Supporting public financing means I am not happy with the fact money buys elections.

  As far as what Obama did.  I know and support why he did it.............  being the first black man with a actual shot at winning the presidency he had to pull out all ethical stops he could to win............  why not?

  Money and Politics are intertwined..............  Why should he take a principled stand on it at this point? ..................  It would have been like trying to run the race on one leg. So I understand what he did. Even support it. And believe president Obama is a ethical man............  Even after taking large contributions from folks like the Nuclear power people he stated unhesitatingly on the campaign trail that while he is for using Nuclear ............  That is contingent upon us finding some way to deal with the waste without it setting around being a danger for a 1000 years.............  Bravo!

  So the president has standards ............ something we have not had in a president since carter............  I am trilled it's a good time at last again to be a American .  And we have some hope things can be turned around.

  My point Clem is that you cannot win a battle of ideologies by letting the truth get sort of twisted..................  As soon as that truth twists the other side says ........ ah, hah .......... caught you!
  Just because right wing conservatives think twisting the truth and out right lying is the way it's done..............  doesn't mean progressives can do that and help their cause.

   The truth is of paramount importance.

  And the truth is there are plenty of ties to corporate and political agenda's that contributed to President Obama's campaign............   To say anything else is simply not the truth and add's fuel to the fire of the right wingers cause...........  ah, hah they lied about that, they say.  What else are they lying about?
  The key is not to lie at all and keep it all on the up and up so ones words can never be questioned.
 That is how to win this battle of ideologies...........  It will never be won if we get down in the mud and wallow with them.

  That was my point Clem.

   As for term limits I support them...........  More like a 16 year limit than what people commonly call for.   There is something to be said for experience after all and the common call to limit to 8 years would deprive us of a lot of experienced people that should be up in Congress working on the American peoples behalf.

  Besides if we could ever get public funding of campaigns passed..........  The politicians would only be answerable to their own constituents again.............  Thus the need for short term limits would be alleviated.

   

---

by: wvpeach @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 12:10:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]