RECENT POSTS
- Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/23/2009
- Obama Calls for Annual Science Fair: Achievement Should be Recognized like NCAA Championship Win
- Obama Decision on Copenhagen Summit Attendance “In the Coming Days”
- Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. Court
- President Obama Calls 9th War Council Meeting for Tonight
- Health Care Hurdles
- The Presidential Planner
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
President's Nominee for Trade Rep, a Lobbyist in 2008, to Take Advantage of Loophole in Anti-Lobbyist Regs
February 21, 2009 5:55 PM
On first blush, Ron Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas and President Obama's nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, could seem as though he has an enormous impediment standing in his way to the Cabinet: President Obama's high standards against lobbyists in his Cabinet.
As recently as last year, Kirk was a lobbyist for investment bank Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and President Obama has said no one can work in his administration on issues they lobbied on in the previous two years.
Given the vast array of issues the trade representative deals with, and the vast array of Merrill Lynch holdings, such a scenario seems potentially quite problematic.
But here's the quirk for Kirk: He was a lobbyist in Austin, Texas. Not in Washington, D.C.
And that allows Kirk to easily avoid the requirements of President Obama's'anti-lobbyist ethics rules, which apply only to federal lobbyists.
To be sure, President Obama's ethics and anti-lobbyist rules go farther than any of his predecessors'. Indeed, some agencies and departments have had trouble getting fully staffed because of the rules and regulations. A vast majority of Obama administration officials have never lobbied for anything or anyone, and good government groups largely give the president good marks for the steps he has taken.
But though the president at his most precise has railed against former "federally registered lobbyists" running his administration, at other times he has not been so precise, and his language on the matter at times may have given many Americans the impression that state and local lobbyists -- who in many instances bring the same baggage as federal lobbyists -- would be kept from working in his administration as well.
Last year, Merrill Lynch paid Kirk up to $49.999.99 for lobbying (Texas Ethics Commission laws only require reporting on an income range) while the law and lobbying firm Vinson & Elkins LLP paid Kirk between $50,000 and $99,999.99.
Kirk in 2007 made $745,765.01 for lobbying on behalf of the Fort Worth-based Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership, a private equity firm that bought TXU Corp. Combined, both Energy Future Holdings Corp. and TXU paid Kirk an additional figure totalling somewhere between $200,000 and $299,999.98 that year as well, according to documents filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.
Ethics Commission records also indicate that Merrill Lynch paid Kirk between $25,000 and $49,999.99 that same year.
Merrill Lynch also paid Kirk between $25,000 and $49.999.99 in 2006. Vinson & Elkins paid him between $50,000 and $99,999.99
"Ron Kirk has never been a registered federal lobbyist," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told ABC News. "While he does not expect to encounter matters specifically relating to Merrill Lynch at USTR, Mr. Kirk will of course follow the administration's ethics rules for former clients which require that he recuse himself from certain matters in which Merrill Lynch is a party for a period of two years."
In one of his first acts as president, Mr. Obama announced "firm rules of the road for my administration and all who serve in it ... We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave."
The Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel requires that lobbyists who become members of the Obama administration will not be able to work on matters they lobbied on for two years, or work in the agencies they lobbied during the previous two years. Anyone who leaves the Obama administration will not be able to lobby his administration. The orders also instituted a ban on gifts by lobbyists to members of the administration.
But the president has allowed exceptions to his anti-lobbying rules:
* Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn, a lobbyist as recently as last September for Raytheon, was granted a waiver, and said he would recuse himself from issues pertaining to Raytheon for one year.
* Treasury Department chief of staff Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, wrote a letter affirming that he would recuse himself from relevant issues.
* Health and Human Services deputy Secretary-designate Bill Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, has done the same.
* Likely HHS chief of staff Mark Childress, a partner at the law and lobbying firm Foley Hoag, represented the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and PanFlu. The Obama administration says Childress will recuse himself "from matters and specific issues he worked on while employed at Foley Hoag.”
The Obama administration has so far refused to provide ABC News with copies of the recusal letters, or precise information about how many former lobbyists now in the Obama administration have written such letters, a request made more than two weeks ago and several times since then.
- jpt
UPDATE: "How precisely is it a loophole when we never pledged to bar state lobbyists?" a Democratic official asks.
A legitimate question.
I would say it's a loophole from the president's original language on this, like for instance, in November 2007: "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race -- and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."
I don't see any distinction between federal and local lobbyists there, and certainly President Obama has retreated quite a bit from that pledge not to hire any lobbyists at all.
But more to the point, if Mr. Obama only pledged in January to restrict the hiring of former federal lobbyists, but not state lobbyists, can that be construed as a loophole?
I think it can, especially when one compares the language the president used last month -- when he said, "We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave."
But what say you? Is it not fair to call this a "loophole"?
February 21, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (75)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Maybe our esteemed White House correspondent can actually drop that continous "gotcha" trail on Lobbyists...Having watched the campaign, I remember Obama making a distinction between "state" and "federal" lobbyist, pretty clear...Only in the gotcha world does this point to a "loophole"...Hey. I've got an idea for "good media"...Let's get rid of all of the snarky "reporters" who look for nonsense to blow up..Gee Jake, do you think YOU would make the "good media" cut??...How about the "Entertainment tonight media" cut??
Posted by: TruthHurts | Feb 23, 2009 9:24:40 PM
The concept of a democrat official challenging the use of the word loophole when referring to an energy industry lobbyist at 6pm on a Saturday evening post is frightening
Posted by: smith | Feb 23, 2009 12:38:20 PM
Let's just watch this guy closely, keep track of what he does and nail him at the first opportunity for a serious breach.
Personally, I consider it a *high crime* to employ an admitted tax "forgetter" as (of all things) Treasury secretary, but that's just me.
Posted by: tanarg | Feb 23, 2009 3:00:26 AM
Obama gives new meaning to the words, "Words, words, words".
You know as soon as he finishes a pronouncement, he'll break it the next day. He seems to think we're hypnotized to the point of believing whatever nonsense he says.
The man is entirely unethical. I bet a 787 billion dollars, when he signed on the dotted line to Nancy Pelosi that he is a natural born citizen, he is not. Why do I think this? Take a guess. He said there were no earmarks in his stimulus plan too.
Incidently, he also told a reporter he did not have a Blackberry phone on him when suddenly it rang inside his jacket pocket.
Posted by: Der Kempt | Feb 23, 2009 2:12:58 AM
Softballs,
"Common sense: I don't listen to Hannity. I don't listen to Rush. I make up my own mind... Take a deep breath... Mr. Hannity isn't going to get you. "
Mr. Hannity got millions of others who invested in Stanford's ponzi scheme. I would never follow his advice on anything financial or political, so I'm immune to his scams. Hannity/Limbaugh will tell you how to think and respond next week once they post their talking points. Looking forward to good laugh yet again...
Posted by: Common Sense | Feb 22, 2009 8:53:55 PM
Common sense: I don't listen to Hannity. I don't listen to Rush. I make up my own mind.
I hope anyone who breaks the law gets caught, including businessmen and politicians like former Governor Blago, and then, I hope they get sentenced to a fair and just punishment. Meh...
It isn't healthy to obsess about people. Take a deep breath... Mr. Hannity isn't going to get you.
You still can't admint that 80% or more of the press was in the tank for Obama.
Posted by: Softballs | Feb 22, 2009 6:24:57 PM
Where is this story Jake?
Next up for confirmation trouble, nominee for Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
The Senate seems to have back burnered this confirmation until the heat dies down . (and you know why)
Posted by: rednorth | Feb 22, 2009 3:55:42 PM
I like and know Ron Kirk personally, but while he is talking to you, he is looking elsewhere to see if someone more important is about to enter. He is a politican, first and foremost, and he will do whatever it takes = and I do mean whatever it takes - to get ahead in this life. He is a decent man, but that is all you can say for him.
Posted by: Jane | Feb 22, 2009 12:59:54 PM
wow, i am so confident that our President is abiding by his words... "No Lobbyist will work for my administration"....
the difference between Bush and Obama, Bush never made a big public speech about transparency and then went agaisnt his own words.
Posted by: PA | Feb 22, 2009 11:49:23 AM
Softballs,
Hannity suggests you invest with Allen Stanford (currently ceased by the Feds for fraud and ponzi). Wonder if he got a commission or if it was only payment up front for advertising.
Posted by: Common Sense | Feb 22, 2009 11:08:06 AM
Isn't it fun to watch the Obama worshippers try to justify all of his broken promises?
He tosses them a bone every now and then and they are happy until he breaks the next promise.
Posted by: riley | Feb 22, 2009 11:07:38 AM
Obama--high standards, ethics?
Hee heee heeee
Posted by: tyler | Feb 22, 2009 11:01:36 AM
Here's what lobbyists do. They advocate rules to protect/shield/favor a group they represent. For example, under the Bush administration of Goldman Sachs' former employees, the hedge fund managers managed to get all rules regarding investment suspended or made inapplicable to them.
Apparently, Bush's large hedge-fund friends at Goldman Sachs are the biggest recipients of the reduced tax on capital gains. Goldman Sachs (Bush appointed Hank Paulson's former employer) is number 5 on the list of largest hedge fund managers.
Under Bush, those people's hundreds of millions dollar incomes were not taxed like ordinary citizens incomes. Why? Because Bush and Paulson allowed them to claim their ordinary income as capital gains!
Also note that hedge fund managers are exempt from the short-selling rules that crushed all the companies Americans made sound investments into. That is the reason hedge fund managers/short-seller create rumors to crash markets. They are exempted from what Bush-appointed former SEC chairman Chris Cox was supposedly protecting investors from -- short selling! Short-selling goes hand in hand with rumor-mongering and spreading fear. (Why did Republican Graham decide to proclaim that U.S. banks would be nationalized last week just as the banks values were rebounding?!)
The republican administration's tax-breaks for the billionaires that stole our money is over! We're taking back those windfall profits Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Bush cronies stole from us by using politicians to spread short-selling rumors!
Fairness is returning under the Obama administration and I applaud it! I welcome it!
In the words of Sean Hannity, "true Americans" should invest in Allen Stanford's multi-billion $ scam. Sean Hannity is a lobbyist for the thieving republicans disguised as a "true American".
Posted by: Common Sense | Feb 22, 2009 10:56:59 AM
The problem with the Democratic official's argument is, if there truly was no pledge to keep out state lobbyists (which is disputable), why not?
There is no practical difference between what state and federal lobbyists do- they try to influence legislation on behalf of paying clients. So if they are bad as a group, then they are both bad.
The silly thing is, they aren't bad. There was no reason for Candidate Obama to try to create a class of evil people called lobbyists or Federal Lobbyists.
If they are smart and and have something to offer, what makes them different than an attorney or someone in a private industry when it comes to offering them jobs in an administration?
Nothing.
Posted by: MayBee | Feb 22, 2009 10:21:59 AM
"I think a worse disservice to the American public is to have 'news' reported by entertainers."
I agree. There is no place for a "reporter" to say they have a thrill going up their leg for a candidate nor should a "reporter" state that his "job is to help make Obama’s Presidency a success".
At least be honest that the mostly Democratic newsrooms are slanted more towards Obama than against.
The press is erring towards complicity and advocacy with the Obama administration, compared to the antagonistic approach they took towards the Bush administration.
Neither is correct. The truth needs to be reported about all administrations and not be thrown through the prism of the reporter's personal beliefs and predjudices.
Lawyers are still a major problem in politics. Watch the juicy bones that are going to be thrown to trial lawyers in this administration. AG Holder is already tipping his hand with his "Americans are cowards" speech.
Posted by: Softballs | Feb 22, 2009 10:08:38 AM
Of course, it is a loophole.
Mr. Obama took tons and tons of money from lobbyists during the election.... Yes, state lobbyist, law firms working for lobbyist, spouses and relatives of federal lobbyists, etc etc etc.
Frankly, I think the pretense that there is a "distinction" is an insult to everyone's intelligence...
Posted by: Rod | Feb 22, 2009 9:59:28 AM
"I think a worse disservice to the American public is to have "news" reported by entertainers".....Hannity, Rush, etc. don't purport to be news programs. They are opinion shows. Don't listen if you don't like them, but don't misrepresent them as something they are not.
Posted by: Sigmonde | Feb 22, 2009 9:56:06 AM
RhetoricalMud:
/-----
We need to stop electing lawyers to public office. They are trained to use deception - from outright lies, to little "white" lies and hyperbole, to misdirection and evasion, to equivocation and ambiguity, to concealment and omission of relevant information.
-----/
I think a worse disservice to the American public is to have "news" reported by entertainers. ABC News' Hannity promoted the Stanford fraud as a paid entertainer on his "news" show. What a nightmare relying on the news has become. No credibility left whatsoever!
Posted by: Common Sense | Feb 22, 2009 9:43:19 AM
We need to stop electing lawyers to public office. They are trained to use deception - from outright lies, to little "white" lies and hyperbole, to misdirection and evasion, to equivocation and ambiguity, to concealment and omission of relevant information.
Basically, they are taught in the art of espousing rhetoric that is clear as mud.
Lying to me is bad, but I can consent to deceiving others for noble purposes, as artfully decided by myself.
Posted by: RhetoricalMud | Feb 22, 2009 9:37:45 AM
The fact is you are all arguing the wrong idea.
I don't care if a person was a lobbyist at the local, state or federal level. Lobbyists are paid to push a specific point of view, This does not neccessarily mean it is the point of view they agree with personnally, it simply is the point of view they can get paid for pushing. The vast majority of these people will be returning to their lobbyist jobs when their term with the current administration is over. So do you think for a moment that they will do anything (or nothing, in the case of recusals.) that could risk their future money making ability? Even if they "recuse" themselves from certain issues, don't think for a second that the person put in charge of those issues will go against the wishes of their bosses.
Pull your heads out people, no matter what side of the aisle you stand on lobbyists are going to do WHATEVER will make them the most money in the future, and if you think anything other than that you deserve to be subjugated by the governments you put in place.
The thing I find most interesting is that all you "intelligent" people don't reaize that their are hundreds or possibly thousands of people in this country that are at least as qualified to hold those jobs as these lobbyists that are getting them. Why don't administrations step outsde te political arena and find people who work for a living rather than talk for a living to fill these jobs? Maybe then things would really be different in Washington.
Posted by: Brad | Feb 22, 2009 9:30:44 AM
Post a comment
