BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests
July 16, 2007 8:00 AM
Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.
In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who "have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."
"It's an entire culture in Washington -- some of it legal, some of it not," the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.
But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm's U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.
Nufarm wasn't the only beneficiary of Obama's efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.
The lobbyists' task? "Introduce legislation to temporarily suspend customs duties for the importation of a pharmaceutical ingredient," they wrote on their lobbying forms. Less than three weeks later, the men had earned their $20,000 fee, thanks to Obama. On May 26, he introduced S. 3155, a bill specifically exempting Astellas' key ingredient from tariff payments. The bill cost the federal government more than $1 million in lost revenue, according to government estimates.
Together, Obama's obscure measures -- known as tariff suspensions -- steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers, according to government estimates.
A spokesman for the senator defended Obama's efforts on behalf of the two firms.
"Sen. Obama helped his constituents obtain foreign products necessary for their business at an affordable rate," said Ben LaBolt, noting that Obama made sure all the products "met strong environmental standards" before pushing to make it cheaper to import them.
While legal, Obama's bills on behalf of Nufarm and other companies are part of the special treatment machine Washington rolls out for special interests, say good-government watchdogs.
"If you have a company...there's a whole factory set up to help you get these suspensions," said Steve Ellis, president of the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's a pay-to-play system you have to rev up and work." Hire the right lobbyist, pay the right fee, and you can save millions, he explained.
In Nufarm's case, Obama's staff met with a lawyer representing the company, Joel Junker, in person and on the phone several times, Junker told ABC News. Junker says he worked with Obama's staff to craft the nine bills and keep them moving forward.
"To the extent [the legislation] needs a little shepherding, you work with their staff, to be aware of the status, and work with the committee staff," he said, and spoke highly of Obama's staff. "Everything was very professional, very constituent-service oriented."
Unlike Astella's representatives, Junker did not register to lobby on behalf of Nufarm and did not disclose his fees. In an interview, Junker declined to say whether he believed his work could be considered "lobbying."
Obama's office said its staffers met once with Junker and once with the Astellas lobbyists, but it did not know how often the senator's staffers spoke with Junker or the Astellas lobbyists by phone. Astellas did not respond to a request for comment on this story. Nufarm Americas' marketing director, Tim Stoehr, confirmed his company had requested several tariff suspensions, including on products it "bought" from other Nufarm subsidiaries overseas.
A review of campaign finance records turned up no record of contributions from Nufarm to Obama. Astellas Pharma employees gave $1,100 to Obama's campaign in recent months, the documents show.
Junker defended tariff suspensions as good for American businesses. The high fees are charged to protect American manufacturers from being undercut by cheap imports, argued the former U.S. trade official. If no U.S. firm makes a particular item, the cost only hurts a company which needs to buy it overseas.
"It's nothing to be embarrassed, ashamed or suspicious of," he said.
In letters to Congress supporting Obama's measures, Junker justified the breaks for Nufarm to import a chemical known as 2,4 D and other ingredients by claiming they would "eliminate these unnecessary and avoidable...costs to [Nufarm's] consumers."
In a statement to ABC News defending the measures, Obama's spokesman echoed Junker's argument.
"Just like he fought for funding to ensure Chicago's transit system remains affordable and to invest in ethanol research, Senator Obama helped keep costs low for Illinois residents by helping them get the goods they need to do their jobs," Ben LaBolt wrote.
But the company's financial reports indicate that may not be the case. In a glowing financial report issued just two months after Obama introduced Nufarm's numerous tariff-lifting bills, Nufarm told its shareholders it was making more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers.
Nufarm saw "strong revenue growth" in North America, it said in a July 31, 2006, company report. "Net profit was also up strongly," driven in part by "price rises on key products," it said. Nufarm trades on the Australian Stock Exchange.
When asked about the company's contrasting statements, Nufarm America's Stoehr told ABC News the financial report wasn't accurate.
"I don't know if I believe that," he said. "A lot of that is a little more hype." If the company had increased its prices, said Stoehr, it was only because its costs had "skyrocketed." "Our profit remained steady," said the executive.
In particular, "price rises on phenoxy herbicides," a family which includes 2,4 D, "improved the profitability of those products, despite no significant increase in sales volumes."
Economics aside, some medical researchers also harbor concerns over 2,4 D. Studies have purported to find a link between high exposure to the chemical and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of cancer. Defenders of the chemical say it is safe, and note that even scientists who believe a link exists cannot explain how the chemical may cause the cancer.
With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic. Sen. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., has introduced none, although she has co-sponsored 19 that were introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Seven were to benefit the Honeywell Corporation, whose lobbyist has contributed $6,500 to Clinton since 2005. Sen. Joseph Biden, Del., has introduced none.
Only one other 2008 presidential hopeful has introduced more tariff suspension bills than Obama. Longshot GOP candidate Sen. Sam Brownback, Kan., introduced 30 such measures in the 109th Congress. Fellow dark horse candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced one in 2001; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. have introduced none.
Some say the tariff suspension process isn't how Washington should operate.
"We all saw 'Schoolhouse Rock' and learned how Washington is supposed to work," Taxpayers for Common Sense president Steve Ellis told the Blotter on ABCNews.com. "There's no 'Schoolhouse Rock' episode on tariff suspensions."
In his speeches, Sen. Obama seems to agree.
"We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American," the candidate said in his June speech. "That's the kind of president I intend to be."
Mansi Mehan contributed to this report.
This post has been updated.
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
July 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (72)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Nothing is what it seems no matter what you are speaking about.
If we went and looked into everything that everyones does there would not be any leaders anywhere.
The thing is if all these people that are going for president would just tell the entire truth about everything that they did wrong or right there we be nothing that would be a surprise. But they will not so someone found out and now he has egg all over his face.
Posted by: Carol R Hill | Jul 16, 2007 9:55:17 AM
As it seems as if Obama is NOT taking contributions or kickbacks from these companies, I see this as nothing more than an elected representative trying to do what he has been elected to do....that is, do the best for the constituents of his district.
Now, if he only introduced these bills to receive campaign contributions, then there is a corruption problem. Obama does not accept funding from these companies, nor from any lobbyist. He therefore does not owe them anything...unlike Hillary and her pharma-contributors.
Posted by: Dan | Jul 16, 2007 10:09:19 AM
Mama Mia!
Posted by: dumbshun | Jul 16, 2007 10:14:53 AM
As I recall, Obama has made all of his earmarks public. I think he has challenged Clinton to do the same, but I don't think she has. Picking on Obama for this one type of earmark (tarif suspensions) seems unfair and politically motivated. Why not talk about earmarks in general? I think on that count, Obama looks a lot better than Clinton.
Posted by: matt | Jul 16, 2007 10:27:57 AM
Never been a mystery to me. Obama likes you to be ignorant of what he really does. As far as a slick politician, he's about as slick as they get. C'mon people, he's not whom you think he is. I live in the state that he came from. He's not done a darn thing, done anything original except to spew out one-liner, greeting card statements. He has no experience except how to pander. Don't vote for him out of guilt.
Posted by: Bill | Jul 16, 2007 10:36:10 AM
Obama and Hilary are phony's, Democrats haven't done a thing since they took power, except fight to crucify republicans, nothing for the will of the people.....Fred Thompson...2008
Posted by: Freddie | Jul 16, 2007 10:40:55 AM
Hypocrisy in our government. How unique. Not. They're ALL out of control. Don't care the party. Business rules. Always.
Posted by: Sandra | Jul 16, 2007 10:47:55 AM
Obama is just another liberal hypocrite whose motto, like all of the others is: "Do as I say, not as I do". (are you listening Al Gore and RFK2?)
Posted by: Paul Joseph | Jul 16, 2007 11:20:28 AM
Obama is a lot better than Clinton under any circumstance. Do we need another Clinton? All that Hillary wants to do for the American people is to have national health card and be the first white woman to be President.
Posted by: Boyddollar | Jul 16, 2007 11:21:48 AM
so, its abc who will start the democrat-on-democrat mudslinging. well played.
Posted by: tev | Jul 16, 2007 11:34:44 AM
Obama is a lot better than Clinton under any circumstance. Do we need another Clinton? All that Hillary wants to do for the American people is to have national health care and be the first white woman to be President.
Posted by: Boyddollar | Jul 16, 2007 11:38:22 AM
Forget this article!!!!
Notice the sublimina message I feel ABC NEWS is trying to portray with Obama photo right over Osama's photo to the left of this page. And just look at all the terrorist photos together with senator Obama..........You editors and writers at ABC NEWS need to check yourselves concerning this.......I am not hoodwinked by this foolishness.....
Posted by: Tony | Jul 16, 2007 11:42:52 AM
Umm read the whole story. What he did was to reduce tariff and import duties on pharmaceutical. The things your grandma is complaining about taking all of her social security check. It seems it would help more seniors and people needing drugs than the lobbyist. Sometimes doing the right thing is spun by the media to look bad. Then covered up with paragraphs of other crap that is not relevant to the subject at hand. This is a case and point.
Yet so many commented on how bad he is, and just like the rest of the people. Don't be fooled by Headlines - get more than just the gist of an article. To ME - That is representing the PEOPLE by saving them excessive costs that other govt agencies put on them (meds) - by other lobbyists that want to block competitive prices on medicine by Big Med Comps.
Posted by: Mayosoft | Jul 16, 2007 11:55:29 AM
You are all missing the point entirely. Unlike the rest of the candidates, Obama has hinged his entire campaign on being different. That's it. He has no policy, no experience, he has nothing, besides that he is a different kind of a politician. Clearly, he is no different. His rhetoric doesn't match his actions, and all of you defend him, by saying it happens to everyone. True, but not everyone claims to be the one that is different. If Obama is like the rest of him, then frankly there is no reason to vote for him, because his being different is his entire campaign.
Posted by: Mike Volpe | Jul 16, 2007 12:02:35 PM
This report has blown up a rather small assist to a constituent company. It would be fairer to pass judgment having taken all the candidates' earmarks, compare them to see who benefited and for how much, and then see what they contributed to each campaign. Of course, you would first have to get the other candidates to release their earmark information, which Obama has already done.
Posted by: wizinit | Jul 16, 2007 12:05:46 PM
I still love him
Posted by: Seaslew | Jul 16, 2007 12:09:46 PM
I don't feel that there's corruption of any sort involved in this. I do believe:
~ Obama is more concerned with shortsighted benefits to his local constituents than longterm stability for the US.
~ Obama is a Globalist and favors helping other countries - - over the US when it comes to trade.
Posted by: jonolan | Jul 16, 2007 12:14:24 PM
Mayosoft: Leave grandma and grandpa out of this. Obama did all of that, the pharmaceuticals has a huge lobbing infrastructure they have screw grandma and grandpa for years. Hillary has about as much experience as Slick Willy did.
Posted by: Boyddollar | Jul 16, 2007 12:19:38 PM
This article is just an attempt to smear another Democrat candidate. ABC is unfriendly to Democrats in general and it irritates me greatly. They are trying to compete with Fox by insinuating Obama is up to his eyeballs in corruption even though he hasn't received any contributions from the company involved. Actually, it is the Republicans who hold a corner on the hypocrisy market!
Posted by: two-cats | Jul 16, 2007 12:27:40 PM
This is so typical of politicians. They say one thing, and do entirely another. Problem is....the same thing will happen if he gets elected.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Jul 16, 2007 12:28:36 PM
Post a comment
