Edwards Campaign: Clinton is Wrong on Lobbyists

During the Slate/Yahoo/Huffington Post debate today, Hillary Clinton once more defended Washington lobbyists with what seems to be verging on pride in taking money from them.

Well, I take from executives or people that work for them, just like I do from every part of the economy. And you know, I think it's a little inauthentic for people to say don't take money from lobbyists, but it's OK to take it from their spouses, their children, their associates, and from people that work for the companies that employ them. That is, you know, to me, kind of an artificial distinction.

It's not an "artificial distinction" to the Edwards campaign.

John Edwards' Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince today issued a strongly worded response to Clinton's assertions that there is nothing wrong with taking money from lobbyists.

"During the Slate/Yahoo/Huffington Post debate, which aired online today, Senator Clinton said the difference between lobbyists and regular Americans is an 'artificial distinction.' She is wrong. These lobbyists are legally required to register with the government to influence legislation. And, more than most, Senator Clinton should know that Washington is awash with campaign money from these lobbyists. It is wrong and it has to stop.

"Sometimes good people have been in Washington so long that they can't see what every American sees – the system in Washington has become corroded and corrupted and is failing the American people. By defending a broken system and lobbyists, Senator Clinton is defending the status quo and, knowingly or not, protecting those that have rigged the game.

"John Edwards believes it's time to end the game and be honest with the American people. It's time for us to have the strength to say no to Washington lobbyists' money so we can deliver the real change America deserves. That's why, once again, John Edwards renews his challenge to Senator Clinton to join with him in demanding the Democratic Party lead the way to real reform by refusing, as a party, to take campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

"In fact, for further explanation of the difference between lobbyists and regular Americans, see the DC Circuit decision on the Rumely Case* that said the following about lobbying: '...It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative process. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and danger. That is not an evil; that is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process...'"

* Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166 (D.C. Cir. 1952)

I agree with Jonathan Prince. For Clinton to say that lobbyists making legal bribes to politicians is essentially the same as citizens making political donations is patently absurd. Lobbyists are paid to represent certain interests in Washington, usually business interests, and since that is their job, they work on it single-mindedly and all the time. As Jonathan Prince points out, they also have to register with the government to do so, because they do have such extraordinary influence.

You and I can at best write letters to our representatives in Congress, or call them, once in a while in our busy lives. When we make political donations, it is not usually with the singular intent of influencing a politician on one issue, but more often just with the goal in mind of electing someone that at least sort of represents our many interests. Even if we work for a company that may wish to influence policy in a certain way, that does not necessarily mean that we agree with the interests of our company. Many of us don't even like our jobs, if we're lucky enough to have them.

To say that lobbyists are more effective than the average citizen at getting their way is a gross understatement. That is why John Edwards has repeatedly called for an end to the lobbyist game in Washington and a return of the government to the people.



Now, is there a problem with our current campaign finance system, where wealthy people can give $4600 to a candidate without batting an eye, while most people can barely afford to give a few bucks? Of course there is! That is why Edwards has also repeatedly called for public campaign financing. But, until we elect enough politicians like John Edwards that want to change the system, we have to live within the system we've got. If enough Washington politicians take the Edwards challenge and reject money from lobbyists, that would be a big step in the right direction.

Meanwhile, if you agree with Edwards that Washington is broken, help him compete by donating here.

Edwards Campaign More Than Doubles Donor Base in Q2

The Edwards campaign more than doubled its donor base in Q2, gaining approximately 70,000 donors this quarter, according to a conference call this afternoon with Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince and Senior Advisor Joe Trippi. At the end of Q1, their donor base stood at approximately 39,000 individual donors. They now have over 100,000 donors.

One of their major goals this time was to expand their fund-raising base. They did this with Small Change for Big Change events, and internet outreach, as well as traditional fund-raising methods.

Jonathan Prince said they need $40 million before the Iowa caucus. They are well over half way there. They raised comfortably over $9 million for this quarter, and $14 million last quarter.

Joe Trippi said they had over 4.7 million in total grassroots fundraising, which consists of Small Change for Big Change, online donations, and small donations.

They raised over 3.5 million online, which was more than last quarter.
80% of their contributions were $50 and under.

Small Change for Big Change brought in over 4000 donors.

Over 30% of the contributions came from states that Bush won in 2004.

Almost all of the money is for the primary. They don't have any cash on hand figures yet. They said it's been a great fund-raising quarter for Democrats, expanding the overall Democratic donor base for whoever gets the nomination, which they (and I) believe will be Edwards.

A question was asked about how much money was raised on Ann Coulter, and they said it was impossible to tell. The Ann Coulter controversy came up in the last week of the quarter, which is always big no matter what happens in that week. Also, since they had greatly expanded their donor base, this could also account for the big money raised in the last week of the quarter.

Some points made by the campaign: History bears out that we have all the money we need. This is not a money race. It's a race for the nomination. Howard Dean outraised every one last time, but still lost based on his loss in Iowa. In terms of fundraising, we are ahead of where Dean was in 2003. The nomination will be won or lost in the early states, where Edwards is doing very well.

Leslie Wayne from the New York Times, who recently smeared Edwards in a nasty front page article based on innuendo, asked perhaps the stupidest question I have ever heard on one of these conference calls, proving that she's not the brightest bulb in the box. Do they have an exact total?

The answer to this is that of course they don't, because checks are still coming in that were postmarked before the end of the quarter, and therefore will count toward the total. I'm not sure if it was Jonathan Prince or Joe Trippi that couldn't resist starting one sentence of his answer to her with something like "without having to go through it on his call for everyone who understands how the process works..."

Whether or not dim bulb reporters understand it, the Edwards campaign is right on target and has all the money he will need to get his message out.