This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 426: Congressional Politics at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
No Lobbyists Mr. Obama?
I find it kind of ironic that during his campaign President Obama pledged that he would not hire lobbyists of any kind to his administration. Congress should somehow call him on this and block the nominees, especially since Speaker Pelosi believes in a more "clean and ethical" government. Not even a month into his presidency and already possibly breaking promises??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(164)
-
▼
February
(55)
- Good Luck
- Senate Passes DC voting law
- Jindal Taken a Stand
- Taxation with representation?
- McCain: The Fiscal Responsible One On the Military?
- The new comeback kid? Congress.
- An insider's look at how Congress works
- Big Twitters
- Will the walls come tumbling down?
- Nationalize?
- DC House Voting Rights Act of 2009 might turn up a...
- Pelosi excommunicated?
- Only 31 days
- The (Ever) Powerful Ladies from Maine
- Palin Told to Pay Back Taxes
- Missouri Representative for Senate
- To Much Beer
- Gov. Spending and Unemployment
- Who Needs The Help?
- Pelosia vs Maineington.
- In ironic twist of fate, Cantor's wife to get stim...
- Aerosmith to House GOP: Don't Use Our Song
- The "Honorable" Senator from Illinois
- Stimulus hurts economy in long-run
- No Lobbyists Mr. Obama?
- Doyle warns of pain in budget proposal
- Lincoln ranked best president by historians
- Stimulus for Infrastructure?
- The Dirtiest Game of All: Politics
- Is Cantor the new Gingrich?
- Stimulus Bill is Official
- Justice Dept. Investigating Campaign Donations Fro...
- U.S. House set for final vote on stimulus
- Kohl and Feingold Help out Harley-Davidson
- Has precedent been set in confirmation hearings in...
- Because there weren't enough Caucuses Already...
- Is naysaying a good political strategy for the GOP?
- Krugman rips centrists
- Which Chamber WIll Gain the Upperhand?
- Fat and muscle
- GOP Sees Positives In Negative Stand
- What the centrists have wrought
- Senators not so optimistic about a bipartisan agre...
- Need Money? Ask China!
- Strange Bedfellows
- Judd Gregg's Senate Seat to be replaced by a Repub...
- Absentee Ballots Unlikely to Save Coleman
- Senate Lacks Votes to Pass Stimulus
- Al Franken is a Big Fat Republican Fundraising Tar...
- Sensenbrenner and Feingold wants change in the in ...
- Senate Panel Probing '04 Corporate Tax Break
- The effect of Daschle's past?
- Obama spends his capital in a hurry
- Sources: Sen. Judd Gregg Accepts Commerce Secretar...
- Southwest border fence nears completion; about one...
-
▼
February
(55)
1 comment:
Indeed a tricky situation. After President Obama signed the pledge precluding an appointee from participating “in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment” or accepting “employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the two years before the date of my appointment" it has been interesting to see who has been nominated.
Interestingly enough, the appointees in question have not been lobbying prior to the two year deadline. One such nominee had a waiver signed to allow him to work for the Treasury Department, but others are mostly in the clear. Such nominees as for HHS have stated that they will recuse themselves from any action pertaining to the work they had experienced in the past.
Washington is a tough place to find people who have no lobbied in the past. The only possible "clean slate" professionals would either be congressmen (and we have seen the political circus after taking people out of Congress) or academia. That was one theory that was floated around prior to Obama taking office; that he will fill his administration with academics from around the country who are experts in their field. However, these very academic scholars who would have the knowledge would lack the experience.
It was a bit different during the campaign, when Obama had zero lobbyists running his campaign, while McCain had half a dozen (including his campaign manager and chief economic advisor.) So, are we better off than we would have been? Most likely.
Post a Comment