I don't think the Morrissey post meets any kind of journalistic standard for objectivity. I'm not sure it even rises above the "smear" category.
If we are going to start insisting on objectivity from bloggers, the blogosphere is dead. Bridge Player should have placed paragraphs two through six in italics as they were direct quotes from the Newsday article. The last two paragraphs are clearly editorial in nature and not out of the ordinary for a political blog. It seems a bit extreme to call the post a "smear."
One of the points of the Newsday article is that a lot of Obama's funds (however they are labeled) are coming from sources that fall under the heading of "politics as usual." The article is probably more critical than the blog because it contains more detail. The original article:
Obama draws fine line between lobbyist, lawyer donors
BY TOM BRUNE
tom.brune@newsday.com
11:56 PM EDT, April 12, 2008
WASHINGTON
Last fall, Barack Obama quietly slipped into the Miami headquarters of a major law firm scarred by the scandals of Jack Abramoff, its once-powerful Washington lobbyist who now sits in jail.
Arriving a little after 10 a.m. on Oct. 1, Obama spent the next three hours schmoozing, speaking in a video conference to branch offices and raising money at Greenberg Traurig, a billion-dollar firm with one of the biggest lobby shops here.
Obama has now raised about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees -- nearly half of it at the time of the event -- more than from any of the other top law and lobby firms.
Symbolically, it was a starkly contradictory event: an appearance by the candidate who crusades most adamantly against lobbyists at the onetime firm of the poster child for out-of-control influence peddling.
Public anger over the Abramoff lobbying scandal led Obama to institute the ban on lobbyist money in the first place, an aide said last year.
Realistically, it shows the fine line Obama draws when he says he does not accept money from lobbyists and political action committees, while raising a stunning $200-plus million overall.
Taking funds from lawyers but not lobbyists -- the distinction Obama draws -- is "hair splitting," according to League of Women Voters president Mary Wilson.
"It has huge symbolic value to take the no-PAC pledge and reject lobbying money, particularly for a campaign that presents itself as populist," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics.
But she added, "When you dig deeper, the interests that finance the Obama campaign are much the same as the others."
Setting a higher bar
Obama, say Krumholz and other analysts, also has opened himself to added scrutiny by saying he sets the bar higher on ethics in campaign finance.
Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, co-sponsor of campaign finance reform laws, faces similar scrutiny. He's been criticized for relying on lobbyists to run his campaign.
McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton also had Greenberg Traurig events, but they accept lobbyist and PAC money, saying it won't sway them.
Obama aides defend his stand against lobbyist funds.
"This policy isn't a perfect solution to the problem of money and politics and special-interest sway in Washington," spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsday. "But it is an important symbol of the kind of administration that Obama will have in the White House."
Now Obama finds himself with a tough decision: whether to submit to public financing in the fall election if he is the nominee, limiting him to $85 million.
McCain, unable to match Obama's fundraising, has indicated he may opt for the public money and is challenging Obama to live up to a promise both made last year to do so.
Campaign-reform advocates say a publicly financed election is the only way to restrict special-interest money. They applaud Obama's ethics record in Illinois and Congress, but say if he opts out of public funding, they'll be very disappointed.
A surprising fundraiser
Krumholz said she can see how some people might find Obama's Greenberg Traurig fundraiser a bit jarring, given the firm's past tie to Abramoff.
"It seems like a questionable choice for Obama to have participated in that kind of event," she said. "On the other hand, Greenberg Traurig, like most law firms, is reliably Democratic in campaign contributions."
Abramoff, once a top GOP lobbyist, pleaded guilty in 2006 to federal charges including fraud and conspiracy to bribe public officials after scandals that included bilking Indian tribes of millions and gifts of trips, meals and money to officials. He is in federal prison.
Abramoff left Greenberg Traurig four years ago, after his scandals came to light, the firm said. It cooperated in the ensuing investigations.
Obama aides bristle at questions about the event at Greenberg Traurig, saying it was just another private fundraiser. "To link an attorney there to the unethical and illegal actions of Jack Abramoff simply because they worked at the same firm," LaBolt said, "is ridiculous."
The firm itself does not endorse or fund candidates, but its lawyers do: They held fundraisers for not only Obama, but also for McCain and Clinton.
McCain, who chaired the Senate probe of Abramoff, held two events, one in the firm's New York office, another in Miami. He paid $1,544 rental fees and has raised $138,000 from firm employees, his filings show. Clinton held an event at a partner's home, the firm said, and her filings show she has raised $139,000 from those at Greenberg Traurig.
Unlike McCain and Clinton, Obama draws a line between lawyer advocates and lawyer lobbyists, taking money from advocates but not lobbyists.
"It's kind of a distinction without a difference," Krumholz said. "As an industry geared for hire, both lawyers and lobbyists represent a special arena of influence in Washington."
Not all lawyers who influence government or advise others how to do it register as federal lobbyists, she said. And lawyers and partners in firms that also lobby benefit from the profits of lobbying work, and the access for their firm.
Biggest contributors
The Center for Responsive Politics found lawyers and lobbyists give more than any other sector. So far, they have contributed $15.7 million to Clinton, $13.8 million to Obama and $4.2 million to McCain.
Identifiable lobbyists are relatively few, so giving up money from them and political action committees, as Obama has, is an "easy sacrifice," she said.
Lobbyists gave Clinton $865,290, a half of 1 percent of the $169 million she has raised, the center found. McCain's $590,952 from lobbyists is 1 percent of his nearly $65 million.
The center said lobbyists gave Obama $115,163. His aides said he returns lobbyist funds.
Obama's event at Greenberg Traurig's Miami offices included a reception with local Jewish leaders, his schedule shows. Then he mingled with the firm's employees, posed for photos and spoke for about half an hour in a video conference.
Obama paid the firm $2,866 in rental fees, records show.
Obama's invitation for the fundraiser stated he doesn't accept money from "currently registered federal lobbyists, registered foreign agents, political action committees, or minors under the age of 16."
His filings show he was true to his word, though one donor was registered as a Washington lobbyist, in 2004.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
newsday.com |
