Monday, April 16, 2012

Oops, Part Two

Lookee here:

Per a senior Dem: “Serious Dem operatives are aghast at Hilary Rosen’s misguided attack on Ann Romney’s work history. She and others at PR firm SKD Knickerbocker have represented many clients that have raised hackles with senior White House staff. It’s an open secret in the Dem consultant community that SKD has been signing up clients based on ‘perceived White House access’ tied to prior relationships and employment.”

As we’ve reported, SKDKnickerbocker is led by a team of former Democratic operatives and key White House figures. But instead of promoting a progressive agenda, or even an Obama agenda, these consultants score huge contracts by helping corporate interests lobby for policies that are not in line with the public interest. Many SKDKnickerbocker employees, including Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director, are also frequent White House visitors.

And that, n.b., is from The Nation. More at the link.

But that's not all:

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”

Mr. Kennedy visited the White House several times to win support for One Mind for Research, his initiative to help develop new treatments for brain disorders. While his family name and connections are clearly influential, he said, he knows White House officials are busy. And as a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said he was keenly aware of the political realities they face.

“I know that they look at the reports,” he said, referring to records of campaign donations. “They’re my friends anyway, but it won’t hurt when I ask them for a favor if they don’t see me as a slouch.”

There's a lot more at that second link.

So should we be outrageously outraged about this sort of thing? You can be if you choose to, but for me, the bottom line is this:  the issue isn't that lobbyists get in the door of this White House, or any other White House for that matter. The issue is that too much power is concentrated on the Potomac. And I'd also like it if we'd have a little less sanctimony on the issue generally. It was always ludicrous to assert that a guy who learned politics in Chicago would somehow be a reformer.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Outraged? Isn't that how things get done (i.e. the Chicago way)?