Lobbying Policy

Here is the Obama-Biden Policy during the transition period (Nov 2008-Jan 2009)

• Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.
• Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.
• If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.
• If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the Transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration for 12 months on matters on which they worked.
• A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

and here is a news story from a 'late in the day on Friday' announcement in a trade journal

May 29, 2009, 6:55 p.m.

The White House moved Friday evening to loosen lobbying restrictions related to stimulus funds, lifting the ban on federal lobbyists communicating with agency officials on specific projects for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds.

I actually sympathize with the May 29 change because without it, agency officials wouldn't know what projects they are supposed to be implementing with the ARRA funds (before I retired there were many times I couldn't figure out what the project was supposed to be because I wasn't allowed to make calls to lobbyists).

So, was it hypocrisy when the original policy was stated or was the Obama-Biden team merely ignorant of the way legislation works. Sadly, I think it was the latter. It would have been better if they were hypocrites but knowledgeable about government.




Obama-Biden Transition website is Here

News on Obama lobbying policy in May 2009 is here.

Polar Bears and the NY Times

Back in October 2008, the New York Times was very worried about Polar Bears. Here is a quote from an editorial (not an op-ed),

"In its closing months, the Bush administration is pulling out all the stops in its eight-year effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act. In mid-August, the administration proposed two dangerous regulatory changes. One would free the government from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on polar bears and other imperiled wildlife...."

and here is a quote from the New York Times in an editorial today,

"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has upheld a Bush administration finding that the Endangered Species Act is not a suitable tool for restricting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threatening the polar bear and its habitat. We agree, with this codicil: There are steps Mr. Salazar can and must take under the act..."

The 2008 editorial doesn't mention "other steps" and the 2009 editorial doesn't mention that they had a different opinion back in 2008.

Now it is possible that the newspaper had a different person writing the 2008 and 2009 editorials. It is also possible that they had changed their mind or that they gained new understanding of the situation. However, if either of these was the case, the NY Times should have made clear which is was. They most obvious conclusion to make is that the over arching explanation is that the NYTimes is simply a biased organization. It doesn't really care about polar bears, it cares about who is President.

NY Times editorial in Oct 2008
NY Times editorial in May 2009

Follow Up to the Miss California Post

Perez Hilton - Hypocrisy on Fair Use

Subsequent to the events described below in the Miss California post, Perez Hilton demanded that Youtube.com remove a youtube post that had him saying Miss California was a bitch. This was on the basis of copyright infringement.

Perez Hilton is somewhat famous (or infamous) for posting images of celebrities with uncomplimentary features (warning - obscenity if you get to into the details) drawn on the outside of their clothes and claiming 'fair use' of common property.

This is explained in unpleasent detail at:

Perez Hilton puts the 'hippo' in hypocrite.

As it turns out, I don't understand copyright law enough to analyze whether hypocrisy has taken place. It certainly does seem as if Perez Hilton is not a nice person however.