PAC-ing Heat

Summary

Analysis

As the Pennsylvania primary (finally) draws near, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have released a barrage of new attack ads. In the most recent (so far) installment, Clinton accused Obama of talking a good game about getting tough on lobbyists despite having accepted almost $2 million from lobbyists and political action committees (PACs). Obama fired right back, charging that Clinton has taken more money from lobbyists and PACs than any other candidate and accusing Clinton of running "eleventh hour smears" that are "paid for with lobbyist money." We find both ads to be distortions.

[TET ]

Hillary for President TV Ad: "Talk and Action"

Narrator: The difference between talk and action?

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists.

Narrator: But in the last 10 years, Barack Obama has taken almost $2 million from lobbyists, corporations and PACs.

Narrator: The head of his New Hampshire campaign is a drug company lobbyist. In Indiana, an energy lobbyist. A casino lobbyist in Nevada. And Obama’s attacking Hillary?

Narrator: She’ll get rid of billions in corporate tax breaks and use that money to create jobs and rebuild the middle class. That’s leadership you can count on.

Clinton: I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message. [/TET]

Moving the Goalposts 

Obama has made his pledge not to accept money from lobbyists or PACs one of the centerpieces of his presidential campaign, and it’s one that he has insisted on since the early days of his run. But Clinton’s ad notes that Obama hasn’t always held to such a pledge, saying, "In the last 10 years, Barack Obama has taken almost $2 million from lobbyists, corporations and PACs." First off, the true figure is $1.74 million, according to the Clinton campaign’s own citations. Rounding that up to "almost $2 million" is a stretch. More to the point, the number counts mostly money that Obama raised for his U.S.  Senate and Illinois state Senate races, long before he made his presidential pledge. The Clinton campaign figures stretch back to Obama’s 1996 state Senate race, which actually is 12 years ago, not 10 as the ad claims.

And if sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose, Clinton’s record is open to even stronger criticism. Clinton, who didn’t begin fundraising until 1999, has accepted $1.4 million from lobbyists and $4.2 million from PACs, more than triple the amount taken in by Obama.

Obama did in fact raise $1.2 million from PACs for his 2004 U.S. Senate race.  Obama did not pledge to refuse money from lobbyists or PACs during his previous campaigns. In addition, the Boston Globe reports that Obama raised about $296,000 from corporations, labor unions, lobbyists and PACs during his 1996, 1998 and 2002 Illinois state Senate races. (We’ve pointed out before that it is illegal for federal candidates to accept funds from corporations. Illinois, however, does allow candidates for state office to accept money from labor unions and corporations.)

During his presidential run, Obama has raised $115,163 from "lobbyists," as of March 20, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Obama campaign states that this is all from former lobbyists, not those currently active. That distinction is important for Obama. As we’ve written before, Obama is doing a bit of a tightrope act here. He does not accept funds from registered federal lobbyists, but he does accept money from spouses of lobbyists, non-lobbying partners who work for lobbying firms or for law firms that do lobbying, ex-lobbyists, and state lobbyists.

Clinton is within her rights to point to Obama’s past acceptance of money from lobbyists and special interests. But viewers shouldn’t take that as evidence that he has broken his promise. We’ve seen no evidence that Obama is not adhering to the letter of his pledge.

The Clinton ad also accuses Obama of having lobbyists associated with his state campaigns. The head of Obama’s New Hampshire campaign, it says, is a drug company lobbyist. It goes on: "In Indiana, an energy lobbyist. A casino lobbyist in Nevada." Could it really be that Obama won’t take money from lobbyists, but is happy to put them to work on his campaign?

Not exactly. None of these men is a federal lobbyist. All are exclusively state-level lobbyists working far from Washington. Obama’s New Hampshire co-chair, Jim Demers, was the subject of a few headlines back in January when Clinton first pointed out his line of business. Demers does indeed head up The Demers Group, a New Hampshire-based lobbying firm. In Nevada, Obama’s steering committee included Billy Vassiliadis, the CEO of R&R Partners, which does lobbying work on behalf of casinos. And in Indiana, Obama campaign adviser Kipper Tew has lobbying clients that include an energy company.

Demers does all of his lobbying with the New Hampshire Legislature. Vassiliadis’ lobbying stays in Vegas – or Reno, anyway. And Tew lobbies the Indiana legislature, but he doesn’t lobby at the federal level. And when we spoke with Tew, he told us that he is a volunteer member of Obama’s "senior advisory council" but doesn’t run the Indiana campaign, as one might conclude from the vague wording of the Clinton ad. We asked the Obama campaign to confirm the status of Demers, Vassiliadis and Tew, but we received no response.

It’s not our job to judge whether it’s appropriate or not for a presidential candidate to use state lobbyists to chair or advise his or her campaign in the states. But what Obama promised was not to take money from "Washington lobbyists," and it’s misleading for Clinton to imply otherwise.