Lobbyists Parade Through Obama's White House; Times Blames Bush

I'm serious.  No, I'm not, but I'm accurate. The NY Times has a big, baseline free article in which they discover that money talks in Washington.  Their lead:

White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In

By MIKE McINTIRE and MICHAEL LUO

Last May, as a battle was heating up between Internet companies and Hollywood over how to stop online piracy, a top entertainment industry lobbyist landed a meeting at the White House with one of President Obama’s technology advisers.

The lobbyist did not get there by himself.

He was accompanied by Antoinette C. Bush, a well-connected Washington lawyer who has represented companies like Viacom, Sony and News Corporation for 30 years. A friend of the president and a cousin of his close aide Valerie B. Jarrett, Ms. Bush has been to the White House at least nine times during his term, taking lobbyists along on a few occasions, joining an invitation-only forum about intellectual property, and making social visits with influential friends.

Did I promise they blamed Bush, or what? Why didn't this story come out two weeks earlier?!?

The Times cross-referenced never-before available White House visitor logs with donor lists to conclude that there is an overlap between people who want to talk with the White House and people willing to write big checks.  Is it worse now than when Clinton turned the Lincoln bedroom into a Motel Six-figures?  Worse than under President Bush?  I have no idea and neither do they.

Oh, well - there are no salacious hints of impropriety to juice this up, unlike their 2008 coverage of John McCain. Take away the Bush joke and you are left with well, a joke. On the front page.

BUT DON'T MY SKEPTICISM SWAY YOU! If someone can find some real dirt in there, let us know. The Times is just doing this now to balance their inevitable, predictable October 'surprise' expose of Romney. Over the course of the year, their coverage will be balanced.

Comments

[GMax]

Motel six figures

Joint in Joint Summit

You be en fuego TM ( or you hired one of Leno's writers for the headlines )!

[Melinda Romanoff]

Hillary Rosen's "Client List" would be a nice segues here.

[Soylent Red]

Damn. The hits just keep on coming. The fact that this is even being reported at all is a good sign. Cronyism is not what the American people want in office right now, after a week of scandal elsewhere in the administration. Somebody at the NYT didn't get the memo to hush this up after a very bad week for BFF Barry.

As I said elsewhere, you can bet that drug and alcohol abuse will be blamed for Kennedy's outburst on this topic.

[rse]

I found the LUN essay this week "Variations on a Corporatist Theme" to be quite helpful for framing this issue.

Rent seeking is endemic to government which is why its functions must be limited to have widespread economic prosperity.

Because there is virtually no area that bo and his admin do not find suitable for their regulation or outright confiscation, there are lots of opportunities for the connected to benefit.

Which is why the ROI for being a big bo donor were so superb. With our money.

Romney needs to be campaigning, with ryan's help, on stopping the shakedown. It is far worse than anything you can imagine. We have talked before about what a scam education accreditation is. One entity now is a holding company for almost all the accreditors. The Pres was recently elected to lead the trade group representing all the regional ed labs.

Plus broadband is another area where the corps are using govt to stipulate we need to mandate and then pay for their services.

The global looting class.

[narciso]

We know that Hilary and Podesta and Gorelick, all represented BP, after the spill,

[AliceH]

From the NYT article: “Communications law is what I do for a living,” Ms. Bush said. “Yes, I’m an Obama supporter, but in the end I’m a communications law expert. I had the same clients in the Bush administration as well as the Obama administration.”

ISTM if one could compare just Ms. Bush' visits during the W years vs. Obama years, one would have some basis for determining how much weight to give "I had the same clients" relative to "we have a different party in the WH".

[Clarice]

I'm starting to rethink my anti-big govt approach. Since we've shaken so much money out of your pockets, DC has some of the finest food emporia and restaurants in the country, not to mention the most stable housing prices.

You suffer. We win.
Or get smart and move here before real estate prices match those in London.

[narciso]

Well the revolving door as with the pipeline guy, is a merrygo round;

http://www.skadden.com/index.cfm?contentID=45&bioID=1005

[narciso]

Here's the important part, that the Times curiously left out, and the trackback is
'unexpectedly' dodgy;

Prior to joining Skadden, Arps in 1993, Ms. Bush served as senior counsel to the Communications Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The subcommittee has oversight responsibility for the Federal Communications Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and public broadcasting. She was the principal staff person responsible for legislation involving communications issues, including the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992, which authorized funding for public broadcasting.

[Bruce]

Last May, as a battle was heating up between Internet companies and Hollywood over how to stop online piracy, a top entertainment industry lobbyist landed a meeting at the White House with one of President Obama’s technology advisers.

My experience chairing an IP committee that has had some interest in these areas is that money speaks loudly in DC these days, but there is so much of it, esp. over on K Street, that a little here or there won't be noticed.

The entertainment industry's legislation wasn't going anywhere at that point in time. The chairs of the two Judiciary Committees were heavily involved in patent reform (and the resulting legislation named after the two of them), and there was far more money at stake there, with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on one side of the issue, with apparently more lobbyists at one point last year, late spring through summer, than members of Congress. And, almost none on the other side. The monster company high tech community, lead by Chairman Leahy's biggest long time backer (and former employer of USPTO director Kappos) IBM, and followed by such as Microsoft, were attempting to, and succeeded, in significantly weakening the ability of independent inventors and small start ups to sue them for stealing their ideas through patent infringement litigation. Which is why the legislation was ultimately called the Orwellian Leahy-Smith "America Invents Act" (AIA), similar to how ObamaCare was titled the "Affordable Care Act". It is almost as if they figure that if you name something the opposite of what it really is, that the weaker minds among them will get sucked in (Pelosi, not unexpectedly, claimed that the AIA would create hundreds of thousands of jobs). And, maybe part of the public too. And, given the heavily stacked hearings and last minute managers' amendments, the AIA was extraordinarily badly written. (Which we knew, but is becoming ever more evident as the rule making process goes forward).

The entertainment industry didn't have the type of money that IBM, Microsoft, et al. had to buy their legislation, so it seemed to languish in Congress until the AIA passed. It seemed like there was a month or two breather, and then, whammo. Same culprits in Congress (lead by Leahy and Smith again), as SOPA/PIPA hit the committees. Even with former Sen. Dodd (yes, the same Dodd of Dodd-Frank) at the helm though, the legislation ran into an energized online community, and some opposition by the same monster high tech companies that punched out the AIA, and the legislation was (and currently continues to be) stalled.

[Clarice]

The Weekly Standard caught what TM missed in the article, more evidence of the genius of the Kennedys:

"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.”"

[Soylent Red]

A photo of the distinct un-seriousness of those who would rule us.

[Ignatz]

--The monster company high tech community, lead by Chairman Leahy's biggest long time backer (and former employer of USPTO director Kappos) IBM, and followed by such as Microsoft, were attempting to, and succeeded, in significantly weakening the ability of independent inventors and small start ups to sue them for stealing their ideas through patent infringement litigation.--

That was a great untold story that is going to screw this country quite nicely going forward.
Nobody cared.

[narciso]

Antoinette writes the rules, and then for a stipend, the bread crumb trail to navigate it,
same with the Johnson fellow, why he was on the Keystone acct to garner the support of DEmocrats from Cave LLP, until it didn't matter.

[Chubby]

((Romney needs to be campaigning, with ryan's help, ))

I hope to heck Romney ignores Donald Trump's advice that Romeny needs to not mention Ryan or his plan. It has crossed my mind more than once that Trump is an agent provocateur. Earlier in the primaries, he had not a good word for Obama. Now that Romney is almost the candidate Trump starts talking about how smart Obama is. (source: Hannity interview of Trump on the radio)

[Clarice]

I put him in the Kim Kardashian category and ignore whatever he says, Chubby,

[narciso]

Even more useless, Clarice, that's why it urked me, about everyone including Sarah
seemingly toadying to him, bakc last year.

[Bruce]

That was a great untold story that is going to screw this country quite nicely going forward. Nobody cared.

For the lawyers here, let me suggest that you reconsider your ABA memberships. One of the things that the proponents of the AIA did, was to buy control over the IP committee of the ABA and of the AIPLA. The result is that both of these organizations came out backing the legislation, while the vast majority of their members had no idea what was in it. And, indeed, many still don't. At least with ObamaCare/ACA, everyone seems to know that this massive piece of legislation is coming down the pike. Not so with patent attorneys and the AIA. Right now, we are desperately trying to get comments approved for the rule making due this week. It seems like we are facing votes weekly on rule making or fee setting comments, and, not even the big IP organizations (AIPLA and ABA IP committee) are managing to keep up. Fee setting hearings last month had maybe a handful of people testifying to the USPTO's plan to massively rearranging better than a billion dollars of fees a year. (These hearings weren't the rigged and stacked ones that the Judiciary Committees held that intentionally kept any criticism of the poorly designed legislation from being heard, but rather, surprisingly, were accessible by almost anyone.

Sorry to ramble and vent, but we spent a lot of time and effort going up against the behemoth pushing the legislation, and now are desperately trying to make it palatable by commenting as much as we can on the proposed new rules and fees.

[narciso]

WAs this at least part of it, Bruce;

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/business/patent-bill-could-save-a-law-firm-millions.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=business

[Clarice]

The ABA is another institution that's been hollowed out by the left Gramscian style--look at the way they rate judicial nominees if you doubt what I say.

[Chubby]

((I put him in the Kim Kardashian category and ignore whatever he says, Chubby,))

you I'm not worried about. it is Romney I'm worried about because the Donald and Romney are good friends and he might have Romney's ear

[Chubby]

((I put him in the Kim Kardashian category and ignore whatever he says, Chubby,))

you I'm not worried about. it is Romney I'm worried about because the Donald and Romney are good friends and he might have Romney's ear

[Captain Hate]

Any discussion of Patches Kennedy should take place in the substance abuse thread.

[GMax]

One thing you can 100% count on, the Donald is all in for the Donald. You however might just be expendable.

[AliceH]

OT: Calling all photoshoppers! Chubby has a truly inspired image crying out for your skills.

Cut/paste from the MediaMyths thread:

((Maybe Axelrod can get some photoshopped pics of the Koch bros. strangling kittens and puppies handed off to the AP and MSNBC.))

even worse, Clarice, pictures of kittens and puppies in carriers strapped to the tops of Koch bros. vehicles

Posted by: Chubby | April 15, 2012 at 01:44 PM

[Captain Hate]

Even more useless, Clarice, that's why it urked me, about everyone including Sarah
seemingly toadying to him, bakc last year.

That's because everybody was in a non hair on fire mode and Trump filled the vacuum in his usual self promoting way. Palin has been a better soldier for party candidates than they deserve; I doubt that she was at all fooled by what the Donald was all about.

[Chubby]

((I doubt that she was at all fooled by what the Donald was all about.))

yes but can we say the same for Romney? I guess I'll just have to wait and see. If we see Ryan tossed under the bus, and a big distancing, we will know the Donald has influence on Romney.

[Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)]

Bruce,

I haven't belonged to the ABA in 20 years. Last week they called me up and offered me a free 6 month membership with no strings attached.

Is there harm in that?

[narciso]

Well it's useful in the sense you get to see what the adversary is doing Jane;

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-in-bitter-letter-to-netanyahu-demands-statehood-and-says-pa-has-lost-its-raison-detre/

[ASR]

Hope and change, hope and change

[Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)]

Narciso,

That assumes I will pay attention, which I won't unless someone tells me what to look for.

[Bruce]

WAs this at least part of it, Bruce;

Yeh, a part, but by all reports, the big money was from the big tech companies. There was also some banking money thrown in there, for getting language into the bill that will allow special transitional post grant review (and hopeful invalidation) of the Data Treasury patents that the big banks infringe. We just finished comments for the associated rule making. In any case a feeding frenzy, since much of this special interest stuff wasn't going to get enacted in the daylight, all on its own, but only when hidden in a behemoth bill.

I haven't belonged to the ABA in 20 years. Last week they called me up and offered me a free 6 month membership with no strings attached.

Is there harm in that?

Hey, take their money. I have done that in the past.

Though, I will add that the firm that I was with was paying for ABA memberships, and I specifically never availed myself.

[Bruce]

I haven't belonged to the ABA in 20 years. Last week they called me up and offered me a free 6 month membership with no strings attached.

Let me add that I too haven't paid for an ABA membership in 20 years.

[narciso]

My suspicions, Bruce, were that whatever problems there might be with the patenting
process, the cure is worse than the malady.