The Democratic Party -- A Lobbyist-Free Zone

[rapunzel]

I just got a very interesting email from Howard Dean, chair of the DNC --
Dear Christi,

I wanted to drop you a quick note about a major policy change here at the Democratic Party.

As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution.

This is an unprecedented move for a political party to make -- one that has sent shockwaves through Washington and has turned the debate on clean campaigns upside down. We've unilaterally agreed to shut lobbyists out of the process, and are we're relying on people just like you.

Just imagine what hundreds of thousands of Americans donating $20, $30, or $50 at a time can accomplish together. Imagine the signal that it sends to anyone who looks at John McCain's political machine and the special interest money it needs to fuel every move it makes.

We have a chance to change the way business is done in this country, and we're taking the lead. Will you join us and make a contribution right now to help us elect Barack Obama?

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I've written before about guys like Charlie Black and Rick Davis, lobbyists who are at the highest levels of McCain's campaign. But they're just the start -- John McCain and the RNC suck up lobbyist money millions of dollars at a time.

In May, McCain had his best fundraising month of the campaign, and it was directly because he refuses to shut special interests out.

But we did, and we need your help. This is an example of the kind of White House Barack Obama would run. Make a contribution to help elect him:

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I'll be in touch later about our plans for the general election, but I wanted to let you know about our policy change right away.

Thanks,

Howard Dean

Help Elect Barack Obama!

A very encouraging development. The times are changing!

[Chickpea]

I just got a very interesting email from Howard Dean, chair of the DNC --


A very encouraging development. The times are changing!

And how wonderfully novel and welcome it would be to potentially have someone in the White House who actually arrives there unbeholden to lobbyists!!!

I am so pysched by Obama's nomination and hopeful that the American people will see clearly enough to not elect McCain!

[traderx]

A couple of months ago, Obama stood and said that he did not take money from oil companies. His words left a dangling implication that Clinton and McCain did accept money from oil companies.

In truth, no candidate accepts money from oil companies or any company for that matter. It is illegal for any company or union to donate to a candidate. However, "individuals" within a company can and do donate to political candidates. And, in fact, Obama has accepted money from Exxon executives. See link below.

Don't you agree that it was disingenious for Obama to say he didn't take money from oil companies?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=exxon&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A

[InletBchDweller]

A couple of months ago, Obama stood and said that he did not take money from oil companies. His words left a dangling implication that Clinton and McCain did accept money from oil companies.

In truth, no candidate accepts money from oil companies or any company for that matter. It is illegal for any company or union to donate to a candidate. However, "individuals" within a company can and do donate to political candidates. And, in fact, Obama has accepted money from Exxon executives. See link below.

Don't you agree that it was disingenious for Obama to say he didn't take money from oil companies?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=exxon&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A


interesting website, not just for this info but all info....thanks!.

[hnooe]

I just heard tonight on MSNBC that the Lobbyist and PAC money amounted only to about 1% of contributions in the last Dem. Presidential election, but this annoucement is still a very admirable "start.'

And "starting somewhere" on any of the incredibly important issues of the 2008 campaign is meaningful to me!

[Bob]

i don't see any great amounts of money here...can't they donate as citizens? or do you folks have an internal memo? Doesn't Obama want an above 80 dollar windfall tax? How would this endear him to Exxon-Mobil? it does not add up.

[traderx]

i don't see any great amounts of money here...can't they donate as citizens? or do you folks have an internal memo? Doesn't Obama want an above 80 dollar windfall tax? How would this endear him to Exxon-Mobil? it does not add up.

They did, in fact, donate as citizens since corporations are prohibited from doing so. I don't know if Exxon executives' donations would endear Exxon to Obama or not. What is their motivation?

My point is that I believe it is disingenious for Obama to state he doesn't take money from oil companies which such activity is illegal yet he accepts money from oil executives. This does not sound like a new era of politics to me but the same old spin.

[6thGen]

First, you are naive beyond words if you believe this. Second, do trial lawyers now count?

[Margarita]

And now for the rest of the story - http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm

[Smiling JOe]

(Oh to dream a little and believe the words of politicians.)



OBAMA FUNDRAISERS: Lobbyist ties
These 38 fundraisers for Barack Obama's presidential campaign (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm) work for law firms that have lobbying operations in Washington, D.C. The dollar figure reflects the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for the campaign.

(note that some of these people actually share the income taken in from their Federal lobbying. The notion of Obama not taking in money from "lobbyist" is stretching the truth. The money may not be directly coming from lobbyists, but indirectly, money does come in from lobbyists. I know that Obama wants to "change" Warshington, but it isn't as easy as saying you want it to change. This sounds like a soundbite, poliTRICAL move to get more individuals to the polls and contributing money. His campaign smacked H Clinton in the buttocks, when they were taking in $25 from many people, while she was taking in the full maximum contribution from few people. She had no one to go back to for more money, and Obama has a growing list of people who have contributed small amounts, which might be coaxed out of doubling their small contributions, giving Obama enough money to win this thing. Sounds like they are focusing on getting the voters on-board, more than the lobbyists, which I think is an intelligent move, but to say that money isn't coming into the campaign from Federal Lobbyists, is disguising the truth.)
http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/black.gif


I know of at least one other federal lobbyist, and several of his lobbying friends, who donated to Obama's campaign and his name isn't on this list, but he hasn't pledged to bundle. (They also donated to McCain's Campaign, just in case.) ;-)

[rapunzel]

They work for firms that have lobbyists in Washington...they are not lobbyists, and they are fundraisers -- not staffers. That's a big difference.

Let me throw what question out there for you, though -- we can talk about the lawyers that do lobbying for public interest groups and local government that work for Obama and say that negates his promise of not taking money from corporate lobbyists and special interests. But, is there not a difference between a lobbyist who works on behalf of the public interest (Walton County has lobbyists, for instance) and one that lobbied on behalf of the Burmese junta or Exxon-Mobil?

Is there a difference between an online contribution made by an employee of an oil company, and one made at a $2300 a plate fundraiser held by people all involved in the same company? My brother works for a big oil company, and they were told not to donate online -- if they gave contributions they should go through a particular lobbyist because it gets noticed when it comes in in chunks.

[6thGen]

They work for firms that have lobbyists in Washington...they are not lobbyists, and they are fundraisers -- not staffers. That's a big difference.

Let me throw what question out there for you, though -- we can talk about the lawyers that do lobbying for public interest groups and local government that work for Obama and say that negates his promise of not taking money from corporate lobbyists and special interests. But, is there not a difference between a lobbyist who works on behalf of the public interest (Walton County has lobbyists, for instance) and one that lobbied on behalf of the Burmese junta or Exxon-Mobil?

Is there a difference between an online contribution made by an employee of an oil company, and one made at a $2300 a plate fundraiser held by people all involved in the same company? My brother works for a big oil company, and they were told not to donate online -- if they gave contributions they should go through a particular lobbyist because it gets noticed when it comes in in chunks.

All are exercising their right to petition their government. As long as there is transparency, there should be no difference. I don't care who Obama takes money from, but it's beyond the pale to say that he's not taking money from special interests when he's clearly in bed with trial lawyers and workers' unions.

[rapunzel]

And you see no difference?

[6thGen]

And you see no difference?

Of course there is a difference, but that doesn't mean that one is favorable to the other.

[sowalgayboi]

It's one thing to petition your elected representatives in their office while discussing the issue. It's a vastly different angle when the opposing side then takes the elected official on a private jet to a 5 star resort in the Caribbean to show their side of the story.

[6thGen]

It's one thing to petition your elected representatives in their office while discussing the issue. It's a vastly different angle when the opposing side then takes the elected official on a private jet to a 5 star resort in the Caribbean to show their side of the story.

That's why I mentioned transparency. I'm not opposed to the scenario, as long as it's out there and the candidate takes the appropriate heat on a decision that would affect said side. I'm not happy that Obama channeled $225,000 in grants to Trinity as a state senator, but at least I know about it and can weigh it in my decision making process.

[BeachSiO2]

It's one thing to petition your elected representatives in their office while discussing the issue. It's a vastly different angle when the opposing side then takes the elected official on a private jet to a 5 star resort in the Caribbean to show their side of the story.

With the new rules in the House and Senate that currently exist, you can't even buy a staffer lunch in the cafeteria.

[BeachSiO2]

But, is there not a difference between a lobbyist who works on behalf of the public interest (Walton County has lobbyists, for instance) and one that lobbied on behalf of the Burmese junta or Exxon-Mobil?

Based on your first post, the Democratic party does not believe so.

As for lobbyists who only work for public entities, tighter rules and more transparency only helps them. Congressmen and women like getting funding for local constituents and they will issue press releases telling you about the money they are bringing back to their district. From what I can tell, it seems like most people have problems with the private ones. Once again, the transparency is now there for those also as every earmark that is included in an appropriation bill has to have the sponsors name attached.

That being said, I am pretty sure, almost 100%, that there is only ONE firm in all of Washington DC that works only with public entities. So, any other people lobbying for these firms is also lobbying for private groups.

[Smiling JOe]

With the new rules in the House and Senate that currently exist, you can't even buy a staffer lunch in the cafeteria.I'm not sure what cafeteria you are talking about :funn:, but I think you have to go to more upscale restaurants to get them to join you. You will have much better success inviting them to private luncheons at places like the The Army Navy Club, the City Club of Washington, the University Club of Washington DC ;-). Those rules are apparently are disregarded by many members of the Congress.

[BeachSiO2]

I'm not sure what cafeteria you are talking about :funn:, but I think you have to go to more upscale restaurants to get them to join you. You will have much better success inviting them to private luncheons at places like the The Army Navy Club, the City Club of Washington, the University Club of Washington DC ;-). Those rules are apparently are disregarded by many members of the Congress.

That was my point, IF the staffers are following the rules laid out by the leadership, they can't even accept a bagel. Unless, they are standing up and it is present in the room but not offered to them. You are right though, there are always some ready to break the rules.

The key here may be the difference between the member and the staffer. I will have to check on this as I know you can get some inside info. ;-)

[Seeker1]

No matter how its covered it still smells the same.:rolling: A rose is a rose is a rose.:floor: They ALL take money from people they say they dont. :funn:

It all depends on what words they choose to explain what it is they want to explain when they are trying to explain their explanation. Need I explain?

Example: A politicain was asked about money he received frmo a particualr group he speaks against in public.

He explaind by saying:
OH, I WASN'T "TAKING" MONEY FROM THAT GROUP, THEY WERE "GIVING" IT TO ME.

:funn::funn::funn::funn::funn::funn::funn::funn::f unn::funn::funn::funn::funn::funn:

(psst, your a fair person. thanks for doing a good job here)

[30ashopper]

With the new rules in the House and Senate that currently exist, you can't even buy a staffer lunch in the cafeteria.

That hasn't stopped Obama from getting in real tight with the ethanol crowd...
:roll::roll::wave::roll::roll:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

[twincheeks]

From Obamas book "Audacity of Hope":
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

From Obamas book "Dreams of My Father": 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'


Verify for yourselves. These books have been available a while.:(

[elgordoboy]

I stole this response from yahoo answers:
twit...
The actual quote from the book "Audacity of Hope" is from page 261 and is as follows: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

[elgordoboy]

From Obamas book "Audacity of Hope":
'I will stand with the Muslims should the politicalwinds shift in an ugly direction.'

From Obamas book "Dreams of My Father":'I ceased to advertisemy mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when Ibegan to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiatingmyself to whites.'


Verify for yourselves. These books have been available a while.:(


I stole this response from yahoo answers:
twit...
The actual quote from the book "Audacity of Hope" is from page 261 and is as follows: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
:floor::floor:Isn't that funny? we both forgot spaces in some of what we typed, I emboldened it so you and I could both laugh :rolling: Except in the one I messed up it was supposed to have an o and say to wit: but now just looks like I am calling you a twit!! You're not a twit are you twincheeks? Are you?

[twincheeks]

:clap:Nah, I never hit the keys properly half the time:lol:.

Glad you too verified it.:clap:

[scooterbug44]

Twincheeks, Obama's comment was about how he would stand up to racism and hysteria (fueled by heavily edited comments like you posted) to protect innocent people from persecution and vile internment camps.

It would be so nice if people could actually debate the ISSUES instead of spreading lies!

[twincheeks]

the 'lies" you refer to as heavily edited comments were from his books. Thank you for pointing them out.
As far as standing against racism, he never stood against it as it was preached in his church all those years did he?
All those racist sermons and he still supported that preacher. why wasnt he protecting the innocent then? Was it because there was no gain?
ANYONE who permits themselves to be lead by, or support speakers of hate are no better than the purveyor.
Isnt racism in itself a lie?

"It would be so nice if people could actually debate the ISSUES instead of spreading lies!" applies more to his church than a post. Would you feel the same if he were republican? I am allowed to say republican arent I?

[scooterbug44]

I have both those books on my bedside table - that's why I know the context of the quotations.

I called them lies because taking someone's words and twisting and editing them so they do not have the same meaning is manufacturing lies.

Did you actually listen to the sermons you refer to, or are you relying on soundbites and quotations w/ the same level of veracity and contextualization to form your opinion?

[twincheeks]

I have both those books on my bedside table - that's why I know the context of the quotations.

I called them lies because taking someone's words and twisting and editing them so they do not have the same meaning is manufacturing lies.

Did you actually listen to the sermons you refer to, or are you relying on soundbites and quotations w/ the same level of veracity and contextualization to form your opinion?

1. Both books? Most people have a bible. Thanks for pointing that out.

2. I did not write the words.

3. Yes, I actually listened to the sermons as posted by obamas church and other churches online as they came to their defense. Originally I was appalled at the source thinking there is no way any church would permit such hate from a pulpit. To my disppointment I was wrong.


Think, say and write what you will. But in response to calling them lies.....stick and stones sir, sticks and stones.

nannoo nannoo
live long and prosper

One day if we shall meet I shall gladly shake your hand and hope to discuss other issues with as much fun as this.:wave:

[elgordoboy]

1. Both books? Most people have a bible. Thanks for pointing that out.

2. I did not write the words.

3. Yes, I actually listened to the sermons as posted by obamas church and other churches online as they came to their defense. Originally I was appalled at the source thinking there is no way any church would permit such hate from a pulpit. To my disppointment I was wrong.


Think, say and write what you will. But in response to calling them lies.....stick and stones sir, sticks and stones.

nannoo nannoo
live long and prosper

One day if we shall meet I shall gladly shake your hand and hope to discuss other issues with as much fun as this.:wave:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_AqC9aIMJj_Q/R-bRQ1Eo6eI/AAAAAAAAAm8/sRgS-JhFUWc/s320/troll.jpg

[scooterbug44]

Why would I need a Bible on my bedside table - I've already read it, so it's not in the book pile!

EGB, I love you!!! :wave:

[tOpsailfriend]

I just got a very interesting email from Howard Dean, chair of the DNC --


A very encouraging development. The times are changing!

cute. proof that some folks will buy anything :)
last i check democrats were politians too. there's a difference between hope and delusion.

[BeachSiO2]

http://sowal.com/bb/showpost.php?p=419337&postcount=1

I am finding the DNC Convention quite interesting in light of this thread and the email Punzy received from Mr. Dean. This is not about Obama, this is about Dean and the rest of the democratic hypocrites. Please see the coverage that ABC News has on it, under Money Trail.

http://abcnews.go.com/blotter

Like I said on another thread, I don't expect the Repubs to be different on lobbyist particpation, but they didn't send out the "we're not taking donations" and then had lobbyists pay for a huge chunk of the convention. Here are a couple of paragraphs from one of the stories that really caught my eye.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/Story?id=5648474&page=1

"In fact, one of the country's leading lobbyists, Steve Farber, was chosen by the Democratic party chairman Howard Dean in 2006 to serve as co-chair and chief fundraiser of the Denver host committee that puts on the convention.

Farber, a Denver lawyer, is the founding partner of Brownstein, Farber and Hyatt, one the most prominent and active lobbying operations in Washington.

Farber and his team have persuaded some 141 corporations to contribute more than $50 million to pay the costs of putting on the Democrats' convention."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5634575&page=1

Last but not least, On this group of pictures linked below, please note the captions, especially the benefits outlined on picture 3.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WorldNews/popup?id=5652277

[Margarita]

Politics as usual - where is the change we can believe in?? :idontno:

My Son, The Lobbyist: Biden's Son a Well-Paid DC Insider
Firm Lobbies Senator Biden Although Son Does Not
By EMMA SCHWARTZ
Aug. 24, 2008

The son of Barack Obama's vice presidential pick, Sen. Joe Biden, is a top partner at a Washington law firm that has lobbied his father's office, a family tie that could prove embarrassing for a campaign that has positioned itself as fighting lobbyists and special interests in Washington.

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., is joined by his family including his sister, Valerie Biden Owens, left, his son, Hunter, his wife Jill and his brother Jimmy as he speaks to supporters during a rally at the UAW Hall in Dubuque, Iowa, on the day of the Iowa caucus Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008, in Dubuque, Iowa.
(AP Photo/Mark Hirsch)
In the first six months of this year R. Hunter Biden, a founding partner of Oldaker, Biden & Belair, has worked on accounts that brought it $470,000 from nine clients, according to lobbying disclosure records.


Although firm members say Biden, 38, does not lobby his father, this kind of family tie, said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, "raises the potential of a conflict of interest."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5640118&page=1

[rapunzel]

Yeah, the convention is pretty disgusting. It's totally underwritten by lobbyists. It's a 4,000 Democrats and 15,000 members of the media there to be feted, and the lobbyists certainly put on an unsavory party. Normally, the host committee raises money from the city, who are happy to kick in because of the economic impact. Apparently, the Denver host committee couldn't reach it's fundraising goals.

Please keep in ming, though, BeachSiO2, that the Obama candidacy represents a revolt in the party. The new guard is Obama and Dean. The old guard selected the Denver site and picked the host committee. Mark Penn and his money ho, lobbyist wife never had qualms about working the system for fun and profit. The Obama campaign is one entity, the DEC chaired by Dean is a second entity, and the DNCC host committee is yet a third.

Not excusing it, but just trying to clarify. It takes some time to clear the system.

[BeachSiO2]

Yeah, the convention is pretty disgusting. It's totally underwritten by lobbyists. It's a 4,000 Democrats and 15,000 members of the media there to be feted, and the lobbyists certainly put on an unsavory party. Normally, the host committee raises money from the city, who are happy to kick in because of the economic impact. Apparently, the Denver host committee couldn't reach it's fundraising goals.

Please keep in ming, though, BeachSiO2, that the Obama candidacy represents a revolt in the party. The new guard is Obama and Dean. The old guard selected the Denver site and picked the host committee. Mark Penn and his money ho, lobbyist wife never had qualms about working the system for fun and profit. The Obama campaign is one entity, the DEC chaired by Dean is a second entity, and the DNCC host committee is yet a third.

Not excusing it, but just trying to clarify. It takes some time to clear the system.

Fair enough except for one thing. Based on the article, Dean chose Steve Farber to be co-chair and HEAD FUNDRAISER of the host committee, and Dean said we aren't taking anything from lobbyists. So why did he choose him.

It's likely one of two reasons, he can bring in money from lobbyists or he will bring in money from local supporters. In this case, it looks like Dean sold out to the lobbyists to pay the bills. Then went out months later and said, we aren't going to take money from lobbyists. So, Dean was up to his neck in knowing that he was going to get tens of millions from lobbyists, just not in direct contributions. I guess my point was that the host committee did do it's job, and in this case the head fundraiser was a lobbyist chosen by the DNC chair.

Punzy, I hope you're right for the Dems future, but in this case it looks like at least two-thirds of the Dems are still playing the old guard game and only Obama is sitting it out.

[rancid]

All those racist sermons and he still supported that preacher. why wasnt he protecting the innocent then? Was it because there was no gain?



Let me understand. You are implying that Obama has something to gain by defending Muslims. :shock:

[dunefrog]

Yeah, the convention is pretty disgusting. It's totally underwritten by lobbyists. It's a 4,000 Democrats and 15,000 members of the media there to be feted, and the lobbyists certainly put on an unsavory party. Normally, the host committee raises money from the city, who are happy to kick in because of the economic impact. Apparently, the Denver host committee couldn't reach it's fundraising goals.

Please keep in ming, though, BeachSiO2, that the Obama candidacy represents a revolt in the party. The new guard is Obama and Dean. The old guard selected the Denver site and picked the host committee. Mark Penn and his money ho, lobbyist wife never had qualms about working the system for fun and profit. The Obama campaign is one entity, the DEC chaired by Dean is a second entity, and the DNCC host committee is yet a third.

Not excusing it, but just trying to clarify. It takes some time to clear the system.

Just a few observations:

1. Not all lobbyists have lots of money. Some just have a cause and spend years trying to get their message heard. Many of these "lobbyists" are employed by anti-drunk driving, save the arts, etc type groups.

2. The problem is with the money and perception of buying influence. This is perceived as not fair, and rightly so. But the people buying influence are not all lobbyists (although some are). Many of them are just wealthy citizens, like movie stars or trial lawyers or silicon valley nerds or wall street fat cats. None of those people are lobbyists.

3. For the most part, politicians attract the bulk of their money from people they already agree with anyway. There are exceptions to this of course, esp. when you get into appropriating government money or changing the tax laws. But the real problem is that politicians have been given too much power (esp. at the federal level). Power is a magnet for money. Reduce the power, you will reduce the money.

So it's not the lobbyists per se. It's the money. And it's not all the money. Just some of the money. Further, it's impossible, without hindsight, to see which money is good and which is bad. But the fact remains that politicians need to market themselves in order to educate people about what they stand for. This costs money. So the best we can do for the immediate future is require full transparency, watch them like hawks, and punish them when they do wrong.

To really "solve" the problem we would need to be better constitutionalists (in the vein of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay). Breaking up power, checking power by pitting one political body against another. We still have a system set up to do this but its efficacy has been eroded over the years by war emergencies, "progressive" reforms, and supreme court ineptitude.

In sum: a government that can do less, will be less corrupt. Funny thing is that liberals/progressives/democrats want to put more power in the hands of government. This because they want government to help all the "little people." They listen to politician after politician telling them that THEY are going to finally save the "little people" from the "big people," only to watch their savior become a "big person" himself within a year or so. Oh the irony!

[Everytime]

Second, do trial lawyers now count?

Trial lawyers, union bosses, gambling interests, etc. do not count because they are looking out for all of us, not their own interests. They're the good guys!

[Miss Kitty]

Trial lawyers, union bosses, gambling interests, etc. do not count because they are looking out for all of us, not their own interests. They're the good guys!

Boy, I could sure use a smilie here! :eek: