Then-Sen. Obama's legislative dealings w/ Exelon remarkably prescient

[brentspeak]

From stern public rhetoric with dramatic vows to seek "action" to eventual watering-down of legislation on behalf of corporate donors. We've seen this same MO time-and-time again the past two years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html

By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

snip

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

[rfranklin]

1. Compromise you can believe in!

Works for me! :sarcasm:

[Tansy_Gold]

2. me, too.

:puke:

[xchrom]

3. recommend

[NOVA_Dem]

4. past is prologue. nt

[Jakes Progress]

5. Rushing to meet their demands before they were even given.

He is so shrewd he knows what the other side wants and gives it too them before talks even begin. He gives in with an almost superhuman prescience.

[onenote]

6. Describing Exelon's CEO as an Obama donor is both accurate and misleading

During the 2008 election cycle, Rowe donated 2300 to Obama. He also donated 4600 to McCain, 2300 to Giuliani, and 1000 to Romney. Over the past 10 years, Rowe has made over $370,000 in campaign related contributions to candidates, PACs, and party campaign committees. Those contributions have been overwhelmingly tilted towards republicans. Most of the Democrats to whom he has contributed are from Illinois. He has contributed nearly $100,000 the the republican national committee and the repubican congressional campaign committee. His contributions over that same period of time to Democratic party organizations totalled $2000.

I'm not questioning anything else in the story. Just the characterization of the relationship between Exelon's CEO and Obama which, by merely calling Rowe a donor, paints a misleading picture.

[brentspeak]

7. Not describing Exelon as a major Obama donor would be inaccurate and misleading

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

[onenote]

9. i think it is misleading to say a company is a major donor because its rank and file employees

donate to a candidate.

Exelon is an Illinois company with around 19 000 employees. In Obama's campaigns for federal office, he received 319 separate contributions from Exelon employees. Some employees gave twice, so the total number of employees contributing to his campaign was even smaller. More than half of the contributions were $500 or under. He didn't get any money from Exelon's PAC (because he didn't accept PAC contributions). Calling Exelon a major donor also is laughable on the numbers. The employer whose employees contributed the largest amount to Obama's presidential campaign was the University of California, whose employees gave over $1.5 million. Exelon employees gave $200,000 to Obama's presidential run. That doesn't crack the top 20. In fact, its less than half the amount given by the 20th largest giver to his campaign.

So, yes, its misleading to call Exelon, or its CEO, a major donor to Obama's campaign.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. While I think the notion of Obama being bought and paid for is ludicrous...

I don't agree with you about rank and file donating. When rank and file employees from one company donate a large sum, it's almost always because a single person in the company bundled the money and gave it to the candidate. That makes the candidate no less beholden to the bundler than they would be to the company if the company gave that money.

That said, the idea that any donor or industry could buy off the Obama Administration on a major policy initiative is absurd considering that he raised over $700 million and no industry financed more than a small fraction of that. I'm not saying that they don't do special favors for their donors, give them more access, or sell off ambassadorships to low priority nations (in fact, it's pretty evident that they do all of those things).

But I highly doubt they let industries control their decision making on major policy initiatives that could determine the outcome of Obama's presidency, since the amounts donated are paltry compared to the overall total that they raised. It's extremely expensive to buy off a President because presidential races are extremely expensive, and that's why people don't even try. In fact with Presidents, companies often donate to whomever they think will win regardless of ideology, in the hope that it might possibly have some benefits.

However, you can just as easily change a major policy initiative by buying off a dozen senators. And that's exactly what usually happens.

[onenote]

12. My experience with bundling differs

I have given money through bundlers in the past. The bundlers didn't work for the same company as me and the vast majority of the money they raised came from outside their companies. I don't think my experience is that unique. Quite a few of the companies at the top of the list of contributors to the Obama campaign don't have anyone from those companies listed as one of Obama's bundlers. Or, as in the case of Don Beyer, you can find top bundlers whose employees gave next to nothing to the campaign.

[TheKentuckian]

15. The point is he doesn't need to be bought and paid for. He is an ideological capitulator

that wants a deal that works for the opposition while pretending to put them in check.

[frazzled]

8. Howard Dean had an Exelon scandal in 2004: correction: Entergy

It was about the sale of the security and safety plagued Vermont Yankee nuclear facility and selling it to Entergy.

[ClarkUSA]

11. What garbage! University of CA employees contributed more than Wall Street to Obama 08.

Following your reasoning, I guess it was "remarkably prescient" that Pres. Obama went to college, because now it's obvious he's forever in their debt.

OMG, that's why he is determined to spare Pell grants in his budget plans to increase education spending by 11%!! He's totally bought and paid for by the University of California!!!!!!!!!!!!??@

:sarcasm:

FYI, the vast majority of donations were < $200 and came from ordinary folks like me. We The People's donations dwarfed those from any single entity or category of donors.

[Azathoth]

13. Nothing like digging up an article planted by the Hillary campaign. Keep the primaries going!

By the way, John Edwards is still a scumbag. :hi:

[DirkGently]

14. Hmmm. Grandiose talk, followed by "compromise" more akin to capitulation? Doesn't sound like our guy

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.