Obama Creates Delicious Hell for Stimulus Lobbyists

/12 Comments/in /by

With this memo.

Sec. 3. Ensuring Transparency of Registered Lobbyist Communications.

(a) An executive department or agency official shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.

(b) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in-person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in-person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.

(c) All written communications from a registered lobbyist concerning the commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds under the Recovery Act for particular projects, applications, or applicants shall be posted publicly by the receiving agency or governmental entity on its recovery website within 3 business days after receipt of such communication.

(d) An executive department or agency official may communicate orally with registered lobbyists concerning general Recovery Act policy issues; provided, however, that such oral communications shall not extend to or touch upon particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding, and further that the official must contemporaneously or immediately thereafter document in writing: (i) the date and time of the contact on policy issues; (ii) the names of the registered lobbyists and the official(s) between whom the contact took place; and (iii) a short description of the substance of the communication. This writing must be posted publicly by the executive department or agency on its recovery website within 3 business days of the communication.

(e) Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communications with any person or entity concerning general Recovery Act policy issues, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any of the individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such issues is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. If so, the official shall comply with paragraph (d) above.

I like it (though I expect big money is already inventing a new way around registering as lobbyists).

So how do we get a memo like this for TARP, TALF, and Fed discussions?

image_print
12 replies
  1. Spokane61 says:

    How do we get a memo like this to deal with the our Constitutional rights issues like the government spying on Americans, depriving people of Habius Corpus, Renditions without judicial review and the many other issues the current administration seems to be agreeing with the previous War Criminals about.

  2. jdmckay says:

    I like it

    Maybe it’s a start.

    (though I expect big money is already inventing a new way around registering as lobbyists).

    Well, it’s only for “executive department or agency” officials. That leaves staffers, researchers and… oh ya, congress. And I guess, by Cheney’s standards, OVP as well.

    Oh well, like I said, it’s a start. Hope it’s not stillborn.

  3. scribe says:

    So how do we get a memo like this for TARP, TALF, and Fed discussions?

    Start the typewriter in the Office of the Press Secretary with “TARP”, “TALF”, and “Federal Reserve” substituted into the appropriate places.

  4. Arkinsaw says:

    AIG Suing US Government!

    Did you miss this story from yesterday’s Times?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03…..20aig.html

    While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens.

    A.I.G. sued the government last month in a bid to force it to return the payments, which stemmed in large part from its use of aggressive tax deals, some involving entities controlled by the company’s financial products unit in the Cayman Islands, Ireland, the Dutch Antilles and other offshore havens.

    A.I.G. is effectively suing its majority owner, the government, which has an 80 percent stake and has poured nearly $200 billion into the insurer in a bid to avert its collapse and avoid troubling the global financial markets. The company is in effect asking for even more money, in the form of tax refunds. The suit also suggests that A.I.G. is spending taxpayer money to pursue its case, something it is legally entitled to do. Its initial claim was denied by the Internal Revenue Service last year.

    The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 27 in Federal District Court in Manhattan, details, among other things, certain tax-related dealings of the financial products unit, the once high-flying division that has been singled out for its role in A.I.G.’s financial crisis last fall. Other deals involved A.I.G. offshore entities whose function centers on executive compensation and include C. V. Starr & Company, a closely held concern controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chairman, and the Starr International Company, a privately held enterprise incorporated in Panama, and commonly known as SICO.

    There’s more…

  5. FormerFed says:

    Boy, have times changed. When I retired in 1992, I was assigned an ethics consular in the Sec AF’s office that I had to get his opinion on every prospective consulting job I contemplated taking before I could commit to it.

    The first year (since I was involved in procurement and contracts) I had to clear 8 or 10 specific statutory restrictions before I could take the job. The second year was lessened and after that it was restricted to contractors on a specific program that I had some management responsibility.

    It all worked fine and never really caused me any trouble or loss of business. Where did all that go?? (Stupid question – it all went by the wayside when new laws were passed.) I blame this on both the Bushies and the Congress.

    Let’s get back to the old way of doing business.

  6. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    From the Dept of Yes, We May Finally Decide That Government or Civil Service Does Meaningful Work On Occasion:

    …and further that the official must contemporaneously or immediately thereafter document in writing: (i) the date and time of the contact on policy issues; (ii) the names of the registered lobbyists and the official(s) between whom the contact took place; and (iii) a short description of the substance of the communication. This writing must be posted publicly by the executive department or agency on its recovery website within 3 business days of the communication.

    Here’s hoping. As for @4, strikes me as just the item to completely piss off an already completely irritated Congress. So maybe they’ll consider adopting the new rule, as well…?

  7. timbo says:

    Sounds like an attack on paying registered lobbyists to lobby. Gosh, what’s the penalty for not heeding the Presidents memo? I mean, I thought it was Congress to make laws and for the President to carry them out…but he’s telling subordinates not to be bad? Well, gee, that’s good…I guess?

  9. Minnesotachuck says:

    Swopa has a post at FDL pointing out the parallel between the financial terrorism on the part of the establishment that EW and Obama have been writing and talking about and the financial terrorism that Ali al-Marri is soon to be put on trial for. Here’s a quote he grabs from CBS News:

    Al Qaeda leaders wanted al-Marri, a computer specialist, to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system and to serve as a liaison for other al Qaeda operatives, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

    Who needs al Qaeda?

  10. lesserdevil says:

    I didn’t say anything about this when I first read it. I have a lot of respect for your opinions and writing. I do not think the title of this post accurately describes the power of the memo. You may as well have used an Ackerman style title, using rap lyric or song titles that have little to do with the content. Obama has not created a hell for stimulus lobyists. He just laid out another piece of paper they can ignore. There’s room here to be optimistic, but I don’t consider it particularly delicious.

    That’s JMO, and I’m just a guy who wanted to say something. I have no special qualifications, but that is what I think. At which trillion dollar boondoggle are we to become alarmed that all the laws, bills and memos aren’t doing a frakking thing to get rid of the truly greedy and evil people in the upper, upper class?

  11. lesserdevil says:

    Note: By “get rid of” I meant remove from the proceedings involving restoring our economy to something that seems better than The Titanic. The guilty parties will of course still keep their loot, because they have hundreds of millions of people who love them for being thieves.

Comments are closed.