[Vision2020] Schmoozing in Whose Interest?

[lfalen]

This all sounds good, but Obama has hired as many lobbyests as anyone.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:47:50 -0700
To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Schmoozing in Whose Interest?

> 
>  
> a.. 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> October 1, 2011
> Schmoozing in Whose Interest?
> On his first day in office, President Obama struck a blow for better government with his executive order banning political appointees from accepting gifts from lobbyists. Now the administration is rightly proposing to extend the ban to all 2.6 million career federal workers. 
> 
> The ban, open to public comment until mid-November, would end the current exception that lets a lobbyist provide a worker up to $50 worth of gifts, including meals, entertainment and invitations to events, each year. 
> 
> More significant, it would stop the practice of allowing federal employees free admission to business and social functions sponsored by lobbyists if they are deemed "widely attended." In its proposed rules for the more stringent ban, the Office of Government Ethics said the threat of that loophole was not so much from "the brazen quid pro quo, but rather the cultivation of familiarity and access" that lobbyists use as their stock in trade. 
> 
> The proposal does not restrict career workers' attendance at educational and professional events. But the American League of Lobbyists is nevertheless warning that the restriction will mean "the dumbing-down of government" by reining in supposedly valuable interactions - as if receptions for lobbyists' clients were ever founts of unbiased information. The league did offer a sound criticism in noting that the ban affects only registered lobbyists while ignoring nonprofit special-interest groups that can have ties to lobbying organizations. They should be subject to the ban, too. 
> 
> As proposed, the rule would codify the ban so that it would remain in place beyond the Obama administration. Any successor who might want to rescind it would then have to explain why he or she was determined to put the interests of K Street above those of the rest of the country. 
> 
> 
> __________________________
> Wayne A. Fox
> wayne.a.fox at gmail.com
> 
>