Presidential Senator Candidates Take Big Lobby $$

Hillary was a Senator and just recently a lobby issue could be a problem given the Transpacific Partnership Pact that is so contentious in the country right now.

Per Lee Fang: While Hillary Clinton has demurred over her position on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, her campaign has partnered with a pro-TPP law and lobby firm to raise money.

At The Intercept, Lee Fang reports that Clinton’s campaign held a fundraiser in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday with the political action committee of a law firm called McGuireWoods. Lobby registration documents reveal that a subsidiary of the group lobbies on behalf of Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest producer of pork, to pass both the TPP and “fast track”—a special presidential mandate that nearly eliminates Congress’ role in crafting trade legislation.

The fundraiser occurred as Congress rescheduled a vote on fast track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Fang continues:

Despite mounting pressure to take a position, Clinton has only provided [noncommittal] answers regarding her stance on both TPP and TPA. On Sunday, at a rally in Iowa, Clinton said there should be better protections for American workers and called for the president to work with Democrats in Congress — hardly a clarifying statement. Earlier that day, her chief pollster dismissed a call from ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos to provide a clear stance on TPA, casting the issue as simply “Washington inside baseball.”

For the event in D.C., billed as a “Conversation with John Podesta, Campaign Chair,” the Clinton campaign website said that I could learn the exact location only after RSVPing through a donation. I gave one dollar to find out. Apparently, that wasn’t enough. Instead of providing the address of the fundraiser as the campaign website had said it would, the campaign directed me to a site where I could volunteer.

Lobby money owns Washington DC, of this there is no dispute. The 10 largest lobby operations include the following industries:

The Technology lobby, the Mining lobby, the Defense lobby, the Agriculture lobby, Big Oil lobby, the Financial lobby, the Big Pharma lobby, the AARP lobby, the Pro-Israel lobby and the National Rifle Association lobby. The primer of these lobby groups is found here.

So what Senators that are running for president are on some lobby dollar hooks?

From Open Secrets:

Three of five senators running for WH have big backing from lobbyists

Three of the five U.S. senators running for president have made super-fans out of a few K Street lobbyists, an analysis of campaign finance data by OpenSecrets Blog shows.

Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have each raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from current or one-time federal lobbyists throughout their careers, the analysis shows. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has raised $82,050 from the same pool and Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ (D-Vt.) total fundraising haul from lobbyists stands at an even more paltry $50,075.

Neither Sanders nor Paul have hidden their disdain for lobbyists, so there’s some logic to their low fundraising totals from those in the profession. Both candidates, in their announcement speeches, railed against those who want to influence politics with money — Sanders referred to “billionaires…and their lobbyists,” Paul called them “special interests” — and struck similar tones.

“Both [Paul and Sanders] have publicly decried the influence of corporations in American public life,” Joshua Rosenstein, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer and expert on lobbying, said. “If you are a corporation, is it possible that you view each of them as relative lost cause? Sure.”

For some candidates, it’s not bad politics to keep K Street at arm’s length. In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists and refunded money to those who did contribute. After taking office, he barred federally registered lobbyists from joining advisory boards in his administration, before partially rolling back that ban last year.

But no 2016 hopeful has followed that lead, as the Wall Street Journal reports. And setting Paul and Sanders aside, the other senators running for president have already wooed a handful of lobbyists with deep pockets and a willingness to give to anyone who might help their clients.

In all, Graham has taken in $753,841 during his congressional career from current or one-time federally registered lobbyists who contributed more than $200 to him. Rubio and Cruz have received $571,952 and $265,043 from the same group, respectively. Those sums include donations to the senators’ campaign committees and leadership PACs.

Rubio, Cruz and Graham each have at least one lobbyist donor who, along with their spouses in some cases, has given in excess of $20,000 to the candidate’s campaign and PAC. Rubio has Ignacio Sanchez, a presidential bundler for Mitt Romney in 2012 from the firm DLA Piper; he represents Al Jazeera Satellite Network and Diageo PLC. Cruz has lobbying revolver Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk and his wife, Debra.

Graham, a senator since 2003, has enjoyed financial support from current or former lobbyists longer than his GOP Senate colleagues running for president. William H. Skipper, Jr. of the American Business Development Group, Reed Scott of Chesapeake Enterprises and his wife, and presidential bundler Van D. Hipp of American Defense International and his wife, have each given Graham more than $20,000 over the years.

The most Paul has received from any one lobbyist barely tops $6,000; that came from Charles Grizzle of Grizzle Co., who currently represents several Kentucky-based clients like the University of Louisville and the Louisville Regional Airport Authority. Sanders topped out at $3,000 from Nancy Zirkin of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and her husband.

The data analysis only covered sitting U.S. senators. Other presidential candidates or potential candidates who have served in federal office, like former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and one-time House member, now governor, John Kasich (R-Ohio), haven’t run a Senate or House campaign in some time. And for former governors like Rick Perry and Jeb Bush, state data on which of their donors were lobbyists isn’t available. Fundraising reports for candidates’ presidential campaigns won’t be available till mid-July, and the super PACs backing them don’t have to report until the end of that month.

Still, it’s clear that the non-Senate candidates also have their eyes on K Street money. Clinton has already reached out to prominent lobbyists on her side of the aisle, while Jeb Bush started seeking commitments from Washington allies even earlier this year. Lobbyists are reportedly starting to line up behind him.

Despite that fact that making contributions may be good for business, Rosenstein noted, many lobbyists also donate for ideological reasons.

“While they certainly have to be pragmatists about what they’re doing…and that certainly drives some of the giving,” he said, “there might very well be an equal or greater ideological segment of the lobbying community that aren’t driven by pragmatic reasons,” Rosenstein said.

 

Obama’s 1983 Essay vs. Iran Nuclear Today

From the NYT’s in part:

TEHRAN — With exactly a week left before the deadline for a final agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program, the country’s supreme leader appeared to undercut several of the central agreements his negotiators have already reached with the West.

In a speech broadcast live on Iran state television, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demanded that most sanctions be lifted before Tehran has dismantled part of its nuclear infrastructure and before international inspectors verify that the country is beginning to meet its commitments. He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade, as a preliminary understanding announced in April stipulates, and he repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.

That self imposed June 30 deadline is no deadline at all.

From the WSJ:

LUXEMBOURG—Iranian and Western officials for the first time publicly said they were willing to go past a June 30 deadline for sealing a final nuclear deal, insisting they could still unblock remaining obstacles in coming days.

The comments, made after talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his counterparts from the U.K., France and Germany on the sidelines of a European Union meeting in Luxembourg on Monday, underscore recent warnings that the nuclear talks have stalled as the deadline approaches.

So, how does this square with the talks going on today versus what Barack Obama wrote in 1983?

 SANE Students Against Nuclear Energy

Obama wrote a 3 page commentary while at Columbia where is assumes expertise on war, history, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons and the military. After a reading of this Obama essay, many things become much more clear, yes clear like mud.

Here is a link to read the text in an easier format.

Obamacare has been Renamed to RobertScare

Call it SCOTUScare or any other name than Constitutional, but there is no mistake the very branch of government that represents the people after today’s Supreme Court decision, the legislative branch is fundamentally inert. Let that sink in. ONLY Democrats voted for this law, let that sink in. Only Congress can approve money for subsidies and they did not approve the money for state exchanges so Treasury finessed law and funded the exchanges anyway. Let that sink in. Can Obamacare be repealed in 2017, sure, but is it likely? Not so much given the handful of SCOTUS decisions.  Everything you need to know leading up to today is found here.

Simply stated are read below:

SUPREME COURT SAVES OBAMACARE

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, handing a major victory to the Obama administration.

The decision was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts delivering the court’s majority opinion. Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s liberals.

It’s the second time in four terms the court has prevented the law from a major obstruction that would threaten its existence. Instead, the Affordable Care Act again survives as the largest expansion of healthcare in half a century.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in his opinion.

The key question in the case centered on whether the federal government had the ability to provide subsidies to help low-income Americans buy health insurance.

The challengers in the case argued the way the law was written does not allow for subsidized insurance in states where the federal government had set up insurance exchanges. Instead, the challengers argued, insurance subsidies are allowed only in states that have set up their own exchanges. They pointed to a clause that they argued meant exchanges should be “established by the state,” but members of Congress who were involved in writing the law disputed characterization. Thirty-four states currently rely on the federal marketplace.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In a scathing dissent, he appeared to take a shot at Roberts.

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Scalia wrote.

obamacare mapWashington Center for Equitable GrowthThe states and counties that will be affected by a ruling against the Obama administration

If the court had invalidated that portion of the law, Obama and Congress would have had to scramble as more than 6 million people could have lost their subsidies — and potentially their coverage. It would have been left to congressional Republicans to come up with either a quick fix or to use the ruling as an opportunity to start moving away from the law known as Obamacare. But Republicans were, overall, disjointed in how they planned to fix the problem.

“Today Democrats, and my guess is Republicans, are breathing one gigantic sigh of relief,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York).

“The Supreme Court decision ensures 6.4 million people will keep their coverage; it was legally the right decision and substantively the right outcome. Hopefully, our Republicans colleagues will now give up their quest to repeal Obamacare and move on to more productive activities for the middle class.”

With the decision in the Obama administration’s favor, court observers and health watchers said it would cement the Affordable Care Act as a key pillar of the president’s legacy.

“If the Court sides with the government, more people will continue to enroll and the ACA will likely ultimately be seen as a signature domestic achievement of historic proportions,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Business Insider before the ruling was handed down.

“Obamacare will remain controversial and no doubt feature in the election, but it’s hard to see it getting repealed outright at this point.”

Republican presidential candidates were quick to criticize the law, and they continued to pledge they would work toward repealing it.

“I disagree with the Court’s ruling and believe they have once again erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress in forcing ObamaCare on the American people,” US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) tweeted.

“I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it,” he added.

Three years ago, Roberts joined with the court’s liberals to uphold the heart of the Affordable Care Act — the law’s mandate that individuals buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

If you want to read the Roberts decision today on Obamacare:

14-114_qol1

 

Meanwhile the back-up tapes of Lois Lerner’s emails were erased after the subpoena and the two NY prison escapees are happy as they had insider help. A dark day for America.

The Lost Tea Party Invitation to Dinner at WH

Do you ever ask yourself where the invitation is inviting the Tea Party to the White House for dinner? How about the invitation for Family Security Matters or the Center for Security Policy to attend a State dinner? Will the Concerned Veterans for America organization be invited to the White House anytime soon?

Nah….but look who did just have dinner at the White House.

Expected Attendees at the White House Iftar Dinner

This evening, President Obama will continue a White House tradition by hosting an Iftar in observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in the East Room. This is the seventh Iftar, the traditional breaking of the fast at sunset, hosted by the President. This year’s dinner will have a special focus on young leaders and women, some of whom will be seated at the President’s table this evening.

Below is a list of some of the expected attendees at tonight’s White House dinner recognizing Ramadan:

Guests Seated at the President’s Table

  •          Ms. Batoul Abuharb, Houston, TX
  •          Mr. Ziad Ahmed, Princeton, NJ
  •          Ms. Samantha Elauf, Tulsa, OK
  •          Ms. Munira Khalif, Fridley, MN
  •          Ms. Kadra Mohamed, Saint Paul, MN
  •          Ms. Riham Osman, Houston, TX
  •          Mr. Wayne Rucker, Philadelphia, PA
  •          Ms. Wai Wai Nu, Rangoon, Burma

Members of Congress:

  •          The Honorable Andre Carson, United States Representative, Indiana
  •          The Honorable Richard Durbin, United States Senator, Illinois
  •          The Honorable Keith Ellison, United States Representative, Minnesota

Diplomatic Corps:

  •          His Excellency Michael Moussa Adamo, Ambassador of the Gabonese Republic
  •          His Excellency Lukman Al Faily, Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq
  •          Her Excellency Hunaina Al Mughairy, Ambassador of the Sultanate of Oman
  •          His Excellency Yousif Mana Saeed Al Otaiba, Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates
  •          Mr. Sami Alsadhan, Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d’Affaires a.i., Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Guest of His Excellency Adel Ahmed Al-Jubeir)
  •          His Excellency Sheikh Salem Al-Sabah, Ambassador of the State of Kuwait
  •          Her Excellency Hassana Alidou, Ambassador of the Republic of Niger
  •          His Excellency Abudlla Mohamed Alkhalifa, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain
  •          Mr. Adel Ali Ahmed Alsunaini, Charge d’Affaires a.i., Embassy of Yemen
  •          Chief Representative Maen Areikat, PLO Delegation to the United States
  •          His Excellency Madjid Bouguerra, Ambassador of People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
  •          His Excellency Rachad Bouhlal, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Morocco
  •          Her Excellency Alia Bouran, Ambassador of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
  •          His Excellency Budi Bowoleksono, Ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia
  •          Her Excellency Wafa Bughaighis, Charge d’Affaires, Embassy of Libya
  •          His Excellency Antoine Chedid, Ambassador of the Lebanese Republic
  •          His Excellency Tiena Coulibaly, Ambassador of the Republic of Mali
  •          His Excellency Daouda Diabate, Ambassador of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire
  •          His Excellency Mohamed El Haycen, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania
  •          Her Excellency Floreta Faber, Ambassador of the Republic of Albania
  •          The Honorable Sheikh Faye, Ambassador of the Republic of The Gambia
  •          His Excellency Ufuk Gokcen, Ambassador and Permanent Observer of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation to the United Nations
  •          His Excellency Faycal Gouia, Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia
  •          His Excellency Bakhtiyar Gulyamov, Ambassador of the Republic of Uzbekistan
  •          His Excellency Mahamat Hassane, Ambassador of the Republic of Chad
  •          His Excellency Awang Adek Bin Hussin, Ambassador of Malaysia
  •          His Excellency Akan Ismaili, Ambassador of the Republic of Kosovo
  •          His Excellency Jalil Abbas Jilani, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
  •          His Excellency Serdar Kilic, Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey
  •          His Excellency Subhas Mungra, Ambassador of the Republic of Suriname
  •          Her Excellency Jadranka Negodic, Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina
  •          His Excellency Meret Orazov, Ambassador of Turkmenistan
  •          His Excellency Farhod Salim, Ambassador of the Republic of Tajikistan
  •          His Excellency Ahmed Sareer, Ambassador of the Republic of Maldives
  •          Mr. Seydou Sinka, Charge d’Affaires a.i., Embassy of Burkina Faso
  •          His Excellency Bockari Stevens, Ambassador of the Republic of Sierra Leone
  •          His Excellency Elin Emin Oglu Suleymanov, Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan
  •          Her Excellency Amelia Sumbana, Ambassador of the Republic of Mozambique
  •          His Excellency Mohamed Mostafa Mohamed Tawfik, Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt
  •          His Excellency Kadyr Toktogulov, Ambassador of the Kyrgyz Republic
  •          His Excellency Kairat Umarov, Ambassador of the Republic of Kazakhstan
  •          His Excellency Mohammad Ziauddin, Bangladesh – Ambassador of Bangladesh

Cyber Security on the Skids, Blinking RED

Recorded Future is a real time open source intelligence collection company that determines trends and predictions of emerging threats.

Recorded Future identified the possible exposures of login credentials for 47 United States government agencies across 89 unique domains.

As of early 2015, 12 of these agencies, including the Departments of State and Energy, allowed some of their users access to computer networks with no form of two-factor authentication. The presence of these credentials on the open Web leaves these agencies vulnerable to espionage, socially engineered attacks, and tailored spear-phishing attacks against their workforce.

The damage has yet to be fully realized and cannot be overstated. Where is the White House? Where are the protections? Where is a policy? Major alarm bells as you read on.

From Associated Press:

Tech company finds stolen government log-ins all over Web

WASHINGTON (AP) — A CIA-backed technology company has found logins and passwords for 47 government agencies strewn across the Web – available for hackers, spies and thieves.

Recorded Future, a social media data mining firm backed by the CIA’s venture capital arm, says in a report that login credentials for nearly every federal agency have been posted on open Internet sites for those who know where to look.

According to the company, at least 12 agencies don’t require authentication beyond passwords to access their networks, so those agencies are vulnerable to espionage and cyberattacks.

The company says logins and passwords were found connected with the departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury and Energy, as well as the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence.

From the WSJ: Obama’s Cyber Meltdown

“While Russia and Islamic State are advancing abroad, the Obama Administration may have allowed a cyber 9/11 at home.”

If you thought Edward Snowden damaged U.S. security, evidence is building that the hack of federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) files may be even worse.

When the Administration disclosed the OPM hack in early June, they said Chinese hackers had stolen the personal information of up to four million current and former federal employees. The suspicion was that this was another case of hackers (presumably sanctioned by China’s government) stealing data to use in identity theft and financial fraud. Which is bad enough.

Yet in recent days Obama officials have quietly acknowledged to Congress that the hack was far bigger, and far more devastating. It appears OPM was subject to two breaches of its system in mid-to-late 2014, and the hackers appear to have made off with millions of security-clearance background check files.

These include reports on Americans who work for, did work for, or attempted to work for the Administration, the military and intelligence agencies. They even include Congressional staffers who left government—since their files are also sent to OPM.

This means the Chinese now possess sensitive information on everyone from current cabinet officials to U.S. spies. Background checks are specifically done to report personal histories that might put federal employees at risk for blackmail. The Chinese now hold a blackmail instruction manual for millions of targets.

These background checks are also a treasure trove of names, containing sensitive information on an applicant’s spouse, children, extended family, friends, neighbors, employers, landlords. Each of those people is also now a target, and in ways they may not contemplate. In many instances the files contain reports on applicants compiled by federal investigators, and thus may contain information that the applicant isn’t aware of.

Of particular concern are federal contractors and subcontractors, who rarely get the same security training as federal employees, and in some scenarios don’t even know for what agency they are working. These employees are particularly ripe targets for highly sophisticated phishing emails that attempt to elicit sensitive corporate or government information.

The volume of data also allows the Chinese to do what the intell pros call “exclusionary analysis.” We’re told, for instance, that some highly sensitive agencies don’t send their background checks to OPM. So imagine a scenario in which the Chinese look through the names of 30 State Department employees in a U.S. embassy. Thanks to their hack, they’ve got information on 27 of them. The other three they can now assume are working, undercover, for a sensitive agency. Say, the CIA.

Or imagine a scenario in which the Chinese cross-match databases, running the names of hacked U.S. officials against, say, hotel logs. They discover that four Americans on whom they have background data all met at a hotel on a certain day in Cairo, along with a fifth American for whom they don’t have data. The point here is that China now has more than enough information to harass U.S. agents around the world.

And not only Americans. Background checks require Americans to list their contacts with foreign nationals. So the Chinese may now have the names of thousands of dissidents and foreigners who have interacted with the U.S. government. China’s rogue allies would no doubt also like this list.

This is a failure of extraordinary proportions, yet even Congress doesn’t know its extent. The Administration is still refusing to say, even in classified briefings, which systems were compromised, which files were taken, or how much data was at risk.

***
While little noticed, the IRS admitted this spring it was also the subject of a Russian hack, in which thieves grabbed 100,000 tax returns and requested 15,000 fraudulent refunds. Officials have figured out that the hackers used names and Social Security data to pretend to be the taxpayers and break through weak IRS cyber-barriers. As Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson has noted, the Health and Human Services Department and Social Security Administration use the same weak security wall to guard ObamaCare files and retirement information. Yet the Administration is hardly rushing to fix the problem.

Way back in March 2014, OPM knew that Chinese hackers had accessed its system without having downloaded files. So the agency was on notice as a target. It nonetheless failed to stop the two subsequent successful breaches. If this were a private federal contractor that had lost sensitive data, the Justice Department might be contemplating indictments.

Yet OPM director Katherine Archuleta and chief information officer Donna Seymour are still on the job. Mr. Obama has defended Ms. Archuleta, and the Administration is trying to change the subject by faulting Congress for not passing a cybersecurity bill. But that legislation concerns information sharing between business and government. It has nothing to do with OPM and the Administration’s failure to protect itself from cyber attack.

Ms. Archuleta appears before Congress this week, and she ought to remain seated until she explains the extent of this breach. While Russia and Islamic State are advancing abroad, the Obama Administration may have allowed a cyber 9/11 at home.