Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton Records on Transparency, Lobbyists, and Ethics

This post is a special shoutout to Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Sun-Times and other media journalists who don’t seem to understand that this is a Democratic primary where informing voters about candidates’ records relative to each other will help them better decide which candidate will actually bring about the most change.

Here are the differences between Obama and Clinton on transparency and ethics reform. If I missed anything let me know.

Obama Clinton Winner?
Takes campaign money from federal Washington Lobbyists No Yes Obama
Takes money from state lobbyists Yes Yes Tie
Took lobbyist money for Senate campaign Yes Yes Tie
Takes federal PAC money No Yes Obama
Took subsidized corporate jets before January 2006 Yes Yes Tie
Took subsidized corporate jets after January 2006 No Yes Obama
Released complete record of correspondences from previous political position before primaries While his State Senate transcripts are publicly available, it is unclear whether his State Senate correspondences (appointments, meetings, and policy memos) exist. If so, no. Records from WH years and as First Lady of Arkansas do exist. Has not called for full expedited release before primaries. Tie?
Disclosed 2006-2007 earmarks Yes
No Obama
Released names of any fundraising bundlers Yes; the first Democratic nominee to do so; (originally just did it for $50,000+) Yes, the last major Democratic nominee to do so; just does it for $100,000+) Tie for doing it, Obama for leadership on doing it
Released “cities or states” for fundraising bundlers No No Tie
Detailed the names of bundlers at all financial levels Yes No, just provides info on $100,000+ Obama
Releases details about campaign fundraising events No No Tie
Co-sponsored campaign finance reform legislation Yes No Obama
Released income tax returns to the public Yes Yes

Update: After much prodding, Clinton finally released her tax returns in April 2008, months after Obama released his returns

Tie for doing it; Obama for very early leadership in doing it
Use of Earmarks and Pork Spending See The Hill’s comparison
See The Hill’s Comparison Obama
Pledged to post all meetings as President online Yes No Obama
Has posted all meetings as U.S. senator online No No Tie
Has given an ethics speech and proposal Yes - Proposal - Speech Yes - Proposal - Speech Tie
Passed ethics legislation at state level Yes No Obama
Pushed ethics legislation in U.S. Senate
  • Passed a bill that created a searchable database that allows Americans to track how the government is spending their tax money! You can look at all federal government contracts. (www.usaspending.gov)
  • Pushed new Senate ethics bill to require candidates to disclose their bundlers
  • Pushed to create a Congressional Ethics Commission
  • Pushed a law banning subsidized corporate flights for candidates
Obama

Last Updated 4/22/08.

Note: I didn’t put in Edwards because of space constraints, but he falls between Clinton and Obama on this issue. He talks about it all the time, but when you compare Edwards’ actual record to Obama, Obama outperforms him.

UPDATE: Also see: “Why I’m Not Impressed That John Edwards Never Took Money from a Washington Lobbyist

39 Responses to “Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton Records on Transparency, Lobbyists, and Ethics”

  1. kjd112 Says:

    The Illinois State Senate transcripts are publicly available. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/ (Senate Menu, Transcripts, Click Here for previous Assembly)

  2. sagereader Says:

    I’m talking about the meetings, memos, and things from when he was a state senator. Thanks, I’ll clarify that.

  3. sagereader Says:

    p.s. the reason why i make that point is because lynn sweet discusses it in her article.

  4. horizonr Says:

    Have you sent this to the campaign?

  5. Krista Says:

    Fabulous info! I’ve hyped it and linked to it on my blog as well. Hopefully this will drive more folks to read this important comparison.

    http://camperky.typepad.com

  6. ABC: Obama Camp Promises New Disclosure on Bundlers « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] Don’t forget to check out the  Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama ethics reform comparison chart. [...]

  7. The Swamp: Obama Discloses Top Fundraisers « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] “Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama Ethics Reform Comparison Chart“ [...]

  8. Obama: No Lobbyists Allowed « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] Also see the “Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton Ethics Reform Comparison Chart “ [...]

  9. 88 Black Ministers in SC Announce Support For The Candidate Who… « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] Has the worst ethics/lobbying record of the top tier candidates running [...]

  10. One More Problem With The Media: Conflating Drastically Different Cases « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] at the Sun-Times tried to conflate Clinton and Obama as being the same on ethics, when a clear analysis shows that Obama is far superior to Clinton on these [...]

  11. How Do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Compare On Earmarks and Pork Spending? « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] Also see “Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton Ethics Reform Comparison Chart“ [...]

  12. Better Now Than On or Right Before February 5 « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] Than On or Right Before February 5 So 39% of New Hampshire voters chose negative campaigning, lobbyist loyalty, and Iraq & Iran warmongering over good judgment, ethics reformism, and foreign policy [...]

  13. The Women Gloria Steinem Forgot « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] this end, Barack Obama has taken a much stronger stand to rid himself of the strings of lobbyist funding in ways that Hillary hasn’t. Hillary is one [...]

  14. HuffPo: Hillary Clinton Is By Far the Worst Abuser of Earmarks « Think On These Things Says:

    [...] Also See: “Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton Records on Transparency, Lobbyists, and Ethics“ [...]

  15. Karen Says:

    This is very compelling. Will the TV and print media ever start reporting this type of information?

  16. Erick Says:

    The links which show a comparison of earmarks no longer works. Can you put the details into your table?

  17. sagereader Says:

    Hey Erick,

    Thanks for letting me know. I just updated to another news article that reports on it.

  18. dale Says:

    because of SPACE CONSTRAINTS? please… just the typical ‘this race is only about Obama and Clinton’ that got us to this point to begin with. I’ll pick O any day over C, but I get nauseated when Democrats actually do what the media does in blackballing a candidate they don’t want to talk about just so they can get the matchup they want that they think a GOPer has a shot at after 8 years of the mental midget.

  19. sagereader Says:

    Mr. Dale, I’m not a Democrat. I’m a progressive Independent who is trying to get Obama in the White House. I don’t have any obligation to John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party.

    I did leave out Edwards because of space constraints though. If you look at the table, it is already at the edge and some text is scrunched. Those are constraints of this blog layout. However, I did point to a Washington Post article which you are welcome to read that compares all three.

    Space constraints or not, the record clearly shows that Obama is best on ethics, then Edwards, then Clinton.

  20. John Says:

    I don’t have a problem with the ethics analysis, but if you are implying that because of the outcome one candidate is better for the presidency than the other, then that’s entirely different. An opportunistic leader with the ability to work in the gray is much more advantageous for our country than one who espouses hope without the political machine know-how to realize the outcome. In a state of economic and foreign turmoil for the U.S., do we really want to choose a president that speaks loudly and carries a little twig [sic]?

  21. Michael Says:

    I’m on the fence with all of the contending canidates including Caine. I vote for who has my best interests in mind. I’m not in to the hoopla or charisma, not to mention avoiding the uprising of the black and / or female discussions. What I’m looking for is similar to what you have put together however expanded beyond the ethical history you have listed. What about these hot topics in a comparison: Iraq War (then and now), Roe v Wade / Abortion, Immigration, Net Neutrality, First Amendment, Death Penalty, Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Stem Cell, Tax Reform (deductions, increase/decrease, etc), Social Security, Health Care (Coverage, Universal, Prescription Drugs from Canada, etc.), Legalization of Marijuana (Medical and not), Fuel (Alternative fuel, Minimum Mileage), Education (our education system is getting it’s butt smacked every year by asian countries - look at who makes all of the reliable electronics and cars) and lastly their experience as a politician (member/panel of, voting history, years of experience).

    Can you take on this as a challenge?

  22. arius Says:

    what a load of crap this posted “chart” is. You started the project obviously as an Obama supporter and try to hide it with this rhetoric and half truths. you cover your specific view of certain areas, leaving out many, and don’t explain details that need to be explained.

    what complete bullshit.

    we’ve lived for 8 yrs of bush sheep and now we have to deal with obama sheepl

    it’s disgusting.

    this liberal will NEVER vote for Obama.

  23. sagereader Says:

    arius, if you have specifics about ethics reform issues that have been left out of the chart or statements in any of the links that are untrue, please share them.

  24. Frank Says:

    Do you find strategic donations such as those made from Hopefund that is now just directed to the main Obama website (strategic but legal mind you) ethical? These donations have been made to politicos in key states that then endorse Obama. Also, check out the above website. Federal lobbyist money and lobbyist money still smells of lobbyist money. This does not negate good work mind you. However, if a candidate proposes Google-like search ability for transparency - be prepared for savvy readers to question one’s use of PAC money in the beginning and then shunning it later for public funds when one wishes to look a little cleaner. Of course it takes money to run a campaign but if you build it we will read. Demand disclosure and you must disclosure yourself. I appreciate your information but caution you to not seem to leaning - it makes your chart seem less credible.

  25. sagereader Says:

    Frank, we agree that Barack Obama is imperfect yet better than Hillary Clinton on issues of ethics and transparency, right?

    If you have evidence that that is not the case, please share.

  26. Obama’s Legislative Record–and how it’s related to Hillary’s defeat « Ketchup and Caviar Says:

    [...] A very useful comparison grid [...]

  27. Presidential Elections 2008 Says:

    Obama, Clinton Prepare for Ohio and Texas

    The candidates in the Democratic camps ramped up their campaigning ahead of tomorrow’s primaries in Ohio and Texas. Currently Barack Obama is leading ahead of Hillary Clinton, having won 11 consecutive victories, in the last few primaries.

    The Clinton camp released a new television commercial that implied that she had the required experience that would help her make disaster averting decisions. The Obama camp was quick to retort to the ad by highlighting Clinton’s endorsement of the controversial war in Iraq.

  28. Nancy Whitaker Says:

    IN CHICAGO
    Obama also has had to rely on big-time fundraisers. Steven Zager, a Houston lawyer for the law and lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, has held several events for Obama in Texas. Zager, a lifelong Republican, received what many large fundraisers seek: access to the candidate.

    Top firms for Obama donors
    joliphant@tribune.com

    Sidley Austin* … $226,491

    Skadden Arps* … $196,420

    Jones Day … $181,996

    Jenner & Block* … $136,565

    Kirkland & Ellis* … $134,738

    *FIRM ALSO EMPLOYS CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYISTS

    Note: Data as of Dec. 31, 2007, from the Center for Responsive Politics; contributions came from lawyers in the firm, not the firm itself

  29. sagereader Says:

    Nancy,

    For you to say that so and so’s company had people who gave money and that company uses lobbyists is “guilt by association” but it is not in any way an invalidation of the fact that…

    Barack Obama does not accept campaign funding from federally registered lobbyists, while Hillary Clinton does.

    Face it. Barack Obama is imperfect, but he’s light years ahead of Hillary Clinton on issues of ethics reform (he’s passed the legislation and she hasn’t), lobbyists (he’s not accepting federally registered lobbyist money and she is), and transparency (he’s released his tax returns and she hasn’t.)

  30. sagereader Says:

    Also, Obama doesn’t accept money from firms accused of sexually harassing their female employees, while Hillary Clinton does…

    http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

  31. Nancy Whitaker Says:

    In re: http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

    Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is “ongoing” and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. “With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions,” Wolfson said.

    Kind of like Obama’s association with Rezko!

  32. sagereader Says:

    You mean, kind of like, this?

    http://images.politico.com/global/clintonsrezko.jpg

  33. Nancy Whitaker Says:

    http://images.politico.com/global/clintonsrezko.jpg
    Did that picture denote a twenty some year friendship?

  34. sagereader Says:

    friendship like that between the Clintons and the Saudi Royal family?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

    And to have the nerve to funnel this money into the Clinton library after we were attacked on 9/11 by people from Saudi Arabia? Oh, and how are we supposed to rid our dependence on foreign oil if the Clintons personally profit from it?

  35. glass house Says:

    “Face it. Barack Obama is imperfect, but he’s light years ahead of Hillary Clinton on issues of ethics reform”

    light years ahead — in hiding the source of the money.

    Law firms are the traditional way to bundle and distribute corporate cash while simultaneously hiding its origins. This pathway is all the more important now that direct contributions by corps are prohibited & individual and industry PAC contributions are so scrutinized. So how exactly is it an improvement that he is using law firms as the funnel for industry money?

    Obama is the same as Clinton; although arguably more offensive in his cloying self-righteousness.

    As long as the candidates need money to run, there will be self-interested people wanting to give it to them. that is irrespective of the size of the govt, per the discussion I just had w/ a libertarian acquaintance.

    Seems like if we use taxpayer dollars to stage an election — vote counting, etc — we need a taxpayer-financed information system. There needs to be free TV, radio time, free use of mails, etc to qualified candidates — full public finance of campaigns.

    While I am very interested in which industries give money to which candidates, and in getting more reform, I don’t judge candidates that harshly for taking industry money when that is a structural requirement of the for-pay information delivery system of mass media advertising.

  36. dj Says:

    Obama supports campaign reform, then doesn’t use it himself. That bothered me. He is against flying in corporate subsidized jets, but he used to do that. On the environment, both are equal, except that Obama favored coal interests (which is in his state’s corporate need) in a vote and Hillary did not. Hillary has an environmental edge on him. Obama did vote for requiring 40mpg car averages within 10 years, Hillary didn’t, but the 40 was arbitrary and hopeful, so I can’t give him anything on that, and it could hurt US companies. The Iraq War is supposedly Obama’s strong point, saying the war would end in 09, but while being against entering the war is one thing, being for exiting prematurely is another. He was as Senator silent too long, too, to be so loud now. He could have voted to cut the funding, and didn’t, same as Hillary. We can’t abandon Iraq for many reasons, humanitarian and especially self-interest in having military presence in the region. McCain will capitalize on Iraq and the potential it holds for US energy needs. I like the idea of Bill being first lady, or gentleman, or whatever. I still like him, and he is still the best speaker I’ve ever heard. Michele has just sunk, stunk, or whatever it is that has made her a turn off.

    I’m a democrat, but can’t vote for a Clinton again. I favor having a man. If Hillary were a man, she wouldn’t seem so devisive. Yet, the rationalization required to concoct this admittedly biased list scares me, just as the crazy cheering crowds for Obama scares me. I’m leaning to sending fellow democrats a message with a vote for Nader. Obama people are squeezing me out, like better than thou Apple only users, nose up Hybrid drivers, vegan eating, exercising worshipping people have. Get humble and be humble if you are going to think you are better than others. There really isn’t a lot of difference between Hillary and Barack, and McCain isn’t a monster. Watch out.

  37. sagereader Says:

    dj, if there is anything in the list that is inaccurate please let me know and i’m happy to correct it. for non-ethics/lobbyist/transparency based comparisons please see the “Candidate Comparisons” page.

    This chart focuses solely on ethics, transparency, and lobbyist issues as the title says.

  38. Evergreen Says:

    dj…what I find scarey are politicians who try to manipulate the voters with innuendo/fear/personal attacks and emotion instead of logic & reason, facts & issues. For me this includes laughing at & ridiculing your opponent by making fun of their words. When I watched HRC’s RI speech; watched the laughter at another’s expense, it reminded me of the 2004 Republican convention with people gleefully, and mindlessly, waving flipflops as they disparaged Kerry. These are the tactics of tyrants and this is what I find scarey.

  39. etronicenterprises Says:

    Seems pretty interesting, looks like Obama’s got his work cut out for himself.

    While I’m here, I was also looking at the weekly democratic nominee polls, and it’s almost amazing how Barack Obama came from a 28% deficit to taking the lead over Hilary Clinton just weeks before the democratic caucus.

    What do you think of that?

    Tell me more at ObamaChoice.com

Leave a Reply