I have been writing some halacious (and I believe quite excellent) articles on the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR AND LONG RANGE BENEFITS FOR AMERICA'S HEALTH, FOR DR. HOWARD DEAN III, M.D., to be considered an "early" member of Obama's Cabinet, if that wouldn't be too big a step down for one of his genius level intelligence, I say as Secretary of Health, or better yet, FDA Commissioner, to take federal regulatory power out of the hands and make it begin again to actually protect consumers.....
FDA Commissioner should be a Cabinet Level position, anyway...it oversees a full 25% of the entire US Economy , the segment based on Food or Drugs).
The 6 decades-long subservience to corporate demand and corporate profits, the influence of corporate lobbyists to destroy true consumer protection legislation at all levels, the international implications, especially Economic, of a total regulatory failure in the United States Food and Drug Administration: all of this needs to come to a rapid, almost immediate end, with a very strong consumer protection-oriented FDA Commissioner who is not going to open the Revolving Door at the FDA to corporations regulated by the FDA, and not going to constantly capitulated to the whims an profits of Big Pharma and Big Junk Food, dba Grocery Manufacturers of America, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Wrigley's Gum, Ajinomoto of Japan (the world's largest manufacturer of both Aspartame and of Monosodium Glutamate, and everybody's fist choice for monster corporation: Monsanto, etc.
I see no better choice than nor anyone else I would trust more to do that job than Howard Dean!
[Here is one of my first articles on this subject: http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Medical-Corner-of-the-by-Stephen-Fox-080824-149.html] (I also want to see New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as Secretary of State and California Attorney General and former Governor Jerry Brown, as Attorney General) I frequently hear that such discussions, if they came from Obama, would be deemed "presumptuous" and "arrogant", some say by the press and others say from the Neocon Right Wingers. However, if he were to speak to that issue in the context of what he would like to achieve as President in the various key realms, Environment, Education, International, Defense, etc., and at the same time, mention some names of who the USA MIGHT see in charge of which Cabinet level positions: With some more obligatory brainstorming, THIS SEEMS LIKE A DYNAMITE CAMPAIGN TACTIC AND WAY TO SECURE FENCESITTERS AND UNDECIDED, especially in Battleground states.... Too bad if the Neocons label it "arrogant" or "presumptuous." I could care less what they think. This is not some mere campaign ploy, but a plan that would illuminate ALL Americans as to what his administration might achieve. In such a comparison with McCain, I am sure Obama would come out clearly on top.
Prediction: McCain will use the Bush 2004 Debate Tactic of Deriding Obama's Ostensible "Lack of Experience." Cheney used that as well in the VP Debates. You know McCain will hammer that, but describing Cabinet picks during the debates will blow McCain and his leaky boat right out of the tub! The Republicans will, in their fuzzy demented way, will remember how well this worked in 2004!I see clearly that if Obama would try this on a trial basis, here and there, before the first debate, ultimately he would be doing it for the right reasons, so that the American public might better comprehend his highest goals domestically and internationally, and it would open the door to perceptions of his candidacy, raising it above the National Enquirer propensities of the Republican Team in this election.
Obama should immediately ask Dwight Eisenhower's Granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, to appear at campaign major events in the Battleground states, for in the Senate Races, and in the Presidential Race. I am sure she would accept.
I have heard from at least 50 people in Florida that they are praying and begging for former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, to come to Florida, to dispell the vicious rumors the R's have spread throughout the elderly mostly Jewish community, that Obama is some kind of secret Muslim Terrorist. I am serious about such reports coming from South Florida, and I thus encourage Obama and Biden to invite Ed Koch to spend a month in Florida on their behalf, and to ask Susan Eisenhower to appear in older Rust Belt and Bible Belt rallies, where older fence sitters and undecideds will hear her grandfather, the last Real Republican, with great benefit for the Electoral Vote Tally. Respectfully offered, Stephen Fox Founder, New Millennium Fine Art a Santa Fe Gallery since 1980 stephen@santafefineart.com
The Medical Corner of the News: Howard Dean, M.D. as Secretary of Health or FDA Commissioner?
[this article was originally published at my blog on mybarackobama.com; details are at: http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=57470&ret=AccountDtl.aspx]Howard Branch Dean III, M.D., may have higher goals than being Health Secretary or FDA Commissioner in the Obama Administration. He is, after all, the brains behind the 50 state coordinated strategy which might actually bring back a 60 vote filibuster proof majority to the Democrats in the Senate, and where do you go from there, having done that? He might be too smart to be in such a job, so that would be up to him, of course, and to President Obama.But just for a minute, remembering the speeches we have heard and the letters we have read from Dr. Dean: imagine having a populist consumer protectionist physician of Dr. Dean's calibre (there are no others) at the helm of the FDA, the single most important Federal Agency, since it directly oversees 25% of the American economy, instead of the glut of corporate serving lackeys we have had in the past 8 to 16 years.Just like I want to see a major internationalist like William Blaine Richardson III as Secretary of State, and the recent placement of his speech at the Democratic Convention proves others are thinking along the same lines; similarly, I want to see a massive overhaul of the American regulatory system in terms of food additives, chemicals, preservatives, sweeteners, etc., as I am sure they killing millions, and not just in the USA.Further. we need an Attorney General with the positive record and proven stance in protecting consumers rather than corporate bottom lines would be California Jerry Brown, and an Attorney General who will work to restore American Constitutional freedoms and 850 years old measures like Habeas Corpus, instead of tearing them down, and routing them whenever it seemed to suit their fancy or their deluded view of terrorism and national emergencies that they themselves caused, whether directly or indirectly.I am in the process of determing what Dr. Dean has to say about this, and who the FDA Commissioner is going to be is mighty important to the American people, whether they realize it yet or not; hopefully, it wouldn't be a step down for him to go in to the FDA in January, and start to correct many or all of the ghastly mistakes by the FDA, particulalry the Bush Commissioner, Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach, in the latter's penchant for coming up with corporate-pleasantries as policy. If it doesn't appeal to Dr. Dean to do this, who would he in turn recommend?The FDA is a state of abject failure, and a large part of the failure stems from the cozy relations it has with Big Pharma, which unforatunately spills over into the far larger field of Big Grocery, with ghastly consequences for us every time we sit down to eat, or everytime we go to a regular commercial grocery store, to dodge the carcinogens and neurotoxins in the food additives.The fundamental perspective has to be overhauled in the next FDA: it is there for the consumers, not for the coporations. There are not many people I would trust to put in charge of overseeing and regulating 25% of the US economy, but I do trust Dr. Howard Dean to do that in an intelligent, agressive, and creative manner, just like he has run the Democratic party over the past few years.IN FACT, HE WOULD BE BRILLIANT.______________________THE ENTIRE INTERFACE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND STEM CELL TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH IS ABOUT TO CHANGE, FOR THE BETTER....
______________________Japanese scientists have devised a method of creating stem cells from wisdom teeth which would otherwise have been discarded, allowing them to find cures to diseases without the controversy implicit in using embryos. "This will prove to be a major breakthrough," said Dr Hajime Ogushi, from his Osaka laboratory of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.His team extracted dental pulp from wisdom teeth removed from a 10-year-old girl three years ago and had been stored in a freezer, and from that pulp, stem cells with the ability to develop into replacement human organs or nerves can be grown. Research on stem cells taken from human foetuses has resulted in criticism from the Catholic Church, for destroying human life. The research seeks cures to a range of illnesses, including diabetes and cancer."These teeth were extracted three years ago and would have simply been thrown in the rubbish," said. Dr Ogushi. "Skin or bone marrow for this sort of research is quite difficult to obtain but this sort of operation is routine and very straightforward."The cells were extracted from the wisdom teeth and encouraged to develop for a period of 35 days. Tests then confirmed they were stem cells.Dr Oguchi said it was also simple to store the cells; he therefor plans to develop a tissue bank - as long as the funding is forthcoming, estimating that will take a decade to achieve, and give future scientists a range of genetic codes that can be matched to a patient to minimise the risk oftransplanted organs of tissue being rejected. Dr Ogushi said that people who have their wisdom teeth removed as youngsters could have them frozen and use them later in life for treatment.Embryome Sciences develops new medical products using embryonic stem cell technology and is a subsidiary of BioTime Inc., reported on 21 August that the company has licensed a portfolio of patents and patent applications from Advanced Cell Technology Inc with respect to induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cell differentiation technology.
The company is applying the license for the commercialisation of products in human therapeutic and diagnostic product markets. The technology covers methods for the transformation of cells of the human body, such as skin cells, into an embryonic and pluripotent state.Embryome Sciences Inc believes that the licensed technologies could be advantageous in the development of human stem cell products for use in medicine and are, therefore, important advancements in the field. In addition, Embryome Sciences Inc is presently marketing cell growth media, called ESpan, in collaboration with Lifeline. ESpan is designed for the culturing of human embryonic progenitor cells using ACTCellerate technology and other sub licensed technologies.Red Blood Cells Providing New Incentives for Advanced Cell TechnologyCould red blood cells be mass-produced? Advanced Cell Technology (ACTC) is a Los Angeles, California-based company devoted to turning human embryonic stem cells into therapies. On 19 August, the journal Blood published a paper reporting the efficient production of red blood cells from human embryonic stem cells.Lead author was Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer at ACT (his co-authors are from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota). Up to 100 billion cells had been generated from a single plate of stem cells. The cells produced had oxygen-carrying abilities and physiological responses comparable to those of the cells from blood banks used in transfusions.Advanced Cell Technology has 3 major products in the FDA Clinical Trials Pipleline: one to do with retinal repair, another with myoblast repair, after a heart attack, and the other is a hepatic (liver) repair stem cell product; this latest development puts a very obvious fourth feather in their hat....The paper "clearly shows that stem cells could serve as an unlimited source of blood for transfusion in the future," Lanza says. "The potential here could be enormous.""This is a major advance because it shows for the first time that these cells can be expanded; they can create [red] blood cells and they can carry oxygen," says Anthony Atala, the director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "Blood therapies and blood replacement agents are an area of large need."While the company searches for a big deal to stabilize it financially, Lanza says, "We are still going paycheck to paycheck." That's a familiar feeling for veterans of the 14-year-old company, he notes. "It's probably the fifth or sixth time we've had the phones turned off. When you get in trouble, that's your first warning." Lanza appeared with Barbara Walters on her show on April 1 to discuss in great deal the future and prospects of the specific stem cell research he directs at Advanced Cell Technology.Although ACTC has in the FDA Clinical Trials pipeline stem cell products in three key ares (retinal respair, hepatic repair, and myoblast [after-heart attack] repair, Advanced Cell Technology has been living precariously on signing smaller licensing deals.
On 21 August, the life-sciences research company Embryome Sciences, a subsidiary of BioTime, announced a licensing agreement with ACT. Embryome, based in Alameda, California, has licensed a portfolio of patents related to virus-free induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cell differentiation technology.Moving ACT's red blood cell method to the clinic, there are also questions about the commercial prospects for a product that would have to compete with freely donated blood."It's certainly a very exciting result from a scientific perspective," says Cathy Prescott, the director of Biolatris, a biotechnology and health-care consulting company in Cambridge, UK.
Thanks to the Telegraph, the London newspaper; to Medical News today (UK), and Dr. Catherine Paddock, to Embryome Press release, and to Meredith Wadman's article in Naturenews.
Today, one Blue Dog Democrat, from the Yahoo! group by that name, which is not connected to mybarackobama.com pointed out that Dewey might have lost in 1948 because he named a Cabinet, but Dewey didn't lose that election solely because he named a Cabinet. That was 60 years ago. Times have changed. Many other factors beat Dewey...
Things are more urgent in 2008; the need for Cabinet level perspectives is paramount, and would precipitate a lot of voters to Obama's side, if he did it in a non presumptuous way, and made it clear that he was opening up the discussion in a fair and egalitarian way.
Personally, I believe we are in such an infernal mess internationally that the Secretary of State job has taken on more importance than the Vice President, and that we need a diplomat with a lot of international exposure, experience and track record. That would be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, by a long shot....
Attorney General is another vital one: California Attorney General Jerry Brown, by a long shot, in my opinion. His record vis a vis Consumer Protection is stunning and is also sterling. Edwards is out of the picture (maybe like Eliot Spitzer is out of the picture, because of that Southern Male Brain?)
Health Secretary or FDA Commissioner? Very vital. FDA reports to Secretary of Health, and I believe strongly, if he would take the job and wouldn't see it as a step down, DR. Howard Dean III, M.D. would be the best; this is someone I trust a lot, especially at FDA to oversee fully 25% of the US Economy, which is either food or drugs. The corporate manipulation of FDA is killing America and big chunk of the rest of the world.
Even if Obama's top advisors are too scared of announcing Cabinet choices or a range of Cabinet choices, which they should not be at all, we can still talk about them, while we are not convincing fence sitters to vote for Obama.
The best tool I know of are his speeches, like the Berlin Speech, which has convinced many of my fence sitter friends, and for the devotees in Santa Fe, they in turn have printed it out and used it to convince other fence sitters. I managed over great difficulties to publish the entire Berlin Speech in the Santa Fe Sun News, of which I am the Managing Editor. When I was hunting down the precise complete text thereof, I couldn't even find it at mybarackobama.com, so I published it here a few blogs ago....
I am a member of about 70 different Obama groups, and I have noticed a tendency for the most active members to wallow in self congratulatory B.S., nitpick over what should be psychoanalytic conjecture, hairsplitting, noshing, chatting, and mere linguistic controversy, means that all doing this are entirely missing the point that we have an election to win.
All of the yukking-it-up in the world is not going to win it. It means take the time to pound the pavement, take literature that you yourself print out from various sites, and take it door-to-door in your neighborhood.
If we don't do this, we can still easily lose this election in November. Make no mistake. It is only about 90 days away, our supreme test!
Stephen Fox, Managing Editor Santa Fe Sun News
PS: There is much more meaningful dialogue about Campaing Strategies and Tactics going on in some of the groups not connected with barackobama.com, like ObamaBrigade, a Yahoo! group and SecularHumanist, another Yahoo! group. I recommend you join them to be closer to the cutting edge of the Obama Campaign.
Introductory Note: With 40 years of consistent shopping for organic food items, I have for quite some time objected to this merger as monopolistic, speaking from personal experience here in Santa Fe. I strongly commend the FTC for hanging in there and the Appeals Court for seeing the errors in the lower court’s hasty ruling. I also appreciate the prior insights of Reuters journalists and Dow Jones Reporting in compiling this article.
_______________
A federal appeals court Tuesday said a trial judge improperly dismissed the Federal Trade Commission's challenge to the 2007 merger between Whole Foods Markets Inc. and Wild Oats Markets Inc. The ruling brings back to life legal proceedings over the merger and gives the FTC a chance to force Whole Foods to sell part of its operations to meet competitive concerns raised by the merger. The two companies merged in a $565 million transaction after a federal trial court rejected the FTC's challenge. The 2-1 ruling, issued by the Washington-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the trial judge handling the case made mistakes when he expedited review of the agency's challenge.
"We appreciate that the district court expedited the proceeding as a courtesy to the defendants. But the court should have taken whatever time it needed to consider the FTC's evidence fully." The ruling added that the trial judge improperly analyzed data and incorrectly concluded the FTC had little chance of prevailing in its challenge to the merger. "We reverse the district court's conclusion that the FTC showed no likelihood of success," the panel's majority said. The trial judge must now take a fresh look at the strength of the government's case.
The FTC argued earlier this year in a legal brief filed with the appeals court that the full integration of the two companies would take several years to complete. The commission asked for the court to stop Whole Foods from rebranding or closing the remaining Wild Oats stores "to preserve the possibility of reconstituting Wild Oats as an independent competitor." The appeals court did not rule on the FTC's request, choosing instead to leave that decision to the trial judge.
Whole Foods and Wild Oats agreed to merge in February, 2007. The FTC challenged the combination in June, resulting in legal activity ending in August, 2007 after the federal court refused to delay the merger. Whole Foods is the largest natural and organic foods retailer and Wild Oats was a smaller rival. The companies argued they faced competition from traditional grocery retailers while the FTC has maintained the merger would reduce competition in the natural and organic foods market.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman "underestimated the FTC's likelihood of success on the merits" when he denied the agency's request, the three-judge appeals court panel said in its ruling. One of the judges dissented from the opinion. The appeals court remanded the case back to Friedman for further proceedings.
Whole Foods issued a statement saying it was disappointed by the decision and that it might ask for a review by the full appeals court, and that it would carry on "business as usual."
Rating agency Standard & Poor's said in a statement it did not see the ruling changing Whole Foods' daily operations or its continued integration of Wild Oats stores. Wild Oats had been effectively "deconstructed" since the acquisition.
Judge Friedman denied the FTC's request to block the deal in August of last year, concluding that the FTC had failed to prove the merger would hurt competition. The agency then asked the D.C. appeals court to stop the merger, but was turned down. The companies went ahead with their deal that same month. The appeals court on Tuesday rejected Whole Foods' argument that the FTC appeal is irrelevant because the agency does not have the authority to undo a completed merger. Federal courts "have the power to grant relief on the FTC's complaint, despite the merger's having taken place," the court said. The FTC had said the combination of Whole Foods and Wild Oats raised antitrust concerns in 21 geographical areas where the two chains were each other's closest competitors. Whole Foods argued that its stores compete in a broader market against all supermarkets, not just organic grocery stores. The FTC disagreed, saying they competed in the premium organic market. The FTC is seeking an administrative trial before the agency's five commissioners.
The director of the FTC's competition bureau, Jeffrey Schmidt, issued a statement on Tuesday saying agency officials looked forward to future proceedings before the district court, leading to a full trial on the merits before the commission. However, Whole Foods said the decision "provides a roadmap for Friedman to once again deny the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction. The appeals judges agreed with the FTC that judge Friedman had misconstrued a key legal point used to define the market at issue in the case. They said Friedman's error led him to ignore key evidence and the FTC's main argument: that Whole Foods and Wild Oats were in a battle of their own over a distinct market for "core" organic grocery customers.
Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said it could take a long time for the FTC to get an injunction because of legal procedures, giving Whole Foods even more time to integrate the two companies." Given where things are in this case it's going to be very hard to really undo the merger and come up with an effective remedy”; Gavin said the ruling would be important for the FTC as it sets a precedent strengthening the agency's hand in seeking a preliminary injunction in future cases.
The FTC had said the combination of Whole Foods and Wild Oats raised antitrust concerns in 21 geographical areas where the two chains were each other's closest competitors. Whole Foods argued that its stores compete in a broader market against all supermarkets, not just organic grocery stores. The FTC disagreed, saying they compete in the premium, organic niche market.
``The court should have taken whatever time it needed to consider the FTC's evidence fully,'' Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the divided court. ``The district court must independently exercise its discretion considering the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the merger has taken place.''
``The court of appeals' decision provides a roadmap for Judge Friedman to once again deny the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction,'' spokeswoman Libba Letton said in an e-mailed statement. ``We await the U.S. District Court's response so this issue can be resolved.'' While the district court is unlikely to block the merger, it may decide to order the sale of as many as 18 stores where the combined companies face little or no competition, said Jane Willis, an antitrust lawyer with Ropes & Gray in Boston. ``It's difficult to unscramble the egg, but there are other various remedies,'' Willis said in an interview. ``If Whole Foods does not want to continue paying high litigation fees, they might even go to the FTC and propose a divestiture plan.
Stephen Fox
stephen@santafefineart.com
www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=52631&ret=AccountDtl.aspx
http://www.prlog.org/10096609-federal-appeals-court-revives-ftc-objections-to-whole-foodwild-oats-merger.html
(adapted from "The Buying of the President," Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity, 1996)
Bill Clinton, who grew up without much money, has always understood the political importance of raising substantial campaign funds. What is most striking about his first campaign is how a 28-year-old assistant professor of law in Fayetteville, Ark., running for a seat in the Congress for the first time, could raise more money than the incumbent four-term Republican congressman. During that 1974 election Clinton raised $178,000, about $20,000 more than John Hammerschmidt, from traditional Democratic party sources.
In 1974 as well as 1992, candidate Clinton has actually embraced powerful corporate interests and much of their agenda despite his rhetoric against them. When Clinton ran for Congress in 1974, the largest employer in the Third District of Arkansas was Tyson Foods, based in Springdale, which was well on its way to becoming the nation's largest poultry producer. In 1995, Tyson Foods ranked "110th on the Fortune 500 list, and sold 6,000 products in 57 countries, from fresh chickens to taco fillings," according to an August 1994 company profile in The New York Times.
The chairman, Don Tyson, is a colorful figure who in the late 1970s designed his corporate office as a replica of the Oval Office in the White House, with doorknobs shaped like chicken eggs. Tyson was estimated to be worth $800 million. He supported Clinton in the 1974 race, and according to author David Maraniss, the Tyson family donated a campaign telephone bank which was operated from an apartment near the University of Arkansas, although it should be noted that no such "in-kind" contribution was reported by the campaign to the Federal Election Commission. Clinton never talked much about the company itself publicly, but instead spoke empathetically about the plight of chicken farmers.
The Tyson-Clinton relationship continued in Washington, of course, and it grew out of a special culture. Probably no one has better captured the real essence of the political-financial nexus in Arkansas than journalist Michael Kelly, who wrote that Arkansas "has been ruled for almost all of its existence, and is largely ruled still, by a thin upper crust of Democratic party officials and Democratic legislative leaders and important landholders and businessmen."
"This elite, bound together not by party or even ideology but by mutually advantageous relationships, holds sway over a small and politically disorganized middle class and a large but well-beaten population of the poor.
"The contradiction is that Arkansas voters, in a class-based reaction against this condition, perpetually favor politicians who are 'common' in touch, populist in theology, and reformist in policies," Kelly wrote.
To be plausible and acceptable to the political and financial elite of Arkansas, a politician certainly can and must relate well to the people. But he or she must not substantially interfere with the daily commerce of the state, the business status quo. Every candidate in Arkansas instinctively knows this or learns it the hard way. Such is the theater into which Clinton's political career was born.
In his 1992 run for the presidency, money was of paramount concern to the Clinton campaign, which raised more funds than any of the other Democratic challengers prior to the 1992 Iowa caucuses. If Clinton was to be regarded as a "serious" national candidate, then his fund-raising base would have to reflect a breadth far beyond Arkansas interests. Wall Street, Hollywood, the high-tech "information highway," telephone, computer, media conglomerate interests and many other groups were heavily and successfully solicited.
Campaigning on the phrase "putting people first," Clinton did not accept political action committee (PAC) money, which meant that in the crucial pre-nomination phase he would have to depend on individual donations which are limited to $1,000 each. After the nomination was assured, much of the fund-raising energy turned to soft-money donations of $25,000 and larger to the Democratic party, for "get-out-the-vote" and other permissible activities throughout the states which would obviously benefit Clinton.
Clinton was no stranger to Washington or its money politics. In the late 1980s, he had helped to form a conservative Democratic organization known as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its affiliated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Headquartered in Washington, and famous for phrases such as "reinventing government," the DLC relied on undisclosed corporate contributions and unlike the Democratic party, generally eschewed labor union policy issues or support.
The most aggressive "anti-Washington" rhetoric in the caucus/primary season was made by candidates Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot and Jerry Brown. It was not until the summer of 1992 that the apparent nominee of the Democratic party began to strike the same chord. Clinton announced that he planned to end "influence peddling" and "business as usual" in Washington, and the campaign issued a best-selling book of policy positions and ideas under the title Putting People First, which said, "It's long past time to clean up Washington. On streets where statesmen once strolled, a never-ending stream of money now changes hands -- tying the hands of those elected to lead."
To the masses, Clinton was portraying himself as an outsider to the seat of power and government. By contrast, in a study about the presidential candidates and their campaign advisers issued a week after the 1992 New Hampshire primary, the Center for Public Integrity discovered that more than half of Clinton's unpaid campaign advisers were from "inside the Beltway" of Washington. No fewer than six advisers came from the DLC or PPI. During their "day jobs," several of Clinton's unpaid policy advisers got handsome fees from foreign corporations and governments, tobacco companies, the insurance industry, oil and gas firms, investment banks and other business interests.
Judging from the people around him it was plain to see that candidate Clinton was continuing the bipartisan Washington practice of putting lobbyists first. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lawyers and lobbyists were Clinton's biggest campaign contributors in 1992, donating $3.1 million.
Banking and financial interests were not bashful about supporting the Arkansas governor. In 1992, candidate Clinton received at least $853,295 in campaign contributions from the financial sector, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Clinton Administration has pursued and serviced the American business community more aggressively and more systematically than any previous administration. Clinton assiduously courted corporate support for his economic program after he arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Individual aides -- White House officials Mack McLarty and political director Rahm Emanuel, Robert Rubin and public liaison chief Alexis Herman -- were given assignments.
Red Cavaney, former Reagan White House official and president of the American Plastics Council, said the administration's relationships with lobbyists are "as good as I've ever seen in my 20-odd years of doing this, in terms of their willingness to sit down and discuss issues."
For more informtion, check the Center for Public Integrity's Home Page.
![[Bill Clinton]](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/fm.clinton/clinton.money.jpg)
![[Quote]](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/fm.clinton/clinton.pullquote.jpg)
