Mr. Messina’s plea for Obama supporters to chip in “$3 or $5″ leaves the impression of a presidential campaign divorced from big money donors. Furthermore, the claim that Mr. Obama will not accept PAC money leaves the impression that his fundraising efforts are removed from the influence of lobbyists or Wall Street. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From the New York Times:

Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.At least 15 of Mr. Obama’s “bundlers” — supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and solicit it from others — are involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies. They have raised more than $5 million so far for the campaign.

Because the bundlers are not registered as lobbyists with the Senate, the Obama campaign has managed to avoid running afoul of its self-imposed ban on taking money from lobbyists.

But registered or not, the bundlers are in many ways indistinguishable from people who fit the technical definition of a lobbyist. They glide easily through the corridors of power in Washington, with a number of them hosting Mr. Obama at fund-raisers while also visiting the White House on policy matters and official business.

As both a candidate and as president, Mr. Obama has vowed to curb what he calls the corrupting influence of lobbyists, barring them not only from contributing to his campaign but also from holding jobs in his administration. While lobbyists grouse about the rules, ethics watchdogs credit the changes with raising ethical standards in Washington.

But the prevalence of major Obama fund-raisers who also work in the lobbying arena threatens to undercut the president’s ethics push, raising questions about whether the campaign’s policies square with its on-the-ground practices, some of those same watchdogs say.

As for Mr. Obama’s popularity with Wall Street donors, contrary to his Occupy Wall Street rhetoric, the president has received more campaign contributions from Wall Street than all Republican candidates combined.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough says Team Obama’s rhetoric versus their fundraising reality is nothing less than audacious.

Obama seems capable of effortlessly floating between demonizing Wall Street gambling one day and profiting from it the next. The audacity is breathtaking.

The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history. This year alone, he has raked in more cash from bank employees, hedge fund managers and financial services companies than all Republican candidates combined.

Even poor Mitt Romney was outraised by the Obama money machine at his former employer, Bain Capital, by a margin of 2 to 1.

It is a campaign operation whose wheels are greased by Wall Street bundlers like MF Global former chief, Jon Corzine. These financiers are so good at what they do that the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Obama’s Wall Street fundraising will “far surpass 2008 in terms of raw dollars and as a percentage of what he raises overall.”

That’s saying a lot considering that Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign in 2008 raised more money from the financial community than any other politician in American history.

House Republicans released emails Wednesday that show a major fundraiser for President Obama discussed the $535 million loan guarantee for the solar company Solyndra during a meeting with White House officials.

George Kaiser, a “bundler” for Obama’s campaign whose foundation invested in Solyndra, said the issue “came up” during a spring 2010 meeting with White House officials. Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, also attended the meeting.

“[A] couple of weeks ago when Ken and I were visiting with a group of Administration folks in DC who are in charge of the Stimulus process (White House, not DOE) and Solyndra came up, every one of them responded simultaneously about their thorough knowledge of the Solyndra story, suggesting it was one of their prime poster children,” Kaiser wrote in a March 5, 2010, email to Steve Mitchell, an executive at venture capitalist firm Argonaut.

The email appears to contradict an October ABC News story in which Kaiser and the Obama administration said Solyndra did not come up at Kaiser’s meetings with the White House.

The White House dismissed the emails Wednesday as an attempt by House Republicans to score political points.

Read more here.

Here’s the equation: Soros’ Open Society Institute gave $3.5 million from 2007-2009 to the Tides Center.  In that same period, Tides gave $26,000 to Adbusters, the group that proclaims to have initiated the Wall Street occupation.

Sure, Soros has been said to be sympathetic to the “cause,” but is he orchestrating the demonstrations?  Probably not.  At least not in a coordinated, marching-order sense.

However, there are some interesting connections.

In the media reform space, which I follow closely, Soros and Tides, among others, have spent over $100 million this past decade funding the efforts of radical groups like Free Press (surprisingly, sitting atop of this pyramid is not George Soros; rather, it’s the Ford Foundation, which has given over $12 million to media reform activists in the last ten years alone).

One name that stands out among the “media reformers” as they’re connected to the OWS movement is Free Press’s Tim Karr.   To be sure, there is a firm connection between Soros and Tides to Karr’s employer.  Since 2003, Free Press has received $1.26 million from Soros’ Open Society Institute; and from 2005-2007, nearly $215,000 from Tides.

Throughout the OWS occupation, Karr has been actively tweeting his support of the protestors.  From those numerous tweets, one can see his vocal criticism of how the press covers the demonstrations, ostensibly goading them to present a more “balanced” (that is, favorable) reporting of the events.  He has also urged that OWS demonstrators “Occupy the Internet,” too, presenting the next logical step as it relates to his main focus of work–Net Neutrality.  Finally, he has posted 80-plus portraits of the New York demonstrations from weeks of photography, generally portraying the assembled activists as modern-day, everyman heroes.

That seems like a lot of off-the-clock activity for Free Press’s “campaign director.”  Someone must be covering that time for his paycheck, right?

Perhaps.

Elsewhere, this video hints at Karr’s more formal engagement with OWS, wherein the moderator of the panel on which he’s speaking highlights, albeit tenuously, his work promoting the occupation (at the 40-second mark of the video).

As to Karr’s connections to Adbusters / Tides, there are many.  If you Google Tim Karr and Adbusters, you see their collaboration going back for several years through various conferences, speaking engagements, and other events.

Added to this, there is this mildly fascinating Tides connection between Karr and Liza Pike, director of New Media Mentors.  In this piece, Pike promotes OWS, giving advice to further the “cause.”  And as part of her article, she uses Karr’s portraits taken at OWS.

Interestingly, Pike’s New Media Mentors project is a Tides collaboration, and she sits on Free Press’s board.

I’m sure if I wanted to I could fund numerous other connections between Soros and the groups he funds to the OWS events.  But as to an overall Soros coordination of the OWS demonstrations or a smoking gun?  That remains to be seen.

So, what does all this mean?

It is evident that some Soros money has helped, if indirectly, several progressive front groups exploit the “buzz” that is OWS.  But I think if these efforts were part of a plan, they’d be organized akin to what we see with Net Neutrality–i.e., virtually all of the activist groups in lockstep, shopping their cookie-cutter bullet points in an aggressively open and notorious manner to effect a clear policy objective (whatever that may be here).

That’s largely absent in this case.

Perhaps the cost of overtly siding with the decidedly anti-capitalist OWS protests is an un-American bridge too far.  In other words, for the foundations–which seek to influence policy through the funding of public interest groups, “alternative” media outlets, and academia–they see such open support as leading with one’s chin, interfering with their longer-range, boil-the-frog game plan to “transform” America.

Who knows?

What seems clear to me, though, is that in this world where reputation plays a huge part in whether ideas and their messengers find acceptance, connections matter.  Consequently, where there’s smoke there’s fire.  Yet I’ve read of no stories where Soros or Tides or the numerous other progressive funders have adequately distanced themselves from the OWS “message.”  In fact, the opposite seems more the truth.

Is OWS the Soros (and the others’) “brand”?

If so, America should boycott that “product.”  It is a cardboard sham of an offering not worth the plastic wrapping it comes in.

If not, from a branding standpoint, it might serve their interests to clear up any confusion that the connections have created, and disavow the OWS movement and whatever it stands for.

Something tells me, however, that that ain’t happenin’ any time soon.

“The court has validated our decision to file this lawsuit using the federal racketeering statute,” said Sodexo General Counsel Robert Stern. “This ruling clears the path to discovery and trial, allowing us to present evidence the SEIU has conspired to extort Sodexo by threatening financial damage unless we cave in to its demands. The SEIU’s campaign was designed to illegally threaten our company. We will continue to challenge the SEIU’s illegal behavior until it ends.”

The food services corporation has accused the SEIU of engaging in nefarious activities intended to harm the company, some of which include:

• Hacking into a Sodexo education website, in knowing violation of federal computer crime laws, and posting a link to one of the union’s own websites where malicious and disparaging claims were made about Sodexo
• Infiltrating, under false pretenses, a prestigious medical conference and throwing plastic roaches onto the food being served by Sodexo
• Falsely claiming that the Company’s food production plants have “rodent problems” and scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold, flies and maggots, and that Sodexo provided linens contaminated with the “remnants of someone else’s hospital waste”
• Harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing

The complaint also describes, among many other things, activities that are similar to other instances of the SEIU’s exploitation of college students to manufacture outrage against Sodexo and opposition to the company’s food services on campus.

You might also recall that, upon learning of Sodexo’s complaint, SEIU issued a statement blaming the Kochs and Scott Walker, and invoking the aftermath of Anonymous’ HBGary hacking in its response.  (Maybe that’s why this tweet today sort of made me chuckle a little).

Well, as the discovery process proceeds, it will be interesting to see how the labor union that has shaped so much of the current administration’s policies will respond to the accusations when the facts and the evidence are finally presented in a court of law.  If the evidence holds up in court, there’s nothing Media Matters will be able to do to rescue their purple-shirted partners from this one, no matter how much money the SEIU gives them.

The full press release is below.

*****************

Court Decides Sodexo’s Racketeering Claims Against
Service Employees International Union Will Proceed

Decision Clears Way for Sodexo to Present Evidence of Extortion

GAITHERSBURG, Md., July 27, 2011 – A federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that Sodexo’s claims of extortion against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) may proceed under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. United States District Judge Claude Hilton ruled yesterday that Sodexo “has stated a claim upon which relief can be had”.  This decision denying the SEIU’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit clears the way for Sodexo USA to prove SEIU’s orchestrated campaign to carry out threats against Sodexo is illegal.

“The court has validated our decision to file this lawsuit using the federal racketeering statute,” said Sodexo General Counsel Robert Stern. “This ruling clears the path to discovery and trial, allowing us to present evidence the SEIU has conspired to extort Sodexo by threatening financial damage unless we cave in to its demands. The SEIU’s campaign was designed to illegally threaten our company. We will continue to challenge the SEIU’s illegal behavior until it ends.”

Sodexo filed the civil racketeering lawsuit against the SEIU and other defendants in March 2011 seeking to stop the illegal campaign of extortion that the SEIU has been waging in the U.S. for more than a year. The lawsuit alleges the SEIU engaged in blackmail, vandalism, trespassing, harassment and lobbying law violations, which were designed to steer government and private contracts away from Sodexo in order to damage the Company’s business.

The complaint also alleges that the SEIU is trying to force Sodexo into a scheme that would deny its employees the right to vote for or against unionization in a secret-ballot election conducted by the federal government. This scheme would virtually guarantee the SEIU exclusive representation rights over tens of thousands of Sodexo employees and prevent any other employee choice for labor union representation.

“We are committed to protecting our business and the rights of our employees,” Stern said. “We believe that pursuing this litigation is in the best interests of our business, employees, and customers, as well as the millions of people we serve each day.”

As an industry leader, Sodexo is deeply committed to operating its business responsibly, engaging with local communities and improving the quality of life for its employees across the globe and the millions of people the company serves each day. Sodexo recognizes the value of union activity and has built positive relationships with more than 30 different unions. Over 15 percent of Sodexo USA’s workforce is unionized, which is more than twice the national average for the private sector, and the company has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements.

In a column about the revolving door between big government and the lobbying world, here’s what the irreplaceable Tim Carney wrote about the waiver process for folks trying to escape the burden of government-run healthcare.

Congress imposes mandates on other entities, but gives bureaucrats the power to waive those mandates. To get such a waiver, you hire the people who used to administer or who helped craft the policies. So who’s the net winner? The politicians and bureaucrats who craft policies and wield power, because this combination of massive government power and wide bureaucratic discretion creates huge demand for revolving-door lobbyists. It’s another reason Obama’s legislative agenda, including bailouts, stimulus, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, tobacco regulation, and more, necessarily fosters more corruption and cronyism.

This seemed so familiar that I wondered whether Tim was guilty of plagiarism. But he’s one of the best journalists in DC, so I knew that couldn’t be the case.

Then I realized that there was plagiarism, but the politicians in Washington were the guilty parties. As can be seen in this passage from Atlas Shrugged, the Obama Administration is copying from what Ayn Rand wrote – as dystopian parody – in the 1950s.

Nobody professed to understand the question of the frozen railroad bonds, perhaps, because everybody understood it too well. At first, there had been signs of a panic among the bondholders and of a dangerous indignation among the public. Then, Wesley Mouch had issued another directive, which ruled that people could get their bonds “defrozen” upon a plea of “essential need”: the government would purchase the bonds, if it found proof of the need satisfactory. there were three questions that no one answered or asked: “What constituted proof?” “What constituted need?” “Essential-to whom?” …One was not supposed to speak about the men who, having been refused, sold their bonds for one-third of the value to other men who possessed needs which, miraculously, made thirty-three frozen cents melt into a whole dollar, or about a new profession practiced by bright young boys just out of college, who called themselves “defreezers” and offered their services “to help you draft your application in the proper modern terms.” The boys had friends in Washington.

This isn’t the first time the Obama Administration has inadvertently brought Atlas Shrugged to life.

The Administration’s top lawyer already semi-endorsed “going Galt” when he said people could choose to earn less money to avoid certain Obamacare impositions.

So if you want a glimpse at America’s future, I encourage you to read (or re-read) the book. Or at least watch the movie.

“Go ahead, make my day,” Harry tells him.  The criminal thought better and didn’t meet the fate of his counterparts.

Today, teachers unions have grabbed their own human shields.  They are using children in an attempt to stifle reform and preserve their pay and benefits.

The Carolina Journal reports State Rep. Mike Stone received a hand-written note from his 8-year old daughter asking him to “put the buget (sic) higher dad.”

The school’s superintendent called the action “appropriate” and said it “encompasses a lot of skills that today’s graduates should be able to replicate in the workforce.”

In Grand Rapids, Michigan, teachers’ union president Paul Helder floated the idea of the school board shuttering the schools one day so the students could go on a “civics field trip” to the state Capitol.

The fact that the leader of the teachers union would actually propose closing school, and giving up a day of learning for a labor protest, tells us where union priorities lie.

In Wisconsin, who can forget the MacIver Institute video of students marching around the Capitol?  When asked what they were doing there, one replied, “you know, I don’t really even know.  I guess we’re protesting today.”  “We’re trying to stop whatever this dude is doing,” another said.

Governors and state legislatures are passing tough reforms and telling the teachers unions to “make their day.”

But thus far, the unions aren’t as smart as the criminals and are still taunting Dirty Harry.  The question is, from the original Dirty Harry: “Do you feel lucky?”  Well, do you, teachers unions?

Since donating over $1 million to the president’s campaign and building its online presence and fundraising base, the company has reaped continued returns on their investment, so much so, that Google’s former CEO is rumored to be on the shortlist to be the nation’s new Secretary of Commerce.

In order to pad its bottom line, Google made a conscious effort to grow its influence in Washington by hiring insiders and placing Google executives in the Administration. In a short period of time, Google has been rewarded with over 25 contracts with government agencies including the NASA, the Pentagon and the National Security Agency.

Worse yet, Google’s influence is seen on a growing number of policy issues including efforts to regulate the Internet through “Net Neutrality” while ongoing evidence suggests Google may be systematically blocking competition with such tactics as walling off websites from competitors. None of this is a concern within the Administration who just gave Google a green light for more influence and power with its lightning fast approval of the company’s acquisition of travel software company ITA.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is calling for a closer examination of Google’s relationship with government – and he is right. Something smells fishy here. Republicans should not ignore the company’s efforts to use the US Treasury as a piggy bank.