Both Barack Obama and John McCain have issued lofty statements regarding their efforts to reduce the influence that lobbyists have on the hill and throughout the American political system. But, while the candidates often speak candidly of reducing the impact that special interests have in Washington, there are still a number of unaddressed loopholes. Despite the incessant rhetoric spewing from both sides of the aisle, little has been done to regulate the donations that have been pouring in for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Both candidates want to be perceived as reformers. Unfortunately for both McCain and Obama, true change is all encompassing. Touting one’s status as a reformer does next to nothing if all regulatory measures have not been considered. This is the subject of Fredreka Schouten’s piece in the USA Today entitled, “Donors Pick Up the Convention Tab.” According to Schouten,

Political action committees (PACs) of unions can give only $5,000 directly to a candidate for a primary or general election. Individuals are limited to $2,300. There is no cap on how much any union, company or individual can give to a political convention.

While individuals and PACs are reasonably restricted on the candidate level, large labor unions, companies and wealthy individuals have an unregulated playing field through which they can disseminate limitless funding to the Republican and Democratic conventions. Forget the loop; this hole is gaping.

Schouten points out recent — and might we add astronomical — donations from The American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Both institutions donated nearly $500,000 to the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, Quest Communications “…has committed $6 million in cash and in-kind support to both conventions.” Even though companies are restricted from donating directly to the candidates, they, too, may provide funds for the conventions.

Beyond the fact that these donations still illicit influence over the parties and their respective candidates, there are other ramifications to consider. In addition to companies’ and unions’ potential fiscal influence, some organizations and corporations are also planning a physical presence at the conventions.

Last week, Bill Alliston, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, penned a piece that focused on special interests and the flagrant lack of regulatory measures that surround various convention activities. According to Alliston,

“Lobbyists wine and dine party insiders and elected officials, big donors feast with the party insiders who depend on their deep pockets, and corporations with business before the federal government pick up most of the tab.”

After scouring event lists released by a top Washington lobbying firm, Sunlight discovered a number of corporate-sponsored events. In sum, there are some 370 planned parties that are to be sponsored by large companies and organizations. According to Alliston, this revelation comes even after new ethics rules brought about via the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 have restricted lobbyists from throwing parties in honor of specific lawmakers.

While Schouten points out that Obama doesn’t take monies from PACS or from federal lobbyists and that McCain does not allow lobbyists on his paid campaign staff, one wonders why neither candidate has attempted to restrict the influence of unions, companies, and wealthy individuals and institutions that are currently infusing both parties with unregulated monies.

True reformers? Not entirely.

“Hope.” “Change.” “A new kind of politics.” Barack Obama’s promise to implement these ideals has led him top of the Democratic pack, as millions of Americans have contributed to his highly successful campaign. And who can blame Americans for jumping on board? On the surface, a platform that promises the invoke hope and change is surely enticing — especially after eight years of political and social turbulence. But, what do “hope” and “change” actually mean? If actions count for anything, Obama’s promise to ignite a “new kind of politics” is laughable at best. So, why are the American people missing all of the cues?

From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“While Barack Obama campaigns as an anomaly not corrupted by Washington politics or special interests, he has repeatedly contradicted this illusion by accepting big bucks from convicted entrepreneurs as well as oil company executives, steering millions of federal earmark dollars to his wife’s employer and a top donor and hiring powerful corporate insiders to run his campaign.”

When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain’s plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama’s plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.

And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates’ proposals would balance the U.S. budget:

“The left-leaning Tax Policy Center concludes: “Obama’s generosity comes at a price. … He’d raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify.”

Obama’s spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren’t even included in TPC’s estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.

But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing — a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:

“Last March, before Obama became the candidate to beat in the money race, his campaign said he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” if he were to win his party’s nomination.”

And while I’m at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can’t imagine that he has missed the media’s coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world’s fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn’t matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“It turns out that Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and his top advisor on environmental issues, Jason Grumet, used to work for a bipartisan initiative (National Commission on Energy Policy) that strongly supports ethanol…Obama is also very tight with Illinois agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland, the nation’s largest ethanol producer…”

I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor’s rants — that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.

Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church — that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn’t have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.

Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: “Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters.”

This weekend’s Transparency Recap starts with an article about the securities industry and its decision to back Barack Obama. While Wall Street is typically cozy with Republicans, industry funding has been pouring in for Obama for months now — even though many Wall Streeters prefer McCain’s policies to Obama’s. Clearly, this shows their inclination that Obama might win come November, with their contributions serving as a peace gift (i.e. they want to be on his side if he is, indeed, elected):

“It’s true that the Republican-friendly securities industry has been sending the most contributions to Obama’s campaign above all other contenders for months. But Wall Street is largely reacting to a mood change and antagonism toward Bush. Whatever happens come January, investors want to make nice with the party in power.”

OpenSecrets’ Capital Eye blog weighs in on the security industry’s apparent change of heart:

“Should Obama continue to be this industry’s financial favorite, it will become the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will have brought in more Wall Street donations than the Republicans.”

Over on All Things Whistleblower, the FDA is being questioned for allowing the re-admittance of Proheart 6 — a drug that was pulled in 2004 after being linked to more than 500 canine deaths — back into the marketplace.

And CREW reports on an issue that’s close to the hearts of all members of the government transparency community — revolving door syndrome. As per the CREW blog, a New York Times editorial focuses on Dennis Hassert’s new position at a D.C. lobbying firm:

“Mr. Hastert, the G.O.P. stalwart who presided during the Jack Abramoff lobbying corruption debacle and the Mark Foley House page scandal, joined a blue-chip lobbying firm this week as a “strategic counsellor” at an annual salary estimated at $500,000-plus. Mr. Hastert…joins the more prized Congressional and executive alumni who schmooze old pals still in power without the need to formally register as day-to-day lobbyists.”

And let’s not forget about gaps in reporting when it comes to supposed terrorism suspects. It turns out that, while local law enforcement offices are supposed to contact federal authorities if and when they run across potential terror suspects, they often fail to do so. Clearly, this is unacceptable, considering that the American people’s safety is at stake:

“Local police departments are supposed to notify the FBI’s terrorist center every time routine computerized background checks trigger electronic alerts from the TSC. This usually happens in the case of individuals who violate traffic rules or are involved in domestic disturbances in municipalities around the country.”

According to the Corruption Chronicles, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center was created after 9/11 as an oversight measure to catch potential security gaps.

And on a more victorious note, Secrecy News reports that the Department of Energy is “committed” to government declassification — or so it seems. The energy department responded favorably to a request from President Bush that asked for responses to recommendations from the Public Interest Declassification Board. According to The National Archives:

“The Public Interest Declassification Board is an advisory committee established by Congress in order to promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant U.S. national security decisions and activities.”

And over on All Things Reform, you’re being encouraged to let your representative and two senators know that you’d like to see enhanced whistleblower protections for government employees.