The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Dumb question: how does one decline money from a "future lobbyist"? How, exactly, can a campaign define that class of individuals.

These are important, but symbolic steps. Obama's a co-sponsor of the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act to bring substative reform via voluntary public financing; Edwards too now advocates some form of public financing, though his record on campaign finance reform during his Senate tenure was shaky.

for heaven's sake, Obama is a climbing politico who's taken money from everywhere.. his message is "new", his style is the same as every climbing politician.
If he wants to impress , he ought to join the military, serve a few years, then come back and speak.

Both Obama and Edwards except money from lawyers who work for the same firms as the registered lobbyists they say they don't take money from. These law partners make money from the fees the lobbyists charge. So their arguments are really specious.

It is hard to say you don't take money from a lobbyist and then work hard for union endorsements- who hire the lobbyists you say you won't take money from. Edwards earned money from a hedge fund and they participate in lobbying efforts to protect their outrageous tax benefits. Obama takes money from State lobbyists and has all the time he was in the State legislature.

It is really semantics. The important part is not who you take money from but how you vote and in nearly every instance all three Obama, Edwards and Clinton, vote the same.

FactChecker,

Please find something you can really make difference with: like whether the moon is made of green cheese or the earth is flat (except for when it's round.)

Don't know about the rest of you, I have quickly tired (after only a few days' monitoring this blog) of its inaccuracies and sloppy reporting.

It seems you start with a premise (regardless of subject) and include only those "facts" which will support your opinion. Instead of hiding behind the "facts" why not get naked witht he rest of us and just share your unadorned OPINION. Now there's a novel concept.

Nice attempt to shift the focus away from the money laundering-lie donation scam of the frontrunner's campaign.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202007/news/nationalnews/hills_cash_eyed_as_chinese_lau.htm

I think you are splitting hairs here and not giving cudos to these 2 candidates where they are due for making the effort. You can't expect them to screen out donations from lawyers or for employees based upon where they work. Hats off to Obama and Edwards for their efforts.

Do I detect the Clinton machine springing into action?

Employees are not lobbyists. Under your rationale, if an autoworker contributes to a candidate, Big Auto has.

John Edwards has correctly identified that this is a rigged system. Furthermore, he never has taken money from a federal lobbyist.

Seems pretty simple to me.

JD - Just go to some other blog and leave this space for people who are so obviously inferior to you. Please.

Matt - I actually expect a political candidate to do just that. If it means screening his donations, then if he is so bent on honesty and claiming uniqueness as an outsider and an I'm-not-going-to-do-business-as usual, that's just exactly what I expect.
Good going, fact checker.

In response to the first comment above questioning John Edwards committment to public funding, John Edwards is taking public funding, while Senators Obama and Clinton are not.

I question Barack Obama's committment to public funding, since he refuses to take it and instead relies on big money contributions.

Yet again, Obama talks a good game, but fails to walk it.

For all the hype, Obama simply is not a leader.

This is a great counterpart to the editorial about Hilary's grotesque bundling habits. Not that her campaign doesn't have their strategy right--the primary primary is the cash grab and by asking no questions she is winning it soundly. It IS unethical and it IS corrupting of the democratic system. But she don't make the rules! POLITCS AINT BEANBAG.

Edwards is a joke, with his 20,000 sf estate and his populist rhetoric. He doesn't need to accept money from lobbyists because HE IS ONE. They can't buy him--they don't need to.

Obama is slightly different. He is like a kid caught stealing candy with his friends who says, yes I am stealing, but if I didn't they would take my share and I would have nothing. It's true, but where's the nobility? Nowhere.

Good for you for keeping an eye on all this. The WaPo is the last honest broker in a broken system.

"Factchecker" doesn't seem to want to stick to the facts. Both Edwards and Obama claim not to be receiving money from federal lobbyists - and that is a fact, as verified by your own article and investigation (even though Obama seems to not mind having them on his staff).

Yet instead of an actual non-partisan investigation of what they are saying, you seem to be accepting the Clinton campaign talking points that all money is the same. Its just not the case when federal lobbyists can pour billions into lobbying for an issue, which grants them access to not only influence legislation but write entire bills.

Are their loopholes? Of course there are until we get a more perfect system. But it says quite a bit that Edwards at least is willing to take a stand for public financing by using it for his campaign, unlike any other top tier candidate. Somehow you don't even mention this.

And unlike the first poster's absurd claim that finance reform is new for Edwards, he was at the forefront of this issue when he was in the Senate with recognized leadership on McCain-Feingold finance reform. He also NEVER accepted money from PACs or lobbyists, unlike Obama, who had no problem taking their money while running for Senate.

Breaking News: John Edwards-a leading trial lawyer-receives contributions from trial lawyers. All the candidates receive money from hedge fund employees-John Edwards actually advocates taxing their fees and deferred compensation as ordinary income. Lobbyists are paid to do nothing but influence legislation and Administration decisions; those who pay lobbyists are engaged presumably in some other form of business activity.

The political system, including the private financing of campaigns, is tilted toward those who fund it. Of the Democrats, only John Edwards is saying, "Enough is enough." That you are unable to see the distinctions in these different cases shows a significant bias FOR the status quo.

A fundraising picture is not complete without taking a look at what happens after money is donated. By this measure, John Edwards looks better than anyone else. Edwards does no favors. Period. If you take a serious look at his programs and proposals, you will have no doubt that he does what he thinks is right for the American people with zero regard for any special interest group. He has plans that go against the interests of Hedge Funds, for one example.

Follow the money. John Edwards has clean hands, and always will.

The campaigns cannot get into gear without money. The people who give large sums, or bundle same, have expectations. Why the hypocrisy? Until campaigns are funded by the taxpayers (the people) and access to tv is available(free tv time) money is the only oxygen for these campaigns. HRC should have some way to filter out unscrupulous bundlers. With Edwards and Obama I have another problem: they think I am stupid and can't make a judgement about their funding sources. Lobbyists are not the only scoundrels around.

Oh, come on! Your own article admits that Edwards and Obama are actually refusing money from lobbyists. In other words, they are actually doing what they are saying they are doing. In fact, Edwards has NEVER taken money from lobbyists.

Seems like you're trying to find a reason why the Clinton campaign greedily sucking up to people like the lobbyist for Monsanto and various defense industry lobbyists isn't completely vile. I've got news for you - it is.

Edwards and Obama take money from lawyers, you say? News flash! Both of them ARE lawyers. Is it really so weird to take campaign contributions from their professional colleagues? I'd rather see trial lawyers funding a candidate (people who actually work for parties injured by corporate greed) than see the candidate taking money from lobbyists for corporate greed any day.

When is John Edwards going to throw the towel in so he can go back to being on the TV and telling people what their dead friends and family are doing?

Mr. Dobbs,

Do you know how much effort it takes to screen tens of thousands of donations for federal lobbyists name? To tell whether the Bob Jones form Maryland who didn't leave his address or employer in his online donation of $250 is the Bob Jones that is a lobbyist? Do you understand the research time that goes into filtering out this money? Do you think that every lobbyist is straightforward about his employment when donating?

Now given that there are no databases of state lobbyists names and that people are free to fail to inform you of their position as a state lobbyist, friend of a lobbyist, next door neighbor of a lobbyist, future lobbyist, etc, how do you go about finding these people to remit their donations?

Edwards and Obama have taken the only practical way to reject the lobbyist mechanism. Your nose is the only one that seems to grow with your fact checking.

On the other hand, their grandiose campaign language SEEMS to promise more than it actually delivers. There are an awful lot of loopholes.

What the hell does this mean? Loopholes? Have those loopholes that you claim exist been used? You state:

Our truth-squadding colleagues at Politifact had no compunction about awarding the Edwards campaign a "half true" rating for the claim that he had "never taken" the money of Washington lobbyists. As far as we can establish (and we have only examined the present election cycle), neither Edwards nor Obama have knowingly accepted campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists, so that claim is technically correct.

You state yourself that they have not knowingly taken money from federally regitered lobbyists and then you slip in a paragraph to cast doubt on your own statement. What kind of weasily article is this? Is this how it's done now in Washington. Admit that candidates have been truthful but slip in a paragraph that places doubts about them even though you have no evidence?

I find this highly offensive.

Before I read this column I had just finished reading an article in the Nation about Hiliary Clinton. Why don't you fact check this one?

Hillary's Mystery Money Men
by RUSS BAKER & ADAM FEDERMAN

[from the November 5, 2007 issue]

In the Clintons' pursuit of power, there is no such thing as a strange bedfellow. One recently exposed inamorata was Norman Hsu, the mysterious businessman from Hong Kong who brought in $850,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign before being unmasked as a fugitive. Her campaign dismissed Hsu as someone who'd slipped through the cracks of an otherwise unimpeachable system for vetting donors, and perhaps he was. The same cannot be said for the notorious financier Alan Quasha, whose involvement with Clinton is at least as substantial--and still under wraps.

Political junkies will recall Quasha as the controversial figure who bailed out George W. Bush's failing oil company in 1986, folding Bush into his company, Harken Energy, thus setting him on the path to a lucrative and high-profile position as an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and the presidency. The persistently unprofitable Harken--many of whose board members, connected to powerful foreign interests and the intelligence community, nevertheless profited enormously--faced intense scrutiny in the early 1990s and again during Bush's first term.

Now Quasha is back--on the other side of the aisle. Operating below the radar, he entered Hillary Clinton's circle even before she declared her candidacy by quietly arranging for the hire of Clinton confidant and longtime Democratic Party money man Terry McAuliffe at one of his companies. During the interregnum between McAuliffe's chairmanship of the Democratic Party and the time he officially joined Clinton's campaign, Quasha's firm set McAuliffe up with a salary and opened a Washington office for him.

Just a few years earlier, McAuliffe had publicly criticized Bush for his financial dealings with Harken, disparaging the company's Enron-like accounting. Yet in 2005 McAuliffe accepted this cushy perch with Quasha's newly acquired investment firm, Carret Asset Management, and even brought along former Clinton White House business liaison Peter O'Keefe, who had been his senior aide at the Democratic National Committee. McAuliffe remained with the company until he became national chair of Hillary's presidential bid, and O'Keefe never left. McAuliffe's connection to Quasha has, until now, never been noted.

Another strong link between Quasha and Clinton is Quasha's business partner, Hassan Nemazee, a top Hillary fundraiser who was trotted out to defend her during the Hsu episode--in which the clothing manufacturer was unmasked as a swindler who seemingly funneled illegal contributions through "donors" of modest means.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/baker_federman

Another article intended to minimize Hillary's cash cows by mischaracterizing 2 other candidates.
Throughout his political career, Edwards has NEVER taken a dime from federal lobbyists and PACs in a position to influence legi$lation.
OTOH - Obama's entire political career has been funded by them - until 2007.

When will WaPo report on Hillary's Mystery Money Men??
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071105&s=baker_federman

Remember all the ruckus about Bush and Harken Energy? Bill Clinton ended all pending and future Iran-Contra and BCCI investigations - and look who's benefitting now!

Bush-Clinton dynasty!
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3081835.ece

We are trying to walk our way back from the cliff here. Campaign finance reform was a great big boondoggle that I'm not sure wasn't put in place on purpose. The only way out of this mess is public financing of all elections and free air time for candidates. You don't mention that Edwards is accepting public financing. Curious?

Edwards is leading the way out of these brambles, and Obama has started to stir. But Hillary is having lunch with Monsanto lobbyists and calling it "Rural Americans for Hillary." Monsanto is no friend to rural America. Neither are the monopolies that control 80% of our meatpacking. Neither is Illinois' Archer Daniels Midland.

It isn't pretty what we've become. The shapeshifters of the Milton Friedman school have just gussied up feudalism or corporate fundamentalism and repackaged it as "free trade" or "globalization." Nope, it's just another attempt to justify selfishness, as John Kenneth Galbraith said.

Time to hose out the barn.

I'd say they're sticking as close as possible to their pledge. They don't take money from registered federal lobbyists, and Obama in particular (and John Edwards I'm sure) has returned checks that have come from these lobbyists in order to stand by his pledge. I would say that Obama has been slightly more truthful on this one, because he has acknowledged that there are loopholes and that it's difficult to make it a perfect system. However, he has rightly stated that it's important for candidates to make the effort.
So I don't think it's fair to judge him on the "I don't take money from federal lobbyists" alone, considering that he has been truthful to the American people as to the extent that that statement is true.

If people work for a company, but they themselves are not lobbyists, you still imply that they are making a request for favoritism for their company. That is really absurd. Most people have to work for someone. So is every political contribution tainted? And even if you work for yourself, then your contribution could be tainted, because you are lobbying, according to this definition, for yourself. Obama is right. The water is muddy, but it is the system we have right now. Public financing is a better answer, but right now, Edwards has forced himself into an impossible corner. Because of the spending limits, should he be the nominee, he will have such a financial gap after the primary rush and before the convention, that he won't be able to respond to any GOP attacks. That makes him a terrible potential nominee and why I won't vote for him. His claim that the party will do it for him, instead, makes a mockery of his clean money claim. Party money is full of lobbyist money.

I think this is hilarious. I hear liberals using Halliburton, Big Oil, Big everything, all have their lobbyists against the Republicans out there when they all have the hands dirty, that is if you believe all of this is dirty. All that is, is just liberal deflection of their own sin.. LOL!!

Wow William, what an amazing display of wingnut ignorance. Congratulations!

Ah, the Clinton machine keeps on spinning!

Somebody needed to start somewhere, and John Edwards has done just that. Only he started years ago and hasn't wavered.

I suggest, as someone posted above, you do some "factchecking" on Hillary, you'll have weeks worth of stuff to write about.

A few threads here are as interesting as the original piece.

1) Lots of you believe public (taxpayer) funding of campaigns is the solution to the "problem" of lobbyists influencing elections. A couple of quibbles: the public does not WANT to fund campaigns and candidates do not want to be constrained by the miniscule funding this system would grant them. Apart from that it's brilliant. Actual solution: remove caps on donations, give real-time access to donor lists and let politicians explain why they get so much from a single sector or two. Or we can just let Frito Lay sponsor candidates. Yum.

2) Edwards apologists have to stop claiming that his plans demonstrate he is not in anyone's thrall. Earth to y'all: Edwards is not in thrall to anyone because he has NO POWER. We are not voting for him as king (well, I'm not voting for him at all) so his beautiful plans have no way of becoming real unless he gets down in the mud with other players. At least Hilary's and Obama's plans are drawn up with an eye to the real world. That is why they are both more viable than haircut 100.

Why don't you go after a real comment. This column is such a joke. Everyone is pulling down money from lobbyists in one form or another. Try looking at the programs they want to administer or some policy.

If people work for a company, but they themselves are not lobbyists, you still imply that they are making a request for favoritism for their company. That is really absurd. Most people have to work for someone. So is every political contribution tainted? And even if you work for yourself, then your contribution could be tainted, because you are lobbying, according to this definition, for yourself. Obama is right. The water is muddy, but it is the system we have right now. Public financing is a better answer, but right now, Edwards has forced himself into an impossible corner. Because of the spending limits, should he be the nominee, he will have such a financial gap after the primary rush and before the convention, that he won't be able to respond to any GOP attacks. That makes him a terrible potential nominee and why I won't vote for him. His claim that the party will do it for him, instead, makes a mockery of his clean money claim. Party money is full of lobbyist money.

Posted by: Goldie | October 22, 2007 12:10 PM "

Goldie, there is a big difference in taking money from Joe Blow at the bottom of the food chain and pulling money from the CEO. You trying to tell me the CEO is not giving money on the side and not looking for the same results as when he pumps the money in the back door through the lobbyist?

This is a perfect example of the media not doing its job. We've got republican special interests financing HRC at every level - from Rupert Murdoch holding fundraisers for her to Big Pharm giving her more than all the three leading republican and democrats combined. I have yet to see an article on what this implies.

Yet here's an article splitting hairs on whether someone who works for a firm is technically a lobbyist.

The media, who aided in George W's election, is at it again.

Obama and Edwards are being pretty disingenuous. "I'm not influenced DIRECTLY by lobbyists, just their employers," is what they should be saying. They're getting desperate and alienating voters who might otherwise be swayed to their camps. I'm looking forward to seeing Hillary mop the floor with them.

Now, wait a minute! I am a trial lawyer.
My employer (and the lawyer organizations of which I am a member) do, indeed, employ lobbyists. Mostly at the state level, but sometimes we band together to support federal legislation.

Does that mean that the money that I have given to the Edwards campaign has counted in your article as "special interest" money?

I have given money to John Edwards because his campaign and his focus on impoverished families and health care speak to me. I have donated because I want John Edwards to be our next president. I am not influenced by my employer or any lobbyists in my donations.

Come to think of it, "trial lawyer" doesn't encompass all that I am any more than "journalist" would encompass all that the authors of this article are.

This feature is.

Wank.

How about doing a "fact-check" on how Bush's supplemental war request breaks down and who get's rich from it?

How are we so sure that Michael Dobbs is not a future lobbyist himself and therefore we must disregard everything he just wrote. What is this, the Minority Report, how can you know who a future lobbyist is?

By the way, Michael Dobbs works for the Washington Post which is partly owned by Berkshire Hathaway which is run by Warren Buffet who is a maximum donor ($2300) to Hillary Clinton (those are all real facts, feel free to look them up). So under Dobbs' own "guilt by association" rules, that makes him a shill for Hillary. And his "fact" check article is no more than a Hillary Clinton campaign ad by his own definition.

See how that works, Mr. Dobbs?

Is this about more Hillary blurring strategy of saying all the candidates are the same? Why is she feeling embarrassed at being already owned by the big lobbyists that would run her presidency?

Maybe she's just trying to take attention off her giving Bush the okay to hit Iran vote in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Well, it's not working.

Edwards & Obama does not accept Washington Lobbyist money. Clinton does. End of story. Maybe she should send out another poll-tested card about that.

Before we spend all of our time checking out the Dem Candidates for pres. why not fact check the currant occupant? Guts??? We need to know where we are,on the way to where we need to go.

Edwards and Obama - both of them - hypocrites. Do they think the American people are stupid?

I no longer support John Edwards. I've about had it with his filthy smear-mongering of the Clintons.

Bill and Hillary have done more for this country in their combined adult lives than John Edwards has done, or will ever do.

Go home John and Elizabeth. You are wearing on the nerves of many Democrats; and you aren't leading in even one state poll. Not one.

To think I once admired these people.

What a joke. Todays column proves my point about how liberals are given a pass while anyone on the conservative side of neutral is levied with doubled penalties for the same behaviour.

Fact checking my eye.

Edwards is right.

I suppose if you think "Washington lobbyists" means something other than federal lobbyists, you could argue otherwise on a technicality.

But, it's pretty clear here the issue is federal lobbyists. The point is not that lobbyists are bad people. Sure some are lobbying for good causes, others maybe not so good causes. The point is not that lobbyists are the only source of potentially tainted funds. The point is not that there won't be other loopholes. It's that if you are going to have even a minimum appearance of propriety, it doesn't make sense for paid lobbyists to be able to give money directly to the very same officials they are lobbying.

As Eric Shultz says:
"The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."

Other professions don't have trouble seeing this clearly. Independent Auditors for example, are not allowed to own stock in the company they are auditing. This doesn't make it problematic for them to own stock in a company they are not auditing. Nor does it make this rule murky.

If you still don't think this is a clear distinction, perhaps a donation to the Fact Checker would help you see things more clearly? Or would you be equally swayed by a donation to, say, factcheck.org?

Edwards is right.

I suppose if you think "Washington lobbyists" means something other than federal lobbyists, you could argue otherwise on a technicality.

But, it's pretty clear here the issue is federal lobbyists. The point is not that lobbyists are bad people. Sure some are lobbying for good causes, others maybe not so good causes. The point is not that lobbyists are the only source of potentially tainted funds. The point is not that there won't be other loopholes. It's that if you are going to have even a minimum appearance of propriety, it doesn't make sense for paid lobbyists to be able to give money directly to the very same officials they are lobbying.

As Eric Shultz says:
"The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."

Other professions don't have trouble seeing this clearly. Independent Auditors for example, are not allowed to own stock in the company they are auditing. This doesn't make it problematic for them to own stock in a company they are not auditing. Nor does it make this rule murky.

If you still don't think this is a clear distinction, perhaps a donation to the Fact Checker would help you see things more clearly? Or would you be equally swayed by a donation to, say, factcheck.org?

Edwards is right. I suppose if you think "Washington lobbyists" means something other than federal lobbyists, you could argue otherwise on a technicality.

But, it's pretty clear here the issue is federal lobbyists. The point is not that lobbyists are bad people. Sure some are lobbying for good causes, others maybe not so good causes. The point is not that lobbyists are the only source of potentially tainted funds. The point is not that there won't be other loopholes. It's that if you are going to have even a minimum appearance of propriety, it doesn't make sense for paid lobbyists to be able to give money directly to the very same officials they are lobbying.

As Eric Shultz says:
"The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."

Other professions don't have trouble seeing this clearly. Independent Auditors for example, are not allowed to own stock in the company they are auditing. This doesn't make it problematic for them to own stock in a company they are not auditing. Nor does it make this rule murky.

If you still don't think this is a clear distinction, perhaps a donation to the Fact Checker would help you see things more clearly? Or would you be equally swayed by a donation to, say, factcheck.org?

zdstgdxfh

Public funding of all elections nationwide.... good luck... Congress etc are so deeply dependent on friendly money that we are accepting a corrupt system one minute and complaining about it the next.

The single biggest problem with our government is campaigning special interest that produces an influence over and above what is morally acceptable, example : Tom Delay (of the Moral Majority).

I say we do not re-elect anyone of either party until they start working for average Americans and not special interest groups.

Where is Abe Lincoln when you need him?

How about a lottery system! On the year of a Presidential election everyone donates 10cents torwards a pool for all candidates to split equally for thier election. NO lobyists,big corp.,union,special intrests etc...and the candidates cannot use any other monies than what was alloted to them in the lottery pool. If this doesnt change things nothing will!

By the way, the 10cents should be tax deductible and whether your here(legally or not) you cant leave our borders without paying!

This 'fact-check' seems to muddy the waters more than clear them. Edwards hasn't taken from lobbyists his entire career (something the article fails to note) and the rare lobbyist volunteering for the campaign has no relation at all to the issue of concern - lobbyists BUYING votes improperly - not donating their own time to phone bank or canvass just like any other citizen. I don't know if this is just overzealous attempts to find lies or an attempt to support Hillary's corrupt campaign but either way it's a shoddy piece.

While it's a small step, at least Obama and Edwards are moving in the right direction. The $500,000 that Clinton scooped up that could have gone to the other candidates isn't chump change.

Obama's pledge to reject money from federal lobbyists and PACs--while largely symbolic--is a piece of a broader effort to reform our system of campaign finance. He's been instrumental in pushing legislative reform on this front in the Senate--and passed the first ethics reform bill in Illinois in 25 years as a state senator.

As Ruth Marcus (WaPo) wrote in August, Obama leads the pack on these issues. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101420.html?nav=rss_opinions

Commitment to America, NOT!!!

Obama mentioned his church during an appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming.

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America
while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!
This is information that should be all over the TV and newspapers.

This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance to be our president is really scary.

This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:

www.tucc.org/about.htm

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.