Obama’s Five Worst Nominees

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Barack Obama’s first day in the White House, he introduced the toughest ethics rules of any recent president—rules he promised would “close the revolving door” between government and the corporate world. Maybe he should have invested in a really good dead bolt. One year into the administration, Obama’s picks for some key oversight posts are dogged by eerily familiar conflicts of interest.

Photos below, from left: US Dept. of Defense; Roy Kaltschmidt/Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab; US Dept. of Agriculture; US Dept. of Energy; US Dept. of Interior; Office of Surface Mining

William Lynn

William Lynn
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

When Obama nominated him to the No. 2 spot at the Pentagon, Lynn was the chief lobbyist for Raytheon, the nation’s fifth-largest defense contractor, so the president had to seek the very first waiver of his two-day-old lobbyist policy. As DOD’s comptroller during the Clinton administration, Lynn pushed to relax rules on contractor payments. Last year, when lawmakers proposed a “cost czar” to control Pentagon budget blowouts, Lynn first fought to kill the position, then pushed to ensure that the czar’s recommendations would not be mandatory—rendering the position virtually meaningless.

Scott O'Malia

Scott O’Malia
COMMISSIONER, COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Scott O’Malia was a lobbyist for Mirant, an Enron-like energy-trading firm that was forced to pay California $500 million for bilking consumers in the 2001 energy crisis. He also pushed to weaken the CFTC—the energy-market regulator he’s now serving on. Obama didn’t seek out O’Malia—he was tapped by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, his one-time boss. Still, the president was entitled to ask for a more suitable nominee. Instead, O’Malia sailed to confirmation with barely a question about his background with Mirant.

Islam Siddiqui

Islam Siddiqui
NOMINEE, CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR, US TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Siddiqui is just the type of revolving-door careerist Obama promised to shun. While at the Clinton USDA, he fought efforts to label genetically modified food. Currently, he’s VP of science and regulation for the pesticide trade group CropLife (best known for criticizing Michelle Obama for not using pesticides in her vegetable garden); his new job will put him in charge of international agricultural policy, an area of great interest to CropLife. In its 2008 annual report, the group bragged of its “relentless” efforts to battle regulations “discriminatory to pesticides.”

William Magwood

William Magwood
NOMINEE, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

The top federal nuclear official from 1998 to 2005, Magwood has been a cheerleader for nuclear power. He’s worked for reactor maker Westinghouse and has run two firms that advise companies on nuclear projects. Even before Obama took office, Magwood called on the incoming administration to spearhead a nuclear expansion—boosterism that critics say makes him ill-suited for an agency designed to determine the safety and viability of nuclear technology.

Joseph Pizarchik

Joseph Pizarchik
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

As Pennsylvania’s top mining regulator, Pizarchik developed policies for the “beneficial use of coal ash,” allowing the toxic substance to be dumped in unlined pits. A citizens’ group is planning to sue the federal government for allowing Pizarchik to turn a blind eye to “chronic and deliberate violations” of mining regulations. Yet a spokesman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says Pizarchik will “help move the department forward with coal production in an environmentally responsible way.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate