As a corollary to the current Jim Johnson ruckus, the Politico reports today that several congressional Democrats aren't too happy with Obama's ban on lobbyists and PAC money:

"Quite honestly, we're taking what we can get," said a top aide to a House Democratic candidate facing a competitive race in November. "The amount of money needed for a campaign today is just so huge that you really have to look under every rock."

At a campaign appearance in Virginia last week, Obama said that lobbyists don't fund his campaign and "will not fund our party," either. The Democratic National Committee will play by Obama's rule, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said last week that they would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists and PACs; spokesmen for the committees said new ethics rules already provide plenty of transparency.

Although some lawmakers adopt their own giving rules, including bans on lobbyist and corporate PAC giving, Democrats in Congress haven't exactly rushed to embrace Obama's rule.

It's a pragmatic decision. Congressional campaigns -- both Democratic and Republican -- generally rely much more on PAC and lobbyist money than presidential campaigns do.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic House candidates have received more than $103 million from PACs this election cycle.

Moral purity runs up against practical necessity. Any bets on who wins?

Also, more directly to the Johnson stuff, Jim Geraghty wonders if Obama will have to scrap one of his stump speeches, since, you know, Johnson made "172 to 412 times the salary of Fannie Mae workers."

As a corollary to the current Jim Johnson ruckus, the Politico reports today that several congressional Democrats aren't too happy with Obama's ban on lobbyists and PAC money:

"Quite honestly, we're taking what we can get," said a top aide to a House Democratic candidate facing a competitive race in November. "The amount of money needed for a campaign today is just so huge that you really have to look under every rock."

At a campaign appearance in Virginia last week, Obama said that lobbyists don't fund his campaign and "will not fund our party," either. The Democratic National Committee will play by Obama's rule, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said last week that they would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists and PACs; spokesmen for the committees said new ethics rules already provide plenty of transparency.

Although some lawmakers adopt their own giving rules, including bans on lobbyist and corporate PAC giving, Democrats in Congress haven't exactly rushed to embrace Obama's rule.

It's a pragmatic decision. Congressional campaigns -- both Democratic and Republican -- generally rely much more on PAC and lobbyist money than presidential campaigns do.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic House candidates have received more than $103 million from PACs this election cycle.

Moral purity runs up against practical necessity. Any bets on who wins?

Also, more directly to the Johnson stuff, Jim Geraghty wonders if Obama will have to scrap one of his stump speeches, since, you know, Johnson made "172 to 412 times the salary of Fannie Mae workers."