Loudly and repeatedly, Barack Obama swore off accepting money from lobbyists. This, he said, is part of his plan to bring about his much-promised change to politics: “Washington is not looking after you. They’re not fighting for you,” the candidate has said. “That’s why I don’t take PAC money. That’s why I don’t take money from federal registered lobbyists. Because I want to be accountable to you.”

So, how’s that unprecedented step of swearing off all money from registered lobbyists working for him? Well, it depends on what your definition of “lobbyist” is.

The campaign has no problem accepting money from the spouses of Washington lobbyists. A database search conducted for this column by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign-finance issues, found that more than 20 spouses of prominent Washington lobbyists have donated to the Obama campaign, including the wives of Dan Glickman, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America; Norman Brownstein, a prominent Denver-based lawyer who has lobbied for Oracle, Toshiba, and Comcast; and Stuart Pape of Patton Boggs, Washington’s foremost lobbying firm, who has lobbied for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and the Smokeless Tobacco Council.

Apparently, it also depends on the lobbyist’s place of registration: although Obama won’t take funds from federally registered lobbyists, he’ll take them from lobbyists registered at the state level.

It also depends on what your definition of “money” is:

Florida lobbyist Russell Klenet hosted a fundraiser for Obama Aug. 25, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Two months before, Klenet had withdrawn as a lobbyist in Washington for a kidney dialysis company that relies heavily on federal revenue, Senate records show. Klenet did not return phone calls.

And, yes, it even depends on your definition of “taking” is: Obama is perfectly happy to accept special interest money, especially from Big Oil, so long as it’s funneled through Fortune 500 companies first.

So when Republicans say Obama is playing fast-and-loose with the truth, I suppose it once again comes down to what your definition of is is.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!