Who does security background checks on politicians?

[kerb]

I'm curious as to how security background checks are done on politicians.

When I was in the military, I had a top secret/SCI clearance. Investigators picked through my life with a fine toothed comb. They talked to my teachers, my neighbors, my employers, and pretty much a sample of everyone who ever knew me.

In fact (kind of a funny story) my clearance was held up because one of my former employers was what most would consider to be a hippie. The FBI sent him a questionnaire, and one of the questions on it was, "Would you trust so and so to work around nuclear weapons". He didn't think *anyone* should be trusted with nuclear weapons, but he didn't want to say "no" and torpedo me, so he just didn't send the form in. So I spent a few months on base cutting grass while the FBI sent someone to personally interview him.

Anyway, my point (and my question) is:
Do politicians have to go through the same kind of thing? Given all the controversy over Obama who I'm sure has access to information even more highly classified than I ever did, I question how he could ever have passed such an investigation? Who does the security background checks on politicians before they are allowed on a ballot?

I don't like the man's politics, but please don't dismiss the question as just another racist/birther/obamahater/whatever.. I think it is a valid concern.

[The_Outlaw]

I'm curious as to how security background checks are done on politicians.
When I was in the military, I had a top secret/SCI clearance. Investigators picked through my life with a fine toothed comb. They talked to my teachers, my neighbors, my employers, and pretty much a sample of everyone who ever knew me.
In fact (kind of a funny story) my clearance was held up because one of my former employers was what most would consider to be a hippie. The FBI sent him a questionnaire, and one of the questions on it was, "Would you trust so and so to work around nuclear weapons". He didn't think *anyone* should be trusted with nuclear weapons, but he didn't want to say "no" and torpedo me, so he just didn't send the form in. So I spent a few months on base cutting grass while the FBI sent someone to personally interview him.
Anyway, my point (and my question) is:
Do politicians have to go through the same kind of thing? Given all the controversy over Obama who I'm sure has access to information even more highly classified than I ever did, I question how he could ever have passed such an investigation? Who does the security background checks on politicians before they are allowed on a ballot?
I don't like the man's politics, but please don't dismiss the question as just another racist/birther/obamahater/whatever.. I think it is a valid concern.

I have been asking myself this very same question for many years now.
Apparently everyday law abiding citizen like you and I could not even get a decent entry level Government Job of any kind for just about any 'minor infraction'.
But someone with the 'proper connections' can become; the President of the United States or a Senator or a Congressman or a Governor or a Mayor, etc...etc... with far worse than a minor infraction.
'Crackhead' Mayor Marion Barry comes to mind.

[rdp357]

Since 2008 I think Obama was in charge of background checks for politicians

[vernsimpson]

If Obama has been in charge of background checks since 2008, that may be the reason for all the leaks coming out of the White House!!!!!

[eagleeyes]

the biggest criminals .. those who make the laws for the rest of us .. are very much above the laws they make for us peons .....that is why they control most of the illegal drugs and legal ones .....our education system our religious institutions and the prices we pay for what they allow us to buy and sell.....they are the 'untouchables' and they get away with murder drug running and conspiracy to orchestrate the worlds worst crimes against humanity
whilst making tax free profits too boot

[BluesStringer]

The answer is: The American voter is who signs off on politicians' security checks. Really, it's that simple. If we want stricter security on our politicians' qualification requirements, we have to pass more restrictive legislation on who is eligible to vote, such as property owners like was the case at our Founding, or at a minimum, those who pay their own way through working for a living. I'd even be supportive of an IQ test to go along with property and work requirements.

But bottom line, clearly, only the American voter stands between liberty and tyranny being voted in "legitimately," and obviously, that system is broken beyond repair. The solution, however, is not to create some government body that accepts or rejects politicians' security clearance applications, it's to make sure the contributors in society are protected from the self-interested votes of the moocher class.

Blues

[eagleeyes]

and that's just the state ..the government and those who run it are far larger and more powerful crooks ...............

[garric]

Simply put our government is just a more organized form of the mafia

[Rooks1]

I totally understand what your saying... but Tony Soprano would be a much better President.

[bswartz15]

Michele Bachman got in trouble for asking this question about political appointees. It is a shame that we have to worry about this. It used to be the media's job to properly vet candidates.