Genentech Puts Words In the Mouths of Congress Members 229
theodp writes "In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with remarkable similarities. Often, that was no accident. Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech. E-mail obtained by the NY Times shows that lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans. Genentech, a subsidiary of Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists. ... The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open for much amendment during the debate. They were meant to show bipartisan support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage generally followed party lines. ... Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: 'This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.'"
a != b (Score:5, Insightful)
If something happens all the time, it does not mean there is nothing nefarious about it. Quite the contrary.
Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:5, Insightful)
"This happens all the time" != "There was nothing nefarious about it."
The entire point of republican democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, is that making representation a full-time job allows our representatives to put the time and effort into being informed about the issues. It scares and angers me that they try to accomplish that by listening to lobbyists.
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:1, Insightful)
This is distinguished from the similarly-named but different "Republican democracy", where anything the Republicans want is good and anyone who disagrees is a fascist-socialist-nazi-communist-traitor. In capital-R Republican democracy, informed representatives are not required, as Jeebus himself tells the party leaders what to vote for.
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
Aye... Genentech wasn't doing *anything* wrong simply by providing information and a point of view. The people to be mad at here are our congressmen... who are apparently so busy "raising funds" and standing in front of things that they don't take the time to actually F'ing LEARN about the topics they legislate on. And apparently, NOR DOES THEIR STAFF anymore. THOSE are the people to be mad as hell at.
Its bad enough that the voters are often idiots... but the idiocracy keeps creeping deeper into the leadership as well.
Re:Puppets! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I see, the elected officials are pretty comfortable with the way things are.
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to get really upset about lobbyists, but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials.
Actually they are very competent. At getting elected/re-elected. Which is the primary selection criteria in a democratic system.
Re:Yuh huh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You got that right! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this guy gets paid at least $174,000 per year [about.com] plus all those awesome perks and retirement plans that none of us peons could ever get, and he can't do his own homework?!
What does this guy do all day?
Work for a win in the next congressional election.
Re:Yuh huh... (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd be wiser to go after the power-grabbing bureaucrats
- like the FCC Chairman who I just learned is dicussing turning-off TV broadcasts and turning-over channels 2-51 to cellphone usage. That of course would force me to upgrade from free television to $20 Comcast lifeline service. Joy. Also the RIAA chairman, the MPAA chairman, and so on.
The Congresscritters are mainly just puppets. The real power lies in front of them (corporate lobbyists) and behind them (bureaucrats).
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unfortunate, but the only way to keep the politicians from doing what you don't want them to do is by having an active populace. As someone else mentioned in a different thread, democracy ensures that the people get the government they deserve.
effective lobbying != improper lobbying (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder, is the outrage due to the fact that Genentech's lobbying efforts were successful or that it was somehow "wrong"?
According to the article, some of the points being talked about:
"the U.S. biotechnology industry .... is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country."
"the company’s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States."
"the bill’s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs. "
"a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech."
Are these ideas inherently partisan in any way at all? Perhaps the reason so many congressional members swayed to the effort was that the points being disseminated were honest, compelling, and served the interests of the American people they work for. Come on guys, we're all information junkies here at slashdot and it should be a no brainer that ideas sometimes spread and catch on not because they are well publicized, but because they happen to be good ideas. If you want to complain about the lack of originality in your government officials to express good ideas, fine. But don't make it about the inherent tendency for ideas to spread and take hold based on multiple factors - including merit. If the lobbying efforts had engaged in excessive spin or deception, let the well informed among us call them on it. Otherwise, please judge it for what it's worth. The truth shall set you free.
Re:Hahahahahaha! (Score:3, Insightful)
The shots are called by corporate execs, and rubber-stamped by pension funds execs.
So, your point is?
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. They were simply trying to increase productivity. After all, why should congressional staffers have to write speeches for their congressmen if Genentech lobbyists are already going to have written them? This way, instead of 435 speechwriters for members of the House of Representatives having to write speeches, you have one Genentech lobbyist write two speeches (one for each party). Look at the savings in manpower! I mean, we all know that in this difficult economy, we have to do more with less, right?
The next step is to lay off all the congresspeople and just have corporate lobbyists write the laws directly. Since they're already footing the bill for all the congressmen to get elected, it would save even more money and manpower. Plus, it would eliminate the need to put on these meaningless elections.
Genentech wasn't doing anything "wrong". The "wrong" part comes when we allow a single corporate dollar in politics. Our wise leaders, encouraged by lobbyists, have decided to ignore both the wording and the original intent of the framers, and have decided that a corporation has the same rights as an individual, yet they have none of the civic responsibility. Plus, (and this one's the kicker) they've decided that Money = Speech. What a racket!. The Supreme Court is deciding right now whether or not to remove absolutely all restrictions on corporate money in the political system. I guess the best we can hope for is that Antonin Scalia chokes on an uncooked tortellini before the final vote comes down.
Re:Puppets! (Score:4, Insightful)
And exactly what are you going to do about it? Glue teabags on your hat and go scream in peoples' faces? Then line up to vote for more corporate stooges?
As long as there's so much money flowing from the corporations to elected officials, your opinion isn't going to matter, your vote isn't going to matter, and your job isn't going to matter, your health isn't going to matter and most of all your life isn't going to matter (unless you're a fetus).
Here's an interesting game: Go compare corporate donations to Congressmen and Senators by party. Then, put them in order by the amount of donations and the industry from which those corporate donations come. Without looking, you can guess what that legislator's vote is going to be on a given piece of legislation 91 times out of a hundred. A group over at NORC at the University of Chicago did exactly that, and that's the number they came up with.
One more thing: despite what you hear on cable TV and AM radio, environmentalist groups don't really give as much money to elected officials as the oil companies.
Happens often != Not-nefarious (Score:3, Insightful)
Rape happens all the time. Murder happens all the time. Fraud, waste and abuse happens all the time. Politicians demonstrating behavior of being bought and paid for by big money interests happens all the time. None of these things are good and all of them should be brought under control.
One of the biggest problems of corruption today is that people think it's acceptable.
Re:Nixon (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me guess, this is your logic: Nixon was immoral, Bush was immoral. Nixon wanted to do something, so therefore Bush must have wanted to do it also. That's not how logic works, man. Sorry.
Lies, Damn Lies and Article Titles (Score:3, Insightful)
Providing a sales brochure with sales points tailored to a couple of different potential customer groups is perfectly normal. It is fervently hoped that they, having tried the drug, will sing its praises. The provided talking points may or may not get used, but if they do it'll sound like they've been reading the same sales brochure -- they have. There is nothing unusual or unethical about providing sales and marketing information openly. Not even if, say the brochure provides information on a drug intended for users who take it to (1) control high blood pressure, or (2) grow hair in spots losing hair due to male pattern baldness. The same drug does both.
Politicians are likely to talk about the drug and related laws and regulations, and the marketoids hope very much they'll read the brochures and use the provided talking points. If they use their own, albeit perfectly aligned with one of the major party platform planks regarding it, the points get made, but haphazardly. Those not provided with the brochure will only have others to listen to. It is no less illegal or unethical to provide congresscritters with sales brochures so they can talk about it without having to write their own material. Two versions might be produced, say (1) for those who want oversight regulations to be relaxed vs (2) those who want to have greater specific oversight over certain drugs regardless of their position on oversight on the FDA in general. Providing both is no more problematic than providing one or the other.
Now, the article summary's title as presented here on /., it implies some sort of wrong doing, despite the fact that the material out there which educates people about its uses and possible problems. Even though some of the other summarizes repeat a known issue with voting lobbyists, it is only incorrect, not attempting to manipulate anyone's opinions other than letting them spout off random concepts, as the title seems intended to accuse the lobbyists of doing. The situation is intended that one should more comply than have to drive around forever, using an old tow truck and 20 year old trailer. It is not likely you would have heard the provided material before haring congress talking about it. It happens to make use of the same 'word-of-mouth' advertising proven to work so well with the population. This is neither illegal nor unethical.
Now, for an article's summary to include a statement to be used as a title, that implies that a/the main character is in danger, this is all perfectly normal MPAA activity. It also suggests that should one or another congresscritter use the talking points, they'll be in error . If the brochure were intended to hasten the break up to find some relief then it was meddling, which is unethical. But it doesn't, it just provides likely word-of-mouth phrases so that everybody is talking on the same boat.
Re:Puppets! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you believe that the government has more control over our lives than corporations?
You might want to wait until tomorrow morning when your alarm goes off to answer.
Re:Yes We Can (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to be serious when your gov. is at risk. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is what is apparently a worse example: Articles in The Atlantic magazine, CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that you should be skeptical about flu reports. [futurepower.net] There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.
If you love your country, you will think seriously about your country's problems.
Re:It's time to be serious when your gov. is at ri (Score:3, Insightful)
Not surprising, at all. Politics in the US are broken. Governments are self serving. What else is new...
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:2, Insightful)
You wouldn't believe how many educated people I talked to were certain that president Bush would call martial law and cancel the election before Obama could be voted in (thus becoming emperor). You may have been one of them.
I guess you can call me "one of them". Although, I never thought it was a certainty, just a possibility. During the congressional debates on the bank bailout bill, Representative Brad Sherman related that members of congress were told that martial law would be declared if the bailout bill was not passed. [youtube.com] The damage-control story after Rep. Sherman's revelation was that "martial law" was a metaphorical phrase amongst congresspeople meaning that the House leadership would ram through legislation in spite of the concerns of the larger body. Problem is, the phrase has never been used to mean that.
During the congressional debates on the bank bailout bill, did President Bush have any effect on the house leadership? For the record, that would be Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Jim Clyburn (D-SC).
After Bush got out of office, we find out that the Bush administration wanted to use the military to arrest terror suspects inside of the United States. [huffingtonpost.com]
I'd say "wanted to" is a strong word. A fair story (i.e. not the Huffington Post) that I read at the time makes it sound like the President said something like "OK, so we know this guy did it and could be dangerous. Get me all the options, and I'll pick one." When presented with the option, he looked at using the military and said "This one looks like it would violate posse comitatus, so let's use the FBI."
So yeah, it seemed like a real possibility, and after the fact, we find out that they were up to shenanigans like this. I don't think the people who suspected this were so paranoid.
Except that the "shenanigans like this" happened under the Obama administration. And had nothing to do with marshal law. And Bush didn't declare marshal law because, well, because, well, that's not how we do things in places that aren't asshole dictatorships, and thinking that he would is more than a little paranoid.
Re:Puppets! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nixon (Score:3, Insightful)
you can bet the thought of staying on, BUT was told he would have NO support for an extended run and went quietly, GOOD NEWS, bad news
See, you're making stuff up here. Why can I bet this?
These guys are really dangerous, and if you don't understand that YOU are very naive. Your other problem is this is about politics, not logic, and politics runs on power and influence, not reason.
Are you making stuff up here too, or do you have real reasons to believe they are dangerous? By the way, you are out of date on your conspiracy theories. If you want to continue with the powers taking over the US conspiracy theory, you have to migrate to the "presidents are just puppets of the true powers" theory. No one still believes the "Bush will take over the country" theory. Except you, apparently.
You have had you shot as the single superpower and dropped the ball, your time has been less than 40 years and China owns most of your country.
See, here are more of your ideas without a basis in reality. What on earth makes you think China owns most of our country? What crazy website do you read to get ideas like this? In fact China owns about a trillion dollars worth of US treasuries, which is a less than 10% of the US GDP. And in fact, if the US dollar goes into the toilet like you suggest, those trillion dollars will be worthless to them. Who got ripped off in that deal?
But please, keep up your lazy-boi logic, continue to defend corrupt lying thugs in your legislature, and pretend your huge deficit isn't a problem.
Once again you are making things up. In fact you have an incredibly active imagination, because not once in this entire conversation have I even referred to the deficit, nor have I implied that it isn't a problem. You can't even keep your facts straight about a conversation that happened today. If you don't fix this problem you will be lost for some time to come. Fix it and you'll do better. Learn how to distinguish fiction from reality, for your own sake, not for mine.
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who you vote for. Once they are in office, they will do whatever their promise-binding corporate overlords tell them to do.
So...
If corruption is like fat, then trying to vote sanity into office is like picking from the menu at KFC, and the chefs would be the special interests.
You are both right.
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:3, Insightful)
Who writes the law?
Re:Puppets! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it me or does there seem to be a concerted attack on the very idea of democracy these days? As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?
If you really think about it, the U.S. Constitution (and a lot of other countries' constitutions) are clearly written as though that assumption were obviously true. Otherwise, why have (for one example) an electoral college?
So if by 'these days' you mean 'for the last several hundred or more years', sure.
Re:It's time to be serious when your gov. is at ri (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the reason we are so blase about it is what little we can actually do about the problem.
The two party system ensures that corruption comes in a cartel of two.
And that is why you fail. If you don't think anything can change and never bother to try, nothing will.
What do you expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to get the money out of government, get the government out of the economy - and that includes the "health care" economy. Note that the positions in these statements are completely agnostic as regards the socialization of health care financing in this country. The companies involved are simply engaging in what they see as business-preserving rent-seeking and attempted regulatory capture. They are playing the game whose rules were set up by congress.
No one that supports single payer can have anything principled to say against this - save for "we shouldn't have any private companies/individuals involved in health care at all." Since that's the way we're heading, they will soon have their wish.
Re:Puppets! (Score:2, Insightful)
As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?
What, you prefer that the dimwitted and ignorant be in charge? What a utopia that would be. If we are talking about a republic, then yes I definitely want my representatives to be intelligent and well educated (now, if only that could be arranged...).