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.'"
Why can ideologists and unions lobby? (Score:2, Interesting)
Obama has excempted trade unions from registering as lobbyists, in spite of seeking to do excatly the same things as companies do - fighting for their interests.
The same goes for ideological organisations.
Why are companies banned from lobbying, while others with an agenda are not?
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information. Think of how many people pay $50 a bottle to drink acai juice thinking it will help them lose weight. Think how many people buy lottery tickets. These are people who are just out of touch with reality.
Strangely it has nothing to do with education levels, either. 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. As crazy as that seems, the fact is, knowing how to distinguish good information from bad information is really hard and takes a lot of experience. You can't take the easy shortcut and only rely on peer-reviewed papers because a lot of reality hasn't been peer reviewed yet (and peer-review in no way shows that something is true).
It is no surprise that a population that can't distinguish between reality and fantasy elects representatives that can't distinguish between reality and fantasy as well. The solution is to educate the populace, and it is improving: pay attention to the memes that get spread around; by now everyone on the internet knows that "correlation != causation" and many have a more nuanced understanding of that idea. Five years ago, that thought wasn't so widespread. Same with the "[Citation Needed]" trend: as annoying as it was, it spread the idea that citations are a good thing.
If this trend continues, the problem will be self-correcting. Representatives will understand that lobbyists are biased and will go look for other sources of information. Unfortunately there is no other way to solve the problem: there is no amount of legislation that can fix it.
End the pretense (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's time we end the pretense these people are doing anything independently, and let them wear jackets with sponsor patches ala Nascar.
I guess this is why congress and house members feel it's OK to vote for a 1900+ page bill they have not even read all of, nor allowed the public to read before a vote - why bother reading when your corporate sponsors have given you all the soundbytes you need?
Re:Why can ideologists and unions lobby? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of Obama, I think he favors unions because he actually agrees with them and believes that they help the little guy. That's why he's willing to give them exceptions, but maybe I am being too optimistic.
Another confusing point is the lawyer lobby: does Obama favor their agenda because they paid him money, or did they pay him money because he is a lawyer and favors their agenda? It might be a little of both.
Re:Problem and Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem: Lobbyists exert a disproportional amount of influence in the legislative branch of government.
Solution: Tax lobbyists.
Problem: The Supreme Court see the 14th amendment as giving human rights to property and also see money as a form of speech so we can't touch them.
Solution: New constitutional amendment. "Money is not a form of speech."
Bad idea. If only because it would restrict organizations like the ACLU, EFF, etc.
Better idea - "To be eligible to donate funds to the election campaign of a person running for federal office, the donator must be a human individual, not a corporation, and must live within the district of the person to whom he is donating the funds".
This would block corporate bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations entirely, and while a rich individual could still have a larger-than-normal effect on an election, it would be restricted to a limited number of seats.
Of course, this will *never* happen, as the politicians who can implement such a change are the ones who benefit most from the current system...
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:a != b (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, the US democracy (and the state) is built on companies and lobbyism. Other countries pay their congressmen more than the usual person earns, but forbid them to have another income at the same time, to ensure independence.
The US on the other hand thinks that if companies do well and their wishes get fulfilled, the economy and the people will be benefit as well. The system breaks down as soon as people think about if working and shopping is enough for their life or whether they have real goals in life.
Learn how your political opponents think (Score:3, Interesting)
"A NEW TAX on lobbyists? Why are liberals in favor of new taxes on free speech all the time?"
Maybe you can label your lobbyist tax as a fine on irresponsible free speech which has more political currency.
First of all, taxes are levied on everyone (including us), but fines are levied on people breaking the law, and we hate people who break the law because they're criminals. The element of criminality makes all the difference in the world. It really drives us crazy. It was why we got so freaked about the WTC collapse, more than if the towers were brought down simultaneously by e.g. faulty construction and high winds, or accidental fires from careless smoking, or a weird "Manhattan" bug common to all flight software in use. That would have been a one-week story, like that bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis two years ago. Maybe. Asthma killed more Americans in 2001 than did the WTC attacks and those deaths are barely Googleable.
Second of all we can plainly tell what free speech is irresponsible, and not deserving of "our granting it constitutional protections", as soon as we hear it. But this "money is not a form of speech" thing is going nowhere:
Look- it says right on the money "In God We Trust"!
I suggest going back to the drawing board before you get schooled in public by the likes of Sarah Palin.
Re:Puppets! (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise Zimbabwe here you come.
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:3, Interesting)
The answer can be found be answering this simple question - What reigns supreme?
The Majority (51%), or the Law? The answer is the Law - specifically the Constitutions (both U.S. and Stste level). Therefore it's a Republic, not a democracy. The fact we choose our lawmakers by vote does not change the fact the Law still reigns supreme above all (even the government itself).
Re:End the pretense (Score:2, Interesting)
While I agree that lobbyists wield way too much power in government, the 1900 page complaint is more of a talking point than anything else. The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees.
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, Genentech was doing something morally wrong. Contributing to the delinquency of others is morally wrong. It's just not as bad as what their sock puppets are doing.
Yes We Can (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember the good ole days, when there was a charismatic candidate that promised a new Washington, one that represents the people and not littered with lobbyists.
I guess GW really messed the country up...
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly there seems to be a lot of that going around in most democracies.
Corporations cannot give to politicians (Score:3, Interesting)
It is illegal for any corporation, nonprofit, or union to give money to a politician. Only individuals can give money to politicians. When giving above a certain amount, you must list your employer. It is then possible to create reports that aggregate those numbers by employer, but the money is actually all from individuals.
It is possible to overstate the impact of money in politics. There is a clear money imbalance on the issue of drilling in ANWR for instance (way more on the side of drilling, as you point out), yet we're still not drilling in ANWR.
Re:Puppets! (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is exactly why the government should be as small and weak as possible.
Ah, so you're enjoying your annihilated retirement fund, munching on your Mad Cow burger while your kids play with with their lead-painted toys in your asbestos lined trailer after you had to flee New Orleans on foot in 2005. And you'd get treatment for that nagging leukemia of yours, but your health insurance company denies coverage because you didn't mention that you once had acne, so their CEO can be worth three quarters of a billion dollars. So you feel like packing up the kids and going to one of those socialisicky countries that have actual health care, but your plane crashes because the exhausted pilot was working a second job to stay off food stamps and the air traffic controller had all of two hours of sleep between shifts.
The genius of small government and the free market at work....
Re:It's time to be serious when your gov. is at ri (Score:3, Interesting)
We need instant run-off voting. It allows people to vote for who they really want to, with the assurance that if their first choice doesn't get into office then at least we can pick someone who won't be a complete idiot.
They just tried this in Minneapolis and it worked great-I heard some politicians threatened with lawsuits though... must be doing something right.
Re:It's time to be serious when your gov. is at ri (Score:3, Interesting)
That's an easy thing to say. Coming up with a set of changes to push for is a little more difficult, and actually getting enough people to push in order to make a difference is harder still. What do you suggest are some good first steps?
Someone mentioned instant runoff voting, but I think that's jumping the gun--it (along with any other alternative to the current system) gives third parties a stronger voice, so you'll have a hard time convincing current politicians to back it.
In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC [downsizedc.org]. They are a non-partisan organization which is (obviously) committed to shrinking government. Now, you may not think that government needs shrinking, only fixing, but within their agenda are some proposals that would do just that. Here are two that I think are particularly needed:
Either one of these two measures by itself would do a lot to improve the quality of legislation coming out of Washington. DownsizeDC has a decent system for sending messages to all your congressmen. Their newsletter often has interesting (read: maddening) tidbits about what's going on in Washington, too, though the rhetoric can be juvenile at times.
If you want to make a difference, start pushing for these bills. They have a lot of support already, and every new call for them makes it more likely that they'll actually be passed. Don't be put off because the organization doesn't support something that you do (the health care bill, for instance)--just make use of their system to keep increasing pressure on Congress to pass important legislation like the proposals listed above.