7035978
story
Comments: 229 +- Politics: Genentech Puts Words In the Mouths of Congress Members on Sunday November 15, @04:52PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Sunday November 15, @04:52PM
from the finest-lawmakers-money-can-buy dept.
from the finest-lawmakers-money-can-buy dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbiotech.gif); width:42px; height:65px;
biotech
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
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.'"
Related Stories
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
"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's called a representative democracy, not a republican democracy. I know many monarchies who have a representative democratic system.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who writes the law?
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.
Parent
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I see, the elected officials are pretty comfortable with the way things are.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Yay lobbyist-speak (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Or at least, I have never encountered a historically documented use of that phrase. Maybe you know of one?
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]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.
The problem is a good portion of the US has trouble figuring out how to distinguish good information from bad information.
I suppose you have a universally valid method for doing so?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
politicised as thing have become you must think Bush thought of it, but was told the Military would not obey
So you are explicitly saying that Bush wanted to militarily take over the country? You have absolutely no evidence for this, and present none other than "things have become politicized." In four years things are still going to be politicized; will you be afraid then that the president will try to take over the country militarily?
Conspiracy theories such as these are popular among those who have a better idea of how Hollywood works than how reality works. You believe an idea for which there is no eviden
Re: (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
Re: (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 i
It's the other way around... (Score:3, Informative)
Shouldn't this headline actually read, "42 House members plagiarize report by Genetech". Isn't the reality that these politicians had no opinions, or at least lacked the will to find and articulate one, and instead opted to copy someone else. Not that it makes the whole situation any less shameful.
We need another party (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Hand in the back (Score:4, Funny)
Its like the politicians had a big giant hand (not so invisible) in the middle of their back, replacing their backbone. Their left hand is suddenly controlled by a giant thumb, and their right hand is suddenly controlled by a giant little finger. Their mouths move up and down, not quite in sync with the words coming from somewhere. Inside, the politician is thinking: All I have to do is say these words and I will make more than 400 times the street prostitute down the block. No sticky mess or anything. Cool! Those lobby people sure do pay a lot more than that official 'government' salary too. I wonder how much they would pay me if I offered to bend over and touch my toes.... oh wait, I already did.
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.
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
Parent
Re:Puppets! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Puppets! (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise Zimbabwe here you come.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
A couple thoughts here.
It has been argued quite well and by people much more knowledgeable than I that corruption increases with the size of government, and that an active and attentive population is needed even with small government, and at increasing levels of citizen attention and effort (as well as taxes) as government size increases, until a tipping point is reached wher
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Parent
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 poin
Re: (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: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....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not so dumb as to believe there are 300,000,000 voters in the US.
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.
Parent
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Puppets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly there seems to be a lot of that going around in most democracies.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Yuh huh... (Score:4, Funny)
Which is of course why you want more, bigger government who do everything for you. Because then there will be fewer puppets and more nice fuzzy people who have nothing but your best interests at heart.
I swear, I'm either going to have to buy a farm somewhere and retire, far away from people, or buy a rifle and start taking random pot shots. Which is cheaper?
Parent
Re: (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).
You got that right! (Score:3, Informative)
In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”
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?
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.
Parent
Re: (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 agen
Re: (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 restric
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Better idea than your better idea: reduce the government to the powers delegated to it by the constitution. Right now, we're operating on the Willie Sutton principle.
-jcr
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 make
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The shots are called by corporate execs, and rubber-stamped by pension funds execs.
So, your point is?
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not surprising, at all. Politics in the US are broken. Governments are self serving. What else is new...