Triumphrat

Sal Paradise

the highest bidder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us...agewanted=1&hp


In House Record, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’
WASHINGTON — In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the 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.

Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: “This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.”

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: “One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.”

Some differences were just a matter of style. Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said, “I see this bill as an exciting opportunity to create the kind of jobs we so desperately need in this country, while at the same time improving the lives of all Americans.”

Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used the same words, but said the bill would improve the lives of “ALL Americans.”

Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest technology minds.” Mr. Pascrell said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology.”

Comment - if the lobbyists can draft the actual words our congressman use, how can we even say they represent us? They represent the companies who bribe them, who tell them what to say.

__________________
Drunk on the wind in my mouth,
Wringing the handlebar for speed,
Wild to be wreckage forever.

Baltobonneville

Yep. Some of the better ones still stand on principle, at least partially; some of them are completely bought off. Some of them are too dumb or ignorant to know the difference and to make proper discernment on issues. And it's not confined to one or the other party either.

It'll remain that way until we go to full public-only financing of elections with no other money allowed. Unfortunately, with the Supreme Court repeatedly mistaking corporations--a legal construct--for living, breathing individuals with constitutional rights, it won't happen in the foreseeable future.

__________________
Marty
2005 Bonneville Blue 790cc, AI removed, Staintunes RC, Unifilter, no snorkel, 118/40/Thrux needle/1 shim/3 turns, tachometer, Ikon 7610s in back, Ricor Intiminators in front, Pirelli Sport Demons, D9 gauge panel.

joeswamp

That's one of the most disturbing things I've heard lately, I don't remember voting for any of the Genentech folks to run the country.

Corporations are a funny thing, if you force them to stay small you really limit economic growth and technological progress, but if you allow them to become arbitrarily large they tend to usurp government. I remember once hearing Milton Friedman -- about the last guy you'd expect to say this -- declaring that once corporations get large enough they can regulate government more than the government can regulate them, and thus they are about the greatest threat to democracy today.

Catenaccio

I'm too cynical. I believe most of our elected officials at the senatorial and congressional levels sold out long ago, and it's only when we discover how that we question or distrust them. After-the-fact is too late. As proof let me submit for your consideration two names: Harry Reid and John Ensign. Nuff said.

__________________

I like to reminisce with people I don't know.

HiDesert

Have I ever pointed out that that government is best which governs least?

__________________
I won't stop riding because you tell me about someone who died in an accident, just as I won't stop eating because someone died of e.coli.

HiDesert's ride photos

jonkster

yeah... perhaps better to let the corporations rule directly - cut out the middle man.

sorry HiD, had a few red wines and feeling cantakerous... (and probably not 100% rational either, tomorrow I may be regretting this little outburst )...

At least a corrupt government will get called by a free press (why having a vocal group of reptilian press of all persuasions is a healthy thing in a society).

A corrupt corporation only gets called if it loses money. A clever corrupt corporation doesn't lose money. Which one do you want in charge? One who you can at least have a say in kicking out or one that operates in a secrecy you can never really know about?

Capitalism is a great (and for freedom an essential) thing - but uncontrolled capitalism will be a tyrant as evil as any other tyrant. We need governments and governments with teeth.

How much government do we need? Enough to keep the playing field level and represent the society that puts it in place. And if they don't? Cry havoc and unleash your fury at the ballot box! Your government you have some control of. Big companies you are at the mercy of.

Use your government to your advantage. If they don't represent you - raise hell!. Kudos to NYT in this case.

__________________
brmmm brmmm

IrlMike

Aside from a tiny minority with some integrity, politicians represent their wealthy backers. Democrats or Republicans, Tory or Labour, whatever - makes no difference. Only the ones selected by those minority interests will become senior, elevated to the positions with real power.

It's high time we had some real democracy. The only way I can see of doing this is to implement a 'special' deal for the professions of both politics & senior grades of public servants.

The deal is this. If they choose this profession, they represent the general public, who are not wealthy (& cannot become so without another dozen planets to plunder). Ergo, their assets are capped & income limited to a level linked, say, to the lowest income 1/3 of society. Principle - they must live within similar means to most of us. Election funds capped, taxpayer provided, no other funding allowed. Aside from their family home, no other property ownership. (How many politicians gained massively from the property asset bubble, never mind 'bribes' from other vested interests? In the UK the taxpayers even paid directly for their investments!) The deal is for life, including spouses. In return their income is guaranteed for life. Not a bad deal, I think. Especially for all those who say they have the public interest at heart. Want wealth? Fine, go into business, & stay there. No 'revolving doors'. No 'Goldman Sachs' government.

The second problem is mass media ownership. Especially of news, documentary, 'factual' content. Untainted information is key to a democracy - the Fourth Estate. Rules with a similar principle must be applied here. No concentrated ownership, no advertising revenue from powerful corporations. No revolving 'PR' doors for journalists. Again, this is a special vocation in society. News & factual media are publicly funded BUT, funds are actually allocated incrementally on a, say annual, subscription basis by individual citizens. We already pay now, of course, but essentially just hand the money over to corporations to buy the Media they want. (Economics is such a circular thing.)

This isn't communism or any other 'ism', just a system designed for balance - designed to create an outcome that we say we want - a system that represents the largest majority of citizens possible. Key elements, as uncorrupted as possible fighting their own corner. Key final arbiter - the general, widest possible good.

If we designed an engineering control system with the same lack of care & corruption that we accept today in the system of decision-making for public good - politics - it would simply blow up, destroy itself. As the world approaches it's ecological limits, that's exactly where we're heading. Peak Oil (Google IEA 'whistleblower'), dying oceans, climate change, increasing loss of species, no sign of Banking reform, etc. - the list is long. The mess is growing at exponential rates - everywhere.

It's like riding your bike. But the guy controlling the throttle, whilst persuading you otherwise, is in two businesses - fuel supply & undertaking.

Slan agus beannacht

__________________
Legend chassis, Tbird tank/seat, Sprint fairing, tubeless wheels, Thunderbike 3-1, air box mods, 115/40 jets, DJ needles, Ignitech with TPS, ZX6R shock, ZX7R USD forks/yokes, Alcon 6 pot

MassiveAttack

Agreed entirely. Sadly, corporate ownership of politicians is considered free speech. Soliciting or accepting support from special interests remains the single greatest affront to a decent America, and nothing - nothing - will ever change as long as this system is in play. No matter how much charisma or ten dollar phrases a candidate may may employ (Obama, for instance), nothing will change the fact that our government is, as PJ O'Rourke famously coined, a "Parliament of wh*res."

People often confuse my deeply entrenched cynicism and defeatist political attitude with somehow not loving my country. The direct opposite is true. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be so offended.

MassiveAttack

Yes, Thoreau. Good luck selling that to the modern 'conservative' party.

joeswamp

I'm not sure I totally get this argument in the context of the current topic. This is like saying that the milk has gone rancid, so you should drink a smaller glass.

I don't care what limited functions you think government should play, no one should be trusting employees of Genentech to act in the interest of the people in executing these tasks. This is a much bigger and more fundamental problem than government size.

Thank goodness for the free press, I hope this blows up into a big scandal and these congressmen have to resign over it.