Lobbyists provide lawmakers with talking points authored by Genetech

[bascule]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1

 

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.

 

This is perhaps the single most blatant case of lobbyists affecting the healthcare debate. These lawmakers were reading statements drafted for them by lobbyists almost verbatim.

 

So for those of you outside the US wondering why we can't change our system, this is a huge reason why.

[Phi for All]

It sort of gives it away when you can see the ventriloquist's lips move when the dummies talk.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is the sort of thing that can be prevented by regularly chopping off the heads of the people who do this sort of thing, and replacing them with better people.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

 

Wouldn't hurt to make sure your staff are not corrupt lazybums, too.

[Sisyphus]

"It's not my fault! I just say whatever I'm told to say!"

[Phi for All]

 

There is evidence that Rep. Wilson actually has a backbone, however it's attached to strings controlled by the lobbyist above him.

[JohnB]

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

 

This is why I keep saying that partisanship will kill you. People are so busy pointing at the clout the lobbyists have with their opposition that they ignore the fact that their own side is doing the same thing.

 

Bread and Circuses.

[bascule]

For what it's worth JohnB, I blame the Democratic "Blue Dogs" (including my representative Jared Polis, to whom I have written a nasty letter) just as much as the Republicans.

 

The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies why we won't see a bill for true universal healthcare in America any time soon, and why the healthcare bill we're getting is such a bloated morass.

[padren]

For what it's worth JohnB, I blame the Democratic "Blue Dogs" (including my representative Jared Polis, to whom I have written a nasty letter) just as much as the Republicans.

 

The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies why we won't see a bill for true universal healthcare in America any time soon, and why the healthcare bill we're getting is such a bloated morass.

 

For all the cynicism I have for politics, it is still really hard to understand just how things like this happen. We can say if it wasn't for the lobbies, we'd have true universal healthcare sometime soon - but how can people be that susceptible to simple bribery? I can understand why if someone genuinely believes universal coverage will lead to the destruction of western civilization that they'd oppose it, but that can't be most people in politics, especially the "Blue Dogs" specifically.

 

I also understand how even unsolicited bribery can change people's thinking - they benefit if an open question has a specific answer whether they asked for that benefit or not, and without even realizing it they end up grasping at straws to rationalize any way that specific answer could still fit that question. In this case the question is how to deal with our health care crisis and the answer is by letting the industry make the adjustments itself... but that has gotten so desperate how can any democrat still go along with this?

 

We hear these canned speeches and we feel betrayed - are they completely oblivious to that, or do they really not care anymore? Is there no one in their families to ask them wtf they are doing? I've never understood lawyers that proudly represent mobsters either but it seems insane: without lobbyists, we'd expect them to be sane, but due to their influence, these politicians are irredeemable.

 

 

What scares me is that just doesn't add up to me, and yet it's the world we live in, and that implies the art of influence is far more insidious and dangerous than I've given it credit for.

[JohnB]

bascule, I've been aware of the Dems lack of caring for the American people for some time. It was Democrat Senators that scuttled discussion on sugar tariffs and subsidies some years ago.

 

Because of this, you and every other American pay two to three times as much for the sugar on your table compared to the rest of the world.

 

This article from Forbes magazine shows who has been getting the money from the sugar lobby. They're not Republicans.

 

The bottom line is that while everybody has been raving for years about big business having the Republicans in their pockets, there is amazingly little about the fact that those pockets are being shared by Democrats.

 

From what I can see, you lot are being royally screwed by both sides. And the simple fact is that the grassroots on both sides are being very easily distracted by partisan ploys by their own representatives.

 

Many Dem supporters are so busy congratulating themselves on how smart and educated and sensible they are, that they don't notice that while they're bending over shaking their finger at those gullible Republicans, they're being slipped a length by their own Representatives. (Using different agruments, the same is done to Republican supporters.)

 

It's not the people of the partys that are at fault here. Partisanship is encouraged by both partys because it stops people looking over their shoulder and seeing that they're being screwed.

 

If it wasn't so tragic, it would make the basis of a great sit com.

[bascule]

bascule, I've been aware of the Dems lack of caring for the American people for some time.

 

I would characterize that as an unfair generalization. It's not like the Republicans care more. In general, I would contend they care far less.

[padren]

I would characterize that as an unfair generalization. It's not like the Republicans care more. In general, I would contend they care far less.

 

I agree, though I have to say it seems neither party care "enough" for progress to be effective. I think many Republicans genuinely believe the convictions they profess, even if it is the result of self serving cognitive dissonance. It seems both parties suffer from enough genuine misgivings, self serving misgivings resulting from poor character, and blatant corruption that the individuals who genuinely want to act in the people's interests are simply outgunned.

[JohnB]

I would characterize that as an unfair generalization. It's not like the Republicans care more. In general, I would contend they care far less.

You perhaps missed my point. I contend that neither side give a tinkers damn.

 

This is exactly what I mean when I say that partisanship is killing you. I used sugar to show that you are getting screwed to the tune of $1.9 billion per year on food basics and your response is "Well, yeah, But the other side is worse, I'm sure of it!"

 

Until the mmbers of each party wise up and see through the bulldust, demanding that their party clean up their act, you won't have real change.

 

I might refer more to Dems supporters when talking to you, simply because that's the side you suppoert, but all my comments are equally applicable to any Republican supporters as well.

 

The partys can only be cleaned by the demand of their own supporters. Pointing the finger at the other side is worse than useless, as it plays into their hands.

[bascule]

This is exactly what I mean when I say that partisanship is killing you. I used sugar to show that you are getting screwed to the tune of $1.9 billion per year on food basics and your response is "Well, yeah, But the other side is worse, I'm sure of it!"

 

If you don't think the Republicans have profound systemic problems with their party which aren't present in the Democrats, you aren't paying attention. This is excusable considering you aren't an American, and thus any attention you pay to our system comes from the perspective of an outsider.

 

Platitudes like "partisanship is destroying you" and "both sides are equally bad" are myopic and counterproductive to the debate. They do not reflect the reality of the situation.

 

I find this particularly ironic as you thoroughly recognize how backwards America is on healthcare, yet the Republicans have become little more than contrarian corporate shills hell bent on doing everything in their power to prevent any sort of attempt to bring our healthcare system out of the dark ages.

 

Yes, some Democrats are doing this too. One of them is the representative of my district. However, every single Republican senator with the one possible and still very tenuous exception of Olympia Snowe has vowed to vote against this legislation.

 

The Democrats are doing their best. The Republicans are doing everything in their power to oppose anything the Democrats want to do.

 

If you wish to respond please come back at me with something other than hollow platitudes. Perhaps you could do a bit more research into our two respective major parties. Thanks.

[ydoaPs]

'Experts' on the bill who haven't even read it and lawmakers literally parroting the lobbyists.....wtf

 

Let's cancel the circus and actually start helping people. kthxbai

[JohnB]

yet the Republicans have become little more than contrarian corporate shills

And as I pointed out, some Democrats are exactly the same. (But in different areas.) My point is that the other Democrats (who presumably aren't shills) aren't doing anything about them.

 

So is the argument that the Democrats are less corrupt than the Republicans?

 

By your arguments the Republicans are corporate shills, while the Democrats simply turn a blind eye to some of theirs being corporate shills. Still sounds like a bad set of choices to me.

 

One party is corrupt and the other tolerates corruption. I can't see a practical difference here. That's what I've been trying to get at.

[bascule]

So is the argument that the Democrats are less corrupt than the Republicans?

 

Yes

 

By your arguments the Republicans are corporate shills, while the Democrats simply turn a blind eye to some of theirs being corporate shills. Still sounds like a bad set of choices to me.

 

It is a bad set of choices, but such is America. The alternatives are to support a third party with no real power, or move to a different country.

[JohnB]

Fair enough.

 

It does lead to a question though. How are candidates selected?

 

Down here if you wanted to stand for the Liberal Party, there is a "pre selection" vote and the grassroots get to vote for who they want as candidate for their electorate.

 

The Senate ticket for a State is voted on at the State meeting. Each party branch sends a representative for their branch to cast votes in deciding who will stand for the Senate for that State.

 

This basically means that if you p*ss off the local branches, you won't get the votes if someone runs in preselection against you. In your case this Jared Polis would be facing a battle just to keep being the representative even before it gets to the polls.

 

In practice, sitting members don't often face challenges, but it makes sure that they don't get too much on the nose because they are aware that the threat is always there.

 

So how do the Dems and Repubs choose their candidates? Maybe if that got changed things could improve.

[npts2020]

JohnB; they run a "primary" for each party in the spring before the November election. Usually (but not always), the incumbent is unchallenged in his own party and the "opposing" party will have the choice of two or more candidates with the highest vote getter being the winner, even if they only receive a fraction of the total. In most states you may only vote in your own party primary but some allow any registered voter to vote in any primary.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Additionally, I could run on either ticket (sometimes even both) whether or not I was even a member of that particular party.

[bascule]

Usually (but not always), the incumbent is unchallenged in his own party

 

For what it's worth, I'm part of a group which is working to unseat our incumbent representative Jared Polis. He's a Democrat who represents one of the most liberal districts in the country, but so far his voting record is that of a Blue Dog.

 

Given how angry the people around here are about Jared Polis, it's quite possible he won't get nominated in the 2010 primary. I even know people who are his personal friends who have mailed him asking about what he's doing and what's going on in his head.

 

While it's true this doesn't happen very often, in cases where the incumbent has demonstrated him/herself to be unrepresentative of their electorate, the electorate can respond and throw them out.

[JohnB]

npts2020, I get the "Primary" part, but how are the opposing candidates chosen? Who nominates them and how do they get to be candidates?

 

Like I said, it comes from the grassroots down here, with the local branches nominating. In bascules case, the representative wouldn't get the branch votes and wouldn't make it to the ticket as a candidate for his party.

 

I should add that "theoretically", candidates come from the grassroots branches. Often the party recommends and the branches rubber stamp.

 

There is also the possibility of a potential candidate "branch stacking". Since most local party branches are small (<20 people), the potential candidate gets a number of his/her friends to enroll in their local branch to lobby and vote for his/her candidacy.

 

It's against the rules of all parties to do this and you will be in deep dodo if caught. OTOH, all parties like to have people with a proven track record in organization.

 

As a light digression. We use the preferential system here. If there are 4 candidates, you number the ballot in order of preference 1, 2, 3, 4. Because of this, on polling day, each party has people out handing out "How to Vote" cards, basically al illustration of how the party would like to put your preferences. Party members do a stint at the polling place for a few hours to hand out the cards.

 

Some years ago, I was doing my stint handing out the cards for the Liberal Party (moderate right wing). Also there were the Nationals (a bit more right), Labour (Left), Democrats (moderate left) and an Independent. And we were all standing in a line, leaning on a wall with our little leaflets bothering people as they came to vote.

 

The replacement for the Nationals didn't turn up and the guy that was there had to leave. Since we were both "Right", I offered to hand his out until the replacement came.

 

The Independent didn't have enough people, so his cards were left under a brick on top of the wall. I didn't think that this was too good, so I started handing out his leaflets as well. So now I had 3 different "How to Vote" cards to hand out.

 

The Democrat also had to leave, so I got his cards too.

 

The Labour fellow thought this very funny until the dinner he had the night before decided to go "express" through his system. He very quickly asked if I minded, gave me his cards and bolted for the dunny.

 

So for a short time there was the bizarre spectacle of a member of the Liberal Party greeting people and handing out the cards for 4 major parties and an Independent. At the time this was a Liberal held seat and the others were trying to get rid of "my" candidate.

 

Oddly enough, he came through while I was doing this and once the situation was explained to him, he just shrugged and said "Fair enough. Coming to the party later?" The Labour candidate came through and spat the dummy.

 

It was also at polling stations that I saw the major difference between the parties. Liberals, Nationals and Labour had the major backing funding from business, farmers and unions respectively. (Small parties and Independents operated on shoestrings.)

 

On polling day each of the majors would send someone around with an Esky full of cold drinks for the troops with the cards. The Liberals and Nationals always offered drinks to the people from the other parties, Labour never did. Sad really.

[npts2020]

Actually, most leafletting and political activity of any kind is illegal at the polling places in America. Also, until a few years ago (in the state of Pennsylvania anyway), alcohol sales were banned on election day until the polls closed. To answer your question, nobody "chooses" a primary candidate, however, many (maybe all, not sure) jurisdictions require a petition with a certain number of signatures of registered voters on it for your name to appear on the ballot. People who sign the petition are not pledging support, only agreeing that your name should appear on the ballot. The top vote getter for each party's primary becomes that party's candidate in the fall election. If someone files in both republican and democratic primaries they could conceivably win both and run unopposed in the general election. Occasionally, even a third party will run a primary but that is exceedingly rare.