Slashdot Mirror
Genentech Puts Words In the Mouths of Congress Members
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.'"
Did we all not already have enough links to that screen?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
All of them!
If something happens all the time, it does not mean there is nothing nefarious about it. Quite the contrary.
"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.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
Insofar as there is nothing nefarious about lobbying period.
Funny stuff. Makes me laugh when I think about all those Americans who are so blind to the single-party system they unknowingly live under, and worse, actively participate in.
You Americans have one set of rulers: the majority shareholders of the largest corporations in the country. They call the shots. The government is there for show. For shits and giggles, if you will.
But thet was not Roche, right?
839*929
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?
Why are foreign companies even allowed to lobby in the United States? IT's a fricking invasion, is what this is.
This is my sig.
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?
Deleted
I wondered what was up with all the damn yodeling on the House Floor lately.
Also explains the "Austria's Olympic Ski Team sucks" comment on the record from Rep. Michelle Bachman
This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it
Right on the first point, wrong on the second.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It is unusual for it to be documented so quickly with respect to an issue that has the level of interest and emotional involvement as does health care reform. Instances of the financial benefactors of Congresscritters getting their sentiments reflected more or less verbatim in the Congressional Record are not novel.
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.
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."
As can be seen we really only have one party in Washington. The money party. It's a smoke and mirrors thing. They use ideology to divide and confuse the public while they take our money. It's been working well for them. I sometimes think no one in Washington D.C. believes in anything.....I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think so.
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why in gods name did i think they were some fictional company from a game?
Or are they?]AH
Leave me alone with my insanity, i don't know left from orange anymore.
Make them wear sponsor patches! I'll go along with that. One condition: the union and ideological (mostly code for enviro) lobbyists have to wear patches as well.
America has the best government money can buy.
Obama was voted in to open up our government. He stated bills would exclude pork riders, bills with company backing would include a list of the companies making money off the bill, bills would sit on his desk for 5 days. His long list to open the government up was just election lies.
He is pushing this health care bill through with mandates, people are forced to buy insurance and a public option hardly anybody can qualify for. There are countries that have universal health care that works, our method isn't even close to a working model. All the talk that a bad bill is a good first step, so just shut up and go along with the crowd pisses me off. And if you say anything against it, you are a tea-bagger nut job. At least SNL can start to comment on the lack of progress in this presidents term.
There is a reason every insurance company and drug company wants the bill to pass, no price controls and all citizens must buy health care.
SSDD, follow the money, and most are on the take.
Funny, I'm more upset about the mandatory piece, when I'm not even in the age bracket that will be affected. I have insurance from work. The people just out of school not living at home getting hit with a 200-500 insurance bill. Or the middle class people who just lost their jobs and cant afford to pay the mortgage, and now has to pay insurance on top of it for a family. Good kick to people while they are down. They wont be accepted for the public option, and cant afford insurance, so will be fined with a tax, and have their unemployment garnished..
Of course, what do I know. Just my jaded rambling based on my personal life experience.
This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.
He's half right. This corruption is so entrenched most of them don't even notice it any more.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
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.
Doing this should be cause for banning the member Aids for two years, let him do some WORK.
You Americans are getting just the corrupt lying conniving government you claim to object to in the third world,
and nothing seems to change it. You need to get rid of PACs and Soft money and have rigid two term limits.
The sense of entitlemeent from these guys is worse the the Wall St CEO.
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 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?
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
banks/companies/lobbyiest etc....From prez down to congress reps/senators, they are paid to enrich the rich while we, the poor, slowly die and/or unemployed. I don't vote because I never believe liars like Bush, Obama, Pelosi etc...they are all liars.
Read the story about how you got rid of Nixon.
Basically the ethicality of the Judges of SC and the Joint Chiefs, politicised as thing have become you must think Bush thought of it, but was told the Military would not obey. This is the real fourth arm of government, not the press, and works in other places eg the UK, USSR and France, but not everywhere eg Germany in World War II.
The real question is how long this will last. You do need the "Right to bear Arms".
Dammit, people, we need real leaders in the White House. We need men of Honor, Pride, and American Values showing us the way.
I know of only two men who can do this job:
1. Congressman Ron Paul
2. John C. Randolph
Ron is getting on in age, so I think that leaves the job square in John's lap.
John, we, the American people, need you. Our nation needs you to be our guide. Take the reins, and LEAD US TO GLORY!
I agree with your general sentiments. But what are you going to say when people respond this way?
"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.
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.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
no pre existing conditions is needed! Rape is one so that system has to go as some people have lost health care over just about anything.
There's "nothing nefarious about it"?? Since when do Swiss-owned corporations write statements for American congresscritters?
"Nothing nefarious" my cute little butt.
..one in office. The other in prison.
The bill and the wording behind it has been available for months via drafts and discussion within committees.
Versions of it but NOT the final bill. In fact even what the house votes on really means nothing, because if it passes the senate everyone gets to change things around again.
Outside the transparency, I have a fundamental problem though, with the size alone - regardless of content. here's no way anyone can comprehend the impact of a bill with 1900 pages of regulations and changes to regulations. There's no way anyone should vote for something they cannot reasonably admit they understand the impact of.
Think of this as a coding issue, since regulations are very much like a set of instructions for a system to operate. Would you not be aghast to find some class in the middle of a code base with 1900 methods, all calling each other? That's basically what we have here.
Such bills should be broken down into comprehensible chunks where we could debate specific issues openly, not hiding all manner of exploits in the middle of a vast body of text. That happens no matter who is writing a bill, which is why transparency is so vital but so too is comprehensibility. It is not like we can't take the time to reform health care right if that is what we think needs doing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
we need real leaders in the White House
No, we don't. We've had plenty of "real leaders", and far too many people believe that everything will be OK if you just get the right person "in charge".
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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...
--WooooHoooo--
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.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
It scares me how much joking there is when there is corruption in government. Plenty of evidence shows that there is pressure to elect senators and representatives who are not skilled at thinking for themselves, and this Slashdot story provides more of that evidence.
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. 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.
For every time someone does not believe you that the parties are just puppets for the companies that really control the country.
(Like all those, who switch to ignorance mode, as soon as they feel the smell of conspiracy, even when it's actually true. [Which is the other extreme of those people that believe *everything*])
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Not surprising, at all. Politics in the US are broken. Governments are self serving. What else is new...
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
...to browse with my new Greasemonkey script, that replaces the Republicans and Democrats with $puppet1 and $puppet2.
Puts things into perspective... Let's see what other words I can repair and free from newspeak.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
And this is a problem. While the rest of us living out in the "real world" might see this kind of practice as nefarious indeed, the view on capitol hill is obviously skewed - a lot. Sure, I'm basing the views of everyone in our political mecca on one lobbyist's, but at the same time - our congresspeople are taking notes, lines and political ideas from this guy. Another sign that things NEED TO CHANGE, and another sign that they probably won't.
Who better to inform the elected officials about the impact of the health care bill than the people who are going to be affected by it? Can you show conclusively that what Genentech told them was false? And what of the lobbyists presenting a different, or opposing, point of view? Are they wrong too?
Imagine the subject is not health care, but computer programming. How would you expect elected officials to become educated about computer programming if they never talked to software companies or computer companies or anyone who worked for them?
Everyone hates lobbyists until it's their lobbyists...but of course then they are activists or representatives or organizers or issue experts or [insert more innocuous name here]. I guarantee that for any touchy political subject, your idea of objective education of an elected official would strike someone else as inappropriate lobbying.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"GeneCo lobbies a bill through congress- Organ repossessions are legalized!" Of course, it probably won't come to that. ...right?
All lobbyism is, by its nature, nefarious.
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.
“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.”
So was the chemical industry in Germany in 1940s. Appealing to these arguments is a very weak justification, IMHO. The Big Pharma can certainly hire some better speech writers than this.
Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.
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.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I have absolutely no problem with lobbying on ONE condition:
They are honest about it and Fully Disclose every penny they spend, and who they spend it on.
Then the public can be properly upset and mad huffy about it, and the companies pushing the dough will suddenly find that their image with the public, also their customer base, depends on how their lobbyists behave when doing business with politicians.
Sunshine does a lot of good.
"a lobbyist close to Genentech said: 'This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.'"" | GoogleTranslator.bin -v KevinBacon > stdout "Nothing to see here, keep moving along people, nothing to see here..."
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.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
I'm still trying to figure the Constitutional basis here. My guess is that they're using the "Interstate Commerce" figleaf again.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Insurance companies increase profits by investing the money they receive from customers by investing it in the stock market and keeping payouts low by employing civil lawyers. It has been my experience that attorneys know their skills are recognized when an insurance company employs their services. Does it stand to reason that because Insurance companies invest so much money in the stock market and attorneys that they have gained too much control over the country? For instance, if attorneys are co-joined by income from insurance companies to the point of bias and attorneys are comprised of people with political desires (the majority of people elected to a public office are attorneys) isn't it likely they are biased towards the interests of insurance companies above all else? I believe I'm correct because the priorities of people in those offices, of late, have been the health of the market through tax payer bail outs and the redirection of the national health care debate towards a mandatory insurance law. It looks to me like these lawyers are just using whatever information supports their goals as opposed to supporting the drug companies agenda.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
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. 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.
Your brain is not a computer.
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.
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
The Write the Laws Act would put an end to bureaucrats essentially writing legislation by forcing Congress to fill in all the details. I think this one is a tough sell, but it can't hurt to try. See my other post for the whole spiel on why DownsizeDC might be the best avenue for taking back our power.
Your brain is not a computer.
when he comes and talks about how 'good' is the american system and it is the 'best' country to live in.
Read radical news here
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.
It is an easy thing to say, yes. It's also what I usually tell people who complain and complain about the way things are going but can't be bothered to vote, let alone call or write their congesscritter or representative to voice their complaints.
Incidentally, that you linked to actionable bills and social action for them marks you as not one of those people, which I find quite surprising, and refreshing. There are too many like that, these days.
What do you suggest are some good first steps?
What I suggest, and in fact practice myself is to compile lists of your representatives in government and keep in touch with them. Ostensibly, they are supposed to represent the will of the people, but if they don't know the will of the people they'll do their own thing. "Hi, I'm your constituent, these are the things important to me.. [list and reasons here]... If you listen to me and vote in such a way that you represent my interests I'll not only vote for your re-election but I'll contribute money, otherwise [name of other candidate here] would be more amenable to doing so and my vote and money will go to them. My tax dollars pay your salary." I've found over the years that by bringing up the next election and the prospect of campaign donations makes it more likely that I'll get more than a canned reply when I do try to get in touch with them about something. Work all the angles you can.
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.
Yeah, that would shake things up a lot. Given that some third-party candidates were unusually visible in the '04 election (which made a lot of people inside the Beltway nervous) that seems like a significant risk to the power bloc of the big two.
In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC...
I've deleted your suggestions for the sake of brevity, but I will certainly look over the Downsize DC website and the bills you referenced. I wasn't aware of this before and I'll do some research on it. Offhand it seems potentially helpful.
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.
Again, thank you for the heads-up. I've added it to my daily news crawl.
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.
No organization will support everything that everyone wants or believes in. The only thing we can do is support those that seem to back most of them and speak out on the specifics.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
If they can't be Bothered to READ the legislation they need the POWER to pass it taken away, when all the current folderoll is done, Congress Senate and President send the legislation to a direct Vote, 50+ % UP OR DOWN WITH THE LEGISLATION PUBLISHED, IN ITS FINAL SIGNED form for 3 months, say 4 times a year, like we do here in Switzerland,
That will diminish corruption, give time to expose the warts, and KEEP THEM HONEST.
It is an easy thing to say, yes. It's also what I usually tell people who complain and complain about the way things are going but can't be bothered to vote, let alone call or write their congesscritter or representative to voice their complaints.
It's good to call people out on their inaction. I find that you (or at least I) have to do more in order to get people to be receptive to what you're saying. If they say "we can't change anything" and you say "yes we can," and you're not Barack Obama, you have to give some specific, concrete examples of things to do.
DownsizeDC is often good in this respect because it really is easy and it really does work. Public pressure is the best tool we have--better even than voting--and that organization has found a good way to facilitate it. You really can (after creating an account; i know, i know, but it's necessary to link you with your particular congresscritters) just receive an email regarding a particular piece of legislation, click a link, add some personalized text (or not), and click a button to send your two senators and your rep the message. There's almost 29,000 members right now, so a campaign run by them generates a significant amount of pressure per congressman. I sound like a salesman, but it's because I believe this could be an important vehicle for change over the next few years. It's just much more practical than individual efforts.
I've found over the years that by bringing up the next election and the prospect of campaign donations makes it more likely that I'll get more than a canned reply when I do try to get in touch with them about something. Work all the angles you can.
Thanks for the tip! I brought that up once or twice on the phone, but never thought to drive at that point while using email. I'll be interested to try it out.
No organization will support everything that everyone wants or believes in. The only thing we can do is support those that seem to back most of them and speak out on the specifics.
I am in turn glad to read this. It seems that real pragmatism is in danger of becoming fashionable again. God knows we could use it.
Your brain is not a computer.