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.'"

Comments

It's the other way around...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[amiga3D]

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.

You got that right!

[NoYob]

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?

Re:Yay lobbyist-speak

[lawpoop]

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. 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.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?