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.'"
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.
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?
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.
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
More proof of who the US Government really works for. Here's a clue. If you're not a wealthy corporation, its not you.
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.
Yo, faggot, of course you can theoretically buy some shares in many of these major corporations. Go talk to a stockbroker who can arrange it.
But there are a few things to keep in mind:
1) You'll typically need to buy these shares in bundles of 5000 or more. Depending on the stock involved, you can be looking into paying $25000 to $250000 per bundle. That's well outside what most Americans can afford, especially given that they likely won't receive dividends, and if they do, it's often on the order of a few cents per share.
2) Even if you can afford to buy millions of shares, you'll usually never be able to buy enough to have any real say in the operations of the corporation, let alone any degree of control.
3) Some corporations aren't public, or have very restrictive rules in place regarding the transfer of shares. So you may not even be able to buy in in the first place.
You'll probably think that mutual funds are the answer to these problems, but in reality they aren't. You still won't directly own any shares in the corporations that control you, you'll still never own enough to have any appreciable control of your own, and even in the long term you likely won't make anything beyond a token return on your holdings.
Only if we let them. What about you? Do you pay attention to the issues and vote accordingly? Or are you happy to let them do as they please? If the people don't pay active attention, the politicians will do as they please.
Qxe4
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
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 restricted to a limited number of seats.
Of course, this will *never* happen, as the politicians who can implement such a change are the ones who benefit most from the current system...
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
It shouldn't be surprising that people who aren't educated and aren't very bright aren't very good at electing people who are bright or educated. Democracy ensures that the public gets a government no better than they deserve.
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.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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 evidence, you present no evidence, and yet you still believe it. This is called FAITH. Now, I think you are probably well educated, so this is a good example of how easy it is to fall into a trap when you start basing your views on assumptions and not on evidence. Science calls for evidence in everything. Lets get back to science.
Qxe4
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.
This is dumb meme, to run an honest country you need enforced standards that prevent legislative and executive corruption, a knowledgeable electorate helps, but public servants with their hand in the till still need to goto jail --- which means that you need an independent commission to investigate and prosecute that.
Otherwise Zimbabwe here you come.
I agree we should try, but you can't prevent legislative and executive corruption any more than you can prevent people from doing drugs. You can declare a war on corruption, you can set heavy penalties, you can make a multitude of laws, but people will still find ways around them.
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.
Qxe4
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.
The shots are called by corporate execs, and rubber-stamped by pension funds execs.
So, your point is?
I refuse to use
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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--
OK, let me get this straight......you are implying that because Nixon did something, Bush therefore wanted to do something. And you expect this to be considered in any way logical? If you have some evidence that shows Bush wanted to take over America militarily, please show it. Otherwise you are just being naive, and are out of touch with reality.
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 not how logic works, man. Sorry.
Qxe4
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
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not so dumb as to believe there are 300,000,000 voters in the US.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
George Carlin: "Garbage in; garbage out. If you got selfish ignorant citizens you are going to get selfish ignorant leaders."
Sadly there seems to be a lot of that going around in most democracies.
The Long Now Foundation
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.
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 where the government seizes and holds all power.
Historically, there has never been a government without corruption and the only proven-successful strategy is to attempt to keep governments' power and reach to a minimum so that the temptation/rewards in corruption are far, far smaller than the risks and to minimize any damage possible. By keeping government small and more local in nature, and thus a distributed system, it eliminates the possibility of corruption taking over the system through a single point of failure.
So, it's simple really; citizens must choose between the size of their government and the amount of corruption, taxation, and loss-of-freedom they are willing to accept against their willingness to pay attention to, pay for, and participate in, governing. The argument for smaller government is apparent from this view in that loss of individual freedom, corruption, and taxation are smaller factors, thus reducing the amount of attention & resources citizens must expend to keep government under control and maintain an acceptable level of freedom and costs in taxation and regulation.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The only effective way I to pay them enough. Do you know why CEOs of large companies rarely steal from their company directly? They may be incompetent and run the company into the ground, but they don't steal directly because they already get paid millions. The same thing is with politicians, if they don't get enough money from their official wages, most of them will cheat. After all, politician is foremost a job just like programmers or fast food restaurant workers. Serving people is only for advertisement. That's the real world.
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.
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....
Is it me or does there seem to be a concerted attack on the very idea of democracy these days? As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern? And that only the Council of Alphas is fit to rule? It's bright educated people who come up with things like National Socialism and Marxism that cause the deaths of millions. But hey, as long as it's the dumb uneducated people who are getting killed, who cares really?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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 in reality. What on earth makes you think China owns most of our country? What crazy website do you read to get ideas like this? In fact China owns about a trillion dollars worth of US treasuries, which is a less than 10% of the US GDP. And in fact, if the US dollar goes into the toilet like you suggest, those trillion dollars will be worthless to them. Who got ripped off in that deal?
But please, keep up your lazy-boi logic, continue to defend corrupt lying thugs in your legislature, and pretend your huge deficit isn't a problem.
Once again you are making things up. In fact you have an incredibly active imagination, because not once in this entire conversation have I even referred to the deficit, nor have I implied that it isn't a problem. You can't even keep your facts straight about a conversation that happened today. If you don't fix this problem you will be lost for some time to come. Fix it and you'll do better. Learn how to distinguish fiction from reality, for your own sake, not for mine.
Qxe4
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.
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.
Is it me or does there seem to be a concerted attack on the very idea of democracy these days? As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?
If you really think about it, the U.S. Constitution (and a lot of other countries' constitutions) are clearly written as though that assumption were obviously true. Otherwise, why have (for one example) an electoral college?
So if by 'these days' you mean 'for the last several hundred or more years', sure.
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.
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.
As if there is some assumption that only bright educated people can govern?
What, you prefer that the dimwitted and ignorant be in charge? What a utopia that would be. If we are talking about a republic, then yes I definitely want my representatives to be intelligent and well educated (now, if only that could be arranged...).