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

Yay lobbyist-speak

[howlingfrog]

"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.

Re:Yay lobbyist-speak

[NoYob]

I only see one problem with your argument: you assume the representatives give a shit.

From what I see, the elected officials are pretty comfortable with the way things are.

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?

Re:Puppets!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Puppets!

[JoshuaZ]

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.