When you voted for change, did you vote for this?

[Skidmore]

Directing you to this thread and this article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2793925

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/washington/24drug.html

November 24, 2006
Drug Industry Is on Defensive as Power Shifts
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — Alarmed at the prospect of Democratic control of Congress, top executives from two dozen drug companies met here last week to assess what appears to them to be a harsh new political climate, and to draft a battle plan. Hoping to prevent Congress from letting the government negotiate lower drug prices for millions of older Americans on Medicare, the pharmaceutical companies have been recruiting Democratic lobbyists, lining up allies in the Bush administration and Congress, and renewing ties with organizations of patients who depend on brand-name drugs. Many drug company lobbyists concede that the House is likely to pass a bill intended to drive down drug prices, but they are determined to block such legislation in the Senate. If that strategy fails, they are counting on President Bush to veto any bill that passes...

I'm resurrecting this thread I posted from a couple of weeks ago and which has been archived...

Folks, we need to have a serious conversation about ethics here.
As a personal note, I lost my career and had to start again from scratch because I stood up against unethical and illegal behavior in an organization several years ago. It took me years to recoup. I understand the price that can be paid for doing what is right so I don't speak lightly. Whatever my reservations have been over the past 6 years of this criminal administration, I hung in there because I believed that we at the grassroots stood a chance of rooting out the corruption and that our voices were at last being listened to. This week, I'm not so certain. I am more than a little uncomfortable with idea that we have spent 6 years decnouncing the hypocrisy of the Republican party and their willingness to wink at ethical violations until they became untenable, and then we appear to be sidestepping the issues when asked about them within the Democratic Party.

This week we had our first test of the party's position on ethics with this leadership election. I've struggled mightily with who to select and personally supported Murtha because I so badly want the war to end and think he's contributed greatly breaking the propaganda stranglehold on discussions of Iraq. Both Murtha and Hoyer are part of the party's machinery. I don't really feel comfortable with Hoyer but I will support him and Pelosi as the elected leadership so long as some very serious ethics reform is addressed. We do not need to be the party of "the machine." That's exactly how the Republicans screwed up--the machine was more important that the work of the people. I see the machine focused on maintaining power in the hands of a few select people, rather than making this a movement in which we all have a stake. And we wonder why more people don't participate. If we must have machinery, we need to fix it. It needs to be cleaned up.

We cannot stand and shout that we are for ethical government when we will not make active moves to change the system. Now, before you jump down my throat about it not being January yet, I would venture to say that there have to be good faith actions regarding ethics that the party can take before then to demonstrate sincerity to the rank and file and to the public.

I know there are those on this board who will start yelling that I'm being naive and/or stupid because I just don't understand the nature of politics and I don't have the appropriate credentials to be be making judgments about political strategies. In my estimation, I have the only credential that any of us needs to have in this discussion--I am a citizen. I have the only creed that I believe to be important here--I believe in honesty and integrity in my elected officials.

Now how many are with me and how will we do this?

Let us have this discussion again. What are we going to do about this? Is this what we signed on for--more business as usual?

[annabanana]

1. You are 100% correct..

The slide of K Street to our "side of the aisle" is to be expected. And it is to be resisted. Our people are no better than their will to do what they were hired for against whatever goodies are being dangled in their faces by the deep pockets.

[BrightKnight]

23. delete

[KharmaTrain]

2. So We Allow Democratic Candiates To Run Elections Without Money?

Anyone who thought we'd eliminate lobbying without serious campaign reform is living on an island. We won the election in spite of the game, not because of it. While many of us threw hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars at various candidates, that's just a drop in the bucket as to what it costs to stay in power. Until there's some massive campaign finance reform, it'll still cost several million dollars to run for re-election and this money has to come from somewhere. So what to do?? I'm curious to hear other opinions.

How do you replace that money that candidates need to run for office...especially ones who are in districts where they won by a few hundred or thousands votes and will surely be in another battle in 2008. Would you accept a Repugnican winning a Democratic seat since that person had lots of money and the Democrat avoided any outside money and thus couldn't buy the TV commercials or run the GOTV operation that makes a difference?

Please, let's be realistic...the beltway lives by the Golden Rule...ye who has the gold makes the rules. So what changes would you propose that would "drain the swamp" while not giving the GOOP a major cash advantage in elections?

[Skidmore]

4. Exactly how is going to the corporate well like the Republicans did

going to change anything? It is time to set policies and pursue an agenda that the voters can embrace. Why continue to "play the game"? Why not change the rules or come up with a different game altogether? Why assume that we need to pursue the same-old same-old?

What you have pointed to as the cash cow for the Republicans is exactly why they lost the election.

[KharmaTrain]

5. No Bucks, No Buck Rogers

I saw that cash cow win an election in a nearby district for the Repugnicans. Millions were spent on a fulltime campaign operation, Rovo-calls, endless TV ads and buying endorsements. This made the difference in a close election.

I'm asking what rules to be changed, and how can they be accomplished? I detest all the money it takes to run a campaign and the constant need of candidates to have to play fundraiser more than legislator.

So where do you suggest a candidate get the $1 or $5 million needed to compete against the GOOP cash machine? And it's not just lobbyists...we're talking about a network of underground funding (exemplified by the K Street Project) that the GOOP already has in place and works outside the lines...that diverts money into PACs and other third party accounts that would easily replace direct financing, while Democrats would be at a severe advantage.

So what policies should be set? What can be reasonably passed in a closely divided Senate? I'd like to hear some specific ideas.

[Skidmore]

12. Is that what you're willing to step up so some person who needs

their medication but can't obtain them because they can't afford them? That it was more important to pay for political ads and favors than to produce the legislation that would help them?

There needs to be a will for change.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Stay On Topic Here...

It's not what I think...I'm looking for suggestions and solutions. I agree change needs to be made, but what is realistic legislation and what would its impact be? The topic is about how special interest money should be minimized...so how does one go about that? What laws need to be written or ammended? What wil stand up to court challenges? Which can realistically pass a divided Senate?

I was a strong supporter of McCain-Feingold and Shay-Meahan...previous attempts to limit the influence of corporate cash in elections, and we saw in this past one how it didn't help...and that it created new loopholes that need to be plugged.

As one who worked with his father's medical practice in his final years, I could go on and on about the injustices to the poor by big pharma and the insurance companies. That's another issue that I hope Democrats investigate and address, but this topic is about the process where politicians need to cozy up to corporates and other special interests due to the needs to raise big money to maintain their jobs. How does one get rid of all the big money so that it doesn't hurt those you want to be your champions?

Sadly, having a great candidate show up at every VFW, town hall, newspaper interview and ring thousands of door bells talking about legislation is easily trumped by 30 second "gotcha commercials"...and in many instances is the only impression most voters get of a candidate. We like to think we're politically attuned, but that's not the "average voter"...that 10% that can swing an election one way or another and the ones where the most money is spent. Do we ignore reaching these people cause we can't afford to? Or is there another way?

Again, I'm asking questions. Please don't play the strawman game of assuming what I think. My query is to see what options and ideas are out there. Got any?

[Skidmore]

29. Fine, many good suggestions on this thread. However, what is

needed first is for us to stand up and collectively shout a hearty "No!" to those people in DC who would style themselves as reform-minded Democrats and then turn around and play the same old game. That is what I am seeking. Some consensus from us out here to get back in their faces like we did when the DNC Chair was being selected. They need to here that our votes aren't for sale even if they have no problem with theirs being up for bid. These elected officials and their staff will no longer be allowed to sell the citzens short for corporate cash.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. No they can get money from individual donations.

But this is about corrupt lobbying practices. Nobody in congress should get so much as a big mac from anyone. Lobbying is fine as long as there is no quid pro quo, no shlush funds, no trips, no meals, no gifts, no "seminars" at posh resorts. The rules should apply to everyone in congress, republican democrat or independent. Campaign finance reform is the other half of the process of getting the kleptocracy out of power.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Not All Lobbying and Lobbyists Are Kleptomaniacs

Several years ago, my late mother, who worked for many great causes, had to get involved with a group that lobbied for assistance to the handicapped. They had to make repeated trips to visit legislators and attempt to get "face time" and be heard. She and others were constantly going to meetings and dinner and other functions where they could get access or that one last word to the legislator. It also cost a lot of time and money...meanwhile they were confronted by large corporates who had an army of paid lobbyists...many who were former politicians themselves and knew how to work the cocktail circuit and "old buddy network".

Most definitely, I all but demand, like many here, there should be a major effort to re-institute the old rules about the relationships with lobbyists and congresscritters. No more earmarks or the passing of legislation before it's properly vetted...not like these 3am bill the GOOP would sneak through to escape detection.

One act I strongly favor is prohibiting former government officials from serving as a registered lobbyist for 5 years after they collect their last government check. Force them out of the beltway instead of having them hide in a corporate welfare system that is like a shadow government and where some of the scummiest of politicians...like a Tauzin or Livingston or DeLay can hide and profit...and in turn be an example to others to follow.

I would hope private donations would be all it requires to run competitive campaigns, but some pockets are deeper than others. While I hold great hopes for the netroots, I also see a downside. While many here are now energized about candidates and issues, will that fire still be there in 5 or 10 years? Will the cash keep growing or will it ebb and flow depending on how pissed people are at the status quo? Corporates keep a steady flow going, they just re-direct that flow to hedge their position. While netroot donations show up late in the game, the corporate money is there at the outset and is money a candidate can count on, where private donations are hit and miss.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. This does not ban lobbying, lobby all you want.

It bans bribery. Not one dime, in any form, ought to change hands.

Once again, separate issue from campaign finance reform, related, but separate.

[Selatius]

19. You can seek "face time," but like he said, no "quid pro quo"

Quid pro quo should be off limits in any case regardless if the politician is being lobbied by Big PhRMA or even the AARP.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Time To Move On...

I asked questions...looking for suggestions, not assumptions.

General Discussion ceases to exist here.

Peace...

This one's going on a loooooooong DU vacation

[Warren Stupidity]

22. The point of discourse to to assert and defend positions

and in that dialog of contending ideas discover the truth. Argument needs to be vital, messy, emotional, otherwise nothing much is learned. Sorry if you've taken offense.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I think we should eliminate PAC contributions

There's a piece of legislation in this congress known as the "PAC Elimination Act" introduced by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). Leach seems like one of those decent Republicans like Chafee. However, he lost his seat this November and I have no regrets about that. He was enabling Bush with his caucus vote.

I hope that a Democrat will introduce something like the PAC elimination act.

Also, I agree with you about lobbyist gifts. Pelosi has already proposed legislation to crack down on this.

[Trillo]

3. This seems a function of heirarchy

whoever's at the top the corrupt target to undermine. They have a good track record, they can hire the brightest minds from the top schools, and the corporations spend their time figuring out how to stick their hands in the poor and less fortunates' wallets.

From my perspective, the only way to get rid of the phenomenon completely is to eliminate hierarchy, and I don't see that happening in the near future, it is the entire history of what is called civilization.

Though global warming may ultimately fix this problem, it seems slow and therefore cruel.

[bagrman]

7. Agreed, the Hierarchy sets the rules so they stay in power. There has

to be an earth shaking ground swell from the populace or nothing will happen. And the US is so divided we can't agree on anything.

Latr

[Skidmore]

8. Yup... and I'd rather be a part of the groundswell than making excuses

for the corruption festering in DC.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. this is one of the most corrupt and corrupting industries in memory.

First of all, there are only 7-8 drugs that they research, and those are "replacements" for existing lines that will have expiring patents soon.
most of the billions they spend annually is not on research, but on market analysis and advertising.
I have lost count how many times the drug industry has to be bribed to put a drug on the market, simply because the "market" is too small to justify R&D.
When they do have a new drug, (Vioxx comes to mind) it is often not as good as the class of drugs they replace, and often is more harmful.

one of my dearest friends is a researching neurosurgeon. hearing him tell the dirty about the industry is something else. Big pharma puts a great deal of stock in PR and unreasonable hope. People die, and americans always seem to want to avoid that end. People get sick, and americans seem to want a magic bullet, like antibiotics for viral infections, or ear infeections suffered by their young kids.

[Union Thug]

9. It is certainly worth repeating that, in addition to this, there is no

motive to cure anything. BigPharm is about keeping you on their drugs, not fixing anything. Which is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, the profit motive must be removed from healthcare entirely.

[blondeatlast]

17. Eliminate extending patents for minor formulaic changes too.

Why should Schering-Plough, Eli Lilly, etc. get a new patent for changing a formula that makes a 2X a day drug into 1X a day?

That's their real incentive because that way they can hold off the production of generics and gives them no incentive to research deadlier diseases/conditions.

[chaska]

11. Public campaign financing is the solution to just about every problem we have...

in this country, and it's the only one that will work.

[stillcool]

13. There ought to be a law...

Imagine that?

[blondeatlast]

15. Elimintate corporate personhood and limit personal contributions to

$1000 or less. Make the maximum level of political giving <$5000.

Lower K Street property values by removing the dinners, cigars, vacations, and golf so that grassroots groups have a chance at the elite, too.

[Bjorn Against]

35. Better yet, elimlinate corporate personhood and eliminate personal contributions

We need full public financing of campaigns so that every candidate plays on an equal playing field, and every person has an equal say regardless of their personal wealth. Right now the rich can afford to make big contributions, but the rest of us are far more limited in what we can give to our candidates.

We need public financing of elections now.

[blondeatlast]

36. I'd like to see that, but in the short run don't see it happening.

For now, I like the 1K maximum because it makes that $25 contribution made by the widow down the block mean so much more than it does now.

I can see candidates who make it in with 1K maximum contributions being more than willing to go for public financing. The ones who are in right now aren't going to go for it.

AZ has a public financing law and those who go truly public financing unfortunately stand very little chance (it was a referendum and yes, indeed, I voted for it). Unfortunately our "clean" candidates just can't compete with the big guys right now.

[ToeBot]

20. Why should they worry, they have at least one 'ace in the hole'...

Leiberman.

[BrightKnight]

24. We need to take another stab at campaign finance reform.

The swamp cannot be drained until something is done about the flood of corporate money.

[Initech]

25. We need to tell these people to shut the hell up.

[Cleita]

27. There is nothing that can be done to fix the present prescription

drug "benefit". I sort of was hoping they would repeal it and start over again without the help of drug lobbyists. Then maybe a benefit that is good for seniors, good for Medicare and reasonably okay for the drug companies might come out of it.

[Cocoa]

28. this article is about the drug industry's actions

and it suggests that the Democrats are likely to resist the lobbying.

[Skidmore]

30. I see the article putting forth that there are Democrats happy to

take lobbying jobs, some of them with real name recognition.

[Cocoa]

32. are you talking about Billy Tauzin?

he hasn't been a dem, or even in Congress, for years.

Here's a good article about how the lobbyists are complaining about lack of access to Pelosi:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/111605/kstreet.html

Following electoral triumphs this fall, House Democratic leaders are meeting with Democratic lobbyists today in a bid to translate the party’s widespread enthusiasm into cash to fill campaign coffers.

Yet the meeting, one of a number of its kind, comes as some lobbyists are grumbling that they have not been enjoying the same access to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) as they have in the past.

House Democrats’ campaign chief, Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) are set to meet with lobbyists this afternoon to trumpet the party’s recent wins and preview competitive races in 2006, Democratic sources said.

A similar meeting with the Democrats’ Business Council took place Nov. 8, drawing four dozen K Street insiders to the Wasserman Room at Democratic headquarters. The lobbyists heard from members of the Democrats’ Frontline program, which supports the party’s 10 most vulnerable House incumbents, and from Emanuel.

While such sessions with lobbyists are not new, and they do go far in encouraging K Street contributions, some lobbyists were annoyed that the party’s campaign arm has been reaching out to them more than Pelosi’s office has.

[Skidmore]

33. I"m referring to this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/washington/24drug.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Mr. Greenwood, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, said he had a list of 37 Congressional Democrats whom he intended to call in the next month.

Amgen, the biotechnology company, recently disclosed that it had retained as a lobbyist George C. Crawford, a former chief of staff for Representative Nancy Pelosi of California. Ms. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, is in line to become speaker in January and has said that the House will immediately take up legislation authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers...Amgen is also seeking strategic advice from the Glover Park Group, a consulting firm whose founders include Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

...Merck recently has hired Peter Rubin, a former aide to Representative Jim McDermott of Washington, one of the more liberal House Democrats. Cephalon has hired Kim Zimmerman, a health policy aide to Senator Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat of Nebraska.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization has retained Paul T. Kim, a former aide to two influential Democrats, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Henry A. Waxman of California."

[Cocoa]

34. the dems made specific lobbying reform proposals

was preventing former staffers from taking lobbying jobs among those proposals?

Are you suggesting such an addition to the reforms? Do you think that would be possible? I would think their staffers couldn't be prevented from taking any job they chose.

[MoseyWalker]

31. The Anti Veto Pres

is soon to become the often harrassed and frequent veto pres