I found that some lobby's apparently have the power to dictate to our government what they will and will not accept. Case in point:
"Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion1."
In return for:
"...the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements1."
Now both sides quickly backed away from this deal once it was made public, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. It also points out that the very notion that such a deal was considered became a public embarrassment to both the White House and PhRMA once it became public knowledge.
Not surprisingly, this suggests that more than the standard quid pro quo, and revolving door access is at work here. It suggests that some lobby's have the clout to deliver votes in both houses. Again, considering Jack Abramoff, not surprising.
From my perspective, it seems like congress would want to do something about this system. Why be under someone's thumb when it's fairly easy to get out? Seems like they would be able to do more good with less strife and stress. Turns out, my perspective is not congress's perspective - not even close.
What is surprising, at least to me, is that the level of influence is as pervasive as it is because congress lets it be that way. It's a twisting maze of "I'll support your thing, if you support mine" with enough layers, shadings, and back door deals to make your head explode. The lobbyists expertly manipulate this to their advantage, and thus allows congress to be, frankly, lazy. Why try whip up support for a position, when -- for a simple selling of your integrity -- you can get a lobbyist to do it for you? So from the congressional perspective, the system works.
Now for the sinister underbelly: apparently there are some members of congress, who believe that "we the people" don't belong in the mix and need to be stifled, and have introduced legislation to achieve that end under the guise of "ethics reform."
In 2007, the bill, S. 1: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 20072, was being considered in the Senate, and contained a provision that required financial disclosures of any group "stimulating grassroots lobbying efforts." This affects real lobbyists not at all, they already have such disclosure requirements, but for organizations like MoveOn.org, it could be quite burdensome, and even smaller sites, like Dirigo Blue, could be affected simply by taking reader donations, and subject to a $220,000 fine. Fortunately, the Bennett amendment, S.A. 20, stripped this provision from the bill by a 55 - 43 vote.
Also in 2007, H.R. 984: Executive Branch Reform Act of 20072, was considered by the House Oversight committee and contained a provision that "would require over 8,000 Executive Branch officials to report into a public database nearly any "significant contact" from any "private party." Although promoted as a regulation on "lobbyists," the bill defines "private party" as "any person or entity" except "Federal, State, or local government official or a person representing such an official3." This bill never came to a floor vote.
So basically, some in congress believe that if we, as citizens, want to exercise our right to petition the government, they want to know who we are, where we live, and if there's any money involved. Talk about your intimidation tactics!
Note 1: Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma
Note 2: H.R. 984
Note 2: S. 1
Note 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying |
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an