Health-Care Corporatists Pigs Strike Again Giving Blue Dogs Most Money

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Washington Post

BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS
Industry Is Generous To Influential Bloc

Friday, July 31, 2009

On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.

"The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose.

Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special "health-care industry reception," one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.

The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

Most of the major corporations and trade groups in those sectors are regular contributors to the Blue Dog PAC. They include drugmakers such as Pfizer and Novartis; insurers such as WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual Life; and industry organizations such as America's Health Insurance Plans. The American Medical Association also has been one of the top contributors to individual Blue Dog members over the past 20 years.

Many liberal Democrats and advocates of health-care reform were angry about the compromise bill and view the Blue Dogs as being too cozy with drugmakers, hospitals and insurers, and they argue that the conservative Democrats should be more supportive of the agenda set by President Obama and Democratic leaders.

"The Blue Dogs are carrying water for the industry instead of their constituents," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a liberal pro-reform group. "In effect, the Blue Dogs and the Republicans are taking positions that are closer all the time and further away from what most Americans want."

Aides to Ross and several other key Blue Dogs did not respond this week to requests for comment about their campaign contributions. But the lawmakers have said in recent interviews that they are striving to represent the moderate views of their constituents, and that leaving reform to more liberal lawmakers such as Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) will imperil the party's future. Most of the Blue Dogs are from rural Southern and Midwestern districts that overwhelmingly voted for Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) over Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

"I know there were some that thought we were trying to stop health-care reform," Ross said in an interview this week for The Washington Post's "Voices of Power" series. "Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply wanted to slow the process down and ensure that we were working toward the kind of health-care reform that the American people need and want."

Ross has received nearly $1 million in contributions from the health-care sector and insurance industry during his five terms in Congress, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. The lawmaker founded Ross Pharmacy of Prescott, Ark., which he and his wife sold in 2007. The couple received $100,000 to $1 million in dividends last year from the sale, according to House financial disclosure forms.

Records of political fundraisers since 2008 compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group, show a steady schedule of events for Ross sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. They include two "health-care lunches" at Capitol Hill restaurants in May 2008 and March 2009, as well as receptions sponsored by Patton Boggs and other major lobbying firms.

Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign contributions from the health-care sector than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.

David Donnelly, national campaigns director for the Public Campaign Action Fund, which favors public financing of political races, said the heavy industry contributions cast doubt on the Blue Dogs' motives.

"The public believes that campaign contributions shape or stop public policy," Donnelly said. "When we see significant fundraising to one segment of Congress, it raises serious questions about the campaign finance system and whether it works to the benefit of all Americans."

But Charles W. Stenholm, a former congressman from Texas who was part of the original Blue Dog group in the mid-1990s, disagrees. "The idea behind giving to a group like the Blue Dogs is that you believe that they will agree with your positions most of the time," said Stenholm, who now lobbies on behalf of agricultural companies and some health-care firms. "The same is true for liberals or anyone else. It's normal in politics."

Stenholm also argued that conservative Democrats are helping to save health-care reform from the extremes. "They have played a tremendously important role in keeping the process from getting out of control," he said. "This compromise is a perfect example of what being a Blue Dog is all about."
 
Thought, the attorneys for the special interests are going to write the bill, not Congress (they don't even read them). So this activity shouldn't surprise you.

Once again, all these laws being created may be designed to help the people, only benefit the establishments providing the service! And leave the people holding the bill:smh:, One day you gon' see this and agree with me, just a matter of time :yes:
 
Thought, the attorneys for the special interests are going to write the bill, not Congress (they don't even read them). So this activity shouldn't surprise you.

Once again, all these laws being created may be designed to help the people, only benefit the establishments providing the service! And leave the people holding the bill:smh:, One day you gon' see this and agree with me, just a matter of time :yes:

they don't even read them

They read them, but it is impossible to read thousands of pages, especially with everything else they do. That's been going on since the beginning of the country. That’s why they have staff. This is just more anti government rhetoric.

only benefit the establishments providing the service! And leave the people holding the bill:smh:, One day you gon' see this and agree with me, just a matter of time :yes:

How do you know you don't agree with me already? That is why we need to elect people we think represents our views of democracy such as Ron Paul. People just pull down levers with out checking the candidates in advance. Then they bitch when they are surprised what they get.
 
They read them, but it is impossible to read thousands of pages, especially with everything else they do. That's been going on since the beginning of the country. That’s why they have staff. This is just more anti government rhetoric.

I don't buy that, one of the main problems I had with Dubya's Admin was that no one was accountable, for anything. Now we have 23 Trillion stolen and the story is surpressed by our sophmoric news cycles. Heads need to roll, its gotta be some consequences & repercussions:D We need legislation saying: If you haven't read the bill, don't vote for it.

How do you know you don't agree with me already?

:D touche! I tell people all the time that we have more in common with each other than the differences that separate us. The only observation I've made about some of your posts is I sense an anti-capitalist tone, whereas I feel Capitalism is the great equalizer when addressing issues of race & gender. The problem I have is all the Mega-Corps & Mega-Banks that have been created with taxpayer dollars through no-bid contracts, special tax breaks, & incentives from the govt.
 
I don't buy that, one of the main problems I had with Dubya's Admin was that no one was accountable, for anything. Now we have 23 Trillion stolen and the story is surpressed by our sophmoric news cycles. Heads need to roll, its gotta be some consequences & repercussions:D We need legislation saying: If you haven't read the bill, don't vote for it.

Who says no one is accountable.

:D touche! I tell people all the time that we have more in common with each other than the differences that separate us. The only observation I've made about some of your posts is I sense an anti-capitalist tone, whereas I feel Capitalism is the great equalizer when addressing issues of race & gender. The problem I have is all the Mega-Corps & Mega-Banks that have been created with taxpayer dollars through no-bid contracts, special tax breaks, & incentives from the govt.

Once again, unregulated capitalism means the big fish swallow the little fish then the big fish roam unregulated to do what they will. No matter how many times you try and make excuses for the Corporatists Pigs, THEY are the main ones that are fucking up our government and economy. From lobbyists to the Fed to the all but gone manufacturing sector.
 
Once again, all these laws being created may be designed to help the people, only benefit the establishments providing the service! And leave the people holding the bill:smh:, One day you gon' see this and agree with me, just a matter of time :yes:



How do you know you don't agree with me already? That is why we need to elect people we think represents our views of democracy such as Ron Paul. People just pull down levers with out checking the candidates in advance. Then they bitch when they are surprised what they get.


:D touche!

I tell people all the time that we have more in common with each other than the differences that separate us.

The only observation I've made about some of your posts is I sense an anti-capitalist tone, whereas I feel Capitalism is the great equalizer when addressing issues of race & gender. The problem I have is all the Mega-Corps & Mega-Banks that have been created with taxpayer dollars through no-bid contracts, special tax breaks, & incentives from the govt.


Once again, unregulated capitalism means the big fish swallow the little fish then the big fish roam unregulated to do what they will. No matter how many times you try and make excuses for the Corporatists Pigs, THEY are the main ones that are fucking up our government and economy. From lobbyists to the Fed to the all but gone manufacturing sector.

:lol:

<font size="4">I knew the lovefest wouldn't last long !

:D
 
Once again, unregulated capitalism means the big fish swallow the little fish then the big fish roam unregulated to do what they will. No matter how many times you try and make excuses for the Corporatists Pigs, THEY are the main ones that are fucking up our government and economy. From lobbyists to the Fed to the all but gone manufacturing sector.

2 points! I will defend Capitalism but not "Crony Capitalism", there's a huge difference. The latter illustrating what we see today (Goldman, Halliburton, Merck, Wal-Mart). All those companies had relationships within the govt & with those connects, they became Goldman, Halliburton, Merck, Wal-Mart.
We should want these companies to be profitable, but only through the purchasing power of the consumer, not through govt intervention! Right?

Point 2: We both support "the little guy" but having the govt regulate industry only creates monopolies (Remember how Philip Morris was lobbying for tighter regulation in the tobacco industry) Philip Morris is the "Big Dog" so they can afford to pay all the regulatory fees but at the same time, the regulation eliminates the introduction of competition, thus crushing any desires "the little guy" has in runnin with the "Big Dawgs". Competition allows prices to come down, look at cell phones & computer parts (very little govt interference)
 
Last edited:
2 points! I will defend Capitalism but not "Crony Capitalism", there's a huge difference. The latter illustrating what we see today (Goldman, Halliburton, Merck, Wal-Mart). All those companies had relationships within the govt & with those connects, they became Goldman, Halliburton, Merck, Wal-Mart.
We should want these companies to be profitable, but only through the purchasing power of the consumer, not through govt intervention! Right?

Point 2: We both support "the little guy" but having the govt regulate industry only creates monopolies (Remember how Philip Morris was lobbying for tighter regulation in the tobacco industry) Philip Morris is the "Big Dog" so they can afford to pay all the regulatory fees but at the same time, the regulation eliminates the introduction of competition, thus crushing any desires "the little guy" has in runnin with the "Big Dawgs". Competition allows prices to come down, look at cell phones & computer parts (very little govt interference)

look at cell phones & computer parts (very little govt interference)

...and very few if any are made in the United States.

I will defend Capitalism but not "Crony Capitalism", there's a huge difference.

Crony Capitalism is the result of corruption by lobbyists from corporations buying your politicians.

but having the govt regulate industry only creates monopolies

:lol:

All of this shit we have been experiencing over the last 30 years or so could have been averted by enforcing it!

Know your history.

source: LINFO

The Sherman Antitrust Act

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit abusive monopolies, and in some ways it remains the most important.

Trusts and Monopolies

A trust was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. In exchange, the stockholders received a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. The trusts came to dominate a number of major industries, and were, in effect, monopolies.

A monopoly is a situation in which there is a single supplier or seller of a good or service for which there are no close substitutes. Economists and others have long known that unregulated monopolies tend to damage the economy by (1) charging higher prices, (2) providing inferior goods and services and (3) suppressing innovation, as compared with a competitive situation (i.e., the existence of numerous, competing suppliers of the good or service).

The most infamous of the trusts was the Standard Oil Trust, which was formed in January, 1882. At that time, Standard Oil and its affiliates controlled more than 90 percent of the oil refining capacity and most of the oil marketing facilities in the U.S. Trusts were also established in numerous other industries, some of the largest of which were sugar, tobacco, railroads, steel and meatpacking.

The idea of the trust was conceived by Samuel Dodd, an attorney for Standard Oil. In the case of this company, a board of trustees was set up and it was given control of all of the Standard Oil properties. Every stockholder received 20 trust certificates for each share of Standard Oil stock. All profits from the component companies were sent to the nine trustees, who set the dividends. The nine trustees also selected the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed Standard Oil to function as a monopoly.

Trusts used a number of techniques to eliminate competitors, including (1) buying them out, (2) temporarily undercutting their prices, (3) forcing customers to sign long-term contracts (4) forcing customers to buy unwanted products in order to receive the products they wanted and (5) dispatching thugs to use intimidation and violence when all other means of persuasion failed.

The Sherman Act

John Sherman (1823-1900) was the younger brother of the American Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman. He became a U.S. senator from Ohio and served as a chairman of the Senate finance committee. He also served as a member of the U.S. Cabinet, including Secretary of State under President William McKinley and Secretary of the Treasury under President Hayes. Sherman was an expert on the regulation of commerce and was the chief author of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This ground breaking piece of legislation was the result of intense public opposition to the concentration of economic power in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns (i,e., trusts) that had been taking place in the U.S. in the decades following the Civil War. Opposition to the trusts was particularly strong among farmers, who protested the high charges for transporting their products to the cities by railroad.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was the first measure enacted by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts (or monopolies of any type). Although several states had previously enacted similar laws, they were limited to intrastate commerce. The Sherman Antitrust Act, in contrast, was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It was passed by an overwhelming vote of 51 to 1 in the Senate and a unanimous vote of 242 to 0 in the House, and it was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison.

The first part of Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (with the interstate commerce clause underlined) states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

The Sherman Antitrust Act (the full text of which can be found here) authorized the Federal Government to dissolve the trusts. It began with the statement: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." And it established penalties for persons convicted of establishing such combinations: ". . . shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

Enforcement

For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Antitrust Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully. Ironically, its only effective use for a number of years was against labor unions, which were held by the courts to be illegal combinations.

This was the result of intense political pressure from the trusts together with the loose wording of the Act. Its critics pointed out that it failed to define such key terms as combination, conspiracy, monopoly and trust. Also working against it were narrow judicial interpretations as to what constituted trade or commerce among states.

Five years after its passage, the Supreme Court in effect dismantled the Sherman Antitrust Act in United States v. E. C. Knight Company (1895). The Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the other defendants in the case, had not violated the Act despite the fact that it controlled approximately 98 percent of all sugar refining in the U.S. The Court's explanation was that the company's control of manufacturing did not constitute control of trade.

President William McKinley launched the trust-busting era in 1898 when he appointed several senators to the U.S. Industrial Commission. The Commission's subsequent report to President Theodore Roosevelt then laid the groundwork for Roosevelt's attacks on trusts and finally resulted in the successful employment of the Act.

In a seminal 1904 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government's suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act to dissolve the Northern Securities Company (a railroad holding company) in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company. Then, in 1911, after years of litigation, the Court found Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act because of its excessive restrictions on trade, particularly its practices of eliminating competitors by buying them out directly and by driving them out of business by temporarily slashing prices in a given region.

In this historic decision, the Supreme Court established an important legal standard termed the rule of reason. It stated that large size and monopoly in themselves are not necessarily bad and do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Rather, it is the use of certain tactics to attain or preserve such position that is illegal.

The Court ordered Standard Oil to dismantle 33 of its most important affiliates and to distribute the stock to its own shareholders and not to a new trust. The result was the creation of a number of completely independent and vertically integrated oil companies, each of which ranked among the most powerful in the world. The consequent vigorous competition gave a big impetus to innovation and expansion of the oil industry as a whole.

Subsequent Legislation

In 1914 Congress passed two measures that provided additional support for the Sherman Antitrust Act. One was the Clayton Antitrust Act, which elaborated on the general provisions of the Sherman Act and specified a number of illegal practices that either contributed to or resulted from monopolization. It explicitly outlawed commercial practices such as price discrimination (i.e., charging different prices to different customers), the buying out of competitors and interlocking boards of directors. The other was the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission, an agency with the power to investigate possible violations of antitrust laws and to issue orders forbidding unfair competitive practices.

Antitrust enforcement waned during the booming 1920s, but it was revived during the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and additional acts were passed to bolster the government's antitrust powers. The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 strengthened the Clayton Act by prohibiting large sellers from offering different prices to different buyers if it resulted in harm to even a single small firm. The Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 further strengthened the Clayton Act by preventing one firm from merging with a competitor by purchasing its physical assets if it resulted in a substantial lessening of competition.

The most successful application of the Sherman Antitrust Act during the second half of the 20th century was the breakup of the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) monopoly, which was agreed upon in early 1982 and went into effect on January 1, 1984. This enforcement had profound effects not only on the telecommunications industry but also on the economy as a whole.

The Act was also used in the attempt to attempt to rein in the allegedly abusive monopolistic practices by Microsoft Corporation, with a trial that began in 1998. However, many observers feel that the government failed to take sufficiently strong corrective measures despite winning both the original trial and an appeal. This is widely attributed to politics rather than the merits of the case.​
 
All of this shit we have been experiencing over the last 30 years or so could have been averted by enforcing it!
Know your history.

exactly my point, we have enough laws, however, nobody is accountable! You gotta hear me on this, the very people we trusted to enforce the laws for the last 30 yrs want more regulation and authority, for the sh*t they created. Just enforce the laws instead of oppressing the people. We don't need more regulation, we need accountability, Enforce the laws already on the books, whether its immigration, business practices, or whatever. A lot of these problems wouldn't be here if our officials enforced the law
 
exactly my point, we have enough laws, however, nobody is accountable! You gotta hear me on this, the very people we trusted to enforce the laws for the last 30 yrs want more regulation and authority, for the sh*t they created. Just enforce the laws instead of oppressing the people. We don't need more regulation, we need accountability, Enforce the laws already on the books, whether its immigration, business practices, or whatever. A lot of these problems wouldn't be here if our officials enforced the law

I agree with you on enforcement, however, when you say "we have enough laws", perhaps you are overlooking that natural occurring phenomena called, change. Things change. Circumstances change. Statutes and regulations (the tool of regulators) must change to meet new challenges. Hence, while you're arguing that "we have enough laws", perhaps, you miss the point that the law may need tweaking (which requires new law) or the law may need revamping (repeal of some things and the addition of other things).

QueEx
 
I agree with you on enforcement, however, when you say "we have enough laws", perhaps you are overlooking that natural occurring phenomena called, change. Things change. Circumstances change. Statutes and regulations (the tool of regulators) must change to meet new challenges. Hence, while you're arguing that "we have enough laws", perhaps, you miss the point that the law may need tweaking (which requires new law) or the law may need revamping (repeal of some things and the addition of other things).

QueEx

fair enough, I had a feeling the statement "we have enough laws' would surface. Let me just say, I recognize society is always changing and I support the re-examination of laws that don't stifle "the people" or limit the advancement of the nation, as a whole. I'm not close-minded about reforming the health-care system, however, I have "healthy" concern regarding the motives of those who write/promote the bills, thats all. All to often, I see bills promoted with good intentions but they only benefit the establishment providing the good or service, and almost always, leaving the individual with the bill (TARP comes to mind :yes:. I'm open to a good debate if it's in the best interest of 'the people' & not special interests.
 
They also don't factor in, that your insurance is only good for a limited geographic area, visit another part of the country and get sick, your insurance might pick up 70 percent of the cost since it is 'out of network'.

Public Option or Cooperative(Medicare/Medicaid) is the way to go. Employment based insurance sucks!

:dance::dance:
 
Back
Top