Pipes, S 2
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">oops see sally</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nat ass schol</font></span></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><div class="mag-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 19px; padding: 0px; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h3 class="magcat-titlte entry-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 1px;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/american-health-care-system-costs-four-times-more-than-canadas-single-payer-system/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">american health care system costs four times more than Canada’s single-payer system</font></a></h3><div class="grid-post-box-meta mag-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="author-italic author vcard" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/igor-derysh/" title="Posts by Igor Derysh" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Igor Derysh</a> / <a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/salon/" title="Posts by Salon " class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Salon</a></font></span></div></div><div class="mag-excerpt entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The cost of administering health care in the United States costs four times as much as it does in Canada, which has had a single-payer system for nearly 60 years,…</font></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mentions some dr charlie? who will have to set up offshore canada?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes made the argument against Medicare for all. She was interviewed by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA).</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?468191-1/after-words-sally-pipes">
</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?468191-1/after-words-sally-pipes">https://www.c-span.org/video/?468191-1/after-words-sally-pipes</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">booktv canadian trash faser inst 220</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">true UK bot #5 on 5 yr cancer, but all counties improving in all acts (but do US stats include ppl who don't have health care? UK has better stats?)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">she does not mention cda?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="f" style="line-height: 1.57; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sep 11, 2019 - </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> the latter two </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">cancers</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, the </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">UK</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> had the lowest </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">survival rates</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> over </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">five years</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">at</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> 62.1% and 7.9%. The </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">UK</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> was also last </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">in</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> lung </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">cancer</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> (14.7%), </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">in</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> which Canada did best (21.7%), and stomach </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">cancer</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> (20.8%). Ovarian </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">cancer survival</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> was highest </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">in</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Norway (46.2%) and lowest </span><span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">in</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Ireland (36%).</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49661516"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49661516</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/sally-pipes-pacific-research-institute-keybridge-communications</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><h1 class="print-title" style="margin-bottom: 0.2em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Top Obamacare Critic's Op-Eds Drafted by PR Firm That Reps Drug, Health Care Clients</font></h1><div class="dek" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="">Meet the magic PR elves fueling Sally Pipes' prolific anti-health-care-reform punditry.</font></div><p class="submitted"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="byline">By <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/authors/stephanie-mencimer" rel="author">Stephanie Mencimer</a></span> | <span class="dateline">Thu Jul. 19, 2012 6:00 AM EDT</span></font></p><hr class="print-hr" style="height: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: gray;" /><div class="print-content" style="line-height: 1.8em;"><div id="node-186516" class="node node-type-html node-type-article-full"><div class="node-inner clear-block"><div class="content clear-block"><div class="field field-type-text field-field-short-body"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Last Tuesday, a week after the Supreme Court's ruling <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/supreme-court-obamacare-roberts-saves-mandate" target="blank">upholding Obamacare</a> <span class="print-footnote">[1]</span>, Sally Pipes appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to enumerate the evils of the law. The president of the <a href="http://www.pacificresearch.org/" target="blank">Pacific Research Institute</a> <span class="print-footnote">[2]</span>, a San Francisco-based free-market think tank, Pipes <a href="http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/statement-and-testimony" target="blank">warned members of Congress</a> <span class="print-footnote">[3]</span> that if they didn't act quickly Americans would soon suffer the rationed care and long waits supposedly plaguing her native Canada. The country's health care system, she insisted, had killed her mother by refusing to test her for colon cancer, which she later died from.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pipes' appearance on Capitol Hill, days before the House voted for the 33rd time to repeal Obamacare, capped a busy two weeks for the prominent critic of the president's health reform law. In just the 24 hours following the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision, Pipes churned out thousands of words of outraged copy, publishing <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/304351/battle-isnt-over-sally-c-pipes" target="blank">columns in the <em>National Review Online</em></a> <span class="print-footnote">[4]</span>, the <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-361431-care-insurance.html" target="blank"><i>Orange County Registe</i>r</a> <span class="print-footnote">[5]</span>, the <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/29/now-its-up-to-the-voters-to-strike-down-obamacare/" target="blank"><em>Daily Caller</em></a> <span class="print-footnote">[6]</span>, <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-ruling-temporary-victory-administration/" target="blank"><em>Human Events</em></a> <span class="print-footnote">[7]</span>, and elsewhere—all while running her small think tank and keeping up her typically frenetic schedule of media interviews<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. All of this cemented her status as a leading voice of Obamacare opposition. Along with a constant stream of op-eds and TV appearances in recent years, she has also authored three books since 2008 lambasting health care reform.</span></font></p></div></div></div><div class="field field-type-text field-field-article-text"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">If Pipes seems supernaturally prolific, there's a good reason. To assist with her written output, PRI employs a DC-based ghostwriting and PR firm with drug and health care industry clients. That firm, <a target="blank" href="http://www.keybridgecommunications.com/">Keybridge Communications</a> <span class="print-footnote">[8]</span>, researches, drafts, and edits much of Pipes' published work in an arrangement that's unusual for someone at a supposedly independent think tank.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Several former PRI staffers tell <i>Mother Jones</i> it was well known within the organization that Pipes relied heavily on Keybridge, particularly for her books, and did far from all of her own writing. (Pipes thanks Keybridge and specific staffers there in her last three books.) In recent years, PRI has spent large amounts of money on Keybridge's services. Between 2008 and 2010, the think tank paid Keybridge nearly $1 million—<a target="blank" href="https://www.motherjones.com/files/pri_990_2010.pdf">$400,000 alone in 2010</a> <span class="print-footnote">[9]</span>.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 1.8em;">
Keybridge's services for PRI have included drafting and editing Pipes' op-eds, including her online column for</span><span style="line-height: 1.8em;"> </span><i style="line-height: 1.8em;">Forbes</i><span style="line-height: 1.8em;">, "Piping Up." A</span><span style="line-height: 1.8em;"> </span><a target="blank" href="https://www.motherjones.com/files/keybridge_invoice.pdf" style="line-height: 1.8em;">Keybridge invoice from June 2011</a><span style="line-height: 1.8em;"> </span><span class="print-footnote" style="line-height: 1.8em;">[10]</span><span style="line-height: 1.8em;">, obtained by</span><span style="line-height: 1.8em;"> </span><i style="line-height: 1.8em;">Mother Jones</i><span style="line-height: 1.8em;">, details more than $17,000 worth of charges to PRI for, among other things, services related to drafting four</span><span style="line-height: 1.8em;"> </span><i style="line-height: 1.8em;">Forbes</i><span style="line-height: 1.8em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 1.8em;">columns for Pipes, operating her Twitter feed, and pitching op-eds on behalf of Pipes and a couple other PRI staffers.</span>It's a significant expenditure for a nonprofit of PRI's size—the think tank's annual budget is close to $4 million—especially one that until recently had about a dozen well-compensated marketing and research staff in-house. (Last summer, experiencing financial problems, PRI laid off about a third of its employees; several others left last year without being replaced.) But unlike other scholars at PRI, research for Pipes' work wasn’t handled by PRI's in-house research team, say former employees; it's been done by Keybridge.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Christine Hughes, a PRI spokeswoman, insists that Pipes writes all her work herself and that Keybridge only does the "initial drafting, researching, and editing" of Pipes' <i>Forbes</i> columns and other op-eds. Hughes says the fact that Keybridge has pharmaceutical or health care clients—and that much of Pipes' commentary centers on subjects of interest to these companies—does not pose a conflict of interest for PRI. She directed questions about whether Pipes' work may be influenced by the positions of Keybridge's clientele to the PR firm.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sam Ryan, Keybridge's CEO, told <i>Mother Jones</i> he was restricted in what he could say about his firm's work because Keybridge signs confidentiality agreements with its clients. But he did confirm that Keybridge edits and drafts "rough copy" for Pipes, though, like Hughes, he maintains that the ideas for the columns and the final products are Pipes'.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Our services include editing, drafting rough copy, earned media outreach, and booking radio and television interviews," he explains. "All of Sally's books are authored by Sally. It's no secret that we assisted Sally with her books, as we're acknowledged in the credits, but we would never claim authorship of any written material we helped draft or edit. That would be akin to a bricklayer taking credit for an architect's design."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It's an open secret in Washington that well-known public figures often use the services of ghostwriters for op-ed pieces and books published under their names. When President Obama writes <a target="blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-and-david-cameron-the-us-and-britain-still-enjoy-special-relationship/2012/03/12/gIQABH1G8R_story.html">an op-ed for the <i>Washington Post</i></a> <span class="print-footnote">[11]</span> it's a safe bet that he had some help from one of his speechwriters. But it's unusual in the think tank world, where scholars or fellows are considered more like academics than advocates. While think tankers may have an assistant or research help in-house, they are typically expected to do their own work.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Laurie Boeder, a spokeswoman for the <a target="blank" href="http://www.brookings.edu/">Brookings Institution</a> <span class="print-footnote">[12]</span>, says Brookings scholars do not outsource their writing. "We have a very academic atmosphere here," she says, noting that she can only speak to what's done at Brookings, not at other organizations.</span> "Scholars hold themselves to the same standards that you'd find in an academic institution. Obviously they work with research assistants, but every author here is responsible for work written under his or her name."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservative lawyer Ted Frank is a regular contributor to the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>'s op-ed page who's worked as a fellow or scholar at the <a target="blank" href="http://www.aei.org/scholar/ted-frank/">American Enterprise Institute</a> <span class="print-footnote">[13]</span> and the <a target="blank" href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/frank.htm">Manhattan Institute</a> <span class="print-footnote">[14]</span>. While not commenting specifically on Pipes or PRI, he echoes Boeder's sentiment about think tank work. He says he once rejected a PR firm that approached him about ghostwriting op-eds. While he says he expects high-profile people like Bill Clinton to use speechwriters and others to help prepare things he writes, "I expect a Ted Frank op-ed to be written by Ted Frank."</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pipes' op-eds, especially her <i>Forbes</i> column, often read like advertorials, frequently addressing obscure health policy topics and touting specific big companies by name. For instance, in December and January, she published a pair of <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/01/23/american-soldiers-deserve-cutting-edge-health-care/">Piping Up columns</a> <span class="print-footnote">[15]</span> bashing an attempt by the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to cut costs by conducting a competitive bidding auction for medical equipment. In one column, she named a medical device called "wound-vac," made by a company called Kinetic Concepts, as an example of a product that might become inaccessible due to the auction process.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The mind-numbing ins and outs of the CMS auction process have not been in the news much of late, but it's a big deal to Kinetic Concepts, which has <a target="blank" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000027041&year=2012">spent more than $1.1 million</a> <span class="print-footnote">[16]</span> since 2009 lobbying Congress and CMS over exactly the issues Pipes raises in her columns. Kinetic Concepts' parent company, KCI, has been a PRI donor. Keybridge also has clients in the medical-device industry, according to Ryan. But Pipes doesn't disclose any of that in her op-ed that name-checks wound-vac technology. (Hughes says that Pipes sometimes does disclose PRI's donors in her writing, as she did in <a href="http://images.burrellesluce.com/image/13471/13471_7579" target="blank">this article</a> <span class="print-footnote">[17]</span> for the <em>Palm Beach Post.</em>)</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In August 2011, Pipes published a <i>Forbes</i> column that <a target="blank" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/08/29/over-the-counter-remedies-that-would-reduce-health-care-costs/">advocated making Lipitor</a> <span class="print-footnote">[18]</span>, a cholesterol-lowering drug manufactured by Pfizer, available without a prescription. Pfizer is about to lose its patent on the multibillion-dollar-a-year blockbuster drug, and is pushing the FDA to make it available over-the-counter, despite the objections of many doctors. Pfizer has been a longtime PRI donor. The drugmaker has also been a Keybridge client. (Ryan says Pfizer has not been a client of the firm since 2010, but the company is a member of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying association, which is a Keybridge client.) Pipes didn't disclose any of these relationships in her piece. When asked about whether<i>Forbes</i> was aware of Keybridge's role in Pipes' columns, a <i>Forbes</i> spokeswoman side-stepped the question, saying, "Our contributor network is held to the highest standards. All content is attributed to the individual contributor."</font></p></div><div class="field-item even"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">PRI has a track record of promoting the positions of its <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute" target="blank">corporate donors</a> <span class="print-footnote">[19]</span>, which have included the Walton Family Foundation, an extension of the Walmart empire, which Pipes defended in a number of op-eds after the company was sued in a massive sex discrimination suit; the tobacco industry, whose tort reform agenda PRI has heavily promoted; and PhRMA, the national lobbying association for the pharmaceutical industry, whose positions it has parroted on everything from the evils of filmmaker Michael Moore to Medicare drug price controls.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The think tank has received <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=61" target="blank">funding from ExxonMobil</a> <span class="print-footnote">[20]</span>, which has bankrolled dubious research attempting to debunk climate change<b>. (Pipes <a href="http://chiefexecutive.net/turning-up-the-heat" target="blank">declared in 1998</a> <span class="print-footnote">[21]</span> that global warming is simply a "hobgoblin" cooked up by the Clinton administration's EPA.</b>) The think tank also relies on donations from conservative foundations, including those of the Scaife and Koch families.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Beyond its relationship with Keybridge, PRI has had ties to other corporate PR firms in the past. Peter Pitts, a onetime PRI senior fellow for health care research, ran an offshoot of the think tank called the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/11/18/69874/cmpi-front-group/?mobile=nc" target="blank">Center for Medicine in the Public Interest</a> <span class="print-footnote">[22]</span>, while simultaneously working for a PR firm that represented the pharmaceutical industry. During the health care reform debate, and while still supposedly running CMPI, Pitts, a former FDA official, took the helm of the health care division at the international PR giant Porter Novelli, which represents a host of drug companies.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pipes has run PRI since 1991, coming to the organization from the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think tank that's been fighting Canada's national health care system almost since it was created in the 1970s. She has little in the way of health care policy credentials. Pipes earned a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of British Columbia, and has virtually no hefty academic research to her name, a point <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/03/17/170702/pipes-peeps/" target="blank">driven home by Rep. Bruce Braley</a> <span class="print-footnote">[23]</span> (D-Iowa) when Pipes testified at a 2009 hearing on the Affordable Care Act.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">After highlighting her lack of academic credentials, Braley asked Pipes whether she'd ever published any work in a peer-reviewed medical or health care policy journal. Pipes replied that she'd been published in <i>Health Affairs</i>. However, she neglected to mention that her contribution to the journal had been a non-peer-reviewed letter to the editor,</span> a fact later <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/03/18/170706/pipes-lte/" target="blank">unearthed by <i>ThinkProgress</i></a> <span class="print-footnote">[24]</span>. Pipes' main selling point as a health care reform critic is her Canadian pedigree. She bills herself as a refugee from socialized medicine, and many of her op-eds and speeches lambasting Obamacare draw on her experience in Canada.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">What Pipes lacks in academic credentials she makes up for in connections. Pipes served as a health care adviser to Rudy Giuliani during his 2008 presidential run and on Arnold Schwarzenegger's transition team when he became governor of California in 2003. The introductions to her books have been written by former presidential candidate and billionaire Steve Forbes and famed conservative economists Milton Friedman and Arthur Laffer.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At PRI, Pipes is handsomely compensated for her work. According to the think tank's most recent <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/files/pri_990_2010.pdf" target="blank">tax filings for tax year 2010</a> <span class="print-footnote">[9]</span> (filed in late 2011), she earned more than <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">$500,000,</span> and claimed to work 80 hours a week. Her salary is so substantial that she ranked No. 11 on the <i>San Francisco Business Times</i>' list of <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/files/nonprofitexecpay2011-1.pdf" target="blank">highest paid nonprofit CEOs</a> <span class="print-footnote">[25]</span> in the San Francisco area.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even in the conservative think tank world, Pipes is notable for her hefty compensation. For example, the much larger and better-known <a href="http://www.aei.org/" target="_blank">American Enterprise Institute</a> <span class="print-footnote">[26]</span>, which has an annual income of more than $30 million annually, pays its president, Arthur Brooks, about the same salary as Pipes. But, at PRI, Pipes' salary accounts for nearly 13 percent of the organization's annual budget. Keybridge's work for PRI—largely on Pipes' behalf—ate up another 10 percent of the group's budget in 2010.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Former staffers question whether the money PRI is shelling out to Keybridge is really benefiting the nonprofit, or simply promoting Pipes herself. And they wonder why the think tank has continued to spend hefty sums on an outside PR firm even as the organization experienced significant financial hardships. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In 2010, the organization overspent its budget by more than $1 million, and last August it laid off about six people, a third of the staff</span>, and several other staffers and contract research fellows have left and have not been replaced. As PRI underwent some serious belt tightening last year, according to former employees, the one thing that didn't get eliminated were the services of Keybridge.</font></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><hr class="print-hr" style="height: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: gray;" /><div class="print-source_url"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>Source URL:</strong> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/sally-pipes-pacific-research-institute-keybridge-communications">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/sally-pipes-pacific-research-institute-keybridge-communications</a></font></div><div class="print-links"><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>Links:</strong>
[1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/supreme-court-obamacare-roberts-saves-mandate
[2] http://www.pacificresearch.org/
[3] http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/statement-and-testimony
[4] http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/304351/battle-isnt-over-sally-c-pipes
[5] http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-361431-care-insurance.html
[6] http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/29/now-its-up-to-the-voters-to-strike-down-obamacare/
[7] http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-ruling-temporary-victory-administration/
[8] http://www.keybridgecommunications.com/
[9] https://www.motherjones.com/files/pri_990_2010.pdf
[10] https://www.motherjones.com/files/keybridge_invoice.pdf
[11] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-and-david-cameron-the-us-and-britain-still-enjoy-special-relationship/2012/03/12/gIQABH1G8R_story.html
[12] http://www.brookings.edu/
[13] http://www.aei.org/scholar/ted-frank/
[14] http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/frank.htm
[15] http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/01/23/american-soldiers-deserve-cutting-edge-health-care/
[16] http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000027041&year=2012
[17] http://images.burrellesluce.com/image/13471/13471_7579
[18] http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/08/29/over-the-counter-remedies-that-would-reduce-health-care-costs/
[19] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute
[20] http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=61
[21] http://chiefexecutive.net/turning-up-the-heat
[22] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/11/18/69874/cmpi-front-group/?mobile=nc
[23] http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/03/17/170702/pipes-peeps/
[24] http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/03/18/170706/pipes-lte/
[25] https://www.motherjones.com/files/nonprofitexecpay2011-1.pdf
[26] http://www.aei.org/</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">aug 2012 blog?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">-By Warner Todd Huston</font></b></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><img border="0" src="http://www.publiusforum.com/images/sally_pipes_PRI.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0px 10px 10px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; max-width: 100%; height: auto; float: right;" /><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Early in July extreme left-wing Mother Jones magazine published a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/sally-pipes-pacific-research-institute-keybridge-communications" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">piece</a> claiming that Sally Pipes, the head of the <a href="http://www.pacificresearch.org/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">Pacific Research Institute</a>, was not doing a very effective job of leading the San Francisco-based conservative, free-market think tank. Unfortunately, whether the magazine is left-wing or not and whether these questions make me comfortable or not (they don’t), there seems to be some truth in the story.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The magazine focused on the excessive amount of money that Pipes has requisitioned from the think tank to pay for Public Relations agencies to assist her in writing the many books, papers, articles and the like that carries Pipes’ name. Calling her "supernaturally prolific," Mother Jones reported that Pipes employs Keybridge Communications to do the writing.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In fact, according to Mother Jones, Pipes has spent "nearly $1 million -- $400,000 alone in 2010" on the services of Keybridge. This is a substantial amount of money considering that the institute has an annual budget of only $4 million. To have spent such a huge chunk on "research assistance" is quite a lot, indeed.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pipes has a very high profile in conservative circles. She is a sought after speaker with a specialty in healthcare. She's worked with such big name groups as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and her work appears in newspapers, magazines, and websites everywhere -- such as Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and National Review. Pipes is also listed as the author of at least a half dozen books.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pipes is a naturalized American originally from Canada and made her first mark as the Assistant Director of the Fraser Institute, Vancouver, Canada. Using her familiarity with the Canadian healthcare system, Pipes became known in the U.S. for raising the clarion call warning America against socialist healthcare systems. As it happens, I find what Pipes has to say about healthcare valid.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Once Obamacare became the central issue of the day, Pipes quickly became an authority speaking frequently on the subject.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reputation as an expert or no, it might be considered problematic if Pipes has the constant assistance of a ghostwriting agency, especially for the president of a think tank. After all, usually think tanks greatly value the academic work of their members. Consequently, unlike in politics, ghostwritten work is not standard or customary. Usually the denizens of think tanks are required to write their own stuff, for sure.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another one of the interesting issues is the fact that Pipes doesn't seem to have the think tank standard of education to "qualify" her for the position she holds, the papers she writes, or the testimony she's given before Congress. Her biographies never seem to mention much on the subject of her education.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Certainly if what someone writes is demonstrably right, properly erudite, or academically logical, the education the speaker (or writer) may be immaterial, granted. And this over-reliance on some long list of degrees can also appear absurd. However, for think tanks at least, an advanced education is usually a prerequisite, not an option.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yet Pipes has attained this superior position seemingly without a lot of sheepskins to her credit. Good for her, I may say, but still this makes her an outlier in the world of think tanks.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So, what is going on here? Are Mother Jones and other far left websites just being partisan? To some degree, yes. After all, what Pipes has to say about healthcare is in no way out of the ordinary for conservatives and it does seriously challenge the left’s positions on the subject. The fact is, Pipes is not in the least bit controversial on her chief subject for the free market side she represents.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But what about her "supernaturally prolific" writing output? She does have a great deal of work attributed to her name, and more rolls out every month. With this the accusation that Pipes is using PR agencies or industry flacks to write her work, to which she just affixes her name, seems quite plausible. This, if absolutely true, would make her leadership of the PRI a shell game and a rather self-serving one, too.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I made some calls and sent some emails to see what I could find out. I was able to get a lot of feedback, but only on background. It might be easy to dismiss Mother Jones' piece based as it is on unnamed "former PRI staffers." But as I tried to look into this story myself, I quickly found out that no one wanted to go on the record. Internal mud slinging is, in the sophisticated and educated think tank world, a taboo.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I also looked around online. While there wasn't much to find there, one thing I found was a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6vfFI_3Jrg" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;">video</a> of Pipes that was made just before the Supreme Court's recent Obamacare decision. The most remarkable thing about the video is that Pipes allowed herself to be called "Doctor Pipes" during the entire interview. But as noted above, and in the Mother Jones article, it doesn't appear that Sally Pipes has any advanced college degree that would afford her the title of "doctor." Oddly however, she never corrected the interviewer, a media figure she has been acquainted with for many years.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was the off-record communications I had with folks close to the institute that really raised my eyebrow. The primary complaint I heard was that Pipes uses PRI as her personal and principal means of self-promotion, but leaves few resources to further the work of the other acclaimed scholars and researchers of the Institute.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One source told me that a PRI’s researcher had to fight Pipes tooth and nail for even a small amount of money to help him purchase advertising for his work, even as Pipes routinely spends thousands of dollars of PRI's earmarked funds to advertise her own work. It seems that Pipes sucks up all of the institute's funds for her own personal promotion, leaving little else for the scholars and researchers at the think tank, despite any funding allocated for their specific projects.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another person attached to PRI warned me that Pipes routinely inflates the marketing costs for her work. I am told that if someone can acquire her proposals to the board, one would soon find the sum of $25,000 constantly quoted for marketing. This source also says that $25,000 is an extremely high quote for that purpose.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In any case, I understand that the issues raised here appear unverifiable. But, it appears to me that there are some troubling questions that need deeper investigation by responsible people, and maybe even think tank donors. It appears that the Pacific Research Institute is being held back by Pipes, that other scholars and researchers of the institute are being unfairly pushed to the background in order to flog Pipes' work and inflate her persona, and that some top notch, important free market research is being lost because of one vainglorious individual.</font></p><p style="margin: 24px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 23px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It seems to me that the Pacific Research Institute is being misled and wasted under the leadership of Sally Pipes.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div></div>