medicare negotiate drug price
tauzin bak 4 22
MIKE ROGERS ABDUL 8 26
no merri
see blue dog
furies pjt? poster for rev door?
alec alum
see insulin
3 24 biden sotu said beat big pharma, insulin cap
moore off BS
this weekend at the CPAC conference one of your Hotline editors, Steve Moore, called AARP an “evil organization” for its nefarious relationships with the Biden administration and one of the country’s largest health insurance conglomerates, UnitedHealth.
The Biden campaign lashed out in a social media blast asserting the old chestnut that Repubs want to cut Social Security and Medicare:
Here’s a reality check: AARP doesn’t really represent the interests of seniors anymore – if it ever did. AARP is a functionary of one of the nation’s largest health insurer behemoths – United Health.
AARP now collects $1 BILLION a year (not $1 million) in royalties from UnitedHealth – a gargantuan insurer with a $500 billion market cap.
This sweetheart arrangement with UnitedHealth explains why AARP sold seniors down the river by supporting ObamaCare despite calls from their own members running 14-to-1 against it.
UnitedHealth and AARP also supported the Biden Inflation Acceleration Act, which imposed price controls on drug companies in a way that is not lowering drug prices but is slowing R&D funding for new drugs to combat Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, and cancer. The last time we checked seniors are the strongest advocates for winning the race for the cure.
AARP signed on to this bill even though it raided over $250 billion from Medicare drug spending to pay for supersized Obamacare subsidies and green energy giveaways.
AARP has opposed many of the most modest debt reduction plans to save America’s future while supporting higher taxes on our kids and grandkids.
If you’re a member of AARP, maybe you should reconsider. We urge our members to check out AMAC or 60+, which are organizations that truly support the interests of older Americans.
no lnx twt
Ron Johnson challenger says senator is 'bought and paid for' by Big Pharma
Elizabeth Preza August 17, 2022
The campaign of Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, who is running to unseat U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, declared Tuesday that the Republican incumbent "is bought and paid for by Big Pharma."
:{
}:
That charge came in response to Johnson's Monday comments about Medicare negotiating the cost of certain prescription drugs, which is included in the Inflation Reduction Act that U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law Tuesday afternoon.
:{
}:
Appearing on "The Brian Kilmeade Show," Johnson told the Fox News host that "when you start punishing the pharmaceutical industry, you're gonna have less innovation; you're gonna have fewer lifesaving drugs. That's not a good thing."
:{
}:
Barnes—who won the Democratic primary last week—said Tuesday that "while Ron Johnson is worried about protecting the bottom lines of big pharmaceutical companies, I'm worried about working families across Wisconsin who are forced to choose between putting food on the table or affording the medication they need."
"For over a decade, Ron Johnson has put big corporations and his wealthy donors before the working people he was elected to represent," he asserted. "In the Senate, I'll hold Big Pharma accountable and ensure every Wisconsinite has a fair shot."
The progressive Democrat's campaign also highlighted recent reporting by The Cap Times that Johnson, while chairing the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 2018, "declined to subpoena Teva Pharmaceuticals as part of a Democrat-led investigation of the drugmaker's role in the opioid epidemic." In the months that followed, the company donated to both Johnson's campaign and an affiliated political action committee (PAC).
Johnson spokesperson Alexa Henning told the Madison-based newspaper that the "senator appreciates the support that people offer, but he doesn't personally track who gives what, and donations never impact his views on issues or how he votes." She added that asking about Teva's contributions "is another politically motivated hit job by the corporate media and cheered on by their allies in the Democrat Party."
Barnes' campaign, meanwhile, said Tuesday:
Ron Johnson has a long history of selling out Wisconsinites in favor of his large corporate donors. Earlier this year, Johnson justified sending 1,000 good-paying, family-sustaining jobs out of Wisconsin by claiming, "It's not like we don't have enough jobs here in Wisconsin." Reporting later showed the company shipping jobs out of state, Oshkosh Corp., "ranks seventh among Johnson's top career contributors."
Johnson, a businessman, was elected to the Senate in 2010 and won a second term in 2016.
In his bid to replace Johnson, Barnes has secured the support of various progressives groups across Wisconsin and the nation along with local, state, and federal elected officials, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
On the healthcare front, Barnes backs not only drug pricing reforms like those in the new law but also putting the United States on a path to universal healthcare by passing Medicare for All legislation at the federal level.
"In the richest nation in the world," the candidate says in a campaign video, "no one should be going bankrupt because of their medical bills."
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/12/pharma-lobby-poured-millions-into-darkmoney-groups/
pharmaceutical companies’ top lobbying group funneled millions of dollars to prominent “dark money” groups that pushed industry friendly messages to lawmakers and 2020 voters.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America raised nearly $527 million last year and spent roughly $506 million, new tax returns obtained by OpenSecrets reveal. That’s a record haul for the organization, which is funded by the world’s most powerful pharmaceutical companies.
The trade association made its largest political donation of 2019 — $4.5 million — to the American Action Network, a dark money group that backs House Republicans. The conservative nonprofit and its pharmaceutical industry donor share disdain for proposals to regulate the price of prescription drugs.
The same year it received PhRMA’s donation, theAmerican Action Networklaunched several multi-million dollar ad campaigns opposing President Donald Trump’s proposal to let Medicare negotiate drug prices. This year, the group launched multi-million dollar ad campaigns opposing House Democrats’ bill to lower drug prices and ads boosting vulnerable Republicans who supported an alternative bill considered much friendlier to drugmakers.
The alliance between drugmakers and GOP groups isn’t new. PhRMA has given $14.6 million to the American Action Network since 2016. In that time, the American Action Network became a major contributor to GOP causes. During the 2020 election cycle, it gave $26.4 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, the House Republicans’ top super PAC that helped unseat several freshman Democrats.
In several key 2020 races, the American Action Network battled with a Democratic group that also received funding from drugmakers. PhRMA gave nearly $1.6 million to Center Forward, a dark money group aligned with moderate Blue Dog Democrats, last year. That nonprofit provided most of the funding for an allied super PAC that spent $3.3 million supporting House Democrats. The pharma-backed GOP and Democratic groups went head-to-head in several key House races, including a tightly contested New York race that has come down to a handful of votes.
Late last year, as Congress debated drug pricing bills, Center Forward flew House staffers to San Francisco to meet with drug company executives. The nonprofit’s board members have also lobbied for pharmaceutical interests. Republicans in Congress are the most vocal opponents of efforts to have the government regulate drug prices — a measure that would damage drugmakers’ profits — but Blue Dog Democrats also pushed back on more aggressive proposals to lower drug prices.
Drugmakers bankroll groups pushing industry talking points to Trump
Prominent drugmakers have spent much of 2020 developing vaccines to fight COVID-19, and the threat of drug pricing legislation in Congress has died down amid the pandemic. But Trump has continued to push forward with executive actions on prescription drugs opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.
PhRMA deployed creative tactics in an attempt to persuade Trump against following through on his campaign promise to aggressively lower drug prices. During the Trump era, the trade association has bankrolled conservative groups that have access to the president.
The American Conservative Union, which hosts the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, received $150,000 from PhRMA in 2019. Led by Trump ally and corporate lobbyist Matt Schlapp, the conservative nonprofit launched theCoalition Against Socialized Medicine late last year to oppose efforts to regulate drug prices and enact single-payer health care proposals.
Nearly all of the coalition’s members received funding from drugmakers within the last two years. Big pharma’s trade group gave $505,000 to American Commitment, $78,500 to Americans for a Balanced Budget and $60,000 to the Taxpayers Protection Alliancelast year alone, according to new tax returns. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance launched a six-figure ad campaign last month aimed at killing “surprise” medical billing legislation and calling it a “handout” to big insurance companies.
New tax returns also show that pharmaceutical manufacturers’ trade group gave $200,000 to the National Sheriffs Association, a nonprofit representing thousands of law enforcement officials. The group launched a six-figure ad campaign last year warning against Trump’s proposal to import drugs from foreign countries, a measure bitterly opposed by drugmakers. Those ads specifically targeted Trump, airing in Washington, D.C., on his favorite Fox News programs.
Trump ultimately approved a plan to import drugs from Canada in September, but its scope was limited. He also moved ahead with a rule that would allow Medicare to negotiate the cost of drugs based on the price foreign governments pay, another measure strongly opposed by drugmakers.
Still, while Trump has moved ahead with industry-opposed measures, his GOP allies in Congress have not made drug pricing legislation a priority. Republican lawmakers and their aides are consistently fed opinion pieces and ad campaigns from conservative groups urging them to reject “socialist price controls.”
Republicans ran political ads in 2020 that mirrored talking points from major healthcare industry players. Super PACs aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) attacked Democrats’ over their support for a public health insurance option, a proposal that could hurt drugmakers’ profits. Those ads cited a study from the Partnership For America’s Health Care Future, a conglomerate of insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that received $300,000 from PhRMA last year.
Longtime pharmaceutical ally gets seven-figure gift in retirement
One of PhRMA’s largest 2019 gifts was a $2 million donation to the Orrin Hatch Foundation, athink tank and research library launched by former Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The trade group gave $140,000 to the foundation between 2017 and 2018.
Hatch, who retired in January 2019, was known as the pharmaceutical industry’s “man on the Hill” by the end of his 42-year tenure. Hatch helped shape current laws that regulate generic drugs and opposed measures to limit drugmakers’ monopoly protections. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Hatch was considered the major roadblock to drug pricing changes proposed by Democrats and Trump.
the pharmaceuticals and health products industry gave $2.8 million to Hatch’s campaign committee since 1998, more than any member of Congress who didn’t run for president.When Hatch faced a primary challenge in 2012, PhRMAgave $750,000 to a super PAC boosting his reelection campaign.
During Hatch’s final years in office, his allies reportedly asked pharmaceutical companies and K Street lobbyists for donations to fund the Orrin Hatch Foundation. In 2018, the foundation invited major corporations, including pharmaceutical giant Merck, to a luxury mountain resort for a fundraiser.
While the foundation will serve as a library to catalogue Hatch’s government service and provide civic education, it has also put out policy reports on pressing issues. Its most recent report delves into how lawmakers can craft “sensible solutions to both foster innovative biologics and curb skyrocketing drug prices.”
https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/big-pharma/
Dozens of vulnerable House Democrats are worried that the party's stalled spending negotiations with Joe Manchin will cost them seats in the midterms — and hand Congress to the Republicans
Democrats planned to include legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, fulfilling a campaign promise that helped them win control of the House in the "blue wave" of 2018, as part of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better legislation.
The plan ran into an expensive lobbying blitz from the pharmaceutical industry, prompting Democrats to significantly water down the bill to limit the number of drugs Medicare could negotiate amid pushback from :{Sen. Kyrsten :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{Sinema:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}::{, D-Ariz., and other industry-aligned Democrats:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: –– and that was before Manchin blew up the Build Back Better package entirely.
"We cannot overstate the paramount urgency of fulfilling the promise of lowering drug prices now for the American people," a group of 40 House Democrats, led by Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., said in a letter to party leaders on Monday.
The letter came after pharmaceutical companies hiked prices on hundreds of medications to start the year. A recent report from the patient advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs found that drug companies have increased prices on more than 550 drugs, including 183 drugs whose prices were raised by $100 or more, and 118 drugs that now cost more than $5,000. Pfizer alone raised prices on 125 drugs, more than any company, even as it shattered profit records thanks to $36 billion in sales from its widely-used COVID vaccine.
"Even as we enter the third year of a pandemic, Big Pharma continues its practice of targeting American patients and consumers with price increases, completely undeterred by the financial and health challenges facing American families," David Mitchell, the founder of Patients for Affordable Drugs, said in a statement.
"Drug corporations can do this because we let them — unlike other nations that use their purchasing power to get a better deal," said Mitchell, who suffers from an incurable blood cancer that is treated with a cocktail of drugs carrying a list price of more than $900,000 per year. The original drug-pricing agreement in the Build Back Better Act, he said, "would curb rising drug prices for millions of patients and halt abusive annual price hikes by limiting increases to the rate of inflation, which is projected to return to 2.3 percent in 2023."
Election forecasts generally suggest that Democrats will lose control of the House in the midterms, making the popular drug legislation a key priority, especially after Manchin and Sinema effectively killed off several other popular Democratic proposals, including a rollback of the Trump-era tax cuts, an extension of the expanded Child Tax Credit, and paid family leave.
A Data for Progress poll last fall found that likely voters support the Medicare legislation by a 55-point margin, including 83% of Democrats, 71% of independents, and 65% of Republicans.
"Taking action on prescription drugs is one of the most popular political issues Democrats can pursue — it's overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan majority of voters," Sean McElwee, the founder and executive director of Data for Progress, said in an email. "Democrats need to take every opportunity to lower costs for voters and deliver popular legislation that visibly improves their lives this November."
Manchin, who walked away from Build Back Better negotiations in December after the White House called him out by name in a statement over the bill's delay, said on Tuesday that the Build Back Better bill is "dead" and any negotiations on potential spending programs would have to start from scratch. Biden has said that he hopes to include "chunks" of the original bill in a potential compromise package with Manchin.
Last year, Manchin said he supported the drug-price legislation, calling it the "one thing that should be done for sure." But the West Virginia senator appears to be prioritizing bipartisan negotiations to reform the Electoral Count Act over any would-be spending bill, leaving a key Democratic campaign promise in limbo.
"President Biden supports this plan. We support this plan," the House Democratic group said in their letter. "Every Democratic member of the U.S. Senate supports this plan. And most importantly, the American people support this plan. It is time to enact it into law. Already this year, drug corporations have raised prices on more than 400 drugs. Action can't happen soon enough to make medicines more affordable for the millions who need them."
The price increases came after the pharmaceutical lobby shattered its own record for lobbying spending as it rallied around the cause of defeating Biden's legislation. Democrats like Sinema and Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., two of the biggest recipients of Big Pharma donations, led an effort to cut the number of drugs that could be negotiated by Medicare. Even so, the compromise legislation would save taxpayers an estimated $80 billion while capping price increases on certain medications, capping out-of-pocket costs for seniors, and capping the cost of insulin at $35 for people on Medicare and on private plans.
Medicare is the only government agency that is barred from negotiating bulk pricing discounts — the result of an infamous scheme hatched by Big Pharma lobbyists and a Republican leader who rammed the provision into a bill that required Medicare to cover the cost of prescription drugs, shortly before he left Congress and became the top lobbyist for the industry. A three-year investigation by the House Oversight and Reform Committee last month found that pharmaceutical companies exploit the Medicare program to boost revenues, noting that taxpayers could have saved more than $25 billion over five years if Medicare was allowed to negotiate the cost of just seven popular drugs such as Humira and Lyrica.
The investigation also found that drug companies "aggressively raise prices" to hit revenue targets and incentives for executives and have targeted the U.S. market for higher prices while keeping costs lower overseas. The report also concluded that drug companies "abuse the patent system" to suppress competition and maintain monopoly pricing. Drug companies contend that their huge profits are necessary to fund research and development, but the investigation found that the 14 leading drug companies spent $577 billion on stock buybacks and dividends over just five years, $56 billion more than they spent on research and development over that same period.
The limited Medicare negotiation bill approved by the House last year would allow Medicare to negotiate the cost of 20 popular drugs and dozens of insulin products used by 8.5 million Medicare beneficiaries,according to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, although many of the drugs with the highest Medicare spending would be exempt.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which pushed for a more expansive bill that would have saved taxpayers an estimated $450 billion over 10 years but ultimately agreed to back the scaled-down version, set a target date of March 1 to pass the revised spending plan ahead of Biden's State of the Union address.
"This is both achievable and necessary,"CPC Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said in a statement, noting that in the weeks since negotiations had stalled out, "the case for this legislation has only become more urgent."
ref lobbying blitz
https://www.salon.com/2021/09/23/big-pharma-firms-donated-750k-to-kyrsten-sinema--then-she-opposed-bill/
no lnx many
Big Pharma, medical firms donated $750K to Kyrsten Sinema — then she opposed drug bill
Democrats who now oppose the plan to lower prescription drug costs accused of "carrying water for Big Pharma"
By IGOR DERYSH
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the controversial Arizona Democrat who threatens to derail President Biden's legislative agenda, received more than $750,000 in donations from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. After that, she announced her opposition to a Democratic plan to lower prescription drug costs.
Sinema told White House officials that she opposes House and Senate bills that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug costs, sources told Politico this week. Democrats estimate these bills would save $450 billion over the next decade and thereby pay for a large portion of President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion spending plan. The budget bill would expand child care, health care and paid family leave and would fund programs to combat climate change, among other measures. Three House Democrats have also balked at the plan, although they have offered a "centrist" alternative that would drastically limit which drugs are subject to Medicare negotiation. Sinema reportedly opposes that proposal as well. During her successful 2018 Senate campaign, Sinema repeatedly vowed to lower prescription drug prices and drug costs for seniors.
Sinema is a longtime favorite of the pharmaceutical industry and now appears ready to undermine Biden's entire agenda as Big Pharma wages a lobbying blitz in hopes of torpedoing the bill, which nearly 90% of voters support. Sinema and several House Democrats who oppose the drug pricing plan have received major financial support from the industry. Given a 50-50 Senate and a narrow House majority of 220 to 212 (with three seats currently vacant), their opposition could sink the proposal or even the entire budget bill.
Sinema has received $519,988 from PACs and individuals in the pharmaceutical industry throughout her political career, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. She brought in more than $120,000 in pharma contributions between 2019 and 2020 even though she is not up for re-election until 2024. Sinema has also received $190,161 from donors in the pharmaceutical manufacturing space and $62,797 from the medical supplies industry.
Sinema's office is led by a former lobbyist whose firm worked on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. The senator's chief of staff, Meg Joseph, was a registered lobbyist andprincipal at Clark & Weinstock, where her clients included the health insurer Health Net. During her tenure, the company also lobbied on behalf of numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, drug distributor AmerisourceBergen Corp., and the biotech firm Genzyme Corp. It also lobbied on behalf of Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and AdvaMed, two major industry trade groups.
Sinema did not respond to questions from Salon. Her spokesman Josh LaBombard told Politico that she is committed to "working directly in good faith with her colleagues and President Biden on the proposed budget reconciliation package."
He continued, "Given the size and scope of the proposal, while those discussions are ongoing we are not offering detailed comment on any one proposed piece of the package."
Sinema got major backing from the industry before her threat to derail the Democrats' drug bill. Center Forward, a Washington nonprofit that has received at least $4.5 million from PhRMA, has run TV and digital ads praising Sinema for the past two weeks, according to The Daily Poster, andsent out pro-Sinema mailers urging recipients to thank the senator for "fighting as an independent voice." The group's board includes at least two PhRMA lobbyists who work on drug pricing issues and represent numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called out Big Pharma's campaign to defeat the drug pricing legislation during a speech on Tuesday in front of PhRMA's headquarters in Washington.
"The overriding motivation of the pharmaceutical industry is greed," he said. "Their overriding goal is to make as much money as they can by squeezing as much as they possibly can out of the sick, out of the elderly and out of the desperate."
Sinema isn't the only Democrat who vowed to fight for lower drug costs before rejecting a plan that would do just that. Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., in 2019 praised the drug pricing plan but after receiving nearly $230,000 in the 2020 election cycle from the industry, as Salon's Jon Skolnik reported, had an otherwise-unexplained change of heart. Earlier this year, he led a group of 10 House Democrats in opposing the bill in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "If you institute it, you won't have cures because you'll dry up all the private investment that does that research," he told Roll Call after the reversal.
"That's absolutely not true," David Mitchell, founder of the independent nonprofit Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, said in an interview with Salon.
The claim that the bill would hinder development is a Big Pharma "lie" and "scare tactic," said Mitchell, who suffers from multiple myeloma, a blood cancer treated with a combination of drugs that he said carry a price tag of more than $900,000 per year. "For me, as a patient with incurable cancer, it sounds very much like extortion, like the gun is at your head, 'pay whatever we tell you, Mr. Mitchell, or you are going to die,'" he said. "It's bullshit."
Large pharmaceutical companies see profit margins that are much higher than other industries. A recent analysis by the nonprofit West Health Policy Center and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that Big Pharma firms could lose $1 trillion in sales over the next decade and still maintain their current research investments. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Democrats' bill would reduce the number of new drugs developed by about two per year over the next two decades.
"You're talking about a tiny impact on new drug development," Mitchell said. "We can compensate for that by sending more money" to the National Institutes of Health, he continued, "because NIH is the engine of innovative new drug development. It's the single largest biomedical research agency in the world. All 356 drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2019 are based on research, basic science from the NIH."
:{
}:
Peters was one of three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to vote against the Democrats' drug pricing bill, along with Reps. Kurt Schrader of Oregon and Kathleen Rice of New York. A different committee later advanced the bill but the opposition appears to have enough votes to sink the measure — and the entire spending plan with it.
"I get that the pharmaceutical industry owns the Republican Party and that no Republican voted for this bill," Sanders tweeted after the vote, "but there is no excuse for every Democrat not supporting it."
Peters has received $860,465 from pharmaceutical PACs and employees, according to CRP data, the second most of any industry. He has already received $88,550 from the industry this election cycle, the most of any House member. On the day he sent the letter to Pelosi, Peters received big donations from the CEOs of Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck and Bristol Myers Squibb, as well as from lobbyists at PhRMA.
Schrader, who also signed Peters' letter, has also received extensive financial backing from the industry. He has received $24,500 from pharma PACs and employees this cycle, the second most of any industry, and got $144,252 in 2020, the most of any industry. Throughout his career, Schrader, whose grandfather was an executive at Pfizer, has received $614,830 from the industry, according to CRP data. His former aide left earlier this year and quickly began lobbying for PhRMA, according to The Daily Poster.
Peters and Schrader did not respond to questions from Salon but they have introduced a supposed centrist alternative that would drastically limit the number of drugs whose prices Medicare could negotiate.
"It's masquerading as a Medicare negotiation" bill," Mitchell said, noting that it would exclude Medicare Part D drugs, which make up 83% of Medicare drug spending. The bill would only allow the agency to negotiate a "tiny, tiny sliver" of drugs covered under Part B that are administered by doctors and hospitals, he said, but would exclude drugs that are still in their period of exclusivity, which can last up to 12 years. "To call it Medicare negotiation is a fraud," Mitchell said.
Kathleen Rice's opposition to the bill is less easily explained, since she has not been one of the industry's biggest recipients, collecting a relatively modest $84,000 in campaign contributions from Big Pharma sources, according to CRP data. Furthermore, Rice had twice previously voted for earlier versions of the plan and campaigned on lowering drug prices. In a letter to a constituent who expressed disappointment with her vote, Rice said that she supports "the goals" of the bill and "allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices" but that she opposed the bill because it is being used "as a tool to offset the cost of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill."
:{
}:
Rice cited opposition from Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., over the bill's price tag to justify her vote.
"That bill has no chance to become law, as Democrats in the Senate have stated that a bill with such a price tag will not have the votes to pass in their chamber," she said in the letter, which was obtained by the American Prospect. That's a strange and striking argument, considering that Rice voted for many other pieces of legislation that will go into a bill she says "has no chance to become law."
"Rep. Rice believes the House should produce a reconciliation bill that can realistically become law," Rice spokesman Stuart Malec said in a statement to Salon. "She supports Medicare negotiation, but the H.R. 3 drug pricing language in its current form does not have the support to pass the Senate. And Rep. Rice does not support advancing provisions that will jeopardize the bill's final passage in the Senate."
These large donations are only a portion of the pharmaceutical industry's political spending aimed at defeating drug pricing legislation. Pharmaceutical companies have spent more than any industry on federal lobbying this year, shelling out $171 million so far in 2021, according to CRP, more than twice as much as the next biggest spending industry.Pharmaceutical companies spent $309 million on lobbying last year, the most ever. PhRMA alone has spent more than $15 million on lobbying and last week launched a seven-figure ad campaign to oppose the drug pricing plan.
"They're pulling out all the stops to block this," Mitchell said. "What they're fighting to maintain is unilateral power to dictate the prices of brand name drugs to the people of the United States. They have the power to tell us what we're going to pay and we just have to say yes. For them, it's the ability to dictate the prices of drugs to patients like me."
Patient advocates like Mitchell and advocacy groups like the AARP, Protect Our Care and Social Security Works are pushing back through lobbying and ad campaigns of their own.
"Pharma thinks this is just like every other time they have bent D.C. to their will with money, but it isn't," Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, said in a statement to Salon, noting that grassroots groups have spent years building a broad coalition of support among voters of all political persuasions. "And as for the Dems carrying water for Big Pharma, we are showing them the consequences of that. Their phones are ringing off the hook, there's daily protests at their offices, and their local media is full of stories about their cozy relationships with Big Pharma."
Lawson expressed optimism that Biden and Pelosi can get the legislation passed, given the widespread public support for this issue.
"Big Pharma is used to winning," he said. "They've never gone up against a movement this powerful."
Patients for Affordable Drugs Now has also launched an ad campaign targeting Peters' and Rice's districts, highlighting members of Congress for "choosing Big Pharma over patients."
"We have the best opportunity that we've had in two decades to actually enact reforms that will meaningfully lower the prices of prescription drugs to the American people and stop subjecting us to the power of multinational corporations," Mitchell said. "It's an uphill fight all the way because we know who we're up against. I think we have a really good shot of getting it done."
IGOR DERYSH
Igor Derysh is Salon's Deputy News and Politics Editor. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Herald and Baltimore Sun.
Patriotic Millionaires
https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/wealthy-progressives-back-primaries-against-dems-tanking-party-agenda/
cmn dr
A group of wealthy progressives announced Thursday that it will support primary challenges against Rep. Henry Cuellar, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, and other right-wing Democrats who have actively obstructed President Joe Biden's legislative agenda and, in the process, potentially boosted the GOP's chances of retaking Congress.
"These radical moderates have done more damage to President Biden’s agenda than Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz combined," Erica Payne, president of the Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement announcing the organization's endorsements for the looming 2022 midterms—and its plans to back campaigns to unseat right-wing Democrats in this year's elections and beyond.
"We must stop contributing to and endorsing candidates who are actively sabotaging the president's agenda."
"Their outright sabotage of President Biden’s Build Back Better Agenda, likely done on behalf of their donors, left us with no choice—it's time to draw a line in the sand," Payne continued. "It's time for the American people to expect better from Democrats, and for the party to hold its elected officials to a higher standard."
Founded in 2010 in opposition to then-President Barack Obama's extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the rich, the Patriotic Millionaires had never waded into the realm of congressional primaries before Thursday, when it officially endorsed Cuellar's progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros as well as Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who is taking on Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.) in Georgia's newly drawn 7th Congressional District.
But the group doesn't intend on stopping there, pointing to a list of 15 congressional Democrats it characterizes as "The Problem(s)." In a press release, the Patriotic Millionaires said they plan to follow the endorsements of Cisneros and McBath with "further challenges to some of the Democrats who have spent the last year sabotaging the Biden agenda at every turn."
The group told CNBC that its members will be providing financial support to the Democratic primary challengers it endorses.
The Patriotic Millionaires' list of Democratic obstructionists includes prominent figures such as Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who for months have stood in the way of the Build Back Better package and defended the archaic legislative filibuster, which Republicans have wielded repeatedly to block voting rights legislation.
Sinema and Manchin are both up for reelection in 2024.
Also featured on the organization's list are Democratic Reps. Richard Neal (Mass.), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Ed Case (Hawaii).
"Our country is becoming unstable, largely due to rapidly growing inequality," Morris Pearl, the chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement Thursday. "A small number of radical so-called moderates have stood in the way of even the most commonsense reforms because they are too beholden to a few shortsighted ultra-wealthy people. They have decided to have people who work for a living fall further and further behind to preserve the wealth of millionaires and billionaires."
In addition to backing candidates challenging right-wing Democrats, the Patriotic Millionaires endorsed seven Democratic incumbents, includingReps. Katie Porter(Calif.), Andy Kim (N.J.), and Deborah Ross (N.C.).
"It's time for Democratic donors to stand up for working people," said Pearl. "We must stop contributing to and endorsing candidates who are actively sabotaging the president's agenda."
"If Democrats want to convince voters to support them, they need to show voters that being a Democrat means something," he added. "The people we are endorsing are the tireless champions of working people that the party needs more of. It’s time to focus our support and resources behind candidates like them, rather than ones that will actively undermine their colleagues and the country."
Shortly before the Patriotic Millionaires unveiled their endorsements, another progressive organization—Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)—announced its official support for the reelection campaigns of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and several others who represent the flipside of "The Problem(s)."
"Nothing is more essential for our movement than returning all of these progressive champions to Congress with resounding victories—just as nothing would please our opponents more than their defeat," said Alan Minsky, PDA's executive director. "They will pour money into any campaign challenging AOC, or Rashida Tlaib, or Jamaal Bowman, et al., but we can defeat them with an avalanche of small donations."
"Over the next several days, we will announce endorsements for additional incumbents," Minsky continued. "Many excellent progressives will be added to this already-impressive list, a clear sign that progressive power and influence is growing in Congress and across the country."
https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/aoc-elon-musk-2657242582/
:{
}:
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pilloried the world's richest person and Twitter's new owner, Elon Musk, on Friday after he used the social media platform to equate the far-right and the far-left, implying that both are hateful.
"The far-left hates everyone, themselves included!" said Musk, the chief executive of Tesla whose net worth has skyrocketed to more than $200 billion during the Covid-19 pandemic. "But I'm no fan of the far-right either. Let's have less hate and more love."
"In Texas, Republicans passed a law allowing rapists to sue their victims for getting an abortion," Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) responded incredulously. "Can anyone name a 'far-left' policy that extreme implemented anywhere?We can't even get our party to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada."
Musk's Friday comments came less than 24 hours after he shared an image arguing that a "conservative" occupies the same ideological territory today as in 2008 while a "liberal" has moved increasingly leftward and become a "woke 'progressive'" unrecognizable to a centrist who once had more in common with the left but is now closer to the right.
Musk's argument about a supposed leftward shift couldn't be further from reality, according to critics.
Setting aside the fact that the Democratic Party as a whole has moved toward former President Ronald Reagan on many economic, carceral, and immigration policies since the late 1970s—resulting in more than four decades of bipartisan neoliberalism, which has only recently been challenged by a growing minority of progressive lawmakers—the Republican Party's rightward shift, which has been intensifying for decades, is completely ignored by Musk.
Georgetown University professor Don Moynihan responded to Musk's post by sharing evidence from thePew Research Center that shows how increasing political polarization in the U.S. Congress is being driven primarily by Republicans moving further and further right—not the other way around.
According to Pew's March analysis of lawmakers' roll-call votes, "Democrats and Republicans are farther apart ideologically today than at any time in the past 50 years." While Democrats have become slightly more liberal on a two-dimensional spectrum, Republicans have become "much more" conservative.
To take just one example of the GOP's creeping authoritarianism, Republican senators in 2006 voted unanimously to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Last November, only Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined Democrats in a failed bid to restore the landmark pro-democracy law.
Fueled by former President Donald Trump's "Big Lie" that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, Republican lawmakers at the state level have embarked on a nationwide assault on the franchise, passing 34 voter suppression laws in 2021 and introducing dozens more this year.
The GOP has also gone on an unprecedented censorship binge in recent months, banning books and threatening the job security of teachers across the nation. In addition, Republicans have been attacking abortion rights at a dangerous clip, as Ocasio-Cortez alluded to, as well as LGBTQ+ rights.
Meanwhile, progressive lawmakers who are advocating for universal access to healthcare—during a pandemic that has killed nearly one million Americans—and an accelerated clean energy transition to secure a livable planet are being stymied at every turn by corporate lobbyists and lawmakers in both parties.
pat morrissey esq staffer ag west va
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act
hastert? dubya tozzi?
wiki
For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favor to pass the vote 61-39.[16] The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.[17]
Costs[
Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. Administration official Thomas Scully instructed analyst Richard Foster not to tell Congress of Foster's finding that the cost would actually be over $500 billion. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.[18] As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion.[19]
Bar to negotiation of prescription drug prices[
Since the enactment of Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, only insurance companies administering Medicare prescription drug program, not Medicare, have the legal right to negotiate drug prices directly from drug manufacturers. The Medicare Prescription Drug Act expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating bulk prescription drug prices.[20] The "donut hole" provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was an attempt to correct the issue.[21]
bs reason mag
Cancer took 65 pounds off of me and beat the hell out of me," says Wilbert "Billy" Tauzin, the former congressman from Louisiana's third district. "Now I'm watching patients use medical marijuana products to get through that a lot easier than I did, and I'm thinking, 'Wow, why didn't we have that opportunity 15 years ago?'"
After serving in Congress from 1980 to 1995 as a Democrat and from 1995 to 2005 as a Republican, Tauzin made his way through the revolving door to PhRMA, the lobbying powerhouse that represents the American pharmaceutical industry. Now 75, Tauzin is living a third—some might say fourth—act as an advocate for marijuana reform with LenitivLabs, the medical cannabis company founded by TV host Montel Williams.
At this year's Cannabis World Congress and Business Exposition in New York City, Tauzin spoke to Reason's Nick Gillespie about the politics of pot.
Q: Do all former congressmen have to get cancer before we're going to get medical marijuana or recreational marijuana?
A: God, I hope not. I told the audience today that if Congress did a secret ballot, we'd win tomorrow easily.
Q: A lot of people in the legalization space are worried that Big Pharma will try to keep marijuana from becoming legal so it can't compete with their existing products. Are those concerns warranted?
A: The pharmaceutical industry is all about finding new medicines, and when it's legally possible for them to go to the [Food and Drug Administration] with medical marijuana products, they're going to be doing that. They're probably going to come around to cannabis entrepreneurs who've pioneered these medicines, and they're going to want to talk to you about acquiring your companies one day. But I don't think they're going to fight it. Q: Donald Trump said he would sign a bill returning marijuana laws and regulation to the states. Are you confident Congress will actually vote on something and Trump will sign it?...==
Former congressional staffer and established lobbyist John Blount has joined Tauzin Consultants.Blount started work for Tauzin in January, and brought six clients along with him from Capitol Hill Consulting Group, where he had worked as senior vice president.
“John Blount is great addition to our small yet growing business. His extensive experience on and off the Hill strengthens Tauzin Consultants and the services we provide immeasurably,” Tauzin Consultants said in a statement to The Hill.“We very much look forward to including such a senior legislative expert within our ranks.”
Blount had been with Capitol Hill Consulting Group since 2007. He confirmed to The Hill that six of his clients — DBA International, SCAN Health Plan, GSM Integrated Controls USA, the Committee to Save Independent HME Suppliers, the Industrial Safety Training Council and the Bituminous Coal Operators Association — followed him to the new firm. Capitol Hill Consulting Group recently filed termination reports for those clients.
Tauzin Consultants is the new lobbying venture of former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who retired from politics in 2005 and became the president and CEO of PhRMA, the top lobbying group for the drug industry. After leaving PhRMA in 2010, he co-founded Tauzin Consultants with his son, Thomas Tauzin. Thomas Tauzin also previously worked for Capitol Hill Consulting Group.
Blount served as a senior aide to three Republican members of the House during his time on Capitol Hill, including the late Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). He has also worked for the National Association of Realtors, where he lobbied for a decade.
This isn’t the first time some of his clients have stuck with Blount. The Industrial Safety Training Council has followed him through several firms, and the Bituminous Coal Operators Association has worked with him since 1999. Capitol Hill Consulting Group did not provide a statement on Blount’s departure.
==
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000067297
2017
| Issue | No. of Reports* | No. of Lobbyists |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation | 12 | 3 |
| Disaster & Emergency Planning | 9 | 4 |
| Environment & Superfund | 7 | 3 |
| Marine, Boats & Fisheries | 6 | 3 |
| Homeland Security | 6 | 4 |
| Energy & Nuclear Power | 3 | 3 |
| Fed Budget & Appropriations | 3 | 3 |
| Taxes | 3 | 4 |
| Finance | 3 | 3 |
| Radio & TV Broadcasting | 3 | 4 |
| Telecommunications | 3 | 4 |
| Veterans Affairs | 1 | 2 |
| Health Issues | 1 | 4 |
| Fuel, Gas & Oil | 1 | 2 |
==
| US House of Representatives | 12 |
|---|---|
| US Senate | 12 |
| Army Corps of Engineers | 7 |
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | 3 |
| Trade & Development Agency | 1 |
==
Billy Tauzin: Former chair of the the**Energy and Commerce Committee**, which had oversight of the drug industry, who after retiring from Congress in late 2004 started as head of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in January 2005.
==
gift keeps giving; premium up 22%
2m$ yr negot ACA w/BO to keep status quo on drugs, cf 2016 ca prop naacp ca sellout huffman
==
Billy Tauzin - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Billy**_**Tauzin**
2.
:{Jump to :(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:
Connections to **pharmaceutical** industry - Wilbert Joseph "Billy" Tauzin II is an American lobbyist and politician. He was President and CEO of ...
Personal life · Political career · Career as a lobbyist · Controversies
The Legacy of Billy Tauzin: The White House-PhRMA Deal - Sunlight ...
https://sunlightfoundation.com/.../the-legacy-of-**billy**-**tauzin**-the-...
2.
The Lobbyist Who Made You Pay More at the Drugstore - BillMoyers ...
billmoyers.com/.../the-man-who-made-you-pay-more-at-the-drugstore/
1.
One Deal Too Many Costs Billy Tauzin His Job - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/health/policy/13pharm.html
1.
Billy Tauzin Sells Out Big Pharma for $80 billion in Prescription Drug ...
www.wsj.com/.../SB10001424052970204251404574342700...
1.
How Big Pharma's Billy Tauzin conned the White House out of $76 ...
www.slate.com/articles/news.../obamas_biggest_health_reform_blunder.html
2.
Under The Influence - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/news/under-the-influence/
2.
Pharmaceutical industry, under scrutiny for prices, has history of big ...
https://www.opensecrets.org/.../**pharmaceutical**-industry-...
1.
Center for Responsive Politics
Former Rep. Billy Tauzin joins son's lobby firm | TheHill
thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/.../206792-billy-tauzin-joins-sons-lobby-firm
2.
Billy Tauzin - Huffington Post
www.huffingtonpost.com/news/billy-tauzin/
2.
scrutinizing another company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, for increasing the price of two heart drugs this year.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, have both released plans for lowering prescription drug prices.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, acutely aware of its image problem – 72 percent of Americans say prescription drug costs are unreasonable, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll – promptlydistanced itself from Turing (whose CEO has now said he will lower the price of Daraprim, the drug involved in the controversy). And the powerful industry trade group itself is in reboot mode with a new president and CEO, Stephen Ubl.
There’s work to be done, for sure, but the industry has never lacked for resources to amplify its voice in politics and policy making. Since 1999, pharmaceuticals/health products has poured more money annually into lobbying than any other industry, including $229 million last year alone. PhRMA led the group, plowing $16.6 million into helping advance drugmakers’ priorities in Washington.
Pharmaceutical company employees and PACs have also given big to politicians. During the last presidential cycle, federal candidates, political parties and outside spending groups received $51 million – the largest-ever total from the industry. In last year’s midterms, it provided $32.1 million.
What’s been the return on this substantial investment? For one thing, dodging a number of bullets bearing PhRMA’s name. One of the industry’s greatest victories has been preventing Medicare from being able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. That was ensured when Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which expanded Medicare to cover outpatient prescription drugs. The law also prohibited drug re-importation from Canada and Europe, where prices are often lower.
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president, he promised to resist the drug lobby. But he signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 without provisions allowing re-importation of drugs or giving Medicare the ability to negotiate prices.Billy Tauzin, who was a Republican representative from Louisiana at the time, helped push the bill through the House. He soon after left Congress and was named president and CEO of PhRMA, which came with an annual salary of about $2 million.
In 2009, at the height of the debate in Congress over passing Obamacare, lobbying peaked for drugmakers at $273 million. PhRMA and one of its members, Pfizer Inc, each spent over $25 million to lobby that year.
Running for re-election in 2012, Obama was the biggest individual recipient of pharmaceutical dollars, pulling in $2 million from the industry, which made up one of his top donor bases. His general election opponent, Mitt Romney, received almost as much at $1.98 million. Obama was even more popular with the industry in 2008, receiving $2.5 million, while John McCain received just $800,000.
This year, Obama suggested that lawmakers allow Medicare to negotiate down drug prices like the Department of Veterans Affairs does. But Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the president missed his chance when he was newly elected and Congress was under Democratic control.
“That was the time to act, but he didn’t,” said Angell, a strong critic of the pharmaceutical industry.
The vast majority of people surveyed in the Kaiser poll, 83 percent, want Medicare to be able to negotiate drug prices. Seventy-six percent want a limit on how much companies can charge for drugs that treat serious illnesses.
Clinton’s plan, like Sanders’, would allow Medicare to bargain over drug prices. John Castellani, PhRMA’s current president and CEO, quickly fired back after Clinton released her plan last month, saying in a statement that her “sweeping and far-reaching proposals would restrict patients’ access to medicines, result in fewer new treatments for patients, cost countless jobs across the country and erode our nation’s standing as the world leader in biomedical innovation.”
Recently, pharmaceutical companies have set their sights on the 21st Century Cures Act, a bill to accelerate new drug approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Castellani has said that the legislation would help “ensure biomedical advances continue and are available to the patients who need them to live longer, healthier lives.”
Critics like Diana Zuckerman, the president of the National Center for Health Research, argue that speeding up the process means smaller studies that fail to show whether a drug correlates with not only short-term changes – like, for example, a tumor shrinking over a few months – but also living longer, spending less time in the hospital and experiencing a better quality of life.
But the industry has plenty of friends on Capitol Hill: During the last election cycle, pharmaceuticals employees and PACs gave hundreds of thousands of dollars each to GOP congressional leaders: (soon-to-be former) House SpeakerJohn Boehner (R-Ohio) ($255,800), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) ($253,500), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ($363,373) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) ($208,050). Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who introduced the 21st Century Cures Act, received $302,700.
The largest Democratic recipients included Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) ($310,050) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) ($308,150), who are both members of the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, one of the congressional committees that can impact the industry. Former Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), who lost reelection, accepted $284,449. The pharmaceutical industry is an important part of North Carolina’s economy.
Pfizer Inc, Amgen Inc and McKesson Corp were the biggest donors during the 2014 cycle, with each contributing over $1 million.
Categories: Industries Influence & Lobbying Issues and Legislation Lobbying Pharmaceutical/Health products
Tags: Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Billy Tauzin, Daraprim, Diana Zuckerman,George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Castellani, Kaiser Family Foundation, lobbying, Marcia Angell, Martin Shkreli, medicare, Medicare Modernization Act, medicare part d, obamacare, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, pharmaceuticals/health products industry, phrma, Sunlight Foundation, Turing Pharmaceuticals
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/10/pharmaceutical-industry-under-scrutiny-for-prices-has-history-of-big-political-wins/
==
Spencer,a staffer attached to the Republican cohort of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was an obvious choice. Under previous chairman Billy Tauzin, he had been instrumental in organizing **an Oversight and Investigations subcommittee hearing on the use of climate models in the U.S. National Assessment**in 2002. That session heard from a “balanced” panel of five scientists that included climate science critics Patrick Michaels and Roger Pielke, Sr. (Spencer has kept up his interest in climate science; he accepted a**trip to the 2009 Heartland Institute*****International Conference on Climate Change***in New York, with Barton’s approval).
Tauzin says he and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey were the original architects of the tea party. In 1997, Tauzin writes, he and Armey staged a series of debates held in 40 cities called "Scrap the Code," which called for a flat tax and a national retail sales tax.
:{
The tour kicked off in the Boston Harbor, where Tauzin said he tossed overboard a chest containing the then-1,100-page Tax Code (it’s now longer). During each of his stops, he called for a new American tea party, he said. Armey argued on behalf of a flat tax over the current income tax system.
}:
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
malware in survey?]
==
this town: the alex rodriguez of lobby 180; 11.6m$ 2010 p 169
energy bill 2003 tauzin, delay domenici, ethanol, mod gop got anwr out in return for new power plants and hummer 100K tax break, protected delay biggest donor lyondell chem from mtbe suits and keep on mkt max p 113 "oinking mastodon" heritage and cato! did not pass, big defeat b2, but redone next yr
rfk2:
ch 8
dascle held energy bill 18 mos till gop got both houses in 1/2003 Delay and
energy comm chair Billy Tauzin passed, but know it cd not pass, so bait
and switched: passed dem bill then rewrote it w/o dems 145, just energy lobby
;released the bill Sat night, 3 days to review 1200 pages 147 damage env and add
to debt (100B tax breaks McC: no lobbyist left behind" for Hooters and Polluters.
Halib tax break to frack ; worst bill for envir in 25 yrs (back to newt Reg reform")
More for oil, more ghg.ethanol subsid peeled off demos, incl daschle and harkin;
DC and lobbists worked hard; even WSJ deplored pork for votes 149
House passed Domenici onmibus? bill [same as energy bill?], but sen filibuster.
WSJ "cornucopia of special interst payoffs" 151 some gop sununu held out, big debt
and MTBE outrage (delay, tauzin and barton)"Major Threat to Better Earnings' etc
shell jokes; used b/c lobby tho more $ than ethanol 155 cost to clean cd be $29-46
billion, co try to dodge .
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Billy_Tauzin
Former Republican Congressman Billy Tauzin commenced work as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in early January 2005. Tauzin is also registered as a lobbyist for PhRMA. ^[1]
Tauzin was criticised by Democrats early in 2004 when it was rumoured he was negotiating with the drug industry over a possible job.Tauzin had spent almost a full year shepherding the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Bill through Congress. The pharmaceutical industry will reap windfall profits from the Medicare drug bill.
Tauzin resigned as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight of the drug industry, and did not re-contest his seat in the November 2004 eleection. In December 2004 PhRMA confirmed that Tauzin would head the organization. ^[2]^
USA Today reported in January 2005 that Tauzin's pay package is rumoured to be greater than $2 million a year. ^[3]
Other SourceWatch resources
References
- ↑ "Drug Trade Group Spent $10.7M Lobbying", Associated Press, August 17, 2007.
- ↑ Judy Sarasohn, "Tauzin to Head Drug Trade Group", Washington Post, December 16, 2004.
- ↑ William M. Welch, "Tauzin switches sides from drug industry overseer to lobbyist", USA TODAY, December 15, 2004.
External links
- Frank Ahrens, "24 Tauzin Expected To Leave House For Trade Group. Lawmaker Declined Hollywood Job", Washington Post, January 2004: "Rep. W.J. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) is close to a decision to leave Congress to head the pharmaceutical industry's trade association (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the trade group that represents drug giants such as Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co.) after turning down an offer from Hollywood to succeed Jack Valenti as the movie industry's top lobbyist, sources in Washington and California said yesterday."
- Jeanne Lenzer, "Ties between regulators and business are attacked after politician takes top job in industry", British Medical Journal, Volume 330, No 7842, January 8, 2005.
==
Buying Legislators Can Be Expensive
Today’s system of buying legislators is effective but somewhat expensive. This system involves investing in the purchase of numerous legislators through campaign contributions and/or offers of lucrative post-government-service jobs to legislators and staffers. This system generates tremendous returns—a few million spread around can yield billions.
The poster-child of this old system, of course, remains Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA), who was chairman of the committee in the House that regulates the pharmaceutical industry. Tauzin ushered through the Medicare prescription drug program that was so beneficial to the pharmaceutical industry. He retired very soon after it passed **to take a job as head of the pharmaceutical lobbying group**, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. According to **Bloomberg News** Tauzin received lobbying income of $11.6 million in 2010.
Average Congresscritter gets 1,452% raises when they turn corporate lobbyist
By Cory Doctorow at 5:55 pm Saturday, Mar 17
Republic Report has released figures documenting the fact that the average member of Congress gets a 1,452% salary hike when she or he leaves office and becomes a corporate lobbyist. They point out that politicians are allowed to negotiate these raises while they are in office, and don't have to disclose this fact when they're working on legislation that will benefit their future employers. One of the poster children for this is former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) who fought against financial reforms to the derivatives market, then joined the board of a derivatives-trading company and was given an advisory role at Goldman Sachs.
Our research effort uncovered the partial salaries of twelve lawmakers-turned-lobbyists. Republic Report’s investigation found that lawmakers increased their salary by 1452% on average from the last year they were in office to the latest publicly available disclosure:
Former CongressmanBilly Tauzin (R-LA) made $19,359,927 as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies between 2006 and 2010.Tauzin retired from Congress in 2005, shortly after leading the passage of President Bush’s prescription drug expansion. He was recruited to lead PhRMA, a lobbying association for Pfizer, Bayer, and other top drug companies. During the health reform debate, the former congressman helped his association block a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate for drug prices, a major concession that extended the policies enacted in Tauzin’s original Medicare drug-purchasing scheme. Tauzin left PhRMA in late 2010. He was paid over $11 million in his last year at the trade group. Comparing Tauzin’s salary during his last year as congressman and his last year as head of PhRMA, his salary went up 7110%.
Former Congressman Cal Dooley (D-CA) has made at least $4,719,093 as a lobbyist for food manufacturers and the chemical industry from 2005 to 2009. Republic Report analyzed disclosures from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), an industry lobby — for companies like Kellogg — where Dooley worked following his retirement from Congress. We also added in Dooley’s salary from the American Chemistry Council, where Dooley now works as the president. The Chemistry Council represents Dow Chemical, DuPont, and other chemical interests. Dooley’s salary jumped 1357% between his last year in the House and his last reported salary for the Chemistry Council in 2009.
Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) makes approximately $1.5 million a year as the chief lobbyist for the movie industry. Dodd, who retired from the Senate after 2010, was hired by the Motion Picture Association of America, the lobbying association that represents major studios like Warner Bros. and Universal Studios. Although the MPAA would not confirm with Republic Report Dodd’s exact salary, media accounts point to $1.5 million, a slightly higher figure than the previous MPAA head, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. Dodd received about a 762% raise after moving from public office to lobbying.
ANALYSIS: When a Congressman Becomes a Lobbyist, He Gets a 1,452% Raise (on Average)
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | ADVANCED COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS LLC | 400671007-51 |
|---|---|---|
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP | 400671007-176 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | ASSOCIATION OF AIR MEDICAL SERVICES | 400671007-152 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | BITUMINOUS COAL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC. | 400671007-90 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | CAPTURERX | 400671007-75 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | COMMITTEE TO SAVE INDEPENDENT HME SUPPLIERS, LLC | 400671007-101 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | DBA INTERNATIONAL | 400671007-87 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | EXOTIC WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION | 400671007-137 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | GC BARNES GROUP, LLC | 400671007-188 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | GSM INTEGRATED CONTROLS USA | 400671007-63 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | GUARDIAN ANALYTICS | 400671007-24 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | INDUSTRIAL SAFETY TRAINING COUNCIL | 400671007-113 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | INVACARE CORPORATION | 400671007-140 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | JAMES R. WOODHILL | 400671007-36 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | RESILIENT NETWORK SYSTEMS, INC. | 400671007-12 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | SCAN HEALTH PLAN | 400671007-125 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | ST. CHARLES PARISH | 400671007-48 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN CONSULTANTS, LLC | VGM GROUP, INC. | 400671007-164 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN STRATEGIC NETWORKS | EMD SERONO | 400786367-24 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN STRATEGIC NETWORKS | ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | 400786367-36 |
 | | |
| TAUZIN STRATEGIC NETWORKS | PARTNERSHIP FOR QUALITY HOME HEALTHCARE | 400786367-12 |