Obama Says Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups Are Blocking Key Rural Reforms
Des Moines, IA | July 27, 2007
DES MOINES, IA - At a Rural Issues Forum in Adel, U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today said that Washington lobbyists and special interest groups were working to block key reforms that would help family farmers and renewable fuel producers and increase conservation. Obama said he came to Adel to listen to real-life experts on rural issues before outlining his final policy.
"Washington lobbyists are working in Congress to block the rural reforms you need," Obama said. "Rather than investing in rural opportunity, our government is handing out subsidies to corporate mega-farms. Over the past decade, our government hashanded out $1.3 billion in federal farm money to people who aren't even farmers. We've even got farm money going to Fortune 500 companies."
Obama said we have an important opportunity with the farm bill before Congress to ensure that our government is serving family farmers, and not factory farms, and to strengthen a range of efforts to protect and conserve our natural resources, like land and water, and promote rural economic development. Obama said Congress also has an opportunity to do more to promote energy legislation that will help build a strong renewable domestic energy industry.
Obama said that talking with average Americans who live in rural communities, like he did during his time in the U.S. Senate and eight years in the Illinois state senate, is crucial to creating plans to strengthen and revitalize rural communities.
"Today is just the first step," Obama said. "In the coming weeks, members of my rural policy committee will be traveling the state to hear your ideas and insights as we develop our policies on the issues affecting rural America. Then, next month, I'm hosting a rural summit focusing on economic development and quality of life, agriculture, and renewable energy. And I hope you'll take part in that, because I want to hear from you."
Obama said he has asked a number of Iowans to lead the effort to create and enact his rural agenda. Below are some members of Obama's rural advisory committee:
- Mike Dunn, of Keokuk, is the former Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs during the Clinton administration.
- Gary Lamb, of Chelsea, has farmed for 55 years and has served as president of the Iowa Farmers Union, chairman of the Iowa State Committee of the Farm Service Agency and as an agricultural liaison for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
- Neil Hamilton, of Waukee, is director of the Agricultural Law Center at Drake University. In 2000, he was appointed by Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as chairman of the Iowa Food Policy Council.
Login to my.BarackObama.comSign up for my.BarackObama.comTEXT HOPE TO 62262
VolunteerPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service
Link- http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/27/obama_says_lobbyists_and_speci.php
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Unlikely Lobbyists
*This video is about the different types of organizations that are registered to lobby on the health care reform bill.*
Link- http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/01/04/costello.am.special.interests.cnn
Obama's Take on Interest Groups
Link- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkhuvv5iGM&feature=player_embedded
Interest Groups and Television Part 3
Public Interest Groups Seek TV Everywhere Probe
By Mansha Daswani
Published: January 4, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C.: A number of public interest groups in the U.S. are calling on the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department to investigate the TV Everywhere initiative, which will allow online access to several channels for pay-TV subscribers.
Last month, cable giant Comcast launched Fancast XFINITY TV, a new on-demand online service that provides access to thousands of hours of cable shows, movies and independently produced content free of charge to its pay-TV customers. Time Warner Cable and other platforms are conducting their own trials to offer cable channels' programming online to subscribers.
According to the Washington Post, Free Press and several other public advocacy groups maintain that TV Everywhere will grant major platforms, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and DIRECTV, unfair dominance over the online video industry, edging out competitors such as Hulu and Vuze.
Link- http://www.worldscreen.com/articles/display/23746
By Mansha Daswani
Published: January 4, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C.: A number of public interest groups in the U.S. are calling on the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department to investigate the TV Everywhere initiative, which will allow online access to several channels for pay-TV subscribers.
Last month, cable giant Comcast launched Fancast XFINITY TV, a new on-demand online service that provides access to thousands of hours of cable shows, movies and independently produced content free of charge to its pay-TV customers. Time Warner Cable and other platforms are conducting their own trials to offer cable channels' programming online to subscribers.
According to the Washington Post, Free Press and several other public advocacy groups maintain that TV Everywhere will grant major platforms, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and DIRECTV, unfair dominance over the online video industry, edging out competitors such as Hulu and Vuze.
Link- http://www.worldscreen.com/articles/display/23746
Interest Groups and Television Part 2
Public Interest Groups Call on Congress, Justice to Investigate TV Everywhere
Groups argue online video effort is a cable industry assault on "open TV"
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, January 4, 2010
Free Press and a number of other groups are calling on Congress and the Justice Department to investigate TV Everywhere, the online video effort led by Comcast and Time Warner.
Free Press, joined by Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union, allege "collusion" in a letter to Congress. "We're basically saying that the point of antitrust is that these companies aren't supposed to work together to keep competitors out of the market."
The report is from Free Press legal fellow and University of Nebraska law professor Marvin Ammori, who has argued that TV Everywhere is an assault by the cable industry on "open TV."
It also comes as no surprise from groups that have been critical of the cable effort from the outset.
The groups were said to be scrambling to get the report out Monday, which would be in advance of Comcast's expected public interest filing with the FCC as it seeks to merge with NBCU.
One of the criticisms leveled at that deal is its competitive affect on the Hulu online video site in which NBC is a major player.
"Time Warner is committed to providing consumers who subscribe to cable, satellite, telephone or other multi-video platforms with more value for their money, by allowing them to watch their favorite shows when they want to watch them on both their TVs and over the Internet at no additional charge," said the company in a statement. "That is what TV Everywhere is, and it is quite plainly beneficial for consumers. We will also continue to pursue many other ways to distribute in a safe and secure way over the Internet our content to people, whether or not they subscribe to a video service."
Link- http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/print/442264-Public_Interest_Groups_Call_on_Congress_Justice_to_Investigate_TV_Everywhere.php
Groups argue online video effort is a cable industry assault on "open TV"
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, January 4, 2010
Free Press and a number of other groups are calling on Congress and the Justice Department to investigate TV Everywhere, the online video effort led by Comcast and Time Warner.
Free Press, joined by Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Consumers Union, allege "collusion" in a letter to Congress. "We're basically saying that the point of antitrust is that these companies aren't supposed to work together to keep competitors out of the market."
The report is from Free Press legal fellow and University of Nebraska law professor Marvin Ammori, who has argued that TV Everywhere is an assault by the cable industry on "open TV."
It also comes as no surprise from groups that have been critical of the cable effort from the outset.
The groups were said to be scrambling to get the report out Monday, which would be in advance of Comcast's expected public interest filing with the FCC as it seeks to merge with NBCU.
One of the criticisms leveled at that deal is its competitive affect on the Hulu online video site in which NBC is a major player.
"Time Warner is committed to providing consumers who subscribe to cable, satellite, telephone or other multi-video platforms with more value for their money, by allowing them to watch their favorite shows when they want to watch them on both their TVs and over the Internet at no additional charge," said the company in a statement. "That is what TV Everywhere is, and it is quite plainly beneficial for consumers. We will also continue to pursue many other ways to distribute in a safe and secure way over the Internet our content to people, whether or not they subscribe to a video service."
Link- http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/print/442264-Public_Interest_Groups_Call_on_Congress_Justice_to_Investigate_TV_Everywhere.php
Interest Groups and Television
Public interest groups call for antitrust probe of TV Everywhere
By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010; A09
Public interest groups on Monday will call for federal antitrust watchdogs to investigate an industry-wide strategy by television service providers that they say will strap users to unnecessarily high monthly subscription fees and stifle competition.
Free Press and other public advocacy groups are sending letters Monday to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission calling for a probe of the "TV Everywhere" plan by cable, satellite and phone companies that brings television shows and movies to computers and devices, but only for those that subscribe to both television and high-speed Internet services.
The result, the groups say, would allow Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Verizon and Direct TV to unfairly maintain dominance over the burgeoning online video industry by elbowing out online video competitors such as Apple, Hulu and Vuze.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation's largest cable service providers, declined to comment. The Justice Department and the FTC did not respond to requests Sunday for comment.
Cable companies are by far the largest providers of paid video services. Comcast, the nation's biggest cable and Internet service provider, launched its version of TV Everywhere, called XFinity, two weeks ago, allowing subscribers of Internet and television services to access some shows -- such as "Mad Men" and "Entourage" -- for free over computers and devices. Time Warner Cable and other television service providers are conducting trials of similar services and are expected to follow suit.
The public interest groups allege collusion between video service providers such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Verizon and Direct TV to keep video content behind a subscription-based pay wall.
Programmers of content -- Viacom and NBC Universal, for example -- are inclined to keep traditional business arrangements with cable and satellite video companies who have subscription fees and a guaranteed audience that advertisers like, according to the public interest groups. As such, they are "starving" new competitors to cable and satellite firms such as Boxee and Vuze who need access to choice shows and movies to attract viewers.
Kyle McSlarrow, chief executive of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, disagreed with the claims of collusion. He said TV Everywhere strategies give free online content to subscribers.
"The fact that market participants are experimenting with models in addition to fee- or advertiser-supported models is not a sign of anti-competitive conduct," he said. "It is a sign of a dynamic and rapidly changing market in which no one knows the ultimate outcome."
Hulu, with 44 million viewers, is a broadcast industry collaborative that puts some television shows online for free. But the online service is struggling to make money.
"The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves," said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska and senior adviser to Free Press. Ammori wrote a report submitted to Justice and the FTC on how TV Everywhere could affect video distribution online.
The public interest groups point to reports by the general media and trade publications that say cable, satellite and telecommunications providers met secretly to launch the TV Everywhere initiative. The competitors agreed to divide markets, raise prices, tie products and exclude new competitors, Ammori wrote in his report.
The letters by the public interest groups come at a pivotal time for the television and movie industries. Comcast is seeking regulatory approval of its $30 billion merger with NBC Universal, which would marry the nation's largest cable and broadband Internet service provider with a media powerhouse. The combined company would control about one in five hours of television content.
At the Consumer Electronics Show later this week, a major theme will be online entertainment and innovations in the distribution of television and movies over devices and computers. On Friday, a federal court will hear oral arguments in Comcast's appeal of a federal ruling against it for blocking the online file-sharing application BitTorrent on its Internet network. Consumer groups say BitTorrent was in direct competition with Comcast for video services.
"TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate competition at a pivotal moment in the history of television," Ammori said. "The antitrust authorities should not stand by and let the cable cartel crush Internet TV before it gets off the ground."
Albert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute, said that if regulators investigate, they will explore how the industry plans could be a collaborative effort to
Link- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010301921_pf.html
By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010; A09
Public interest groups on Monday will call for federal antitrust watchdogs to investigate an industry-wide strategy by television service providers that they say will strap users to unnecessarily high monthly subscription fees and stifle competition.
Free Press and other public advocacy groups are sending letters Monday to the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission calling for a probe of the "TV Everywhere" plan by cable, satellite and phone companies that brings television shows and movies to computers and devices, but only for those that subscribe to both television and high-speed Internet services.
The result, the groups say, would allow Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, Verizon and Direct TV to unfairly maintain dominance over the burgeoning online video industry by elbowing out online video competitors such as Apple, Hulu and Vuze.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation's largest cable service providers, declined to comment. The Justice Department and the FTC did not respond to requests Sunday for comment.
Cable companies are by far the largest providers of paid video services. Comcast, the nation's biggest cable and Internet service provider, launched its version of TV Everywhere, called XFinity, two weeks ago, allowing subscribers of Internet and television services to access some shows -- such as "Mad Men" and "Entourage" -- for free over computers and devices. Time Warner Cable and other television service providers are conducting trials of similar services and are expected to follow suit.
The public interest groups allege collusion between video service providers such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Verizon and Direct TV to keep video content behind a subscription-based pay wall.
Programmers of content -- Viacom and NBC Universal, for example -- are inclined to keep traditional business arrangements with cable and satellite video companies who have subscription fees and a guaranteed audience that advertisers like, according to the public interest groups. As such, they are "starving" new competitors to cable and satellite firms such as Boxee and Vuze who need access to choice shows and movies to attract viewers.
Kyle McSlarrow, chief executive of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, disagreed with the claims of collusion. He said TV Everywhere strategies give free online content to subscribers.
"The fact that market participants are experimenting with models in addition to fee- or advertiser-supported models is not a sign of anti-competitive conduct," he said. "It is a sign of a dynamic and rapidly changing market in which no one knows the ultimate outcome."
Hulu, with 44 million viewers, is a broadcast industry collaborative that puts some television shows online for free. But the online service is struggling to make money.
"The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves," said Marvin Ammori, a law professor at the University of Nebraska and senior adviser to Free Press. Ammori wrote a report submitted to Justice and the FTC on how TV Everywhere could affect video distribution online.
The public interest groups point to reports by the general media and trade publications that say cable, satellite and telecommunications providers met secretly to launch the TV Everywhere initiative. The competitors agreed to divide markets, raise prices, tie products and exclude new competitors, Ammori wrote in his report.
The letters by the public interest groups come at a pivotal time for the television and movie industries. Comcast is seeking regulatory approval of its $30 billion merger with NBC Universal, which would marry the nation's largest cable and broadband Internet service provider with a media powerhouse. The combined company would control about one in five hours of television content.
At the Consumer Electronics Show later this week, a major theme will be online entertainment and innovations in the distribution of television and movies over devices and computers. On Friday, a federal court will hear oral arguments in Comcast's appeal of a federal ruling against it for blocking the online file-sharing application BitTorrent on its Internet network. Consumer groups say BitTorrent was in direct competition with Comcast for video services.
"TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate competition at a pivotal moment in the history of television," Ammori said. "The antitrust authorities should not stand by and let the cable cartel crush Internet TV before it gets off the ground."
Albert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute, said that if regulators investigate, they will explore how the industry plans could be a collaborative effort to
Link- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010301921_pf.html
Interest Groups and health-care legislation
How interest groups behind health-care legislation are financed is often unclear
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 7, 2010; A01
Many of the Washington interest groups that are seeking to shape final health-care legislation in the coming weeks operate with opaque financing, often receiving hidden support from insurers, drugmakers or unions.
The groups, some newly formed and others reappearing with different sponsors, have spent months staging noisy protests, organizing letter-writing campaigns and contributing to a record $200 million advertising blitz on health-care reform.
Now, interest groups are making a last-minute push as Democrats begin working out the differences between the House and Senate health-care bills. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said after a White House meeting Wednesday that negotiators are "very close" to an agreement.
The compressed time frame gives outside groups one more chance to attempt to derail the legislation or influence it to their advantage. But in many cases, it is hard to tell where their money is coming from.
The Institute for Liberty, for example, was a one-man conservative interest group with a Virginia post office box and less than $25,000 in revenue in 2008. Now, the organization has a Web site, a downtown Washington office and a $1 million advocacy campaign opposing President Obama's health-care plans.
Andrew Langer, the group's president, said the organization receives no funding from health-care firms but declined to provide details. "This year has been really serendipitous for us," he said. "But we don't talk about specific donors."
The biggest spenders in the health-care debate are well-known Washington veterans with clear constituencies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is representing corporate titans who are against reform, and a well-organized network of labor organizations pushing for the legislation. Health Care for America Now, for example, is a consortium of unions and liberal groups that expects to spend $42 million on its wide-ranging pro-reform campaign.
More elusive groups
But outside such established interest groups is a significant but more elusive collection of organizations, many of them particularly energized in opposition to Democratic health-care reform efforts. Most are organized as nonprofits, meaning they do not have to reveal many financial details beyond basic revenue and expenses. Some are bankrolled by charitable foundations with a political bent or by industries with a financial stake in the debate; nearly all use names that seem designed to obscure their origins.
The Partnership to Improve Patient Care, for example, headed by former congressman Tony Coelho (D-Calif.), was formed by the drug industry in November 2008 to lobby against binding government effectiveness studies, which could be used to determine what insurance companies must cover. The American Council on Science and Health is an industry-friendly group whose board member Betsy McCaughey helped set off the "death panels" frenzy last year.
"It's sort of like money-laundering their PR," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal-leaning group that runs a Web site called PRWatch.org. "A lot of these groups are heavily funded by corporations and then don't reveal it. They try to imply that they are funded primarily by individuals, but that's clearly not the case."
The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) is a New York-based think tank headed by Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who appears frequently on newscasts condemning Democratic health-care proposals. CMPI is an offshoot of the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute, which has received foundation grants over the years from Philip Morris, Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, according to public records.
While serving as president of CMPI, Pitts also works as the global health-care chief at Porter Novelli, a New York public relations firm whose clients include Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth and Pfizer. He acknowledges that CMPI also receives money from the pharmaceutical industry, which is supporting reform legislation in exchange for a White House promise to limit cuts.
Pitts said he sees no conflict between his two roles, saying the jobs "are completely separate." Tax filings show that Pitts earned a $250,000 salary from CMPI in 2007, when he also headed another firm's global health-care practice.
"We support health-care reform, we just want to do it appropriately," Pitts said of CMPI. "Sometimes it puts us in the same camp as pharmaceutical companies; sometimes it doesn't."
Many of the groups on the right receive funding from a network of influential conservative foundations, including those connected to the Koch brothers of Wichita, Kan., who run the largest private energy firm in the United States. Records show that the Koch-connected Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, for example, has given $3.1 million to Americans for Prosperity, a group that has taken a leading role in organizing "tea party protests" and other anti-reform efforts.
Chris Harris, communications director for the liberal Media Matters Action Network, which tracks conservative groups, said "the conservative movement has been hijacked by a handful of wealthy corporations and right-wing foundations."
Conservatives counter that liberal groups are beholden to labor unions and liberal foundations with deep pockets. HCAN, which occupies a leading role in advocating for health-care reform, has received$8 million from the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union and other labor groups, said Richard Kirsch, the group's national campaign director. But the bulk of the group's funding comes from Atlantic Philanthropies, a private liberal foundation created by billionaire Charles F. "Chuck" Feeney, he said.
"We're transparent about which of the groups or stakeholders in the health system fund us," Kirsch said. "I think that sets us apart from most other groups in this debate."
One of the leading anti-reform groups, Conservatives for Patients' Rights, was founded last year by Rick Scott, a former hospital executive who runs a chain of walk-in clinics in Florida. Scott, who was pushed out as chief executive at Columbia/HCA amid a fraud investigation in the 1990s, has personally paid for more than half of a $10 million ad campaign by his group, a spokesman said.
History of opposition
Other groups have a long history of opposition to government involvement in health care. The Tucson-based Association of American Physicians and Surgeons was formed in the late 1940s in reaction to early efforts at universal care and has opposed government involvement in medicine since then, including Medicare, Medicaid and mandatory vaccination programs. The group garnered attention last year for staging anti-reform rallies featuring doctors in white medical coats. Spokeswoman Kathryn Serkes said the group relies on $325 in annual dues from about 4,000 members for its operating costs.
Another major player, the 60 Plus Association, bills itself as a conservative alternative to AARP, the 40 million-member seniors group. Sixty Plus has saturated the airwaves with more than $9 million worth of television spots in recent months, alleging that senior citizens could lose their doctors and that the government "will decide if older patients are worth the cost."
Founder and President James L. Martin declined to provide details about the group's funding, but said it has received no donations from drugmakers, insurers or the Republican Party. In 2007 -- the last year for which tax information is available -- 60 Plus reported less than $2 million in revenue and no membership dues.
"We've never claimed to be a dues-paying membership group," Martin said. "We're a voluntary organization with over 500,000 supporters who have made donations over the years. . . . This wasn't a big concerted effort, I don't care what the left says about it."
Link- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010605160_pf.html
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 7, 2010; A01
Many of the Washington interest groups that are seeking to shape final health-care legislation in the coming weeks operate with opaque financing, often receiving hidden support from insurers, drugmakers or unions.
The groups, some newly formed and others reappearing with different sponsors, have spent months staging noisy protests, organizing letter-writing campaigns and contributing to a record $200 million advertising blitz on health-care reform.
Now, interest groups are making a last-minute push as Democrats begin working out the differences between the House and Senate health-care bills. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said after a White House meeting Wednesday that negotiators are "very close" to an agreement.
The compressed time frame gives outside groups one more chance to attempt to derail the legislation or influence it to their advantage. But in many cases, it is hard to tell where their money is coming from.
The Institute for Liberty, for example, was a one-man conservative interest group with a Virginia post office box and less than $25,000 in revenue in 2008. Now, the organization has a Web site, a downtown Washington office and a $1 million advocacy campaign opposing President Obama's health-care plans.
Andrew Langer, the group's president, said the organization receives no funding from health-care firms but declined to provide details. "This year has been really serendipitous for us," he said. "But we don't talk about specific donors."
The biggest spenders in the health-care debate are well-known Washington veterans with clear constituencies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is representing corporate titans who are against reform, and a well-organized network of labor organizations pushing for the legislation. Health Care for America Now, for example, is a consortium of unions and liberal groups that expects to spend $42 million on its wide-ranging pro-reform campaign.
More elusive groups
But outside such established interest groups is a significant but more elusive collection of organizations, many of them particularly energized in opposition to Democratic health-care reform efforts. Most are organized as nonprofits, meaning they do not have to reveal many financial details beyond basic revenue and expenses. Some are bankrolled by charitable foundations with a political bent or by industries with a financial stake in the debate; nearly all use names that seem designed to obscure their origins.
The Partnership to Improve Patient Care, for example, headed by former congressman Tony Coelho (D-Calif.), was formed by the drug industry in November 2008 to lobby against binding government effectiveness studies, which could be used to determine what insurance companies must cover. The American Council on Science and Health is an industry-friendly group whose board member Betsy McCaughey helped set off the "death panels" frenzy last year.
"It's sort of like money-laundering their PR," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal-leaning group that runs a Web site called PRWatch.org. "A lot of these groups are heavily funded by corporations and then don't reveal it. They try to imply that they are funded primarily by individuals, but that's clearly not the case."
The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) is a New York-based think tank headed by Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who appears frequently on newscasts condemning Democratic health-care proposals. CMPI is an offshoot of the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute, which has received foundation grants over the years from Philip Morris, Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, according to public records.
While serving as president of CMPI, Pitts also works as the global health-care chief at Porter Novelli, a New York public relations firm whose clients include Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth and Pfizer. He acknowledges that CMPI also receives money from the pharmaceutical industry, which is supporting reform legislation in exchange for a White House promise to limit cuts.
Pitts said he sees no conflict between his two roles, saying the jobs "are completely separate." Tax filings show that Pitts earned a $250,000 salary from CMPI in 2007, when he also headed another firm's global health-care practice.
"We support health-care reform, we just want to do it appropriately," Pitts said of CMPI. "Sometimes it puts us in the same camp as pharmaceutical companies; sometimes it doesn't."
Many of the groups on the right receive funding from a network of influential conservative foundations, including those connected to the Koch brothers of Wichita, Kan., who run the largest private energy firm in the United States. Records show that the Koch-connected Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, for example, has given $3.1 million to Americans for Prosperity, a group that has taken a leading role in organizing "tea party protests" and other anti-reform efforts.
Chris Harris, communications director for the liberal Media Matters Action Network, which tracks conservative groups, said "the conservative movement has been hijacked by a handful of wealthy corporations and right-wing foundations."
Conservatives counter that liberal groups are beholden to labor unions and liberal foundations with deep pockets. HCAN, which occupies a leading role in advocating for health-care reform, has received$8 million from the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union and other labor groups, said Richard Kirsch, the group's national campaign director. But the bulk of the group's funding comes from Atlantic Philanthropies, a private liberal foundation created by billionaire Charles F. "Chuck" Feeney, he said.
"We're transparent about which of the groups or stakeholders in the health system fund us," Kirsch said. "I think that sets us apart from most other groups in this debate."
One of the leading anti-reform groups, Conservatives for Patients' Rights, was founded last year by Rick Scott, a former hospital executive who runs a chain of walk-in clinics in Florida. Scott, who was pushed out as chief executive at Columbia/HCA amid a fraud investigation in the 1990s, has personally paid for more than half of a $10 million ad campaign by his group, a spokesman said.
History of opposition
Other groups have a long history of opposition to government involvement in health care. The Tucson-based Association of American Physicians and Surgeons was formed in the late 1940s in reaction to early efforts at universal care and has opposed government involvement in medicine since then, including Medicare, Medicaid and mandatory vaccination programs. The group garnered attention last year for staging anti-reform rallies featuring doctors in white medical coats. Spokeswoman Kathryn Serkes said the group relies on $325 in annual dues from about 4,000 members for its operating costs.
Another major player, the 60 Plus Association, bills itself as a conservative alternative to AARP, the 40 million-member seniors group. Sixty Plus has saturated the airwaves with more than $9 million worth of television spots in recent months, alleging that senior citizens could lose their doctors and that the government "will decide if older patients are worth the cost."
Founder and President James L. Martin declined to provide details about the group's funding, but said it has received no donations from drugmakers, insurers or the Republican Party. In 2007 -- the last year for which tax information is available -- 60 Plus reported less than $2 million in revenue and no membership dues.
"We've never claimed to be a dues-paying membership group," Martin said. "We're a voluntary organization with over 500,000 supporters who have made donations over the years. . . . This wasn't a big concerted effort, I don't care what the left says about it."
Link- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010605160_pf.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)