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
When Interest Groups go Too Far
Commentary: When interest groups go too far
Story Highlights
Zelizer: Interest groups are focus of controversy over disruptive town hall tactics
He says it's not clear if the protests are largely being stage-managed
He says interest groups are playing a bigger role in American democracy
Zelizer: There's a danger that interest groups will choke off real debate
By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events.
PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Last week, Americans saw some disturbing images. During town hall meetings about health care reform, legislators and citizens were loudly interrupted and intimidated by members of the audience who refused to let them speak.
We don't yet have solid evidence as to whether the protesters were local citizens simply expressing their genuine concerns about the cost of the health care proposals -- concerns that have been showing up in recent polls -- or whether they were people primarily recruited and sent into these meetings by such groups as FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and Conservatives for Patients' Rights.
At the same time, we did learn last week that a firm hired by the coal industry sent fake letters to members of Congress, allegedly from Latino and African-American organizations, opposing climate and energy legislation.
The letters were sent on behalf of an industry group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, by a subcontractor, Bonner Associates, a firm that manages grassroots campaigns on behalf of interest groups. The coal industry said it was outraged to learn of the fake letters, and Bonner blamed them on a temporary employee who it said has been fired. The incident brought to mind "Astroturf" campaigns, which are sophisticated lobbying operations that give the impression of an actual grassroots mobilization.
While advocacy organizations have long worked on letter-writing campaigns to members of Congress -- where citizens are asked to sign and send letters in support of or against legislation -- the coal scandal provides evidence of a practice of claiming support without any consent.
These events bring back memories of a movie that came out a little over 10 years ago called "Bulworth." In that film, Warren Beatty played Democratic Sen. Jay Billington Bulworth, a politician who came out of the liberal politics of the 1960s but had become disillusioned by the corrupting life of Washington. He is so distraught that he hires a hit man to kill him after taking out a multimillion-dollar life insurance policy.
Yet after meeting an enchanting young woman, played by Halle Berry, Bulworth is re-energized. While trying to avoid the assassin whom he hired, Bulworth spends the weekend railing against the power of lobbyists and interest groups in the political process, explaining to citizens in one inner-city neighborhood that politicians will never pay attention to them because they don't contribute enough money. Though he is excited about life once again, the film ends with a lobbyist shooting the senator because he is frightened by the threat he presents.
The film is obviously a gross exaggeration of what lobbyists will do to protect their interests. Nor should we vilify interest groups, which have always been part of our democracy. The truth is that there are many kinds of interest groups, dealing with all sorts of issues and reflecting all sorts of political perspectives.
But interest groups have clearly eroded the quality of our democratic process. The most obvious way has been through outright corruption. There are many historical examples of how powerful interest groups tried to buy their way to success.
American politics was rocked in 1905 and 1906 by revelations that the life insurance industry had bribed politicians. During the congressional hearings over Watergate in 1973, the investigation revealed that the milk industry had donated money to President Richard Nixon's administration and powerful members of Congress in exchange for favorable decisions by the Department of Agriculture.
Lobbyists and politicians on the left and right have been guilty of these sins. The recent corruption scandal that has shaken New Jersey is a painful reminder of this dark side of our political system.
Interest groups have also eroded the quality of our political system even when they are not engaged in corruption. Since the 1970s, there has been a massive proliferation of interest groups in Washington, D.C.
The level of campaign contributions from these sources has steadily increased as politicians scramble to find sufficient funds to meet the rising cost of campaigns. The campaign finance system gives interest groups better access to elected officials.
Now, interested parties are gradually extending their reach into areas far from Washington.
We have seen the use of these tactics several times in recent years. In 2005 and 2006, for example, the nation learned how Jack Abramoff's lobbying firm worked with Ralph Reed's conservative organizations to mount Astroturf protests against state efforts to legalize gambling because they threatened Native American groups that were clients of Abramoff.
If reports that advocacy groups have been behind the recent outbursts at town hall meetings are true, these revelations would signal a disturbing trend in interest group politics. Some liberal supporters of health care reform are naturally talking about responding in kind, fighting fire with fire. While this might very well create a more level yelling field, such warfare will crowd out legitimate efforts by unaffiliated citizens to talk about, question and debate the legislation with their representatives.
But the danger is lobby creep, as we have seen with the coal industry's lobbying campaign. The concern is not primarily about rabble-rousers, who frequently emerge on the left and right at these events, employing disruptive tactics that we have seen since the 1960s.
Rather the concern has to do with Washington-based interest groups and lobbyists sending people to local meetings to convey a specific and choreographed message, while preventing debate among actual local citizens.
It is easy to foresee how interest groups can take this even further, sending their employees to impersonate local citizens while preventing discussions. Such tactics would dangerously threaten to close one of the few remaining doors in the democratic process to everyone other than those with the largest resources.
It is not difficult to envision in the near future a surreal world of town hall meetings where legislators meet with a room filled with paid operatives from interest groups.
These kinds of operations must stop. This is not an issue that can be solved through regulation, since our democracy must always protect and cherish the right to organize and mobilize politically. But citizens and politicians must not tolerate these kinds of activities from interest and advocacy groups -- even those that represent positions that they support. The stakes are high. We need to save what little room is left for civic engagement in America.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.
All AboutHealth Care Policy • Political Lobbyists • Special Interest Groups
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/10/zelizer.town.halls
Story Highlights
Zelizer: Interest groups are focus of controversy over disruptive town hall tactics
He says it's not clear if the protests are largely being stage-managed
He says interest groups are playing a bigger role in American democracy
Zelizer: There's a danger that interest groups will choke off real debate
By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events.
PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Last week, Americans saw some disturbing images. During town hall meetings about health care reform, legislators and citizens were loudly interrupted and intimidated by members of the audience who refused to let them speak.
We don't yet have solid evidence as to whether the protesters were local citizens simply expressing their genuine concerns about the cost of the health care proposals -- concerns that have been showing up in recent polls -- or whether they were people primarily recruited and sent into these meetings by such groups as FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and Conservatives for Patients' Rights.
At the same time, we did learn last week that a firm hired by the coal industry sent fake letters to members of Congress, allegedly from Latino and African-American organizations, opposing climate and energy legislation.
The letters were sent on behalf of an industry group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, by a subcontractor, Bonner Associates, a firm that manages grassroots campaigns on behalf of interest groups. The coal industry said it was outraged to learn of the fake letters, and Bonner blamed them on a temporary employee who it said has been fired. The incident brought to mind "Astroturf" campaigns, which are sophisticated lobbying operations that give the impression of an actual grassroots mobilization.
While advocacy organizations have long worked on letter-writing campaigns to members of Congress -- where citizens are asked to sign and send letters in support of or against legislation -- the coal scandal provides evidence of a practice of claiming support without any consent.
These events bring back memories of a movie that came out a little over 10 years ago called "Bulworth." In that film, Warren Beatty played Democratic Sen. Jay Billington Bulworth, a politician who came out of the liberal politics of the 1960s but had become disillusioned by the corrupting life of Washington. He is so distraught that he hires a hit man to kill him after taking out a multimillion-dollar life insurance policy.
Yet after meeting an enchanting young woman, played by Halle Berry, Bulworth is re-energized. While trying to avoid the assassin whom he hired, Bulworth spends the weekend railing against the power of lobbyists and interest groups in the political process, explaining to citizens in one inner-city neighborhood that politicians will never pay attention to them because they don't contribute enough money. Though he is excited about life once again, the film ends with a lobbyist shooting the senator because he is frightened by the threat he presents.
The film is obviously a gross exaggeration of what lobbyists will do to protect their interests. Nor should we vilify interest groups, which have always been part of our democracy. The truth is that there are many kinds of interest groups, dealing with all sorts of issues and reflecting all sorts of political perspectives.
But interest groups have clearly eroded the quality of our democratic process. The most obvious way has been through outright corruption. There are many historical examples of how powerful interest groups tried to buy their way to success.
American politics was rocked in 1905 and 1906 by revelations that the life insurance industry had bribed politicians. During the congressional hearings over Watergate in 1973, the investigation revealed that the milk industry had donated money to President Richard Nixon's administration and powerful members of Congress in exchange for favorable decisions by the Department of Agriculture.
Lobbyists and politicians on the left and right have been guilty of these sins. The recent corruption scandal that has shaken New Jersey is a painful reminder of this dark side of our political system.
Interest groups have also eroded the quality of our political system even when they are not engaged in corruption. Since the 1970s, there has been a massive proliferation of interest groups in Washington, D.C.
The level of campaign contributions from these sources has steadily increased as politicians scramble to find sufficient funds to meet the rising cost of campaigns. The campaign finance system gives interest groups better access to elected officials.
Now, interested parties are gradually extending their reach into areas far from Washington.
We have seen the use of these tactics several times in recent years. In 2005 and 2006, for example, the nation learned how Jack Abramoff's lobbying firm worked with Ralph Reed's conservative organizations to mount Astroturf protests against state efforts to legalize gambling because they threatened Native American groups that were clients of Abramoff.
If reports that advocacy groups have been behind the recent outbursts at town hall meetings are true, these revelations would signal a disturbing trend in interest group politics. Some liberal supporters of health care reform are naturally talking about responding in kind, fighting fire with fire. While this might very well create a more level yelling field, such warfare will crowd out legitimate efforts by unaffiliated citizens to talk about, question and debate the legislation with their representatives.
But the danger is lobby creep, as we have seen with the coal industry's lobbying campaign. The concern is not primarily about rabble-rousers, who frequently emerge on the left and right at these events, employing disruptive tactics that we have seen since the 1960s.
Rather the concern has to do with Washington-based interest groups and lobbyists sending people to local meetings to convey a specific and choreographed message, while preventing debate among actual local citizens.
It is easy to foresee how interest groups can take this even further, sending their employees to impersonate local citizens while preventing discussions. Such tactics would dangerously threaten to close one of the few remaining doors in the democratic process to everyone other than those with the largest resources.
It is not difficult to envision in the near future a surreal world of town hall meetings where legislators meet with a room filled with paid operatives from interest groups.
These kinds of operations must stop. This is not an issue that can be solved through regulation, since our democracy must always protect and cherish the right to organize and mobilize politically. But citizens and politicians must not tolerate these kinds of activities from interest and advocacy groups -- even those that represent positions that they support. The stakes are high. We need to save what little room is left for civic engagement in America.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.
All AboutHealth Care Policy • Political Lobbyists • Special Interest Groups
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/10/zelizer.town.halls
Friday, January 8, 2010
The AARP and The Health Care
SUMMARY: The U.S. Senate this morning voted to move forward with health care reforms that will begin to bring needed relief to millions of Americans struggling with high costs and discriminatory insurance company practices. Pending legislation would protect and improve the guaranteed benefits that people in Medicare rely on, and make progress toward ending the rampant discrimination used by insurers to deny coverage to those who need it most.
AARP sent a letter to each Senate office informing them that the Association designated this morning’s cloture vote on the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act an “AARP Key Vote.” AARP will report back to its members and the public how each Senator votes on the procedural measure that would allow the Senate to end debate and move towards a final up-or-down vote on the bill.
*Did not vote
** How a legislator votes on issues is only one factor in evaluating his or her legislative performance, which should also include such things as constituency services and committee work.
“AARP commends Senators Lieberman and Dodd for voting to move forward on health care reform to protect guaranteed Medicare benefits and help millions of older Americans overcome the challenges of accessing affordable, quality health services,” said AARP Connecticut State Director Brenda Kelley. “We are especially pleased that Senator Lieberman was able to overcome his initial reservations and ultimately voted to move the process forward. The legislation is needed to lower drug costs, provide relief by beginning to limit age discrimination by health insurance companies and strengthen our system of long-term services and supports. We believe this legislation can be improved even further in conference and will be working with our state delegation to make meaningful health care reform a reality.”
AARP notified the 111th Congress that it was tracking roll call votes on key legislation important to its nearly 40 million members and reporting the outcomes of these votes back to its members and all older Americans.
AARP members and all older Americans can see how their representatives voted on health care reform by going to www.aarp.org/governmentwatch. AARP’s Government Watch is a one-stop online portal that will be tracking and publicizing every designated key vote on issues facing Americans age 50-plus. A “Key Vote Summary” highlighting votes on these issues will be published at the end of each congressional session.
AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world's largest-circulation magazine with over 35.5 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go-to news source for AARP's nearly 40 million members and Americans 50+; AARP Segunda Juventud, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Site-
http://www.aarp.org/community/AARPCT/journals/AARP_Applauds_Senate_for_/2328722
**********************************************************************************
AARP sent a letter to each Senate office informing them that the Association designated this morning’s cloture vote on the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act an “AARP Key Vote.” AARP will report back to its members and the public how each Senator votes on the procedural measure that would allow the Senate to end debate and move towards a final up-or-down vote on the bill.
*Did not vote
** How a legislator votes on issues is only one factor in evaluating his or her legislative performance, which should also include such things as constituency services and committee work.
“AARP commends Senators Lieberman and Dodd for voting to move forward on health care reform to protect guaranteed Medicare benefits and help millions of older Americans overcome the challenges of accessing affordable, quality health services,” said AARP Connecticut State Director Brenda Kelley. “We are especially pleased that Senator Lieberman was able to overcome his initial reservations and ultimately voted to move the process forward. The legislation is needed to lower drug costs, provide relief by beginning to limit age discrimination by health insurance companies and strengthen our system of long-term services and supports. We believe this legislation can be improved even further in conference and will be working with our state delegation to make meaningful health care reform a reality.”
AARP notified the 111th Congress that it was tracking roll call votes on key legislation important to its nearly 40 million members and reporting the outcomes of these votes back to its members and all older Americans.
AARP members and all older Americans can see how their representatives voted on health care reform by going to www.aarp.org/governmentwatch. AARP’s Government Watch is a one-stop online portal that will be tracking and publicizing every designated key vote on issues facing Americans age 50-plus. A “Key Vote Summary” highlighting votes on these issues will be published at the end of each congressional session.
AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world's largest-circulation magazine with over 35.5 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go-to news source for AARP's nearly 40 million members and Americans 50+; AARP Segunda Juventud, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Site-
http://www.aarp.org/community/AARPCT/journals/AARP_Applauds_Senate_for_/2328722
**********************************************************************************
Thursday, January 7, 2010
What you need to know about Interest groups
An interest group (also called an advocacy group, lobbying group, pressure group, or special interest) is a group, however loosely or tightly organized, that is determined to encourage or prevent changes in public policy without trying to be elected. It is usually difined as an organization of people that share ideas and attitudes and attempt to influence public policy.
Types of Human Organizations
Traditional
Families
Clans
Tribes
Nations
Formal Organizations
Voluntary Associations
Bureaucratic Organizations
Types of Organized Interest Groups
Economic Groups Farm Groups National Farm Bureau Federation
National Grange
National Farmers Union
National Cattlemen's Association
Business Groups National Chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Business
National Association of Manufacturers
Business Roundtable
Committee on Economic Development
American Petroleum Institute
Labor Groups American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
United Automobile Workers Union (UAW)
American Federation of State and Municipal Employees (AFSME)
American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
National Education Association (NEA)
Teamsters Union
Professional Associations American Medical Association
American Bar Association
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
National Association of Realtors
Non-Economic Groups Religious Groups
Ethnic and National Origin
Veterans
Women
Environmentalists
Fraternal
Single Issue Interest Groups National Rifle Association
National Right to Life Committee
Fortune Magazine "Power 25 Survey for 2001"
The Top 25 Interest Groups
1. National Rifle Association
2. American Association of Retired People (AARP)
3. National Federation of Independent Business
4. American Israel Foreign Affairs Committee
5. Association of Trial Lawyers of America
6. AFL-CIO
7. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
8. National Beer Wholesalers of America
9. National Association of Realtors
10. National Association of Manufacturers
11. National Association of Homebuilders of the United States
12. American Medical Association
13. American Hospital Association
14. National Education Association of the United States
15. American Farm Bureau Federation
16. Motion Picture Association of America
17. National Association of Broadcasters
18. National Right to Life Committee
19. Health Insurance Association of America
20. National Restaurant Association
21. National Governors' Association
22. Recording Industry Association of America
23. American Bankers Association
24. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
25. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Sites used-
http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/interest_groups1.htm
http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americancitizen/links/lobbies.htm
Types of Human Organizations
Traditional
Families
Clans
Tribes
Nations
Formal Organizations
Voluntary Associations
Bureaucratic Organizations
Types of Organized Interest Groups
Economic Groups Farm Groups National Farm Bureau Federation
National Grange
National Farmers Union
National Cattlemen's Association
Business Groups National Chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Business
National Association of Manufacturers
Business Roundtable
Committee on Economic Development
American Petroleum Institute
Labor Groups American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
United Automobile Workers Union (UAW)
American Federation of State and Municipal Employees (AFSME)
American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
National Education Association (NEA)
Teamsters Union
Professional Associations American Medical Association
American Bar Association
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
National Association of Realtors
Non-Economic Groups Religious Groups
Ethnic and National Origin
Veterans
Women
Environmentalists
Fraternal
Single Issue Interest Groups National Rifle Association
National Right to Life Committee
Fortune Magazine "Power 25 Survey for 2001"
The Top 25 Interest Groups
1. National Rifle Association
2. American Association of Retired People (AARP)
3. National Federation of Independent Business
4. American Israel Foreign Affairs Committee
5. Association of Trial Lawyers of America
6. AFL-CIO
7. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
8. National Beer Wholesalers of America
9. National Association of Realtors
10. National Association of Manufacturers
11. National Association of Homebuilders of the United States
12. American Medical Association
13. American Hospital Association
14. National Education Association of the United States
15. American Farm Bureau Federation
16. Motion Picture Association of America
17. National Association of Broadcasters
18. National Right to Life Committee
19. Health Insurance Association of America
20. National Restaurant Association
21. National Governors' Association
22. Recording Industry Association of America
23. American Bankers Association
24. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
25. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Sites used-
http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/interest_groups1.htm
http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americancitizen/links/lobbies.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)