Nevada Vote Direct

• How much do we really know about Mr. Gibbons' positions on the issues?
  
  In a time of 30-second sound bites, spin and flip-flopping on all sides, it isn't easy to know any candidates positions on the issues.
  
  We have no particular interest in the positions of our candidate, Mr. Rosen, because he is formally committed to vote as we direct him to vote here at Nevada Vote Direct.
  
  But why, we wonder, has Representative Gibbons repeatedly refused to provide responses to Project Vote Smart's National Political Awareness Test (NPAT), even when asked to do so by major news organizations and key national leaders of both parties, including John McCain? Mr. Gibbons did respond to the NPAT in 2002. But the response raised questions. Why, for example did he declare his determination to "Decrease the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country," when he had already voted in Congress to facilitate an increase in immigration? As his constituents, we believe that Representative Gibbons should go out of his way to make his positions as clear as possible.
  
  And we ask the same of other candidates who, unlike Mr. Rosen, are running on the old system. For example, we would like to know Ms. Jill Derby's positions on the issues, for she is now the leading candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for Mr. Gibbons' seat. One searches in vain on her web site for any such information. Yet, it seems plainly evident that somebody knows what her positions are, for she recently announced that in the first month following the announcement of her candidacy, she raised $108,000 for her campaign.



• From USAToday: Drug companies and their officials contributed at least $17 million to federal candidates in last year's [2004] elections. At least 18 members of Congress received more than $100,000 apiece. The industry also liberally funds think tanks and patient-advocacy groups that don't bear its name but often take its side; the National Patient Advocate Foundation, for instance, receives financial support from at least 10 drug companies.
  
  Since 1998, drug companies have spent $758 million on lobbying (more than any other industry, according to government records analyzed by the Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group). In Washington, the industry has 1,274 lobbyists (more than two for every member of Congress).
  
  The industry's deep inroads into the government are rooted in its dependence on federal decisions. The government determines which products drug companies can market and how they're labeled. The government buys massive quantities of drugs through Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and other programs. Once the new Medicare prescription drug benefit takes effect in 2006, the government will be paying 41% of Americans' drug bills, up from 24% now.
  
  Billy Tauzin, a former Republican congressman from Louisiana who now heads the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), serves as testament to the industry's power. He helped shepherd the Medicare prescription drug law to passage as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee before joining PhRMA for a reported $1 million a year or more. PhRMA won't confirm his pay.
  
  Drugmakers also sell their message through TV advertising. Two of the top 10 ad spenders during the last session of Congress were pharmaceutical companies, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. A study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found they [drugmakers] spent a combined $45.1 million on advertising in 2003-04, the largest chunk of it to promote the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs.
  
  Pharmaceutical makers also were among top donors to the national conventions last year. They gave $4.7 million to help put on the GOP event in New York and $2.6 million for the Democrats' gathering in Boston.
  
  Drug companies court lawmakers and their aides by paying for trips to industry meetings or to tour company plants and other facilities. Dozens of such trips took place last year, disclosure records filed in the House and Senate show.
  
  There also is evidence that the industry's allies sought to dissuade Grassley from holding the Nov. 18 hearing [promted by the Vioxx controversy]. Grassley says he received entreaties from GOP colleagues worried about alienating an industry friendly to their party. He recalls: "I had one or two colleagues say to me, 'Why would you want to have that hearing? The pharmaceutical industry is so helpful.' "
  
  

  

  From Public Citizen: In its attempts to influence Congress, the brand-name [pharmaceutical] industry has spent more than $423 million during the last three election cycles while the generic drug industry has spent about $10 million, or 2 percent of what the brand-name industry spent.
  
  Brand-name and generic-drug companies and their trade groups have spent $37.9 million on campaign contributions during the past three election cycles. Contributions from the brand-name companies make up 91 percent of that total. From 1997 to 2002, brand-name companies and their trade group gave $34.5 million to candidates and parties while generic companies contributed $3.4 million.
  
  In terms of just "soft money" the unlimited corporate and individual contributions to the national political parties brand-name companies and their trade group gave $23.2 million while generic drug companies and their trade group gave $3.1 million since 1997.
  
  Drug companies also contribute soft money to "527 groups," and, again, brand-name companies dominate this type of giving. (527s are non-profit groups, regulated by the Internal Revenue Service, that are "primarily engaged in electioneering"; they can accept unlimited amounts of corporate contributions.) Brand-name drug companies and their trade group contributed $914,947 to the largest 527 groups controlled by politicians and interest groups while generic companies have given $65,000 since July 2000 (when disclosure was first required). "Politician 527s," those groups controlled by one or more members of Congress, received $707,980 from brand name drug companies and trade groups and $45,000 from generic drug companies.
  
  The pharmaceutical industry�s most significant victory came in derailing efforts to include a prescription drug benefit in the traditional Medicare program. Instead, the industry pushed to have Medicare drug coverage provided by private insurers and HMOs � fracturing the bargaining power of the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries in negotiating for lower prices.
  
  Drug industry lobbying ranks include 26 former members of Congress.
  
  Since Public Citizen began tracking the drug industry�s lobbying activities in 1997, the industry has spent nearly $478 million lobbying the federal government. In that same period, the top 25 pharmaceutical companies and trade groups gave $48.6 million to federal campaigns. Well over $100 million more went to paying for issue ads, hiring academics, funding nonprofits and other activities to promote the industry�s agenda in Washington. All told, the drug industry has spent nearly $650 million on political influence since 1997.
  
  

  New Member Registration

• Member Pages

  • Login

• Motions

  • Legislative (1)
  • NVD Organizational (2)
  • Voting Procedures (1)

• Announcements

  What's New?

• Discussion

  Ideas - Opinions?

• General Information

  • Support Our Campaign
    • Volunteer
    • Spread the Word
  • Poll Questions
  • NVD Home
  • About
    • From Our Candidate
    • How It Works
    • FAQ
    • Voting Technology
  • Membership
    • NVD Bylaws
  • Motions
    • Pending Motions
      • Motion 1
    • NVD Organizational Motions
    • Legislative Motions
    • Robert's Rules of Order
    • Motions Defined
    • Advice on Writing Motions
  • Information
  • Support
    • Write Reference
  • Contact
  • Home

• Related Sites

  • Vox Populi Systems Inventor of the Decision Management System

• Meta

  • Valid XHTML
  • XFN

Nevada Vote Direct is powered (via WordPress) by Vox Populi
Copyright©Daniel Rosen
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)