Umm... You're still wondering?

This is true no longer. The new version is: "Their highest duty is to the people who will fund their re-election campaign"

I'm sure that's true.

"There was nothing nefarious about it."

Bull. This is just further proof that the lobbyists are in control and that the meatbags in Congress are just mouthpieces.

@pecan 3.14159265: Buying stuff is not illegal. What they are doing is illegal. Lining the pockets of congressman to get laws passed to benfit special interests and corporations, and not the American people, is unconstitutional.

What you're describing is capitolism (business, and thats fine), what they are involved in is more of a political scandal.

@Trai_Dep There is no need to tuck stuff away in bill verbage . If the legislators want to barter for votes on A PARTICULAR bill then fine do it on a seperate bill. Just because back room deals and snuck in verbage is standard practice for a professional politician doesn't mean it's a good practice or even accepted.

Stuff like discrimination was legal for hundreds of years should we follow those practices.

And how is it even a democracy if the public thinks their legislature is voting on one bill when they are actually adding/sneeking in less than fully disclosed legislation. If professional politicians want to do business that way fine. But I do NOT want to pay them to do business that way as a citizen/tax payer/their EMPLOYER.

Geez!!!

It's so nice to see our Missouri representatives can think for themselves.

Bill B

And yet people still believe that there are differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Nice to see the White House staff lying through its teeth in order to justify W continually mispronouncing things. My own guess is that he did it on purpose in order to appeal to the ignorant masses in flyover country, the "Joe Sixpacks" who have no idea how to pronounce anything right and are comforted by the idea that their president is a near-illiterate buffoon.

So long as Congress is — say — 80% bought and sold, the remaining 20% is voiceless and of no account in Washington.

It seems to me that this is the problem right here.

Yes, it happens all the time, and yes, there IS something nefarious about it.

@hi: I put gas in my car, I'm benefitting Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and all of those big oil companies. Likewise, by putting gas in my car, I pay a state tax, and that benefits my state. If I get sick, I buy medicine, and that lines the pockets of pharmas. When I take public transportation, I grease the wheels of the private company that controls the system.

Everything we do benefits someone other than us. It's called business. Of course companies do things for benefit.

@bhr: Interesting point: would these be considered "affinity corporations" created to represent a group of actual people (membership) sharing a commone issue versus a corporations (created to make a profit) bonding together under the banner of a certain industry?

There are various arguments flowing around about how a corporation now has a quasi-legal type "personhood" status that was never considered years ago. There is also the issue on just when does an industry or professional association change from being a technical resource to being a lobbying group?

Then too how does anti-trust fit into this- say would the banking and credit card industry's actions to get the bankruptcy laws changed been considered a monopoly action in the early 1900s?

In truth I see both sides of the coin as I am a member of several "affinity" groups along with being a member of several "industry" groups both of which have lobbying as a component of the activities.

@PsiCop: when you say 'they all do it' you're referring to dems and reps (left/right). But not all congressman & woman sell-out. There are a few good men and woman in there. But the majority needs a good hanging for treason.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Well put.

@hi: Roche isn't the only company doing this either. It's a systemic problem that affects all of us.

Is this Obama's healthcare plan? If it is, are you still for it? Do you still beleive what they are pushing is for the good of the people or for special interests such as Genetech and Roche.

Roche makes the swine flu vaccine by the way. Now does it make sense to anyone yet? Connect the dots.

If you still don't see I will try to explain as well as I can: Roche pays lobbyists to get laws made, and to pay congressmen & congresswoman to scare people into the swine flu propaganda as well as the news outlets, TV, radio, newspapers, etc... They push (pay off people) for a healthcare bill in their favor to make the billions, trillions, whatever. It is an actual conspiracy and not a theory. People/corporations/businesses do things for a reason. There is always a reason, it's not hundreds of coincidences.

[www.google.com]

Can anyone remember when being elected to Congress was supposed to be a duty? Something that was an incovience to your life but you did it because the people around you needed representation and you were the example of what those people represented? Most of the members of Congress go to some fancy law school, intern somewhere, then right out to the campaign trail to get elected. To me, they don't represent anything but what's wrong with the system, but what can you do? These same people make the rules for voting, draw out the districts for whom will vote for them, and have more money than oil-tycoon jesus to back them for a campaign.

@econobiker: So no more unions, no more NEA, AARP, AAA, Bay Foundation....

@Trai_Dep:

OK.

Sigh.

"Is the health care debate really a fight between Democrats and Republicans, or a battle between lobbyists and the rest of us?"

"Government of the corporations, by the corporations,for the corporations."

And here is the take from people from Florida:
[www.bradenton.com]

"Let's get rid of the lobbyists. They should not be regulated, they should be outlawed. Wikipedia defines a lobbyists as "a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest." I thought that is what we elected our legislators to do on our behalf. In this government of the people, by the people and for the people, should we not be their special interest?"

Obama promised us transparency. We need to know who truly authored this bill, who really wrote each section.

If it's not our Congressmen - whose job this is - then this is another reason why this is a BAD BILL and needs to be defeated.

PS: Joe Wilson? You LIED!

We should just stop paying them since they've obviously stopped working for us.

www.madisonrecord.com

@subtlefrog:

One more example of why lobbying should be illegal, period.

@PsiCop: I wish. The really sad thing was that the student who said this wasn't stupid and probably could have done well if he'd put in some effort.

I want a raise like that!

Heck, even I have written remarks that ended up in The Congressional Record. The Senator was quite happy to let me correct his random statements and bad grammar.

@HurtsSoGood: I say keep the charade if only for the Daily Show material it provides.

Plagiarism, you might have a case, but not coming from the lobbyists (obviously). But I believe anyone can file an ethics claim against ... I don't remember who does that sort of stuff, but there's some office of ethics or something like that that oversees congress. Not sure if they have any power, but still.

One student actually told me that plagiarism is okay because "it's not fair that other students are smarter and better than me so they get higher grades."

@MostlyHarmless: Three shots if someone behind the podium yawns!

I called SC "home" for almost two years. These guys all make me feel ashamed of doing so.

They're earning their keep fine, just it's Pharma whom they're earning it from.

I can give you the rules if you are interested.

@kaceetheconsumer: I'd like to see your hubby turn that ludicrous statement back to the student.

"It's not fair that these other students do so much better than you, so you're going to get more homework and more reports to help you do better."

They occasionally write op-eds for newspapers too. There was a small controversy in Virginia a little while back when a few newspapers realized that their local state delegates were publishing identical op-eds. Turned out a lobbyist wrote one op-ed and gave it to the delegates to publish under their own names.

There is no need for wasting hours and hours on this silly nonsense. It's just grandstanding, and I suspect the goings-on in Congress had a whole different character before they turned on the television cameras. You certainly wouldn't have family members turning on the water works at Senate confirmation hearings, or congressmen bringing babies in to use as props, or any of the other circus acts that have us wondering whether we've just elected a bunch of retards to run our government.

If you want to know what any given congressman thinks about HCR or anything else, all you have to do is visit that congressman's website, or read his or her correspondence (you do get mailings from time to time, right?), or pick up a newspaper, or turn on the local TV news (not the "news" channel on cable, but the real local news broadcast). It is unfortunate, and certainly unintended, but one learns nothing at all from watching C-Span other than that members of Congress like to be on TV, and many of them are pretty horrible stand-up comedians.

A) We've got budget crises all over the country, be it state or federal level.
B) Lobbyist get Congressmen/women in their pockets with various contributions and promises.
Solution? Stop paying Congress. If they're going to ignore the opinions of the people who are supposed to be paying them, then stop pating them. They clearly get perks elsewhere.

I've got nothing against Congressmen supporting constituent businesses; that's part of supporting that constituency. But it should never be businesses at the expense of the citizenry or the Republic. Their highest duty is to the nation and its citizens, not its corporations.

Maybe the next time they hire interns to sleep with, they could find some hottie who studies biotech issues. :P

I wonder how many will go on to public office.

Perhaps that list should serve as a rubric of who should be voted out of office next election cycle... Obviously, they're not doing their jobs.

@Alys Brangwin: You lie!

(come on, someone had to do it)

@QuantumRiff: @Ben Popken: While we're making clarifications...the company is Genentech, not Genetech.

Helloooo...

A 1900 page mostly unread bill passed late on a Saturday night and this is surprising ?

Helloooo...

I keep a list of incredibly moronic student comments. I hope your husband put that one on his list!

@Hobz: Every debate is controlled by lobbyists. PACs know how to run things and we pay them to do it. AAA. AARP. It's how government goes round.

If you want to make a pseudo-difference, I highly recommend writing letters or calling the DC office or the main office in your state for your representatives. The senator I worked for definitely paid attention to that stuff. Not all of them do, I'd imagine. But he did.

The part about job creation, the average person could comprehend. The part about lowering prices, you don't need someone in pharma to understand. So really, there's no reason for the pharmaceutical companies to be that involved.

Don't get me wrong - many of you here can guess that I'm going to be all for creating science jobs, even if it isn't one I'm going for. But why the congress people can't get their talking points from their advisors, I'm not sure. If the pharmaceutical concessions are that great, it shouldn't be that hard for someone on their staff to come up with something that isn't verbatim what the guy from another state is saying.

One student actually told me that plagiarism is okay because "it's not fair that other students are smarter and better than me so they get higher grades."

Translate that attitude into the political workplace and yeah, they're going to be THRILLED that someone tells them exactly what to say. Plus, obviously they're not going to encounter much criticism from their voting public about it if the voters do the same thing themselves in their daily lives.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): It may be cynical, but it's true. This is why corporate astroturfing is so astounding. While I do genuinely believe that a great deal of politicians do want the best for their constituents, I would never go as far as to say that it is because they believe only in the welfare of their constituents. Obviously, the overall happiness of their constituents ensures that there is a better chance of that politician staying in office. Understanding the side benefit is simply realistic.

It's not news, to me at least, that so many Congresspersons would essentially prostitute themselves for businesses and lobbyists. They all do it, too, Left and Right, Dem. and Rep., they just do it for different cadres of lobbyists and outfits. Otherwise they're all playing the same game ... and we're the pawns.

@subtlefrog: I think the issue is that most constituants (regardless of political party or where they're from) don't even have a working knowledge of the biotech industry. I certainly don't, and it would be ludicrous for my congressperson to take a cue from my opinion if it were not carefully researched. Most people wouldn't even try.

@zigziggityzoo: That's not entirely true. We pay them because we believe they think like us and are putting our best interests first. We could easily change to a pure democracy system without representatives but then, pure democracy is only one step away from anarchy.

Man I'm cynical this morning.

BINGO

We pay them to think like their constituents. The only reason I'm incensed is that they're not earning their keep.

(Yes corporations are made up of people, many of whom vote, but many of whom are also likely to not be their constituents.)