A lot of people on the Daily Kos say there is no difference between Edwards taking money though states’ lobbyists as opposed to Washington lobbyists. At least they hope so, considering the candidate they are defending through such words; too bad for them, it’s not true. I’ve also heard that since there were ways to get around being a registered lobbyist in funneling finds to a campaign, this means that the Federally registered K-street lobbyist problem is really blown out of proportion. Except there is a big difference, being that Washington lobbyists actually have a hand in writing legislation themselves directly; not just influencing it with their money.
Sound bites are not enough time to get into this issue in the debates, but let’s ask another question; are we going to defend Washington lobbyists, just because you don’t have to be registered, in order to engage in the deceptive campaign donations? It’s certainly not as easy if you aren’t registered, and there are fewer protections. If you’re going to use this argument, that states that because some people (non-registered lobbyists) have found ways in the past, to get around campaign finance reform, the general idea is not worth pursuing; you might as well use that argument for other points of view; I guess it doesn’t matter that John Edwards has the most substantive policies out of the top three when it comes to health care. Hillary had one once, so it doesn’t matter if she doesn’t have a plan now for the public to see.
If Hillary isn't influenced by the lobbyists’ money, where's her plan for universal healthcare? I’m sure you’ll bring up SCHIP - Hillary's support of SCHIP makes her a good senator, not doubt, but she's not running for senator, she running for president, and a dodge of "we'll have universal healthcare in the middle of my second term" without any specifics or any publicly disclosed plans of what this looks like or how she'll get there is selling short millions of Americans who need universal healthcare now. I mean, she talks about universal health care vaguely, so basically it’s splitting hairs to talk about the differences with John Edward’s plan, even if one plan is not posted, and relies on being over a decade ago, and one that you can see with your own eyes.
I know....I know; "But what about nurses and teachers? They have lobbyists, too!"...Puh-leeze. Why do you scrutinize the rhetoric that drops out of the mouth of George W. but let this obvious rhetorical dodge get a pass? If Hillary wins the nomination, she's going to have to win over a certain percentage of folks who are as skeptical about her as they are about our current lame duck President. Do you really think lines like this will past muster with the unconverted? Take off your partisan hat, put on your blogging brain and just think about this one for a second.
There will be no aura of inevitability going into the general election, so what else is she going to run on? Cute little dodges like this will lose Dems the White House, once again, and I don't care out of whose mouth the emanate from. The same goes in comparison with the comparison to Barack; it doesn’t matter that John Edwards came out with a REAL universal health plan first, and then Barrack came out with a plan. It’s all health care reform in some way, so what do the distinctions matter? That’s basically the argument, which I find un-substantive, like a lot of my opponents’ candidates’ proposals. What a coincidence.
You really cannot equate two different variables with different characteristics at all turns, into one and the same. By doing that, you really give credit to the same argument that states that:
"Because the cures that stem cell research show promise on may be years away from now, it’s not worth pursuing. President Bush has allowed some stem cell research at some point, so that’s all that matters. Why expand stem cell research, where it could be used effectively, someday? It’s all stem cell research. What does it matter if it’s federally mandated/funded? I’m sure enough scientists can have stem cell research night in their basements. Sure, getting embryos might be a hassle, but it’s still in the stem cell research category. Trying to use stem cell research as an important issue to pick your candidate just political fodder. Etc."
Do you find that argument acceptable? I would hope not; that is obviously a stupid argument, but do you know that in this republic with a federalist system, the federal level has more oversight on the type of legislation having the most potential for affecting the American populous as a whole? That is especially our health care system. I’ll hear you out; which state do we blame for the Patriot Act? Or FISA?
Because of the way our federalist system mandates these policies, they are harder to vote away later. There are states’ rights that share power with our federalist system, but overall, they do not entirely have the ability to affect policy in the same way that federal influence, via federal lobbying does. I believe all lobbying is bad, but we have ourselves to blame for letting it thrive in the system, and for forcing politicians to play in a system that we, however inadvertently in the process, accept through inaction. However, are we going to believe that these people are just like you and me?
That may be true in some instances, but given the record of influence in politics, shouldn’t Hillary have used better framework? Or do you honestly think Washington lobbyists represent people, just like you and me? Shouldn’t we demand that she recognizes that lobbyists, far and wide, really do not represent most of America? Isn’t it better for Edwards and Obama that although they are forced to accept lobbying money on some levels (inadvertently through bundlers); because they have to play in a dirty system where individual contributions are not enough to battle corporate America’s paycheck; that they are honest about the lack of ethics involved? Isn’t a straight answer on that question, better than a vague one, like, "I support public financing, but I’m not even going to acknowledge the problems Washington lobbyists represent." If lobbyists are, "people just like you and me," than why do we need public financing?
After all, are we all to blame for how corrupt our system is on this level? On some levels, yes, but that goes down to education, and people who don’t educate themselves enough to vote for their own interests, but overall, the answer is no. Anyway, If this is such a minuscule matter, about the difference between the source of the particular lobby, then I want you to do some stringent comparisons for me; I want you to compare the prescription drug bill that was passed, to the supposed amount of claims that trial lawyers and their institutions have collected from the Insurance industry. As you can see, Insurance companies are lying to you about claims bankrupting doctors and the medical profession. But their federal registered lobbyists are able to safely write your legislation for you, so they can profit off your misfortune:
The Medicare Part D plan will hand over $800 billion of our tax dollars to the drug and health insurance industry.
* According to the Congressional Budget Office, for the ten-year period, 2006 through 2016, the projected spending is $848 billion. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017," Congressional Budget Office, January 2007. http://www.cbo.gov/...
* The elderly could end up paying more for their prescription drugs than they did before under Part D - and a majority of senior citizens could still pay over $2000 a year.
* "For all patients, Medicare covers 75 percent of the first $2,250 worth of drugs. But after that, coverage drops to zero - and doesn't resume until the patient hits $5,100 in expenses. Then Medicare kicks in again, paying 95 percent of costs. But it's this gap - of almost $3,000 - that many sick and disabled seniors call unaffordable." Medicare's 'Donut Hole,' CBS News, July 26, 2006.
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
* "Nearly 7 million seniors and individuals with disabilities who purchased stand-alone prescription drug coverage are now at risk of falling into the 'doughnut hole.' According to a report released today by Senior Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee... nearly 88 percent of new drug plan enrollees, roughly 7 million individuals, are at risk of losing coverage for their medications while they continue to pay monthly premiums to their insurers. The report further details how few individuals have enrolled in plans without doughnut holes, presumably because of the prohibitive cost of such plans." "88% Of New Medicare Drug Program Enrollees At Risk Of Falling Into The 'Doughnut Hole,'" Joint News Release From Representative Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Democrat, Committee On Ways And Means, Representative Pete Stark, Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee On Health, Committee On Ways And Means, Representative Sander M. Levin, Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee On Social Security, Committee On Ways And Means, September 21, 2006.
http://www.house.gov/...
ofnew_medicare_drug_program_enrollees_at_risk_of_falling
intothe_doughnut_hole.html
* "Over the past year, Part D drug prices have increased several times faster than the rate of inflation. Families USA analyzed the prices for 15 of the drugs most frequently prescribed to seniors. We examined prices for each of the plans offered by the largest Part D insurers, which together cover about two-thirds of all Part D beneficiaries. We then compared the lowest available Part D price for each drug in April 2006 with the lowest available price for the same drug in April 2007. The lowest price for every one of the top 15 drugs prescribed to seniors increased, and the median increase was 9.2 percent." Medicare Part D Prices Are Climbing Quickly, FamiliesUSA, April 2007.
http://www.familiesusa.org/...
It’s well known that this bill was actually written by federal lobbyists for the prescription drug industry like John Edwards said. Question; which policy is more harmful to you? Overall, even though this is also evidence that Insurance companies are not only putting out blatant propaganda that you are eating up about "trial lawyers"; it’s also evidence these insurance companies have a surplus from the amount of premiums they collect from all Americans. The only people that help us with our denied claims guaranteed to us by our constitution are trial lawyers. ‘Trial lawyer’ is a pejorative term, used to demonize all lawyers, because it’s common knowledge that all lawyers are bad, except when you need one. Of course there are bad lawyers, who are hired by multinational conglomerates, Insurance companies etc, but there is a balance there, where there is not, when you compare them to K-street lobbyists who actually write the bills that pass. They don’t inadvertently support you through random smaller contributions that add up; they own you, like they own most of congress does by owning your representative.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org), in 2005 there were 2,084 health care lobbyists registered with the federal government. With 535 members of Congress, that's 3.895 lobbyists per member.
Yeah, apples and oranges, right? Registered lobbyists don’t really affect you the way random strung out state lobbyists do, right? Because after all, we all know which state, with which laws to blame if our health care claims are turned down, don’t we? I mean, it’s all the same, right? No, actually the for–profit federal statutes require all Insurance companies to make a profit, thus denying your healthcare; this affects the way all HMO’s and Insurance companies’ operate in every state. That is why this is a nationwide problem where 45 million people don’t even have any health coverage. There is no real federal oversight (except tax wise), thus freeing them to operate this way; there is some oversight on the state level, though they are able to easily get around it, but still. Not exactly the same, is it?
Something is better than nothing in this context, if you are going to equate the two as being equal. State lobbyists do not do as much damage as Washington lobbyists. Yeah, it’s not like you can see the damage and count it up, right? After all, Edwards’s supporters are splitting hairs by talking about Washington Lobbyists as a more serious problem, right? Wrong, what I just pointed out was that Washington lobbyists do the most significant damage, and John Edwards is right about bringing the focus on them. It takes more than just bundlers (however many; you don’t know the value of each) here and there to own Congress like pharmaceutical industry does. Something you won’t hear from the, " equate all transactions federal or state as one," crowd. That’s not just a bundle of money from various sources, that’s a straight transaction (with a much less overhead cost I might add) that equals to distinct, candid, influence on actual legislation that affects you:
The health industry gave $14 million total to the eleven elected officials largely credited with negotiating the bill. Pharmaceutical company PACs, employees, and their families gave more than $3 million in campaign contributions to (those) eleven elected officials." Buying A Law: Big Pharma's Big Money and the Bush Medicare Plan, Campaign Money Watch, January 2004.
http://www.ourfuture.org/...
This isn’t random accumulation; you know exactly the cause and effect relationship between these straight transactions given by these companies by name to the members of Congress that they are registered with. Now, let’s examine the, "There’s no difference," argument further; John Edwards’s statement at the AFL/CIO debate about the difference between trial lawyers and lobbyists was a brilliant one. If a trial lawyer pays a jury, that is called bribing, where there are criminal penalties. If a Washington lobbyist pays a member of congress or the executive branch, that’s considered politics as usual. I really am tired of people saying that it’s splitting hairs; to compare drug companies/insurance companies; the lobbyists that represent them, as exactly the same as firms that represent trial lawyers.
Now are some of those firms in bed with the lobbyists, consumers, and clandestine contributors? Of course they are, because insurance companies and drug companies have their own trial lawyers as well. What you won’t hear from people, who try to tear down John Edwards, is the difference between who benefits when comparing the two. Now if trial lawyers as a whole, the same ones who are ridiculed, "ambulance chasers," have a record of defending your common man, more than the Pharmaceutical industry does. Often times, a trial lawyer will get paid nothing, for his rewards, because he only gets 33.3% of the supposed verdict/settlement which doesn’t happen as much as we are being told from most studies.
Plus, lawyers protect, and abide by principals of the Constitution in the way they practice, for it is written. Pharmaceutical companies have taken over Washington, and they along with the insurance companies and federal lobbyists that represent them, write their own laws, explicitly. They don’t care what rules apply, because they know they have the protection of the member of Congress that they bought. After all, they own congress. . Not that there are not a lot of unethical law firms, but given the comparison (balanced between relations to individual firms to corporate firms), I’m going to have to say they technically as a whole, operate more ethical than way K-street operate, which have their own corporate lawyers. It’s not easy to speak about them either, so that’s why John’s words should be heard.
And given that JRE has been fairly consistent with this populist message, and that Washington Lobbyists, have let it be known that they are not fond of him; that lends a little more credibility to me, given what motivates John Edwards. There are trial lawyers that fight the system, and fight corporate abuse, and the health industry everyday. They don’t fight it, because they are going to make a quick buck, because more often than not, they don’t collect, and they make no money unless a settlement is received in most cases. Whether you like it or not, when a law firm collects a settlement for a family who’s child was killed by medical malpractice, or a families claim was denied and resulted in their continued suffering, it’s not on equal footing as Federal lobbyists who takes it all, and give nothing back whatsoever. Most labor Unions also give back to people compared with Washington lobbyists and all insiders alike, with their hands on dirty money. But when you attack him, and say he has the most bunglers, even though bunglers are not technically lobbyists, and their donations vary, you miss the bigger point, that the amount from those said bundlers does not equal more than a direct transaction from a big pharm lobbyist.
A bundler is a wealthy individual (though the source could inadvertently come from anywhere, but still) who gives money (vs. hours) to nonprofits, and goes to many fund-raisers. They give to their candidate’s cause and then get something in return somewhere along the road. They don’t represent a lump sum, like a check from Aetna or Humana would be. And another thing, don’t you think if John Edwards is really receiving the most money in this purported argument, which he wouldn’t want to tout it for the media that has written him off? So much for touting JRE’s funds over HRC’s, but people like to try. It doesn’t add up, regardless of the equating and conflating done by HRC’s supporters. Though most people know this, but she has accepted more money than most people from the Pharmaceutical industry than any democrat or republican(except Rick Santorum) before her presidential campaign hit off:
"As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.
Yet, that is never brought up, when people say, "the bundling! Oh God! The bundlers!"
You would think that John would want to flaunt all his money, if he has raking in more than Hillary, like in her supporters dreams, in order to get some MSM coverage; coverage which he is lacking, because they know what he represents, and it’s taking a stand against their corporate masters that own and operate them; making this into an inevitable Obama vs. Hillary race. No, John came in 3rd in 1st quarter fundraising, but he has shown frugality, which matters to those who support him.
In your view, since John Edwards has so many bundlers, and he is raking it in like you say, that must mean he inadvertently accepts the most money from the health industry, out of all the top tier candidates, right?
Wrong.
"Oh, well what about the Pharmaceutical industry?!! Hah!!"
Not even close.
"Aww, but surely the Insurance industry!!"
Afraid not.
"AH, HA!!! HEDGE FUNDSSSSS! OH YEAH! GOTCHA NOW!!!!"
Surprisingly no. Sorry. Looks like there are even bigger players there. It also looks like your favorite critique of him is falling a bit short.
But of course we are splitting hairs when it comes to lobbyist money, like HRC’s supporters are saying, because you can’t even see the difference.
You’re right, why even bring up lobbying?
Edwards: $13,500
Clinton: $406,300
That’s so apples and oranges, and doesn’t drive my point home at all. You can hardly tell the difference, and what a hypocrite JRE is for challenging HRC not to take money from Washington lobbyists. We can clearly tell that state lobbyists and Washington lobbyists are equal in the effect they have on the system, and that there is no difference between Edwards and Hillary Clinton on this issue.
Then you woke up.
Oh and BTW, before this descends into name calling and cussing contests, I’ll remind you that if Hillary does get the nod, you will need support from people just like me to win the GE. Right now, your behavior isn't making anyone outside of her most strident supporters excited about supporting Hillary. Do you really want folks to feel so demoralized that they sit on their hands and let President Romney/Giuliani take over? 'Cuz if that's the goal you’re doing a bang up job over here.
Sorry, had to vent, but thank you for reading regardless.