[Winona Online Democracy] Paul,
That is an interesting question. It's an interesting question. It's also an interesting list of options. There are some problems though. For starters: 1. You end with this assumption: "all the political realities of today would apply in the process and the outcome." It would be nice if that was possible but it simply isn't. The reason our health care system is broken is because our democracy is broken. I know you would like to think the Republicans could maintain power and still have real health care reform. I think you know that is not possible unless there is a major sea reversal. For example, the Chair of the State Republican Party has been a lobbyist for drug corporations in the past. We need clean elections first, then comes clean government, then comes real health care reform. This issue can not be honeslty discussed because the mega drug and insurance corporations will buy the media and bury us in propaganda. ----- Sunday's Star Tribune has a good story entitled, "Prescription Politics." A copy of the article is included below. It is a good story but it doesn't dig deep enough. Similiar to this past Sunday's Winona Daily News editorial, a nice start but way to timid and tepid. You have to dig deeper to see just how rotten the foundation is. ----- 2. Responses to your choices: A. Team 1 - The Federal Government: Not a bad track record when it comes to public education, civil liberties protections, rural electricity, etc. Still though, I would much rather prefer the State Government. It's closer to the people and not completely controlled by mega corporations like D.C. is. B. Team 2 - The AFL-CIO: Not perfect but not a bad track record either. Where did child labor laws, the 60-50-40 work week, and the minimum wage come from? Still though, the AFL-CIO does not exist to provide health care insurance. C. Team 3 - Banks & Credit Unions: Remember the small matter of the Savings and Loan debacle? Not to mention Enron, World Com, Tyco, and the small matter of widspread mutual fund corruption that can't seem to make it off the business pages of the newspapers. D. Team 4 - Wal-Mart: You were joking, right? The sweatshops of the world, low wages, no real benefits, etc. Like the AFL-CIO, Wal Mart has a different purpose other than providing health care to all. I'll simply leave it at that. 3. Again, I would choose a new team addition, "Team 5 - State Government." I envision it as a combination of public and private ventures, a true mixed economy. Dwayne Voegeli ============== Star Tribune Article Sunday, November 16, 2003 Title: "Prescription Politics" ============== Drug lobby intensifies fight on price controls and imports Mark Brunswick and Ron Nixon, Star Tribune State Rep. Fran Bradley got a surprise two years ago when his office was inundated with phone calls from senior citizens worried that a bill in the Legislature would limit their access to medicines. Bradley, R-Rochester, didn't know what to make of the calls until, in one phone message, he heard a voice in the background that seemed to be coaching the caller on what to say. The voice, it turned out, belonged to someone connected to a Washington, D.C., public relations firm hired by a pharmaceutical company. As the battle over prescription drug costs intensifies nationwide, the pharmaceutical industry is stepping up efforts against legislation that would control prices or allow people to import drugs from across the border. In a major development Saturday, congressional leaders announced a deal promising older Americans the first federal help in paying for medications. �AstroTurf lobbying� in Minnesota In Minnesota, with Gov. Tim Pawlenty leading a campaign to contain costs by reimporting drugs from Canada, the state has never been more in the spotlight. The stakes are huge -- this year Minnesota pharmacists will fill 63 million prescriptions with a retail value of $3.8 billion, according to a University of Minnesota estimate. And the pharmaceutical industry has an aggressive lobbying machine working to get out its message. Since 2000, the industry, led by its trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), has spent at least $2.6 million in Minnesota on public relations, lobbyists, political advertisements and federal and state campaign contributions. Senior advocacy associations In Minnesota and elsewhere, as the industry works to mobilize citizens, it has been criticized for sometimes using methods designed to create the appearance of a grass-roots surge of concern, when the effort is driven by drug interests. Industry officials say they oppose legislation that could expose Minnesotans to unsafe medicines and decrease the amount of money companies spend on developing new drugs. PhRMA contends, for example, that the government cannot guarantee that imported drugs are not tainted, counterfeit or improperly handled. And the industry cites a Tufts University study that puts the average cost of developing a new drug at $802 million. Pharmaceutical industry political spending in Minnesota 2000-�02 PhRMA plans to spend $3.1 million more across the nation on lobbying and another $1.3 million for local publicity in 13 states, according to industry documents obtained by the news media. In its most recent annual report, PhRMA said it has defeated 80 price-control measures in 23 states and successfully opposed bills in 18 states that would have required substantial rebates or discounts from its member companies. Minnesota was one of the 18. Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch is highly critical of the drug industry's efforts to defeat legislation. He has called legislators' failure to act a "scandal" and refers to the industry as "the other drug cartel." In a recently released report, he said, "Political influence fits the pharmaceutical industry like a glove on a hand." PhRMA produced a 19-page rebuttal, saying the report misstated facts and made significant omissions. David Strom called Hatch's characterization of the drug industry's influence an oversimplification. Strom is legislative director of the Minnesota Taxpayers League, an anti-big-government advocacy group that has often testified on issues supported by the drug industry. "They are not a tiger; they are not even a paper tiger. When they call, people don't say, 'We have to have these people in,' " Strom said. Heightened attention Until 2000, the pharmaceutical industry paid little attention to Minnesota. Except for 3M's pharmaceutical division, there was little of the industry here. Several companies, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly, did have lobbyists at the State Capitol. The situation changed during the 2000 congressional election cycle, when prescription drugs became a huge issue in Minnesota. Ads, mailings and telemarketing campaigns proliferated to attack candidates who supported price controls. Supporters of such legislation weighed in, as well. In 2002, the battle moved on to the Legislature. That year, the industry spent $476,000 on lobbying, public relations firms, mailings and telemarketing, according to data from the state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Drug companies and PhRMA employ at least 38 lobbyists in Minnesota, a relatively small number compared with some other interests, such as education and the environment, but the presence is growing. Lobbyists in Washington, D.C., include a former congressman from Minnesota. PhRMA employs four lobbyists in St. Paul, including former House Speaker Bob Vanasek. PhRMA members Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Tap Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and other companies also have their own lobbyists. This fall, PhRMA brought in private investigator Beau Dietl, a former New York City police officer and mainstay on the cable television circuit, to present his findings on what he saw as the widespread fraud and dangers of imported drugs. PhRMA declined to answer questions directly about its lobbying in Minnesota. But in a prepared statement, the group told the Star Tribune it merely provides information about complex issues facing the pharmaceutical industry. "PhRMA, a trade association, is responsible for explaining these issues to the public, policymakers and others. Our public policy outreach is about having a dialogue with legislators and others to help them have the background they need to make informed decisions," the group said. TV, mail and AstroTurf The industry's most effective lobbying in Minnesota, however, has not happened outside committee hearing rooms or inside political fundraisers. It has come through television, newspaper advertising and mailings. And as in the case with Rep. Bradley, it has come over the telephone from a friendly voice representing nonprofit organizations with such names as the United Seniors Association, Citizens for a Better Medicare, the 60 Plus Association and the Seniors Coalition. Often using sophisticated telemarketing techniques, pharmaceutical makers have employed a method known as "AstroTurf lobbying," creating artificial grass-roots political movements designed to flood legislators' offices with faxes, letters and phone calls to create the appearance of a groundswell of constituent concern. Methods such as this aren't exclusive to the prescription drug issue; nearly all major public relations firms now provide similar lobbying efforts for their corporate clients. But it has been a source of controversy. Some contend that organizations funded by the industry carry consumer-friendly names to disguise their true purpose. "I think it's reprehensible. There's no excuse for it," said Lee Gracyk of the Minnesota Senior Federation, which has 15,000 members in the Twin Cities area. "If you believe strongly in something, you should stand up and say who you are. You shouldn't have to hide behind nice and cuddly titles to couch what you really intend to do." Citizens for a Better Medicare, now defunct, spent an estimated $1.1 million on 730 TV ads in the Twin Cities area during the 2000 election season, according to data compiled by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin, which studies political advertising. In documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the group lists PhRMA as a related entity, and media reports say the group received millions of dollars in funding from the trade group. The United Seniors Association, with television icon and former "Grandfather of the Year" Art Linkletter as its spokesman, spent an estimated $570,000 to run 484 television ads during the 2002 campaign in the Twin Cities area, by far the biggest spender among any interest group during that election, according to Joel Rivilin, a senior researcher at the Wisconsin Advertising Project. In an interview with the public interest group Public Citizen, a PhRMA spokesman said the trade group provided much of the funding for the United Seniors Association's ad campaign through an "unrestricted educational grant." On the phone Lobbying and political ads aren't the only way the pharmaceutical industry gets its message across. Two years ago, the state office of U.S. Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., was inundated with calls after he introduced legislation that would have let individuals import drugs from Canada for personal use. Senior citizens said they were worried that their health would be put at risk; many said they'd gotten calls or fliers from an organization called the Seniors Coalition warning them about the bill. In 2001, a group called the 60 Plus Association launched a telemarketing effort in Minnesota urging voters to call their representatives to oppose any drug-pricing legislation. The campaign was run by Bonner and Associates, a Washington, D.C., public relations firm that specializes in "AstroTurf" lobbying efforts, and was paid for by Pfizer. Garvin Pronk of Rochester was one of those who received a call. He said that he was told he should be concerned about the loss of Social Security disability benefits and that the caller suggested he contact Bradley, even patching him through to his office. Only after Bradley's office called back did Pronk discover who was behind the call. "I was in the dark. They just told me to call," Pronk said. "They were using me for their own purposes without divulging any information. . . . When I called [Bradley's office] and got an explanation for what was going on, I really felt like an idiot." It was on the message from another caller that Bradley heard the apparent coaching in the background. These nonprofit groups have sent thousands of mailings to Minnesota voters urging the defeat of prescription drug bills. The groups also have bought radio spots and full-page ads in newspapers across the state, including the Star Tribune. Earlier this year, the Seniors Coalition began radio and newspaper ads in Minnesota to raise concerns about the safety of importing prescription drugs from Canada. Responses Ed Fulginiti, a spokesman for the 60 Plus Association, said that his organization is not a front for the pharmaceutical industry and that attacks on the group obscure the real issue: the safety of imported drugs. "We are absolutely against the reimportation of drugs; we have no idea where they are coming from," he said. "When I go to my local pharmacist, I believe the drugs are safe; I can't say that about drugs from across the border." Jack Cox, a representative for Pfizer in New York, said that his company continues to use phone campaigns as an educational tool but that Bonner and Associates' only current connection to Pfizer is a campaign to identify eligible seniors for a discount drug program. He said the company never intended the telephone calls to be deceptive. "If Pfizer is directly funding an effort, then we would hope that it's made clear that, at the very least, the phone call is being made from our position," he said. "It is an education process, and we're educating them on an issue. The 'ask' on a phone call like that is, 'Would you like us to contact your elected official?' It is up to the caller." Telephone and e-mail requests to Bonner and Associates for comment were not answered. Chris Williams, public affairs director for the Seniors Coalition, acknowledged that his group, which he described as an issues advocacy organization, receives about 10 percent of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry in "unrestricted educational grants." He said the drug industry supports some positions of the coalition but does not dictate policy. "They come to us; we don't go to them," he said. "Whether their position on an issue is the same as ours is irrelevant to us." In response to requests by the Star Tribune about its relationships or funding of the organizations, PhRMA said in a prepared statement: "Seniors and other patients are the ultimate beneficiary of the medicines that our industry develops. Who better to explain the impact of certain policy decisions than the men, women and children whose lives are directly affected?" Under scrutiny At times, these groups have come under federal and state government scrutiny. An ethics complaint was filed against Bonner and Associates and PhRMA in Maryland last year over a campaign similar to the one conducted in Minnesota. The complaint alleged that the public relations firm and a PhRMA-funded group it worked with were running a deceptive lobbying campaign illegally in the state without being registered. The state ethics commission declined to act on the complaint after Jack Bonner, president of Bonner and Associates, registered as a lobbyist. The Seniors Coalition and the United Seniors Association were the subjects of congressional hearings in 1992 on alleged mail fraud because of their mailings to seniors. They were criticized by officials from several states who testified and by congressional members, although no action was taken. This year, the United Seniors Association was fined $554,196 by the Social Security Administration for sending a mailing to seniors in Minnesota and other states dealing with Social Security. It included the wording "SOCIAL SECURITY ALERT" bordering the envelope and had a box with a checkmark next to the words "urgent alert." Inside was a missive by association president Charlie Jarvis warning recipients that they could lose their Social Security checks if they did not contribute. Concerned that it looked like an official document, the Social Security Administration obtained a cease-and-desist order, saying the mailing created "a serious threat to the ability of the Social Security Administration to communicate freely with the public." The United Seniors Association has appealed the fine. Sometimes, drug companies are part of the discussion without many people knowing it. In October, former U.S. Reps. Tim Penny and Vin Weber were hosts of a conference on the politics of health care reform held at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs. As a senior fellow at the institute and the codirector of the Humphrey Institute Policy Forum, Weber was a natural to help lead the discussion. What wasn't said is that Weber also is registered as a lobbyist for PhRMA and the drug companies Eli Lilly and Novartis. Since 1999, his Washington consulting and lobbying firm Clark and Weinstock has earned $960,000 lobbying on behalf of the drug industry, according to documents filed with the secretary of the U.S. Senate. Asked whether he thought the audience should have been made aware of his firm's clients, Weber said, "Maybe if I was giving a speech, but that's not what I was doing. I never gave it much thought." Often the drug companies are more visible. State Senate Majority Leader John Hottinger, DFL-St. Peter, who last session introduced legislation that the pharmaceutical industry fought, said he cannot go to a health care seminar without feeling the industry's influence. "Everywhere you walk, someone is carrying a drug company bag. You can't get away from it," he said. How influential? The pharmaceutical companies contend that their influence here is minimal. Several companies have their own lobbyists registered in Minnesota, but they may also work in several other Midwestern states. A handful of companies also have contract lobbyists based in Minnesota, dealing with specific, often proprietary legislation that may affect a specific company. Whether the efforts are successful is open to debate. William Flanigan, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota, said the multitude of issues during the 2002 campaign in Minnesota made it difficult to break out the effectiveness of advertising and AstroTurf lobbying by the drug companies. Flanigan was one of several academics who studied soft money and issue advocacy in the 2002 congressional campaign for the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University. But studies have shown that groups that are perceived to be independent have more credence with voters than political parties or the candidates themselves. "Common sense tells you that this is a design that ought to work," Flanigan said. Ron Eibensteiner, chairman of the state Republican Party, who has done business in the health care industry since 1982, said the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying efforts in the state are perfectly proper. Red tape and regulations have slowed research and development, threatening profits and lengthening the time it takes to get drugs on the market. The industry is in defensive mode and has been forced to adopt the tactics to survive, he said. "They're just doing what everyone else is doing. Why shouldn't they?" University of Minnesota political science Prof. Lawrence Jacobs said that in the past, drug companies have taken a more defensive approach to lobbying in Minnesota. But Jacobs predicted that drug companies will flood Minnesota with cash now that Gov. Pawlenty has upped the stakes. Lee Gracyk of the Minnesota Senior Federation agreed. "The fire is shifting in a whole different direction now," Gracyk said. The writers are [EMAIL PROTECTED]@startribune.com">>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Return to top � Copyright 2003 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. ------------ Dwayne Voegeli Winona County Commissioner, District #2 (507) 453-9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 359 Pleasant Hill Dr. Winona, MN 55987 ------------ _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
