NPR has a truly magnificent bit of reporting here — one that deserves a big fat following of me-too following from every media outlet: A panoramic shot of the lobbyists and other special-interest-shuckers in the health care hearing room — with identifying tags, and how many dollars they bring to the table. They're asking folks to write in and identify folks in the picture.
This is brilliant stuff, and well overdue. One looks at a picture like this, and one realizes what our democracy has turned into. One can imagine our legislators talking all day to people like this, perhaps hardly hearing anything from the folks back home — and in any event, surely not hearing a representative sampling of opinions.
It's eye-opening. And given the vast power lobbyists have to shape crucial legislation dealing with, say, your health, or the survival of our species on earth, this should be the big story for our media, day after day after day. This is the story — unless we insist otherwise.
Morning Edition, David Greene interviewed, or tried to interview, Chip Kahn who is president of the Federation of American [for-profit] Hospitals. What a waste of time for Greene, who couldn’t get the guy to utter any meaningful syllables except for the ones that comprise “private insurers.” It’s going to take a lot of vertebral fortitude to get anywhere on this issue in this country.
Patients!
<
p>Health care is not for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, nurses, legislators, lawyers, lobbyists or others to exploit for profit. Health care is for patients. Or should be.
<
p>Brilliant photo, Charlie. I hope they do fill in the names.
In the light of the 1st Amendment
<
p>
What kind of restrictions would you put on individuals or organizations who wish to “regress grievances” with their local or state or national government?
<
p>Is it ok only for individual citizens (and don’t forget corporations are citizens) to figure out which specific policy makers might be able to help them and then approach the specific policy makers?
<
p>Is it not ok if individual citizens (including corporate citizens )to organize themselves and raise money to pay their expenses and hire an expert to help them figure out who the specific policy maker might be and advise them on how to build a credible argument that might convince the policy maker to help them?
<
p>Just wondering.
<
p>In that room, and interviewed in that NPR story is the long time lobbyist for Consumes Union, a former Congressional staffer who had a wonderful quote about how he could feel a sense of urgency around health reform in the room that he had never sensed before, and he was very hopeful. Valuable information worth paying for I think.
<
p>And he was only one of the paid lobbyists in the room representing consumer health advocacy organizations, including folks still lobbying hard for single payer, and not ready to settle for a public programs. I think they have a right to be in that room watching the human dynamics, and looking for policy openings. Don’t you?
<
p>Full disclosure I am a registered goverment agent right here in Massachusetts, and I din’t have the time to participate in any of the debriefings from consumer advocates after that hearing.
Judy, this is all well and good; and of course there are lobbyists for jes’ folks in that room as well as lobbyists for industry.
<
p>But this is a discussion absolutely dominated by the money people — if that were not the case, we wouldn’t be insisting on cutting insurance companies — a sink of almost pure waste — into the deal. I mean, I even accept that as a sine qua non of health reform, because I know a deal can’t get done otherwise. I live in the “real world.” The “real world” belongs to the people in that room, and the dollars they represent.
<
p>So yeah, everyone’s got the right to petition to redress a grievance. Some folks can pay for more petitioning than others. There’s something wrong with that, and I will continue to say so. You may get bored.
where you would draw and enforce the line of some “stakeholders” like health insurnace companies being able to pay more than consumers union? Want to set a limit?
<
p>and while we’re setting a limit on how much stakeholders can pay lobbyists do you apply the same “somethings wrong” standard to campaign finance in the light of BMG being able to create a BMG PAC presumably to be able to make sure that your endorsed candidates who agree with your issues raise more $$$?
we can hire you! đŸ˜‰
<
p>Seriously, I am less lobbyist-phobic than some here. I think campaign contribution bans for lobbyists are silly (and perhaps unconstitutional), and I appreciate the good work that you and other skilled advocates do for the good guys.
<
p>All of that said, Charley is right that there’s a structural problem with the way policy debates like health care go forward, especially at the national level where the financial stakes are so mind-bogglingly huge. There is no easy fix other than sunlight; the structural problems are very hard to solve because highly concentrated pockets of wealth with common interests (like the insurance companies) are much easier to organize than are much larger but much more diffuse groups like health care consumers. However, the internet is an excellent tool that makes it easier than ever to create a counterweight to narrow interests like, say, the insurance industry and the for-profit health care providers. We’re already seeing it; let’s hope it keeps happening.
And the more the better. And we are all looking forward to the increased sunlight that will be shown on lobbyists under the new ethics reform law.
<
p>The Secretary of State has the key job of creating a user friendly searchable data base that will help us all find out exacly who is paying who for what purpose.
<
p>I know many of my colleagues in the non profit “good guy/girl” world think it is too broad, and will impose a lot of burdensome paper work on tiny advocacy groups, but I think the amount of good research, analysis and advocacy work is very impressive and will only build our power and influence.
I wonder if the fundamental problem is the artificial construction that a corporation is a “person” and is therefore entitled to all the constitutional protections of a person.
<
p>Unlike a person, a corporation is required by law to maximize its return to its shareholders. This is particularly problematic when the fiscal interests of the corporation conflict with the law (or morality). In that case, the corporation is required, by law, to balance the costs of violating the law (or changing it) with the costs of conforming. If that cost-balance equation tips in favor of violating the law (and paying the penalties), then the directors of the corporation violate their fiscal obligations to their shareholders by choosing to obey.
<
p>There is, to my knowledge, no provision in current law to reflect the externalized costs of a particular decision in the above balance. Thus, the executives of a health-care corporation do not have a mechanism for doing the “right thing”, even if they know what the “right thing” is, if the “right thing” is to reduce the profits of their company in exchange for lower costs overall.
<
p>This structural problem transcends the personal integrity of any individual person, from the CEO all the way to agents and lobbyists.
<
p>This dilemma is explored at some length in the excellent 2003 documentary The Corporation. I highly recommend it.
<
p>I really don’t know what the answer is. I suggest that we are all in the process of working it out, and because it has no easy and obvious answer (that I can see), then we all need to be patient and we all need to listen and consider the implications — good and bad — of each alternative we contemplate.
Under no circumstances can a corporation justify breaking the law by arguing that doing so created the best value for its shareholders. So this:
<
p>
<
p>is inaccurate to that extent. Shareholders cannot successfully sue the directors for complying with the law, even when doing so cost money; directors are not legally permitted to consider the benefits of breaking the law. (Changing it, of course, is a different kettle of fish — that’s what lobbyists are for.)
<
p>With that caveat, though, I agree with much of the rest of your comment.
Not only are the corporate execs that put together the analysis and execute the policy not punished, they are lavished with awards and bonuses.
<
p>Maybe more troublesome is the system which rewards this quarters profits, without proper attention to the long term health and growth of the company, economy and country….which are all inter-related and interdependent.
… is a fine or some such monetary judgment, then it’s easy to imagine someone considering as one factor in a host of other factors, including profit, in a risk calculation behind a decision process. The risk can be great, of course. This is why, more often than not, the decision is to do the otherwise illegal thing in some jurisdiction where it is legal. This is why Union Carbide set up shop in Bhopal.
<
p>Of course there is no justification from a ‘shareholder duty’ point of view legally, but that only becomes a problem if things go south. If that never happens (if the risk pans out), then there is an upside from a ‘shareholder duty’ point of view. In this way it becomes, perhaps not a justification, but certainly an incentive. That’s the whole point of a risk calculation – interests (even illegal ones) vs risk (including legal risk).
Of course it does. I’m just pointing out that there’s no legal justification for it. The suggestion that the law somehow compels corporations to be lawbreakers is incorrect. That’s on the corporations themselves.
I’m not an attorney.
<
p>The specific claim made in The Corporation (see above) is that the executives of a corporation do become liable for shareholder suits if they attempt to put “the public good” ahead of the bottom line. As several comments downthread observe, this often becomes a matter of balancing a fine against increased profits obtained by pursuing the questionable act. The incentive structure is very much balanced in favor of the increased profits, with the fine viewed as a cost-of-doing-business.
<
p>In practice, I think big business in particular is generally successful at structuring the law to permit whatever activity they choose to pursue. I’m not at all sure that changing the legal system will succeed in changing this reality. My gut suggests that a better approach is to find mechanisms that make pursuing the public good profitable. It seems to me that this is the underlying logic beneath “market” mechanisms such as carbon offsets and tradeable renewable energy credits. I suspect that more brute-force approaches (limiting corporate speech/spending, attempting to tighten regulations, etc.) are less likely to succeed.
<
p>One important aspect is finding ways to reflect “externalized costs” in the balance sheets of participating companies. How profitable would Exxon/Mobil be if the staggering military and diplomatic costs of preserving access to the ME were somehow bundled into the price of oil?
allotted superior rights and limited responsibility is the difficulty.
<
p>Not only are corporations not required to give an oath of allegiance to our country or serve the country for matters of national importance, it is acknowledged their legally mandated responsibility is to make money for themselves and their stockholders.
<
p>Yet corporations have more free speech, (money), and have a greater ability to influence elections and legislation than other American citizens.
<
p>There is a perception that too often corporate money and lobbyists are able to formulate public policy that favors their interests at the expense of the country.
participation in the policy making arena?
I think it’s a dangerously precarious approach.
<
p>You’ve done an excellent job of articulating why some corporate speech is needed. As I just wrote above, I tend to lean towards finding ways to put market mechanisms to work in a constructive way.
<
p>One approach is to de-emphasize the independent role of the corporation as a “person” in the eyes of the law and somehow raise the personal exposure of those who speak on its behalf.
<
p>For example, in Massachusetts, the officers and directors of a Massachusetts corporation are personally liable for payroll obligations of employees. That means that if a Massachusetts corporation runs out of cash and claims to be unable to meet its payroll, the very first step (at least as my attorneys explained it to me) is a knock on the door of its officers and directors — demanding that the payroll be paid or personal accounts frozen, assets confiscated, and similarly draconian steps.
<
p>It’s a deep and complex subject — perfect fodder for weekend blogging on a rainy Sunday (which seems to be in the forecast for tomorrow).
policies are offered to cover the very limited obligations of officers and directors for wrongful acts. This eliminates a strong disincentive for illegal or unethical behavior.
Corporations are a bedrock of our capitalist system.They just need to be regulated sufficiently and effectively.
Unrestrained capitalism would be disastrous and chaotic.
We’ve let down on our regulating everything since Uncle Ronny was president in the 80’s.
<
p>The influence of corporate campaign donations on those who make laws has grown. At the root of all evil in this country – unnecessary war, poverty, hunger, underfunded schools, lack of universal health coverage – is the decision by lawmakers to prioritize corporate interests over the interests and wellbeing of common people.
<
p>Remember the Clean Elections law? We allowed Tom Finneran and friends to strangle it until it died.How to limit corporations’ influence? Interrupt the “corporation – lobbyists – politician pipeline.”
In 1886,
<
p>Unfortunately this is a principle that has become precedent without hearing or debate. Such discussion may have uncovered some unforeseen side effects that have become apparent.
<
p>As a naturally created person, can Halliburton be drafted?, can Chrysler fun for Governor of Michigan? Heck they don’t need to, they already have the best representation money can buy.
<
p>
<
p>A classic example of the danger of national interests being trumped by corporate interests was the legislation to increase fuel-efficiency standards for energy conservation and reduction of dependence on foreign oil, introduced by Senators John Kerry and John McCain following 9/11. It is known that much of the money we spend on foreign oil goes to countries and organizations that threaten our safety and security. The bill lost 62 to 38-with the average no vote getting $18,000 in donations from auto companies and the average yes vote only $6,000.
<
p>Corporations began as organizations that served the people and too often now the trend seems to be reversing.
<
p>Corporations are clearly not a “person” as defined by the 14th Amendment. They have no Constitutionally rights. They should be prohibited from all political activities including, political: advertising, donations or lobbying.
Write this up as a post and I’ll FP. This is an immensely interesting subject, IMHO.
<
p>What would the Alliance for Justice think?