special interests quietly financing private groups that may take their side as respected, seemingly independent allies without obvious financial inter

LobbyBlog

HOW THE BIOTECH WAR WAS WON If you're like me, you enjoy the opportunity to purchase inexpensive generic drugs instead of the pricey brand names that show up on most formularies. Naturally, the pharmaceutical industry does not like this, and they'll go to great lengths to limit those cost-saving opportunities:

With the nation's $46 billion biological drug market at stake, the war between makers of the pricey biotech medicines and their would-be generic competitors has involved millions of dollars in lobbying, thousands in campaign contributions and uncounted visits to members of Congress. And one noteworthy letter.

The note from the private National Health Council, sent to House leaders drafting health overhaul legislation, said the plea was on behalf of "the more than 133 million Americans living with chronic diseases and disabilities and their family caregivers." It urged lawmakers to protect the makers of high-technology biological medicines against early competition from lower-cost generic copycats.

The letter did not mention that nearly $1.2 million of the council's $2.3 million budget in 2007 came from the pharmaceutical industry's chief trade group and 16 companies that sell or are developing the brand-name biotech drugs.

The July 20 letter is an example of a favored lobbying tactic -- special interests quietly financing private groups that may take their side as respected, seemingly independent allies without obvious financial interests in the outcome. ,,,

Think Progress � Coal Lobbyists Now ‘Outraged’ By Fraud, But Kept Silent During Clean Energy Vote

Think Progress � Coal Lobbyists Now ‘Outraged’ By Fraud, But Kept Silent During Clean Energy Vote

The top coal lobbying coalition in Washington, D.C. hid its knowledge of “fraudulent grassroots lobbying” while Congress voted against clean energy legislation on June 26, 2009. A background document from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) reveals that it learned two days before the vote on Waxman-Markey that Bonner & Associates had sent a dozen forged letters opposing the American Clean Energy and Security Act to at least three members of the House of Representatives:

Due to reported misconduct by a Bonner and Associates employee (who the firm states was subsequently fired), it appears that a total of twelve falsified letters were sent by that firm to the offices of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, Congressman Christopher Carney and Congressman Tom Perriello.

Based upon information ACCCE received from the Hawthorn Group, it was Bonner and Associates’ own internal process that identified these falsified letters and it was Mr. Bonner who first brought this to the attention of the Hawthorn Group. ACCCE was then made aware of the situation by Hawthorn on June 24, 2009.

Two of the three members targeted by ACCCE — Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) and Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) — voted against the bill on June 26th. However, despite its knowledge of this potentially criminal fraud, ACCCE said nothing until Rep. Perriello’s hometown paper, the Charlottesville Daily Progress, broke the story more than a month later on July 31st. On August 3rd, ACCCE released a statement that they were “outraged by the conduct of Bonner and Associates.” ...

Op-Ed Columnist - Health Care Realities - NYTimes.com

Raw Story � Blue Dog opposition may be ‘underwritten’ by pharmaceutical giants

Typical “Blue Dog” Democrats — moderate members of Congress who have been the most ardent among Obama’s own party in thwarting ongoing national healthcare legislation — receive 25 percent more campaign cash from the healthcare and insurance industry than other Democrats, an investigation has found.

In fact, a Blue Dog’s average receipts from the medical industry was just $3,625 lessthan that of the average Republican. Republicans have worked to block plans to enact universal health insurance legislation, saying that it would restrict individual choice and lead to the rationing of medical care.

Blue Dog Democrats say they’re for moderate fiscal policy and aim to reduce the overall cost of a health insurance measure. It appears, however, that their ideological opposition is underwritten by the industry most affected by proposed changes.

Notably, the Blue Dog Political Action Committee has received lavish financial support from pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Novartis; insurers WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual and the trade group American’s Health Insurance Plans.

The average Blue Dog got more than half (54 percent) of total 2009 financial contributions from the medical care industry. Its PAC has more than doubled in size since 2005 — at a time when both national Republican and Democratic campaign committees reported double-digit drops in funding. ...