Making Government Transparent and Accountable
The Sunlight Foundation uses cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable. Underlying all of our efforts is a fundamental belief that increased transparency will improve the public's confidence in government
The Sunlight Foundation Blog
-
White House-PhRMA Update
Last we left off in the story of the White House-PhRMA deal the White House had made new cost cutting proposals that would affect the pharmaceutical industry. PhRMA has since put out a press release that doesn’t really answer many questions about where they stand. This was before last week’s health care summit:“We remain committed to health care reform done in a fair and smart way. We continue to believe that all Americans should have access to high-quality, affordable health care coverage and services.
“Throughout the health reform debate, America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies have supported proposals aimed at encouraging critically important medical research and innovation to improve the lives of patients and foster a successful life sciences sector, which supports millions of American jobs.
“We will be carefully reviewing the proposal and look forward to hearing the discussions at Thursday’s White House summit on health care reform.”
The Washington Post reports that their lobbyists are working to block the additional $10 billion in cost cutting proposed by the administration, while still remaining supportive of the Senate bill:
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the powerful drugmaker lobbying group, is holding back on ads for now but will continue to work closely with lawmakers and the White House on specific issues, one senior industry official said. PhRMA, which agreed to $80 billion in cuts in exchange for protection from other steps, has concerns about Obama’s proposal to add another $10 billion to that amount, the official said.
Of course, the major key is the cessation of advertising by the group. PhRMA just isn’t willing to put any more money on the line with so much ambiguity regarding the outcome.
-
White House Health Proposal May Blow Up PhRMA Deal
This morning the White House released a new health care proposal that may be used as a blueprint for a compromise between House and Senate versions of reform. This new proposal will likely not find a receptive audience at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)–the chief lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry.Throughout 2009, PhRMA and major pharmaceutical companies crafted a deal with the White House to limit cost cutting by the industry in exchange for the industry’s support, through over $100 million in television advertising, for health care reform. (The entire story behind the crafting of the deal can be read here.) The White House’s new proposal contains deeper cost cuts than previously agreed to and contains regulations on the relationship between brand-name and generic drug companies that the industry opposes.
The deeper cost cuts come from an attempt to further close the “donut hole” in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. The “donut hole” refers to the gap in coverage that occurs within Medicare Part D. For those purchasing prescription drugs through the program coverage cuts off at $2,700 spent and does not pick back up again until $6,154 is spent by the participant. The current language that was struck in the deal between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry maintains that drug companies would cover 50 percent of the cost for brand-name drugs for participants falling in the “donut hole.” This change would be implemented within the year. The White House’s new proposal would eliminate the “donut hole” by 2020 by making participants pay only 25 percent coinsurance with Medicare covering the other 75 percent. The White House also takes a page from the House health reform bill by providing a $250 rebate to Part D participants who fall into the “donut hole.” (The House bill provides for a $500 reduction in costs for participants who fall into the “donut hole.”) (Continue reading…)
-
The Legacy of Billy Tauzin: The White House-PhRMA Deal
More than a million spectators gathered before the Capitol on a frosty January afternoon to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama, who promised in his campaign to change Washington’s mercenary culture of lobbyists, special interest influence and backroom deals. But within a few months of being sworn in, the President and his top aides were sitting down with leaders from the pharmaceutical industry to hash out a deal that they thought would make health care reform possible.
Over the following months, pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and executives met with top White House aides dozens of times to hammer out a deal that would secure industry support for the administration’s health care reform agenda in exchange for the White House abandoning key elements of the president’s promises to reform the pharmaceutical industry. They flooded Congress with campaign contributions, and hired dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders to push their case. How they did it—pieced together from news accounts, disclosure forms including lobbying reports and Federal Election Commission records, White House visitor logs and the schedule Sen. Max Baucus releases voluntarily—is a testament to how ingrained the grip of special interests remains in Washington.
In the 2008 campaign, Obama declared his intention to include all stakeholders as he sought to reform the nation’s health care system, but also supported key Democratic health reform policies. Among these were several that targeted the pharmaceutical industry: Allowing re-importation of drugs from first world countries with lower drug prices and providing Medicare with negotiating authority over prescription drug prices in the recently enacted Part D program. These weren’t just promises, Obama had already voted for both of them as a senator in 2007. (Roll Call Vote 132 and Roll Call Vote 150.)
Set to carry out this agenda were two Capitol Hill veterans, schooled in the monied Washington culture, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina. Emanuel was a former fundraiser, Clinton administration official, investment banker and member of the Democratic leadership in Congress. Messina was the former campaign manager and chief of staff to the powerful Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus. Both were known for their unparalleled legislative abilities.
Because of Obama’s decision to develop a plan operating through the legislative process, members of Congress also played key roles. Early on, the pharmaceutical companies were told to deal directly with Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus. Baucus would be the vehicle for the deal worked out behind the scenes by the White House and PhRMA. (Continue reading…)
-
How the Pharmaceutical Industry Bought Its Way Into Congress’ Heart
This Time article by Karen Tumulty and Michael Scherer is a must-read. Some key graphs:
[I]n the first six months of this year alone, drug and biotech companies and their trade associations spent more than $110 million — that’s about $609,000 a day — to influence lawmakers, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. The drug industry’s legion of registered lobbyists numbers 1,228, or 2.3 for every member of Congress. And its campaign contributions to current members of Waxman’s committee have totaled $2.6 million over the past three years.
The return on that investment has been considerable, both in the House and in the Senate. “We’ve done very well,” says lobbyist Jim Greenwood, a former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania who was a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and now heads the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). “We carried a majority of the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans in each of the committees, and by very clear margins.”
Despite promises to reign in lobbyists, Congress and the White House have done little to affect the actual situation on the ground. The Obama administration has laid the ground work for what could be a promising new system for lobbying disclosure in their limited lurches at the lobbyist complex in Washington — requiring disclosure of lobbyist contacts for bailout and stimulus funds. The current lobbyist disclosure system, however, does not seek to help the public or affect K Street, but instead is aimed at providing lawmakers with an up-to-date list of the people who keep calling their offices. Earlier this year, I wrote about the need for lobbyist contact disclosure. Here are some key graphs from that post to think about when you’re reading the Time article on pharmaceutical lobbying:
Debate over previous lobbying regulation bills (the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007) acknowledged that the disclosure by lobbyists is not only due to the potential for corrupting activity, but because they serve an important role and their existence needs to be revealed, not only to the public, but for lawmakers and officials to better understand with whom they are meeting. In fact, the general thrust of the debate during consideration of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 surrounded the need for lawmakers to be informed of who they are meeting and discussing policy. While this has served the legislative need to know the bias of a caller, it has not served the public interest nor has it helped the factions and interests that hire lobbyists to better police each other.
…The reason why the disclosure of contacts is important is not because we are worried that lobbyists are engaging in a quid-pro-quo but because of associational bias. In her legal essay, St. John’s University law professor Anita Krishnakumar explains that, “…[T]he public perceives that lobbyists receive special face time with elected officials. Irrespective of where that face time occurs — in scheduled meetings, on a train ride, over a game of power, or on the golf course — it creates opportunities for lobbyists to persuade elected officials of their clients’ positions, opportunities that ordinary citizens do not have. In other words, the public’s concern is not just that elected officials will engage in blatant vote-selling to lobbyists, but, more subtly, that they will be partial to the causes of lobbyists’ clients because they spend a lot of time in lobbyists’ company.”
…
The disclosure of lobbying contacts provides not only the public with a better view of which interests and factions are trying to influence outcomes, but it also provides a chance for those same interests and factions to view the actions of their opposition. If union officials are putting a full court press over the Employee Free Choice Act, business groups will be able to see which lawmakers they are targeting and can prepare a better response. Groups can help educate the public on which lawmakers are more supportive of their causes, or if they are in opposition. And some lawmakers, exposed by the sunlight, may find it in their interest to meet with more groups to not only provide a more bipartisan public record, but to also gain insight from a more diverse group of interests.
…
The need for a better system of lobbying disclosure, that increases registration and disclosure, is necessary to provide the public, interests and lawmakers with the information that actually matters and to provide the professional legitimacy that the lobbying industry needs.
-
Quick Links in the Morning
CQ Politics reports that health care related PACs accounted for the top or second highest source of contributions for 15 of the top 18 congressional leaders in the House involved in the health care debate.
Apparently, the $80 billion cost savings that the pharmaceutical industry agreed to with the Obama administration came with a price. In return, the White House promised to protect the industry from further attempts to extract cost savings from them including allowing the government to negotiate drug prices. Now we know what those trips to the White House were all about.
The House Selecte Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is investigating the forged letters sent to three congressmen by a grassroots lobbying firm on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE has been trying to distance themselves from Bonner & Associates, the firm in question, and has denounced the letters. In a new letter sent by Chair Ed Markey, ACCCE is questioned as to why they did not act on the forged letters after they discovered their existence on June 24, two days prior to the vote on the cap and trade bill.
A new hire by the State Department may exploit a loophole in the administration’s lobbying ban.
The Washington Post has a useful interactive graphic to compare the various versions of health care reform in Congress.
-
Congressional Lawmakers “Invested” in Health Reform Debate
Yesterday afternoon, the Center for Responsive Politics came out with a report showing how many congressional lawmakers have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money into companies that have financial stakes in which bills eventually pass and become law. CRP has found many lawmakers are heavily invested in pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, industries that are very interested in what Congress does to health care. Nearly one in four lawmakers had invested some money in health companies during 2007, the most recent year CRP calculated lawmakers’ extensive personal finances. (In October, data for 2008 will be available in their personal financial disclosure database). Because lawmakers report the value of their assets in ranges, CRP can’t give exact figures. With that said, lawmakers had invested somewhere between $44.2 million and $93.9 million in health care related companies.
CRP looked closer at some of the key lawmakers who serve on the five committees that will have the most impact on the health legislation as it works through the Congress. Here’s what they found: In 2007, 54 current lawmakers serving on these committees had between $31 million and $57.9 million invested in health companies.
They quote Charles Silver, a University of Texas law professor who focuses on health care policy, saying that such investments in the past have shaped congressional debates, along with campaign contributions and the revolving door between the public and private sectors. CRP took a closer look at the investments of six of those lawmakers and asked their staff if they saw any conflict of interest. Check it out their responses here.
And if you want to see the health money going into the Senate health committee. Sunlight’s new beta — Congrelate.com — makes that easy. Check it out
-
Drug trial data at your fingertips
Unless you or a family member has suffered a serious illness, it’s unlikely that you’ve run across the site ClinicalTrials.gov, run by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Available since 2000 and enhanced by a 2007 law which requires more extensive reporting, this site contains a database of nearly 71,000 drug trials conducted by privately and publicly funded researchers in 50 states and 164 countries. The website gets 40 million page views per month and 50,000 visitors a day.
Using ClinicalTrials.gov easy-to-use search interface, you can type in a search such as “breast cancer AND Denver,” or “asthma AND Pittsburgh” and get a list of relevant drug trials that are underway or have been completed. Thanks to the 2007 law, over a three-year period this information is being expanded to include information about actual results from these trials as well. This will help patients ferret out drugs that may be showing negative side effects.
This is a great resource, but does it have legs? Yes and no. The website does provide a way to obtain the data via XML feed, which would allow savvy programmers to mash it up with other information. However, you have to wade through several layers of the website to find instructions about how to do this. There’s also a page for webcrawlers. There is no way, as far as I could tell, to get this information in other formats, such as tab delimited file. On the front page, there are no links to RSS feeds or social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter.
Are there third parties out there that are taking this information, mashing it up, and making it better? Yes. TrialCheck at Cancertrialshelp.org, a nonprofit group, takes data from ClinicalTrials.gov and other sources and takes it a step further, by avoiding dense medical terminolgy and giving users the option of calling a clinical trial specialist at the American Cancer Society for more information about a particular trial. Visits to the website quadrupled in the last year, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Another intriguing idea was submitted to Netsquared.org last year–a graphic designer proposed taking data on breast cancer and mashing it up with other information to produce maps for patients where they could quickly find local support groups, treatment, screening centers and events.
On my own wish list would be to figure out a way to take these data and mash them up with information about lawmakers’ districts, to see what drug trials are going on where. We already know that the pharmaceutical industry gives big bucks to federal candidates and parties and spends copiously on lobbying. Would lawmaker X be more likely to vote against stricter drug safety regulation if he has a big drug company sponsored trial going on in his district? Would it help explain why lawmaker Y is getting a flood of contributions from executives working with a particular out-of-district company? The data offered at ClinicalTrials.gov could help answer these questions.
-
Read the Bill: Secret Provision Inserted in Defense Appropriations
Buried in the final conference report for the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 (H.R. 2863) was a provision providing a lawsuit liability shield for pharmaceutical companies. The provision was aimed at preventing lawsuits against drug makers working to create vaccines for biological attacks and avian flu, but went much further in protecting many more kinds of drugs. What’s notable about this provision is that no one thought it would be in the bill. The conferees did not sign off on it and the final bill was passed in less than 24 hours, providing little time to address the late night addition of this provision. This is our next case study for the Read the Bill campaign.
During the first year of the 109th Congress much attention was paid to the development of drugs to counter biological weapons and avian flu. The Bush White House supported the position that companies helping to create and manufacture such drugs should be exempt from liability lawsuits, in the event of side-effects, injury, or death. One proposal pushed by Sen. Richard Burr, the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine Drug Development Act of 2005, provided a vehicle to pass liability shields for the drug industry and also created a new government department to work on creating vaccines that would be exempt from liability lawsuits, FOIA, and other open government laws. Burr’s bill passed the relevant committee intact but sat still on the legislative calendar.
Instead of pursuing the passage of Burr’s bill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sought to attach parts of the liability shield to the Defense Appropriations Act. The defense funding bill had already passed both chambers of Congress and awaited hearing before a conference committee. In the weeks leading up to the release of a conference report on the bill, Frist worked with drug industry lobbyists to craft and insert the liability shield language into the bill. The only problem was that they failed, initially.
On December 18, 2005, the conference committee met to hash out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. Upon completing the conference report both sides agreed to keep the liability shield language out of the bill and left the hearing room to announce the details to the public. In most cases, that would have been the end of it. Frist, however, was undeterred, and after the conferees left the hearing he sought Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s approval to insert the 40-page liability shield language into the completed report. Unbeknown to the conferees, the report would include the liability shield.
The next day, fewer than 24 hours after the final bill was released to the public, the House convened to vote on the bill. Rep. David Obey, one of the duped conferees, called the insertion of the shield a “blatantly abusive power play.” Sen. Robert Byrd, another conferee, declared it an “insult to the legislative process.” Rep. Dan Burton stated, “This kind of thing should not be done at 11 at night.” The bill passed the House on December 19 and the Senate on December 21.
It was later revealed that more than 100 lobbyists were working on the insertion of the liability shield language. Three of those lobbyists were former staffers of Sen. Bill Frist. One of those lobbyists was Speaker Dennis Hastert’s son, Joshua Hastert.
-
Computer Glitch Prevents Searching for Individual Lobbyist Names
In the Senate the lobbying data is maintained by the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR) which currently enters the lobbyist disclosure reports filed on paper into a database. Did you know — I just learned this — that electronic disclosure has been required for lobbyist reports since 1995, but still hasn’t been fully implemented?! An apparent glitch in SOPR’s computer system is currently preventing the public from searching for individual lobbyists, as well as for issues that interests have reported lobbying on in 2007. How beyond ridiculous is this?
It’s absurd because whether the Democrats or the GOP control Congress, lobbyists often set the table. Industry lobbyists make sure that their clients’ interests are tended to, no matter who runs the Congress. The Center for Responsive Politics analyzed reports filed last month and found lobbyists spending has topped $1.24 billion in the first six months of this year. For perspective, lobbyists spend a record amount of $2.61 billion throughout 2006. CRP’s analysis found:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continued to be the top spender, lobbying government officials to the tune of $21.2 million, or more than $115,000 a day. Other top spenders included General Electric, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, American Medical Association and AT&T. Overall, health sector interests spent the most money, moving ahead of the financial, insurance and real estate sector for the first time in years. Health interests spend more than $193 million between January and June; 53 percent of the money was spent by the prescription drug industry alone. But the single largest lobbying contract was between an investment firm, Blackstone Group, and Ogilvy Government Relations — $3.7 million (or about $20,000 a day). Private equity firms and hedge funds have ramped up their lobbying to persuade Congress not to raise taxes on their profits.
Why should we care? In April, the Center for Public Integrity released an analysis looking at the spending of the pharmaceutical industry from January 2005 to June 2006, finding that the industry and its trade groups spent a record $155 million lobbying the federal government and its agencies. Why the record spending? "During that time, the drug industry heavily — and successfully — lobbied against Congress’ revisiting a provision in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 that barred the federal government from negotiating on drug prices," reports Pharmaceutical Online. "Also on the lobbying agenda were protection of lucrative drug patents and prevention of the importation of lower-priced Canadian drugs." In other words, the drug companies spent $155 million to protect their profits at the expense of the average American family’s pocket book and ultimately public health.
You can search CRP’s database in four ways: search by name for a company, lobbying firm or individual lobbyist; search for the total spending by a particular industry; search for the total spending by lobbyists on a specific issue; or view the amount spent to lobby a particular government agency.
And in the meantime, call the SOPR at 202-224-0758 and tell them to fix their computers.
Update: The Center for Responsive Politics just emailed to say that the gitch was fixed:
Whether it was your blog post, our newsletter item or an act of God, SOPR has apparently fixed the glitch that was preventing the public from searching for lobbyists by name and viewing which issues interests reported lobbying on, according to our lobbying team. We’re in the process of downloading the data and it should be posted in our Lobbying Database within the next 24-48 hours.
-
60 Minutes Covers Lobbyist Influence
Perhaps the greatest convergance of corrupt activities in Washington over the past few years occurred during the debate and passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. The story in a nutshell is that lobbyists wrote a one thousand page bill that was introduced hours before congressmen voted on it. The vote was then held open for three hours – the longest vote in the history of the House of Representatives – instead of the normal and required 15 minutes. During the open vote the Republican majority twisted arms and used threats and bribes to gain votes for the bill. (Later, Tom DeLay and other Republican congressmen would be admonished by the Ethics Committee for their actions.) When the bill was passed and signed by the President all of the main actors who helped pass the bill went to work for the pharmaceutical industry. Last night 60 Minutes did a great job covering this story. Crooks & Liars has the 60 Minutes footage:
Here's a direct Windows Media Player link.
Here's a direct Quicktime Link.
