Max Baucus’ Indiscretions: Corporate Influence Worse than Sex

/42 Comments/in /by

By now you’ve heard the news that Max Baucus nominated his mistress (then withdrew the nomination) to be US Attorney.

A Department of Justice official who is in a relationship with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) withdrew as a finalist for Montana U.S. Attorney to live with the senator in Washington, a Baucus spokesperson confirmed to Main Justice today.

Melodee Hanes, the Montana senator’s former state director, withdrew earlier this year after Baucus sent her name and two others to the White House as his recommendations for the state’s top federal prosecuting job.

Here’s what Hanes’ ex-husband has to say on whether their relationship had anything to do with the nomination:

“She was recommended for the position because of a very close and personal relationship with Max Baucus and she withdrew because of a very close and personal relationship with Max Baucus,” Thomas Bennett, Hanes’ ex-husband, told Main Justice. Bennett and Hanes divorced in December 2008.

Best as I can tell, the timing looks something like this:

June 2008: Baucus and Hanes dancing in manner that appeared “beyond professional”

December 2008: Hanes and former husband divorce

Spring 2009: Baucus nominates Hanes–along with two others–to be US Attorney

April 2009: Baucus and wife announce divorce

June 2009: Baucus and Hanes buy place to live in together

Now, it is pretty bad form to nominate your mistress to be your state’s top federal prosecutor. Though Baucus and Hanes did withdraw that nomination (I wonder whether their relationship would have been considered in the White House’s not-quite crack vetting process?). I also wonder whether they withdrew her nomination because it was bad form, or because Montana’s recent history with Bill Mercer makes the state very sensitive to US Attorneys who don’t actually live in Montana. And there’s the detail that Baucus was carrying on an affair with one of his staffers, though that seems to be the default in DC.

But while we’re getting all scandalized about Baucus’s bad judgment, let’s talk about the bad judgment that did hurt taxpayers, rather than the one that almost did: the way in which the revolving door on his committee staff made it very easy for the insurance industry to write the Senate’s health care reform bill. I’m much more offended–and directly affected–by the fact that former Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler wrote the Senate health care bill than I am that Baucus nominated, then withdrew, his mistress for a plum job.

Max Baucus apparently has really poor judgment, across the board, on personnel issues. But it’s not the almost-scandal of Hanes that is the most damning.

Share this entry

Media Giants for Health Care

/16 Comments/in , /by

I said on Twitter yesterday that Comcast was endorsing health care reform as a sop designed to butter up Obama’s regulators who must approve the Comcast-NBC deal. But that becomes even more clear when you look at the letter Comcast’s CEO Brian Roberts wrote.

Roberts starts with an utterly shameless suck up. Congratulations, Mr. President, you rock! But as part of that suck up, Roberts appeals to the themes–job creation, investment, and innovation–taht Comcast will mobilize to justify its acquisition of NBC. (He does not, for some reason, mention the real reason behind the deal: profits.)

Congratulations on today’s Summit on Jobs and Economic Growth. I believe that hosting a thoughtful and vibrant discussion with the Vice President, members of your Cabinet, business leaders, scholars, and other public officials about the persistent economic challenges confronting America and the path we must forge to foster job creation, investment, and innovation is a really important initiative.

Then, Roberts uses his non-attendance at the summit as his excuse for making his transparent bid to suck up to Obama.

Because of our announcement today that we have formed a joint venture with General Electric consisting of NBCU’s businesses and Comcast’s cable networks, I am unable to attend the Summit. I very much appreciate the outreach to the business community, and want to express one of the thoughts I intended to make at the Summit –that enactment of comprehensive health care reform legislation is, in my judgment, critical to putting this country on a path of sustained growth and prosperity.

“I can’t attend because I’m busy becoming an even bigger media behemoth and oh by the way I’m sorry I haven’t mentioned yet that I support your signature policy issue but I do.”

From there, Roberts goes on to prove that he has been paying attention to Obama’s talking points, citing the cost and the amount by which it reduces deficits–which Roberts labels “a strong dose of fiscal responsibility.”

Then Roberts’ letter gets really interesting. He makes a sustained pitch for the digital technology aspects of reform.

I also strongly support the development of standards and protocols to promote the digitization of health records and documents, electronic data matching, and the interoperability of systems for enrollment in health services programs. Such steps could revolutionize how health centers and hospitals operate and enrich how health providers and patients communicate. Telemedicine and  distant health services will literally transform the delivery and monitoring of health care services and the training of health care professionals. As a leading information and communications technology company, Comcast understands the generative power of broadband technology and its potential to improve the overall quality of health care, while stimulating job creation and restoring our economy.

Notice that Roberts assumes this will all be done via broadband and not–say–satellite.

Read more →

Share this entry

On Monday Thousands Lose Their Healthcare

/11 Comments/in /by

McClatchy has an important story reminding that the COBRA subsidy expires on Monday. (h/t Atrios)

Hall, 56, is among an estimated 7 million unemployed Americans who get a federal subsidy to help them buy health insurance under legislation known as the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.

For workers who are laid off or downsized between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009, the COBRA subsidy pays 65 percent of their job-based health insurance premiums for nine months.

That subsidy, however, expires Monday for Hall and untold thousands of others who began receiving it in March, when it first became available as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

And while people who have been receiving this subsidy won’t lose their healthcare per se, at a cost of around $700/month for a family, they will no longer be able to afford health care and therefore will choose to go without. And that, I fear, is going to make the large scale long term joblessness in the Midwest a much more painful, because just as more people will be attempting to make do, cities and states are having to cut back on services to balance budgets.

I remember talking to people about this looming date several months ago–it was a moment they were anticipating when their otherwise functional ability to deal with long term unemployment was going to get really bad.

Share this entry

Parties for the Parrots!!

/24 Comments/in /by

Remember those Republicans and Democrats who took Roche/Genentech’s script and inserted it, barely touched, into the Congressional Record?

It will surprise none of you that there were parties involved.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) was scheduled to attend a breakfast fundraiser at the Phoenix Park Hotel on May 7.  The event was hosted by lobbyists David Jones and former Senate Finance Committee staff director James Gould, who count Roche as clients.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) held a fundraising breakfast at Bistro Bis on September 17. Lobbyist hosts included Darin Gardner and Anna Sagely, who lobby exclusively for Hoffman-La Roche,  as well as lobbyists Mat Lapinski, Chris Myrick, and Christine Pellerin, who have Roche on their client lists.

Darin Gardner and Christine Pellerin, legislative assistant to former Congressman Henry Bonilla (R-TX), also hosted Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) for breakfast at Bistro Bis, also in May of this year.

Finally, Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) held a cocktails and cigars fundraiser for Women Impacting the Nation, a project of her leadership committee Common Sense Common Solutions, on September 21. More than two dozen lobbyists hosted the event, four of whom represent Roche:  Darin Gardner, Christine Pellerin, Anna Sageley and Mat Lapinkski–the same lobbyists responsible for the Conaway and Poe events.

The same post notes that Roche/Genentech has hosted parties for 26 members of Congress since their merger in March.

This Congressing thing sounds like great fun! You get invited to all sorts of swell parties, people shower you with money, and they even do your homework for you. A lark! So long as you don’t care about people suffering.

Share this entry

Also in that Room: Democratic Biotech-Paid Whores

/44 Comments/in /by

In my last post, I showed you what a roomful of Republican biotech-paid whores looks like. But in that same room are the following Democratic biotech-paid whores.

Two comments on this. First, both the Republicans and Democrats included a talking point that I haven’t included in these two posts–talking about the necessity to do testing to make sure the biosimilars are interchangeable (Peterr collects the Dem version here). I aspire to do a post collecting all of them to show you bipartisan whoredom in action, if I recover from this tedium.

The other thing: check out the difference in talking points. Sure, the biotech lobbies made Republicans look like assholes. But they basically scripted Democrats into parroting simple five-paragraph essays of the kind you had to write when you were in third grade: Thesis, 1, 2, 3, conclusion.  Are they suggesting Democrats can’t handle a script–a frigging script submitted to the record, not read!!–harder than that? If they weren’t already ashamed at being industry whores, they really ought to hang their heads for how stupid the industry made them appear.

“Another significant benefit: jobs jobs jobs!”

Bob Filner

I wanted to draw attention to another significant benefit of this legislation: the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Yvette Clarke

Another significant benefit of this legislation, which has not received as much attention, will be the creation of new high paying jobs, high quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Donald Payne

Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Bill Pascrell

Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle: this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology, and research in the United States.

Phil Hare

With unemployment at its highest level since 1983, another significant benefit of this legislation that should be highlighted is the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Linda Sanchez

But another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received much attention is its promotion of high-paying research, high tech, and manufacturing jobs. Contrary to the claims that this is a “job killing bill,” in fact, this bill will create thousands of jobs here in the United States.

Robert Brady

Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology, and research in the United States.

Read more →

Share this entry

Oh, That’s Where Eshoo and Barton Were in the NYT Story!

/23 Comments/in /by

Earlier today, I noted the curious absence of Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton in the NYT story about Genentech writing speeches for those supporting biologics in the health care reform bill.

(Note two people missing from this list: Eshoo and Barton, the measure’s co-sponsors.)

Thankfully, LittleSis figured out where Eshoo and Barton were hiding in that story.

But the Times misses a key piece of the puzzle: two of the Genentech lobbyists at the firm that wrote the pharma-friendly talking points are ex-staffers to Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton, co-sponsors of a key measure in the bill designed to benefit Big Pharma.

Nick Kolovos, a former legislative aide to Eshoo, and Jeffrey Mackinnon, former legislative director in the office of Joe Barton, have both lobbied on behalf of Genentech this year for the firm Ryan, Mackinnon (of which Mackinnon is a co-founder).

Oh, that explains it!! Their revolving door staffers were some of the people writing the speeches for those 42 parrots.

Click through to see how Bart Stupak has a tie here, as well.

Update: I asked the folks at LittleSis about Jay Inslee’s involvement in all of this. And got directed to Nick Shipley–Jay Inslee’s Legislative Director for the last several years, and now lobbying on biologics for Roche with the McManus Group.

Share this entry

Biotech Industry Needs 42 Representatives to Try to Refute Jane Hamsher

/120 Comments/in /by

On October 29, Jane wrote a scathing post about what Anna Eshoo’s provision to give biosimilars a route to approval would do, focusing on the 12 years–and probably more–of monopoly it would grant.

The following day–October 30–Eshoo responded.

On November 2, Jane ripped apart some of Eshoo’s details. She reminded Eshoo that no lesser legislative whiz than Henry Waxman has made the same argument Jane was making. She pointed out that taxpayers have already paid for many of these drugs.

Meanwhile, a bunch of earnest medical students started pressuring law-makers directly.

And then, the NYT tells us, the biotech industry started recruiting Representatives to publicly state their support for the biologics measure.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

[snip]

The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the “author” of the documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

In an e-mail message to fellow lobbyists on Nov. 5, two days before the House vote, Todd M. Weiss, senior managing director of Sonnenschein, said, “We are trying to secure as many House R’s and D’s to offer this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.”

He told the lobbyists to “conduct aggressive outreach to your contacts on the Hill to see if their bosses would offer the attached statements (or an edited version) for the record.”

That big dollar lobbying got 42 Representatives–42!!!–to try to refute the arguments that Jane was making.

Our Jane has them running scared, I guess. I wonder how much those 42 Congressional parrots cost Genentech (which is located in Anna Eshoo’s district)?

While I’m grateful the NYT has called out these 42 Representatives for being industry parrots, there are a number of questions the article raises. Such as, who are the 42 Representatives? The article mentions:

Republicans

  • K. Michael Conaway
  • Lynn Jenkins
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer
  • Lee Terry
  • Joe Wilson

Democrats

  • Robert Brady
  • Yvette Clarke
  • Phil Hare
  • Bill Pascrell Jr.
  • Donald Payne

That’s just 10 people; the article stated that “more than a dozen” lawmakers used Genentech’s talking points almost verbatim and reports Genentech bragging of getting 42 Representatives to use its talking points. (Note two people missing from this list: Eshoo and Barton, the measure’s co-sponsors.) So who are the others? And who might the other 30 that Genentech boasted of?

Also, it’d be really nice to show the emails, so Americans can see how little it takes to buy a member of Congress.

Finally, it’d be nice if they showed us either the talking points or the speeches made by the members of Congress to save us the time it’ll now take to dig that out of the Congressional record. I wonder, for example, how much of Anna Eshoo’s response to Jane on October 30 came directly from her Genentech script writers?

Share this entry

Maybe We Can Have Prayer Treatments Instead of Reproductive Care?

/17 Comments/in , /by

There are many reasons I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the conference on health care reform.

But chief among those is to see how (whether) they’re going to justify paying for “health care” for the Christian Scientists while denying reproductive care for millions of women.

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments — which substitute for or supplement medical treatments — on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against “religious and spiritual healthcare.”

Granted, both the Stupak Amendment and payment for Christian Scientist prayer may be removed in conference.

But I’d really like to see how Orrin Hatch, say, tried to explain skewing healthcare in this country only to meet the demands of religion, no matter how wacky, even while denying the care choices of millions of religious and non-religious women. And, frankly, I’d love to see what the courts think about it. Because once you’re making laws to protect the Christian Scientists all the while crafting your bill to meet the demands of the Catholic Bishops, you’ve got a very interesting Church/State separation question on hand.

Update: Church of Christ, Scientist  v. scientology correction per joejoejoe.

Share this entry

Bart Stupak’s C-Street Sepsis

/65 Comments/in , /by

Picture 138As you read Bart Stupak boasting of taking reproductive choice away from women, remember that he’s not just an otherwise good Democrat (he’s not, in fact, a Blue Dog) who consistently lets the agenda of the Catholic Church override the well-being of his constituents, he’s also one of C-Street’s top Democratic members.  This man, crowing over his legislative success is speaking as a representative of a group that preaches moral purity for others, but excuses itself from such moral guidelines with a back-slapping prayer lunch with the buddies. And then turns around and uses that moralizing to accrue political power.

HuffPost asked Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, why he succeeded and the progressives failed.

“Because I didn’t threat[en]. These are the facts,” he said.

But you did threaten, a reporter pointed out.

No, Stupak said, it wasn’t a threat. It was a promise. “No, they know I’ll vote against the rule,” he said.

Stupak said the Blue Dogs have gradually been sending a message to leadership and that much of it goes back to a previous vote involving an appropriations bill that Blue Dogs wanted to include pro-life language.

In July, the House considered a Financial Services Appropriations bill that would allow publicly-funded abortions in the District of Columbia. Stupak and allies were not allowed an amendment, so they sought to “take down the rule” — in other words, round up enough votes to deny he bill a chance to get voted on on the floor. When time expired, the pro-lifers had prevailed. But Pelosi held the vote open for extra time and persuaded four members to switch their votes.

They didn’t win in the end, Stupak said, but they accomplished their goal.

“We wanted to send a message,” he said. “We went back and I said, ‘See, I can take down your rule.'”

He has held his fire since then, saving his strength for the health care bill.

“Now, I have not threatened that every time that we went to Rules Committee and we didn’t always get our pro-life amendments, I did not try to take down any rules. You have to pick your fights at the right time. You can’t be crying wolf all the time because you lose your wolfiness. You lose your credibility,” he said. “So I’m not going to lose my credibility. So you use it at certain times when it’s appropriate.”

Viewed through the lens of Stupak’s C Street membership, this victory lap (and all the others he has been doing) comes off as what it is: a naked grab for power through hypocritical moralizing.

Too bad that formula works so well for so many in Washington.

Share this entry

Hey Reporters??? It Might Be Worth Pointing Out Lieberman Is Stupid or Lying…

/35 Comments/in , /by

As news outlets are reporting everywhere, Joe Lieberman is threatening to join a GOP filibuster of heath care reform. Brian Beutler reports the news without much elaboration on Lieberman’s stated justification for doing so. (See below for Beutler’s follow-up.)

I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined–i haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined–to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.

The AP provides just a hint of Lieberman’s justification.

Lieberman said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that he’s worried a public option would be costly to taxpayers and drive up insurance premiums.

But the Politico reports Lieberman’s stated justification.

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Lieberman said he “very much” wants to vote for health care reform but that he’s worried about stifling “the economic recovery we’re in” or adding to the federal debt.

“I feel this way about a national, government-created health insurance company – whether it’s a trigger or not,” he said. “My answer is – we’re – we have the opportunity to do some great reforms here. These exchanges that we’re talking about, I think, are going to drive competition and probably bring the cost of health insurance down or at least contain the cost increases for a lot of people. Let’s give that two or three years to see how it works to see how it works before we talk about creating another entitlement that will end up increasing the national debt and putting more of a burden on taxpayers.”

So here’s what Joe Lieberman claims the public option will do:

  • Be costly to taxpayers
  • Drive up premiums
  • Involve cost-shifting to private plans
  • Create an entitlement
  • Increase the national debt
  • Put more of a tax burden on taxpayers

As DDay points out, this is utter nonsense.

Lieberman’s justification on this is just nonsense – the public option would SAVE money for the government, to the tune of $100 billion dollars over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. Read more →

Share this entry