Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

This doesn't look suspicious at all!

Feb 5, 2004 2:52AM PST
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/tauzin.phrma/

***
A powerful Republican committee chairman, under attack for entertaining a lucrative job offer from the pharmaceutical lobby just weeks after negotiating a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, brushed off his critics Thursday.
***

"Laissez les bons temps rouler"*

Dan


*"Let the good times roll"

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:This doesn't look suspicious at all!
Feb 5, 2004 3:12AM PST
But another Republican leader, Majority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri, said, "I'm confident he wasn't talking to PhRMA while negotiating this bill" -- something not allowed under House rules.

Nah, I'm sure Tauzin wasn't sleazy enough to tell the pharmaceutical company, "Don't talk to me now; wait till after I vote your way on the bill so it won't look like I took a bribe," nahhhh........
- Collapse -
Then I guess neither does this, Josh...
Feb 5, 2004 3:45PM PST

From Saturday's Washington Post:
"The Hill, a Washington-based publication covering Capitol Hill, this month reported that Kerry in 1999 lobbied the Coast Guard on a rule-making process that benefited a foreign company represented by Cassidy & Associates. Soon after, employees of Cassidy & Associates sent Kerry $7,250 in bundled contributions. Jim Ruggieri, the Coast Guard official who handled the matter, told the paper it was highly unusual for a senator to intervene on such a matter."

- Collapse -
Re:Then I guess neither does this, Josh...
Feb 5, 2004 10:10PM PST

Rather than dodging the issue by pointing fingers elsewhere, would you like to comment on whether you think what Tauzin did was appropriate? A simple yes or no.

- Collapse -
No free passes, Josh...
Feb 6, 2004 2:30PM PST

Josh, no free passes, if one side can ask questions and/or bring up points. the other side can play also.
Kerry's spokeswoman made an interesting statement in the Washington Post (from the article):
"Kerry said on Jan. 19 that he would 'happily release any lobbyist meeting I've ever had,' but he has yet to do so. Cutter said Kerry will not release records until he compiles data on every meeting over the
past 19 years, which will be a 'pretty lengthy process.' Kerry will not release it 'piecemeal,' she said.".
Nothing until he's compiled 19 years of data? Sounds like a "stonewall" to me. Sorry, Josh, he stepped into the ring, so his actions are also "in play". The door swings both ways.

- Collapse -
check out the 'so Kerry doesn't like special interests' thread.
Feb 5, 2004 3:42AM PST

for equal time, except Kerry is campaigning on the absence of his ties.

- Collapse -
(NT) Any comment on THIS story, Kiddpeat?
Feb 5, 2004 3:58AM PST

.

- Collapse -
A problem without solution?
Feb 5, 2004 6:04AM PST

We expect our representatives to serve but not be associated with other lines of income which we feel may compromise their decisions on matters before Congress.

Can we say this was true of our forefathers? I think we too often see "conflict of interest" where there is none, or where it is unavoidable at times. Can you imagine the forefathers trying to avoid a conflict of interest when voting on matters like slavery, tobacco, other agricultural pursuits.

The problem is what happens when a representative loses his seat in Congress? He still needs a job to support himself, maybe a family. The system itself probably leads to these problems, sometimes valid sometimes only perceived as inappropriate. If a farmer runs for and wins a seat in Congress do we expect him to disqualify himself from committees due to his prior associations? Not usually, more often that is the very person that is selected to oversight committees on things pertaining to agriculture. So why the double standard when it comes to other areas of income?

What is it we all worry about? I think it's that someone might sell a vote in Congress to someone for a kickback in the form of a job later, maybe with some perks he otherwise wouldn't get.

OK, let's say someone actually does that, but it's only because he was intending to vote that way anyway since in his best judgement, separate from outside considerations, he felt it was the correct way to vote on the issue? Has he harmed the American people? Not really if it was a fair law that he voted in favor of, or a bad law he voted against.

Do we really want Congressional members voting on things they know nothing about? Do we want them restricted from consulting industries, workers, unions and political groups for input aiding them to make decisions on Congressional matters? Probably not.

The one thing we don't really want to see is a vote being bought. We also don't want lesser qualified people serving us in Congress just because they aren't allowed to seek employment in certain economic areas after leaving.

For instance should Greenspan not be allowed to actively deal in stocks and bonds if or when he leaves the Federal Reserve, or be barred from taking a position at a Federal Reserve bank?

It's unreasonable to expect Congressional representatives to avoid achieving their best job potential after leaving Congress, or being voted out of office. They have a right to make a living too.

- Collapse -
and another modest (election) proposal....
Feb 5, 2004 9:20AM PST

I think the problem is solvable. The pay for our congresscritters is, what, about $150K with a bit more for the "leadership" positions. Some of them never made that much money in their life before wooshing into the Washington whirl. Some of them made (or their family had) a bunch more before they succumbed to the noblesse oblige of public service. Some of them, well this is all they know.

As for the notion that they are entitled to support themselves again toiling in some other vineyard after leaving congress... give us a break... please point us to a few examples of any former representatives or senators unable to support themselves in the manner they have become accustomed after honorably completing their time in office (and by honorable, I mean by their own low standards of honor and ethics...).


to be continued in part 2; damn forum software is as bad as TV - can't handle a thought longer than 10 seconds...)

- Collapse -
Re:and another modest (election) proposal....(part 2)
Feb 5, 2004 9:37AM PST

The issue we are chewing on here is the unholy arrangement between the interests behind the money, and the actions of the legislators. The solution I have is simple... take the money out of the equation. Pay these guys the going rate for senior-level decision-makers in the biggest "corporation" in the world - the United States of America. Give them all stunning bonuses. And then zip their wallets shut. Not a penny from anywhere else. Campaigns should be financed primarily from the public treasury on an equitable basis so that each candidate has an equal opportunity to say what he/she has to say about why the voters should send them to the hallowed halls along the Potomac. If any outside money is permitted to be contributed to a campaign, the donor must be fully identified - name, address, employer, interest affiliations, and amount of payment - on the candidate's public website within 24 hours, in a common file specification, so that the public (through the investigative digging by the media and the opponents) can immediately see who is buying whom. The details in electronic format will make it easy for us to quickly see the patterns, add it all up, and come to a judgement of who's interest is being served - the public or the special financiers.

Now one might at first think that this would drive the federal budget that much farther into deficit. But think about it for a moment - how much of the idiot spending in the federal budget deficit is the result of votes purchased by the special interests through their campaign contributions (or veiled threats to cease their contributions...). I suspect that the budgetary savings from not enacting all the special interest programs and pork will more than offset the cost of paying our representatives to represent us rather than the money-bags.

just an idea...
dw

- Collapse -
Re:Re:and another modest (election) proposal....(part 2)
Feb 5, 2004 10:01PM PST

I agree 100%. The proposed reforms are long overdue! But everytime someone proposes a reform bill it is knocked down in committee. For starts if each office had a campaign $$$ cap on it the playing field would be nearer to being level. At least that might be a good way to start. And perhaps the issues would become clearer in our elections.

- Collapse -
Re: Tauzin -- H'es not losing his seat,
Feb 5, 2004 12:34PM PST

James, he's giving it up to take a highly paid job in the industry he just gave a windfall to, while "serving" the American people. I'm reminded of the pun in the classic Sci-fi story "To serve man" -- he served us all up to the pharma industry on a platter, and Bush was right in there carving.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I don't like the look of it any better than you do, but...
Feb 5, 2004 1:06PM PST

...if you want to clean up the pharmaceutical industry you need first to look at the FDA and how that regulatory agency and it's policies affect the industry.

- Collapse -
I agree, the FDA and the industry are much too cozy.
Feb 5, 2004 11:36PM PST

It's tough to tell the wolves from the sheepdogs and the sheep are rightfully nervous.

Dan

- Collapse -
Kerry carves too, Dave...
Feb 5, 2004 3:50PM PST

Dave, Kerry can handle a carving knife too. From the Washington Post:
"A review of FEC and other data by The Washington Post found that Kerry has raked in millions from U.S. corporations, especially financial companies such as Citigroup and telecom firms, including Rubert Murdoch's News Corp., which also flew one of his Senate staffers to California for a meeting.
In the presidential race, Kerry has accepted contributions from the same "special interests" he accuses Bush of being too cozy with: HMOs, drug companies and energy firms. He has raised nearly $27,000 from oil and gas companies, tops of the remaining Democratic candidates; $34,000 from health maintenance organizations, second to Dean; and $18,500 from pharmaceutical companies, third behind Dean and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.)."

- Collapse -
Re: Kerry carves too, Dave...
Feb 5, 2004 10:11PM PST

Hi, J.

Kerry may take the money, but there's no evidence of it affecting his votes. You mentioned telecom -- he voted against the industry in regard to both cable rate regulation and ownership concentration (which directly affects NewsCorp), their two biggest issues of the last decade. OTOH, most of the industry's money has gone to Republicans, who rewarded them by killing local rate regulation and the ownership concentration rules that the Republicans rammed through by attaching to the omnibus spending bill.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!