Senators may have been paid off
Nobody on Capitol Hill takes kindly to a spreadsheet that lines up their campaign contributions with their floor votes. But that's what Maplight.org, a nonprofit database operation, has just done, producing a mashup with the tally from the Senate's vote Monday on drug importation and 6 1/2 years of campaign finance data.
| SENATOR | PARTY | PHARMA. $$ | VOTE |
| Max Baucus, MT | Democrat | $261,020 | NO |
| Richard Burr, NC | Republican | $301,898 | NO |
| Orrin Hatch, UT | Republican | $262,950 | NO |
| Joe Lieberman, CT | Independant | $199,540 | NO |
| Mitch McConnell, KY | Republican | $225,900 | YES |
| Arlen Specter, PA | Democrat | $353,550 | YES |
Importation of prescription drugs is currently illegal. Advocates of legalizing it say that American consumers would save $100 billion over 10 years, as competition would force prices down for prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry and the Food and Drug Administration say drug safety would be jeopardized, however many who can see through smoke and mirrors can clearly see; the pharmaceutical industry simply has big influence on our own government and does not want cheaper drugs allowed into the country.
When importation was proposed as an amendment to health care overhaul, the Senate rejected it -- 51 for importation and 48 against, with 60 needed to approve.
And if you look at the Maplight analysis, you'll find--little surprise here--that senators voting nay have averaged 66 percent more in campaign contributions from Big Pharma than senators who voted yea. The difference: $85,812 vs. $51,803, spread over the period Jan. 1, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2009. Not a lot of dollars if you prorate it, but it is consistent.
Maplight earlier ran the numbers on a couple other pharma-related votes--a Senate Finance Committee vote on Medicare drug prices three months ago and, in a less refined analysis, a 2007 Senate vote on an earlier prescription drug bill.
Political scientists have devoted years to debating the potential links between votes and money. The predominant wisdom: money doesn't move votes, it follows them. Donors tend to give to lawmakers who already are on their side.
The Maplight data doesn't settle that debate. What it does point out, however, is the enduring relationships between lawmakers and interest groups, and the monetary cement that helps them bond.
It seems as if this entire health care bill is not only dead - but heading in the complete opposite direction. It was very sound in concept at first -- it was proposed to help an ever struggling health care system and it's victims (aka patients) from strangling this country with an iron grip. Now however, it is moving in the direction of giving the insurance companies more power! The pharmaceutical companies MORE POWER, and since the medicare extension is now out of the question - why the hell are they still debating? Instead of just leaving our country to be torn apart and allowing the people to go broke paying for health care they propose to make it even worse by giving the companies that created this mess - even - more - power. I for one am disgusted with this country please feel free to comment.
For some good reading on the pharmaceutical companies and how they influence our lives - checkout:
- Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients
- The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It
- The Innovator's Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care
Del.icio.us Tags: senate health care debate obama scandal pharmaceutical prescription drug companies corporation insurance medicare campaign reform insane politics government president
Good find..good post
ReplyDeleteCarl