NYT: Pharma wants to cheat and still be able to charge for it

Patent Law Battle a Boon to Lobbyists

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — A fight has erupted in Congress over the question of whether drug makers and other companies should be allowed to keep patents they obtained by misrepresentation or cheating.

The issue has emerged as a contentious point in legislation to overhaul patent laws. In several cases, the courts have voided patents after finding that companies intentionally misled the Patent and Trademark Office.

The legislation, affecting a wide swath of the American economy, has been a boon to lobbyists. In 15 months, two dueling business coalitions have spent $4.3 million lobbying on the legislation, which calls for the biggest changes in United States patent law in more than 50 years. Companies from almost every major industry have joined the battle.

Patents can protect an invention for up to 20 years. But federal judges can void patents after finding that companies engaged in “inequitable conduct,” meaning that they misrepresented or concealed information with an intent to deceive the patent office. In such cases, judges can declare the patents unenforceable.

Robert A. Armitage, a senior vice president and general counsel of Eli Lilly & Company, said, “This is like imposing the death penalty for relatively minor acts of misconduct.”

Brand-name drug companies are urging Congress to eliminate the penalty — or to curtail it as proposed under a bill passed by the House.

Debra S. Barrett, a vice president of the American unit of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the world’s largest maker of generic drugs, said the changes sought by brand-name drug companies “would make it easier for them to cheat and get away with it, easier for them to defend their patents and more difficult for us to get generic products onto the market in a timely way.”

Consumer groups like AARP share that concern. They want to speed access to generic medicines, which can cost 30 percent to 80 percent less than the equivalent brand-name drugs.

The House has approved a comprehensive patent bill that would make it harder to prove inequitable conduct. Senators are haggling over a companion bill, approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and hope to take it to the floor this summer.

In the last 15 years, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles patent cases, has affirmed findings of inequitable conduct in at least 40 cases, including 14 that involved pharmaceutical or health care products. Similar findings have been issued by federal district judges in an unknown number of cases that were not appealed.

Courts have found that drug makers knowingly submitted false statements to the patent office, inaccurately described experiments and concealed information that contradicted their claims.

In one case, the appeals court said that Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals improperly failed to disclose that it had not performed an experiment described in its application for a patent related to synthetic human growth hormone. In another case, the court said Pharmacia had used an “inaccurate and misleading” affidavit in obtaining a patent for a glaucoma medication.

Brand-name drug companies say that generic drug makers routinely attack their patents by accusing them of inequitable conduct when they are blameless or guilty of no more than honest mistakes.

The aggressive use of such accusations has become “a plague on the patent system,” the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, told Congress.

Harry F. Manbeck Jr., who was commissioner of patents and trademarks under the first President Bush, said the existing penalty was a powerful deterrent to misconduct.

“Patents can be very valuable,” Mr. Manbeck said. “There are strong incentives to want to get them. Cheating occurs from time to time. The inequitable conduct doctrine says that if you cheated to get a patent, you should not be able to enforce it.”

Under federal regulations, people applying for a patent have a duty to deal with the patent office in “candor, good faith and honesty.” They are supposed to disclose if their invention was previously known or used by others, offered for sale or described in a publication. In that case, it may not be innovative enough to warrant a patent.

In reviewing an application, patent examiners can search the relevant literature, but may not find all the pertinent information, so they depend on applicants to be forthright.

“If Congress eliminated or reduced the penalty for inequitable conduct, applicants would no longer have a reason to disclose all the information they are aware of,” said Robert D. Budens, president of the Patent Office Professional Association, which represents 5,500 examiners.

Mr. Armitage, the Lilly executive, said: “The doctrine of inequitable conduct is used so aggressively in litigation that it has unintended consequences. Applicants give the Patent and Trademark Office too much information, to avoid allegations that they concealed anything, and they refuse to explain the information, to avoid later allegations that they engaged in some form of misrepresentation.”

James C. Greenwood, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said, “The poor patent examiner gets a dump truck full of information that he has to pore over without any assistance from the applicant.”

The number of patent applications — 467,243 in 2007 — has nearly doubled in the last 10 years and has more than tripled since 1987.

Jon W. Dudas, the under secretary of commerce for intellectual property, said: “We are getting more and more unpatentable ideas, worse and worse quality applications. Historically, in the last 40 years, the allowance rate — the percentage of applications ultimately approved — hovered around 62 percent to 72 percent. It went up to 72 percent in 2000, but dropped to 43 percent in the first quarter of this year.”

A major impetus for the patent legislation is the desire of technology companies to limit the damage awards and legal costs they sometimes face when they are accused of infringing patents. Companies like Cisco and Palm say the disputes drain resources that could be better spent on research and innovation.

Many of these companies have banded together in the Coalition for Patent Fairness, which in the last 15 months has spent $2.5 million for a small army of lobbyists including Mark W. Isakowitz, a Republican, and Steven A. Elmendorf, a longtime Democratic strategist.

A rival group, the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, consists of about 50 companies that zealously guard their intellectual property and are more likely to file suit to protect their patents. It includes pharmaceutical and biotech companies like Genzyme, Lilly, Merck and Pfizer. This coalition has paid $1.8 million to lobbyists, much of it to the law firm of Akin Gump.

The Economist: US Judges and Lobby

Judicial elections

Torts and courts
Apr 10th 2008 MADISON, WISCONSIN
From The Economist print edition

Life, liberty and the pursuit of a fair judiciary


JUSTICE is meant to be impartial. To this end, Britain's judges are appointed for life. In America federal judges are as well. But in 39 states some or all judges must face election and re-election, often with unbecoming hoopla. An election to the Supreme Court of the state of Wisconsin has just involved about $5.5m and more than 12,000 aired advertisements. Habeas circus, one might say.

Michael Gableman defeated Louis Butler, an incumbent on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, on April 1st, and the cacophony has not yet subsided. The scuffle has revealed two worrying traits of America's judicial elections.

First, they have become bitter contests. In 2006 91% of Supreme Court elections featured television advertisements, up from 22% in 2000, according to New York University's Brennan Centre. Second, the war over tort, or liability, reform has turned judicial elections into a nasty battlefield—especially in those states where state Supreme Court justices are directly elected. Karl Rove, once George Bush's Svengali, ascended in part by helping Texas businessmen fight trial lawyers for control of that state's highest court. The most expensive judicial race in America's history, a $9.3m fight in 2004, saw tort interests pour money into rival campaigns for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court.

In Wisconsin the signs are troubling. The state's new era of judicial elections began last year. A series of rulings had galvanised corporate leaders, explains James Buchen of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state's business lobby. In one ruling in 2005, the Supreme Court overturned the state's caps on medical-malpractice cases. In another, the court ruled that a plaintiff could sue several manufacturers when he did not know which (if any) had caused him injury.

In 2007 groups from all sides poured cash into a state Supreme Court race, spending $5.8m. In this month's election one estimate is that the candidates together raised about $1m (Mr Butler outspent Mr Gableman), while outside groups such as WMC and the teachers' union spent more than $4.5m.

This year's flood of money might have drawn less censure if it had spurred a proper debate on judicial philosophy. It didn't. Mr Gableman's campaign produced an advertisement suggesting that Mr Butler, a black man, had helped free a black rapist. An advertisement supporting Mr Butler claimed that Mr Gableman was soft on paedophiles. Even WMC's advertisements were about crime. Regardless of the tenor of the campaign, money may be undermining faith in the court. A recent poll conducted for Justice at Stake, a group devoted to judicial independence, found that 78% of respondents in Wisconsin believe campaign contributions influence judges' rulings.

The question is whether to change the new dispensation and, if so, how? Comprehensive legal reform might help keep the tort war from seeping into judicial elections. But the elections themselves are unlikely to be scrapped. More feasible would be to pass reforms, such as public financing for campaigns or stricter rules to prevent conflicts of interest. In Wisconsin politicians and Supreme Court judges all work beneath the state capitol's giant dome. It is getting hard to tell the difference between them.

The 90 days War for Trade

So, the war of lobbies is gonna be on for 90 days, willing to aproove the US-Colombia trade pact. Bush decided tu use de "fast track", that is surprising. He faces no political risk, so decided to go for it. Se, trade is just one tiny part of the story. Newspapers focus on thing like how it will benefit labour intensive industries like Caterpillar, and others. Or that the farmers are affraid of it. Ok, so they know how to manage themselves to get his message heard in the Congress. Cat has it lobbyists, and the farmers have their powerful organizations. Cool. The things they do not name is that so-called free trade agreement is not only about trade, but about intelectual property, investments, etc.
IP issues such as patents, trademarks, etc, are not a natural byproduct of free trade. They represent the opposite of Smith´s dreams. A patent is a legal monopoly to use and commercialize an innovative product or process. Yeah, it restricts the freedom of others to use or trade something. That happens with IP rights on use of vegetable species to heal, so big pharma is deeply interested in getting the agreement complete. Well, I am not going to bore you anymore. Check this video from the Wall Street Journal.

Politico.com: More clintonian free traders lobbyists....

Mark Penn isn’t the only Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter on the wrong side of the Colombia trade agreement.

The Democratic-leaning advocacy firm the Glover Park Group, former home to Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson, signed a $40,000 per month contract with the government of Colombia in April of 2007 to promote the very agreement that Clinton now rails against on the presidential campaign trail.

That means Glover Park Group was arguing the same position as Penn's firm. The contentious Clinton strategist and Burson-Marsteller chief executive lost his campaign job over the weekend after The Wall Street Journal revealed that he’d met with Colombian officials to plot strategy on the pact.

Several other Glover Park employees have deep connections with the Clintons, including founding partner Joe Lockhart, who served as the White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Joel Johnson, who was a senior communications adviser in the Clinton White House. Read more

NYT: Earmarking is not dead

The New York Times brings today a really interesting article on "earmarks". For those of you not familiarized with the term "earmark", following the wikidefinition, it refers to congressional provisions directing approved funds to be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees). Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks").

So they are a problem because corporate interest ussually lobby politians to get an earmark on their favor. It could be a defense contract for building weapons, or a contract to build a highway, etc. Is strongly related with corruption. One of the most famous cases of earmarks related corruption was the affair of Randy "Duke" Cunningham (showing his best smile on the pic), who had received millions of dollars in gifts from a military supplier for the US government. There thousands of examples.

Check the article of the NYT:

April 7, 2008
Pork Barrel Remains Hidden in U.S. Budget
By RON NIXON
WASHINGTON — Sometimes on Capitol Hill, lawmakers find that it pays to ask nicely instead of just ordering the bureaucrats around.
With great fanfare, Congress adopted strict ethics rules last year requiring members to disclose when they steered federal money to pet projects. But it turns out lawmakers can still secretly direct billions of dollars to favored organizations by making vague requests rather than issuing explicit instructions to government agencies in committee reports and spending bills. That seeming courtesy is the difference between “soft earmarks” and the more insistent “hard earmarks.”
How much money is requested for any specific project? It is difficult to say, since price tags are not included with soft earmarks. Who is the sponsor? Unclear, unless the lawmaker later acknowledges it. Purpose of the spending? Usually not provided.
How to spot a soft earmark? Easy. The language is that of a respectful suggestion: A committee “endorses” or notes it “is aware” of deserving programs and “urges” or “recommends” that agencies finance them.
That was how taxpayer money was requested last year for a Christian broadcasting group to build a shortwave radio station in Madagascar, a program to save hawks in Haiti, efforts to fight agriculture pests in Maryland and an “international fertilizer” center in Alabama that assists farmers overseas.
After hard earmarks figured into several Congressional scandals and prompted criticism of wasteful spending from government agencies and watchdog groups, Congress cut back on their number last year and required disclosure of most of them. (There were more than 10,000, costing nearly $20 billion last year, according to the Congressional Research Service.)
But soft earmarks, while not a new phenomenon, have drawn virtually no attention and were not included in the ethics changes — and current ones under consideration — because Congress does not view them as true earmarks.
Their total cost is not known. But the research service found that they amounted to more than $3 billion in one spending bill alone in 2006, out of 13 annual appropriations bills. And the committee that handles the bill, which involves foreign operations, has increasingly converted hard earmarks to soft ones.
“This shows that even though lawmakers now have to disclose their pet projects, we’re not getting a full accounting of earmarks,” said Ryan Alexander, director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group in Washington that tracks earmarks. “We may just be looking at the tip of the iceberg.”
Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said he did not believe gentler language changed anything when it came to pork-barrel spending.
“No matter what you want to call it, an earmark is an earmark,” said Mr. Flake, a longtime foe of earmarks. “If Congressional leaders don’t believe that soft earmarks are earmarks, then I think that makes the case as to why we need tougher reforms in place.”
Soft earmarks are included in a number of spending measures, but they tend to occur more frequently in spending bills that give money to the State Department, the United States Agency for International Development and other foreign aid programs.
Federal agencies are not required to finance soft earmarks. However, officials have traditionally felt obliged to comply with such requests.
“Soft earmarks, while not legally binding, frequently come with an implicit threat: If you don’t take our suggestions, we will give you a hard earmark next,” said Andrew Natsios, former administrator of A.I.D. in the Bush administration.
In its report, the Congressional Research Service said agencies also could face budget cuts if they did not finance soft earmarks.
Mr. Natsios said two lawmakers once threatened to cut his budget if he did not pay for one of their requests. He declined to identify them.
Congressional leaders say soft earmarks are merely suggestions and not really earmarks. They argue that money is awarded at the discretion of the agency, largely through a competitive process.
“Recognizing organizations with a record of relevant work is part of Congress’s budgetary role,” Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York, said in an e-mail message.
“It broadens the competitive grant process beyond administration priorities and encourages current recipients to maintain high performance standards,” said Ms. Lowey, who is the chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee on state and foreign operations.
Mr. Natsios agreed that some soft earmarks in the bill could result in a competitive bidding process. But that is not the case if the report names a specific organization, which routinely happens.
In considering lawmakers’ spending requests, some committees in recent years have switched hard earmarks to soft ones, saying it gives agencies more flexibility. Critics, including Mr. Flake, suggest it is being done to avoid scrutiny.
“With the efforts to shine more light on the earmarking process,” he said, “I am concerned that we might see increasingly creative ways to steer funding to recipients of funding that members of Congress want to see it go to.”
Financing for the shortwave radio station, called the Madagascar World Voice, for example, began as a hard earmark request by Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas.
Mr. Sessions originally sought $2.5 million for World Christian Broadcasting, a group based in Nashville that broadcasts in several countries and promotes abstinence to prevent AIDS. The House Appropriations Committee converted it to a soft earmark.
A spokesman for World Christian Broadcasting said the organization had been in discussions with A.I.D. about the financing.
Another soft earmark was included for the International Fertilizer Development Center, in Muscle Shoals, Ala. The group has been criticized as wasteful by watchdog groups and Senator John McCain of Arizona, a critic of earmarks who is the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
John H. Allgood, director of finance and administration for the group, which teaches third world farmers about soil fertility management and other agricultural practices, confirmed that his organization received financing from A.I.D. but did not know whether it was through an earmark.
Mr. Allgood would not say how much money the group received, and the aid agency did not respond to requests for the information. The fertilizer center previously received a $4 million hard earmark requested by Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama.
A soft earmark, of course, does not guarantee financing. For example, the Sesame Workshop, home of Big Bird and the rest of the Sesame Street gang, said it did not receive any money despite such a request.
Still, organizations spend millions each year lobbying Congress for them. Lobbyists say getting a client’s organization into language in committee reports, which accompany spending bills and contain more detailed instructions to agencies, can have an impact.
“I certainly wouldn’t call them earmarks, but it does say to the agency that this is something that Congress is serious about,” said Fredrick Baird, known as Tripp, a lobbyist with J. C. Companies, a lobbying firm headed by former Representative J. C. Watts, an Oklahoma Republican.
Other than the amendment that Mr. Flake offered last year to shed more light on the process, no efforts to curb soft earmarks have been proposed.
President Bush signed an executive order in January that directed agencies to ignore all earmarks in committee reports.
But legal opinions by the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office found that Congress could get around the order by simply inserting them in the text of spending bills or including language in the bills that directed agencies to treat earmarks listed in committee reports as if they were written into the law. That frustrates groups seeking openness in government.
“Soft earmarks are even more insidious than hard earmarks,” said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “With hard earmarks, at least you know something about the amounts and recipients. With soft earmarks, everything is done in secret.”
Tom Torok contributed reporting from New York.

EULaw Blog: New rules wanted for EU regulatory agencies

Those interested in administrative law would do well to look at the Commission's review of regulatory agencies entitled "European Agencies - The Way Forward" (COM(2008) 135 final). That document is accompanied by another one, referenced SEC(2008) 323, but the Commission true to its secretive form has not made that document public!...see the EULawblog

PD. The report does not say anything about lobbying control or interest groups. But is useful to learn how the influence of regulatory administrative agency, the natural environment for lobbyists, is growing and growing......

Good on Hillary and Bill.

Gotta admit that when I read this in the Wall Street Journal, was ready to attack the Clintons:

From 2003 to 2006, the couple also appeared to receive at least $12.5 million from Mr. Clinton's relationship with Yucaipa Cos., the Los Angeles investment firm run by his longtime friend, billionaire Ronald Burkle. For 2007, the campaign said the couple received $2.75 million from "partnership income," but didn't specify the source.

But then I read this about Yucaipa and changed my mind:

• The Yucaipa Companies is a premier private equity investment firm that has established a record of fostering economic value through the growth and responsible development of companies.
  
  
• As an investor, Yucaipa works with management to strategically reposition businesses and implement operational improvements, resulting in value creation for shareholders, customers and employees.
  
  
• Since its founding in 1986, the firm, based in Los Angeles, has completed mergers and acquisitions valued at more than $30 billion.
  
  
• Yucaipa and its founder Ron Burkle have forged a reputation for dealing favorably and fairly with unions. The company’s philosophy: Give workers strong wage and benefits packages and you’ll improve productivity and consequently, the bottom line.
  
  
• "He's probably the best employer we ever dealt with," Ricardo Icaza, President of the Los Angeles local of the United Food and Commercial Workers, told the San Francisco Chronicle. UFCW negotiated a number of labor contracts with Burkle when he owned supermarket chains like Ralphs and Food 4 Less.
  
  
• Burkle has marched with the United Farm Workers and has long been a friend to unions, which have given him many awards. Most recently, Burkle and his Yucaipa Cos. spearheaded a bid for the 12 Knight Ridder papers put up for sale last year by McClatchy Co. The bid, though not successful, was backed by the union representing workers at many of those papers.

Center for Public Integrity shows lobby ties in each state

This table shows the percentage of legislators in each state who reported in 2002 a financial tie—through an employer, a personal business, a stock investment or a directorship—to a business or organization registered in 2001 to lobby their state's government.

State	Legislator Only Ties	Legislator & Spouse Ties
Texas	48.9%	52.3%
Virginia	39.0%	40.7%
Florida	38.1%	38.8%
North Carolina	37.9%	40.5%
California	33.3%	35.8%
Delaware	32.8%	34.4%
New York	32.8%	40.3%
Washington	31.9%	36.1%
New Jersey	30.0%	36.0%
Ohio	28.7%	28.7%
Alaska	28.3%	38.3%
Connecticut	27.6%	33.0%
Maryland	27.4%	28.5%
Minnesota	25.4%	25.4%
Utah	24.0%	25.0%
Nevada	23.8%	31.7%
Wisconsin	23.1%	27.7%
Indiana	23.1%	26.5%
Arkansas	22.6%	25.6%
North Dakota	22.6%	26.9%
Massachusetts	22.2%	29.4%
Nebraska	21.7%	21.7%
Arizona	20.7%	26.4%
Montana	18.6%	18.6%
Colorado	18.4%	20.4%
Kansas	16.0%	18.5%
Kentucky	15.9%	18.1%
Illinois	14.7%	15.3%
Oklahoma	13.5%	14.9%
New Mexico	11.7%	17.1%
Hawaii	11.1%	11.1%
Alabama	10.4%	13.3%
Oregon	10.2%	21.6%
Pennsylvania	9.0%	9.0%
Rhode Island	9.0%	11.3%
Iowa	8.7%	8.7%
Tennessee	8.7%	15.9%
West Virginia	7.7%	7.7%
Missouri	7.4%	12.6%
Georgia	7.3%	7.3%
Wyoming	6.9%	6.9%
Maine	5.4%	6.5%
Mississippi	3.8%	5.6%
New Hampshire	2.8%	3.0%
South Carolina	2.4%	3.0%
South Dakota	1.0%	1.0%
Louisiana	0.7%	0.7%

Louisiana issues legislation on ethical standars

A bill passed during a special session of the Louisiana State Legislature makes substantial changes in the state's financial disclosure standards, an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity shows.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

The new law, which takes effect in January 2009, will provide more information to the public about the personal financial interests of state legislators and public officials. The law earned 99 out of a possible 100 points on a survey used by the Center to rank public disclosure requirements for state legislators and puts Louisiana's law on par with the nation's best financial disclosure laws.

Two years ago, in the same survey, Louisiana's financial disclosure law earned 43 out of 100 points, ranking it in the bottom fifth of all states for ethics standards.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who took office in January, initiated the special legislative session, which focused on ethics reform. Jindal, a Republican, made transparency in government the centerpiece of his 2007 campaign for governor. He maintains that strengthening Louisiana's ethics laws will help the state attract investment and jobs.

In pushing for reform, Jindal has pointed to the Center's survey and similar yardsticks in arguing that Louisiana must achieve the "gold standard" in ethics. During the special legislative sessions, for example, the governor's staff distributed a 16-page document to lawmakers that explained how the Center's survey awards points.

Jindal's staff relied on the Center's methodology for ranking ethics laws as a jumping-off point in the governor's ethics proposals, Camille Conaway, a policy adviser, said. "We started with the ranking, then tried to go beyond that and see what other states were doing," Conaway told the Center. "We did our best to craft a bill that would make us a model."

The new law includes provisions that do not earn points in the Center's rankings. One, for example, requires public officials to disclose loans and other liabilities of more than $10,000.

According to Conaway, the governor's office plans to use improvements in rankings such as the Center's as tool to attract investors to Louisiana.

"Louisiana thinks, and it may be rightly or wrongly, that the nation views Louisiana as incredibly corrupt and therefore untrustworthy," G. Pearson Cross, a professor of political science at University of Louisiana-Lafayette, told the Center. "They think that nationally people will notice that Louisiana has cleaned up its act."

An earlier version of the bill would have required state judges to meet the same disclosure standards as legislators and public officials. The Louisiana Supreme Court has promised that it will upgrade its disclosure rules for the state judiciary to an equivalent standard by June.

In a letter to Jindal and Joel Chaisson II, the president of the state Senate, Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal Calogero, Jr., said that he has "already begun the process of examining financial disclosure provisions adopted by other states with an eye towards amending our Code of Judicial Conduct," according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Judicial disclosure standards vary widely from state to state, a July 2007 Center report found.

The Clintonian Free Trader Lobbyist

So, Ms Clinton is opposed to the signing of any more free trade agreement. She has told everybody that story. All right with that. However, her main campaign advisor seems to think different. Mark Penn, the advisor, is lobbying on behalf the government of Colombia to get the bilateral trade agreement approved in the Senate. He is doing that because he works for Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, one of the most important lobbying firms in the world, hired ussually by countries to lobby such things as international agreements, financial aid, etc. in Washington.

There is nothing wrong at first glance. Mr Penn works for that firm, that ok. He also advises Hillary on PR, great!. But what the hell was he thinking when he accepted to have a meeting with the colombian govenmental agents. The fees charged to Colombia must be so high that he did not care about the conquence of his action.
Do you know how much does it cost to invite senators expensive meals, trips, gifts an all those luxurious things that tend to awake their best democratic rationale? Apparently, most journalist do not. Othewise, they would not charge against him because of this. Penn has a lot of mouths to feed (his own family, lawmakers, and lawmaker´s families). It is not easy to be a guardian of good policy-making.

Poor Mark, this is not a time nor a place for heroes like you....... Check out the story in the The Wall Street Journal.

Corporate world is bipartisan, money goes to the winner, that is it.

The democrats are receiving more money from the corporate world that Republicans. That demonstrate two things: 1) Big Pharma, Finance Industry and so on are bipartisan, they only care who wins, no matter which patry the candidate is from. 2) Democrats and Republicans have one and only big difference, democrats tend to be more fun to whatch and hear and Rpublicans more boring.

Wall Street Journal brings the story (Do not miss the graphic):

Business Donors Bypass McCain
Democrats Rake In
Cash From Industry;
Catch-Up for GOP
By BRODY MULLINS
April 2, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- John McCain faces a problem as he tries to close a deep fund-raising deficit against the two Democratic candidates for president: Both have been cleaning his clock among business interests that give mainly to Republicans.

Of seven major industries that have been the most reliable Republican resources, Sen. McCain has beaten Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in only one, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization. Even that one, transportation, is a close call. Among the seven combined, the expected Republican nominee raised $13.1 million through February, compared with $22.5 million for Sen. Obama and $27.1 million for Sen. Clinton.


See more data on the finances behind the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaigns
The Republican standard-bearer's attempt to claw back financial support from the GOP's business base could be a pivotal factor in determining the outcome of the presidential race. Employees of financial-services, insurance and real-estate companies so far have donated to Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain by almost two-to-one -- and favored Sen. Clinton by even more. Health-care and pharmaceutical firms have given three times as much to each of the two Democrats as to Sen. McCain. Defense firms put Sen. McCain ahead of Sen. Obama, but behind Sen. Clinton. Energy, construction and agribusiness firms have given more to both Democrats. (See related article.)

In February, as Sen. McCain neared a lock on the nomination, he showed signs of a fund-raising recovery among those industries. A Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign-finance reports shows that he raised far more from energy firms in February than either Democratic rival, cutting into his deficit there. He outraised Sen. Clinton among employees of finance, insurance and real-estate firms, though he fell short of Sen. Obama's total during that month, the latest available. In agriculture, Sen. McCain outraised Sen. Clinton and fell just $1,000 short of tying Sen. Obama.

But in the health and defense industries, he fell further behind -- by more than enough to wipe out his gains elsewhere. From the Republican-friendly industries combined, Sen. McCain raised $1.6 million in February, closing in on Sen. Clinton's $1.8 million but well behind Sen. Obama's $2.7 million. Those figures don't include major industry sectors -- media, entertainment, communications and high-tech -- where Democrats are historically strong and which almost double the industry totals for Sens. Obama and Clinton.

Sen. McCain told reporters last week that his campaign had seen a "dramatic increase in contributions" once other Republicans ended their campaigns in early February. He also noted how badly he needed the turnaround: "We've got our work cut out for us," Sen. McCain said. "I mean, the numbers don't lie." The Republican is some $100 million behind each of the two Democrats in fund raising from all sources.

Executive Donations

Corporations themselves by law aren't allowed to donate money to candidates. But executives and employees of companies and their spouses can each give up to $2,300 to a candidate for the primary campaign and another $2,300 for the general election. Candidates must make public the names and employers of people who donate $200 or more, a group that the Center for Responsive Politics says mostly come from executive ranks.


Two main factors have combined to put Sen. McCain in such a deep hole with businesses. First: Since early 2007, Democrats in general have been more successful at fund raising than their Republican counterparts. The unusually strong business-sector fund raising of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama has been helped by a wide expectation during 2007 of likely Democratic success in the White House and congressional races because of President Bush's unpopularity. Corporations have been "moving in a direction where the electorate is likely to be," says Mike Feldman, a Democrat and consultant for a number of U.S. corporations in Washington.

Second, Sen. McCain's maverick status in his party and frequent tangles with big business interests made other Republican candidates far more attractive to many industry donors. The 2008 presidential nominee of the traditional party of business is seen as one of the least business-friendly Republicans in Washington, and the fund-raising numbers reflect that. "It's very foreboding for Republicans," says Jan Baran, a former general counsel at the Republican National Committee and now a campaign-finance lawyer at Washington law and lobbying firm Wiley Rein LLP. Mr. Baran called McCain's weakness among business interests compared with the Democrats "startling."

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 40 of 47 current Republicans it ranked in the Senate have stronger pro-business voting records over their lifetimes than Sen. McCain -- though he still has voted with business interests 81% of the time, the Chamber says.

Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, noted that Sen. McCain "led the charge to limit the money and influence of special interests in politics, so it's not surprising that he's not at the top of their handout list." But, she added, the campaign will "have the money we need to win."

In the Senate, the Arizona Republican has had no trouble raising money to run for re-election, even from industries whose interests he sometimes opposed. But Sen. McCain hasn't needed to raise much: He has faced only token opposition for decades in the Senate, and Arizona isn't an expensive state to campaign in.

Regulatory Influence

Senators who hold important positions also can generally count on campaign donations from businesses with legislative or regulatory issues over which they have influence. Sen. McCain is a senior Republican and holds top-ranking positions on the Armed Services Committee and the Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over industries ranging from aviation to telecommunications.

Even businesses that he has clashed with have often given him campaign money, such as the cable industry and auto makers. "Every single entity that I've ever been involved with has given him money, and every single entity has gotten the crap beaten out them by McCain," says Brian Kelly, a telecommunications lobbyist.

But presidential fund raising works on a much larger scale, against different competition for the funds.

During 2007, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- with decades of experience in private industry -- and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani won the biggest Republican share of business donations. Sen. McCain, whose fund-raising problems famously all but pushed him out of the race midyear, trailed even a Democratic also-ran, Sen. Chris Dodd, in a number of business fund-raising categories through 2007.


Now, as Democrats increasingly paint Sen. McCain as a friend to business who favors light regulation, the question is whether he can raise more in business donations than the Democrats have.

To be sure, Sen. McCain can expect more help from across the party now that he's the presumptive nominee. Corporate executives tend to donate to candidates they think will win, and Republicans are gaining confidence in their chances this November as Sens. Clinton and Obama continue to slug it out in their primary. The Democrats' fund-raising efforts have yet to be combined behind one candidate, while Sen. McCain is marshaling forces across the party. His fund-raising staff is telling prospective donors that Sen. McCain is "better than the alternative," says Rick Hohlt, a longtime Republican fund-raiser.

The candidates haven't yet announced their overall fund-raising figures for March. Details including breakdowns of donations by industry won't be available until April 20.

Sen. McCain's February fund-raising comeback came partly from reaching out to executives who backed other Republicans who left the race. People who raised money for Mr. Giuliani began working with Sen. McCain's fund-raising staff in February. Mr. Romney's fund-raising team began working to raise money for Sen. McCain later that month and Mr. Romney appeared last week at a pair of events in Salt Lake City and Denver. "I'll think you'll find that the Republican Party, like any great family, comes together," Mr. Romney said after the events.

Detroit Chips In

In February, officials at Ford Motor Co. helped raise money for Sen. McCain's presidential bid at an event outside Detroit. Ford's chief Washington lobbyist and general counsel were among the officials who donated the maximum $2,300, though Mr. McCain has worked with Democrats to raise fuel-efficiency standards.

"For me, I like him because he's strong on national security, will keep our taxes low and spending in check," says Ziad Ojakli, the Ford lobbyist.

On a trip this month to the Middle East and Europe, Sen. McCain worked in a private fund-raising event in London. Last week, he raised money at an event hosted by Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson at the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino, and attended a New York fund-raiser that drew many of Wall Street's titans.

MORE ON ELECTIONS


• McCain Has Yet to Win Over Key Conservatives
• Complete Coverage: Campaign 2008
• Washington Wire: Updates from the campaign trailBut the extent of Democratic inroads in former Republican strongholds is daunting. From the beginning of 2007 through the end of February 2008, the Democratic presidential candidates together won a slight majority of donations from employees in the defense sector, an industry that since 1990 has favored Republicans by a 61%-39% ratio, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics for all federal elections.

The Democratic presidential candidates have collected 41% of construction-industry giving and about 43% of agribusiness contributions, both up from their normal share of about a third. Most strikingly, they've won a combined majority of the donations from the health industry and from the combined financial, insurance and real-estate industries, receiving 58% and 53%, respectively. Since 1990, Republicans have taken about 55% of the donations from those sectors.

Individually, Sens. Clinton and Obama haven't just beaten Sen. McCain to business donors. In many areas they bested the top Republican fund-raisers, Messrs. Romney and Giuliani, too.

Sen. Clinton was first among all candidates in raising money through February from financial, defense and health-care firms. She's helped by representing New York in the Senate and by taking a leadership role on health-care issues, even though many firms in the industry oppose aspects of her health-care plans. Sen. Obama, meantime, was the most popular recipient of donations from pharmaceutical manufacturers and electric utilities -- both normally Republican strongholds.

Sen. McCain's rocky relationship with business stems from his evolving regulatory outlook. At his core, he is a conservative inclined to trust free markets to lower prices and produce benefits for consumers. But mainly in the last decade, he has developed what some see as a populist streak, becoming more willing to use his powers in the Senate to help consumers when he thinks the free market isn't working properly. The Club for Growth, a leading advocate for lower taxes and smaller government, released a nine-page report last fall titled: "John McCain's Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative."

Sen. McCain bucked oil and gas interests by opposing new drilling in Alaska while championing global-warming legislation. He supports the importation of cheap prescription drugs over the opposition of the drug manufacturers. He helped pass a fuel-efficiency increase that was resisted by auto manufacturers. He backed legislation to regulate tobacco. He has spent a decade feuding with cable and broadcast companies. And he has worried defense contractors with demands for stricter oversight, most recently helping to reopen a $23 billion Boeing Co. contract for airborne fuel tankers.

Many of the industries and companies he clashes with nevertheless have been top sources of campaign cash for Sen. McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The oil and gas sector ranks among the top contributors to Sen. McCain over his career. So do people who work in the real-estate, securities, finance and commercial-bank industries, even though he voted against President Bush's tax cuts on investments.

Employees of Miami-based law firm Greenberg Traurig are top contributors to Sen. McCain, even though he led the Senate investigation into the firm's former top lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Jill Perry, a spokeswoman for Greenberg Traurig, says employees of the firm have been "active givers to all three presidential candidates."

Cable Battles

Sen. McCain's pushes against some businesses also have benefited other firms, which have sometimes donated to his campaigns. His decadelong battle with cable companies and television broadcasters has benefited the satellite-television companies, which have become top backers. Sen. McCain's push for cleaner energy sources has aided the nuclear industry, whose executives have sometimes donated to him. His tussle with Boeing has coincided with $12,000 in donations from employees from a Boeing competitor: European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.

McCain fund-raiser Kirk Blalock tells corporate executives to "take a leap of faith" on Sen. McCain. Many companies calculate that, on balance, Sen. McCain helps them, even if he tangles with them on some specific priorities. "If someone is going to write a check to McCain, it's on the broader macro issues. I don't think it's because he's for one industry or another because he's not," says Mr. Blalock, who lobbies for a range of industries including insurance and generic pharmaceuticals.

Sen. McCain supports free-trade agreements and, in a reversal of an earlier position, now backs extending President Bush's lower tax rates on individuals and investments, currently set to expire at the end of 2010. Neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama wants the tax cuts to become permanent, and both have become increasingly harsh about free trade on the campaign trail. Both vote with business interests just under half the time, according to the Chamber of Commerce ratings, despite their success at business-sector fund raising.

Perhaps no industry better shows Sen. McCain's approach to industry regulation than cable. In the early 1990s, Sen. McCain helped cable companies win deregulation. But when cable rates spiked up, Sen. McCain stepped in. Unwilling to impose regulations, he backed injecting competition into the marketplace by beefing up satellite-television companies, such as DirecTV and EchoStar, to create marketplace pressure to hold down rates. (News Corp., the owner of this newspaper, owned DirecTV for a period during that time.)

Recently, Sen. McCain has tried to lower cable prices by forcing the industry to allow consumers to purchase only the channels they want, without having to pay higher prices for packages of channels. The cable industry opposes the plan.

"Lord knows the guy has a track record of not helping us," says Kyle McSlarrow, the head of the cable industry's Washington lobbying association. But Mr. McSlarrow serves as a volunteer fund-raiser for Sen. McCain, because "there are big-time issues I agree with him on, even though there are smaller issues that we agree to disagree on."

Cable executives and employees have donated $161,000 to Sen. McCain's presidential campaign -- a sizable amount, but far behind the $561,000 and $249,000 they have given to Sens. Clinton and Obama, respectively, neither of whom has been involved in cable issues.

--Elizabeth Holmes contributed to this article.

Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com

¿Why big banks do not need to lobby the Fed?

Because they own it. So, they are the one that make the decisions. You do not need to lobby your selves.
Yeah, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States is a private entity, and the shareholders are the private banks. They even receive profit (6 percent). Your hear right. The power to decide the interest rates and the money supply in the US is taken by the baking corporations, not by a federal agency.
They call it "cuasi-federal", bullshit. It was created long time ago, in 1913, not by elected politicians, not by independent policymakers, but by a bunch of powerful bankers. The law that created it was conceived in a way that assures that the power to control money stays always in their hands.
Why did the Fed acted in such a irrational way as it did during the Great Depression? Because the people behind it want it a financial crisis to expand the power of the biggest banks such a JP Morgan and others. ¿Why did the Fed abandon the gold standard? Invest taxpayers money to save Bear Stearns, who was a bad financial citizen for a long time in which noboday says nothing, sell it at sale price to JP Morgan, and they tell the people that works in their interesting. Something is missing here..... ¿Want to learn more? Check the documentary: ZEITGEIST EPISODE 3: DON'T MIND THE MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN in Freedocumentaries.org.

Kinetic Reaction: The Military-Industrial Complex are extortionists

Kinetic Reaction: The Military-Industrial Complex are extortionists

Kinetic Reaction: Buchanan blasts Rudy and Israeli lobby in new Article

Kinetic Reaction: Buchanan blasts Rudy and Israeli lobby in new Article