15 May 2009
Conflict of Interest or Corruption?
Our federal government has performance standards that mean to prevent conflicts of interest in government and both houses of Congress have a Rules Committee plus some standards of propriety and prudence as guidance for Representatives and Senators. Today, I wrote to Senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA, because she is a member of the Senate's Rules Committee.
I asked Senator Feinstein if it is a violation of the Senate's Rules on Ethics that Senator Baucus, the committee chair, who received about $4 million in campaign contributions from every industry stakeholder for the health care bill, to remain Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee? In Truthdig, an online newsletter for progressive opinions and commentaries, columnist Amy Goodman reports that Senator Baucus received campaign contributions:
From the insurance industry: $1,170,313;
health professionals: $1,016,276;
pharmaceuticals/health-products industry: $734,605;
hospitals/nursing homes: $541,891;
health services/HMOs: $439,700.”
[Source: From one of the "Baucus 13," Kevin Zeese in a prior publication as quoted by Amy Goodman in Trustdig. Mr. Zeese was one of those arrested yesterday.]
That’s almost $4 million from the very industries that have the most to gain or lose from
health-care reform." [Source: Amy Goodman, 2009, column in Truthdig]
How would we characterize such payments to politicians in other countries? Do we not call this evidence of corruption in government? How is this different from individuals giving extra money or bribes to obtain favorable consideration or action from a government bureaucrat or from a high ranking, elected official?
Why else would an organization take cash away from its operations revenues to give a campaign donation? It's not surprising that insurance companies would give the most donations. These same companies complain about the loss of income due to rising costs in claims. These same companies will take premiums from individuals only to deny coverage at some future date because it would cost them too much. In other countries, particularly in the developing economies, we label such payments as bribes if a US company does it, or as corruption if government officials are involved. Bribes are illegal because of the 1975 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 'Corruption' is a term of derision used by opposition parties and by the international press.
Why do these particular companies give about $4 million to Senator Baucus's campaign for a sixth term as senator from Montana? Would these payments influence Senator Baucus in his role of Finance Committee chairperson? If not, then why support this man's efforts to be re-elected? Did these payments cause Senator Baucus' mindset to act favorably to those donors? Did this prejudice for these donors result in the exclusion of public interest organizations like Consumers Union or anyone wanting a single payer system? I have no evidence to the contrary. I think it is fair to describe this Committee's process as corrupted by its chairman.
Not only do I feel Senator Baucus should recuse himself from his Finance Committee duties on health care issues, I feel that the primary, the most affected stakeholders should be represented in testimony and discussions (as are the industry stakeholders). This stakeholder group is the public. We should have a forum to articulate what we want, not what the existing industry players want to give us.
With the conflict of interest existing for Chairman Baucus and the absence of spokespersons for the public as stakeholder, whatever outcomes result from this Finance Committee's deliberations will be counter-reform and counter-productive for our existing health care system. Another victim of corruption in our government.
Labels: health care reform legislation, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Rules Committee, Senator Baucus
<< Home
