Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Following the money on HR801

Two days ago, I issued an urgent call to action concerning HR801, re-introduced by Congressional Representative John Conyers (D-MI), which would essentially reverse the NIH Open Access policy. I have much respect for Representative Conyers, especially on his health care policies. Thus, I was greatly disturbed upon hearing of this development.

I wanted to know why Conyers would do such a thing, and began investigating the money trail on Conyers' campaign contributions (thanks Alex for the idea!). What I came upon sank my heart. According to Open Secrets, Conyers' third single largest campaign contributor in 2008 was the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), whose "Key Bills of the 111th Congress" include HR801. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Money talks, and big money talks that much louder.

The AIPLA, like the bill it hawks, has a deceptive name. It seems the association is more interested in limiting public access to research it funded than protecting "intellectual property". Perhaps the AIPLA should consider the fact that, in essence, the research is the "intellectual property" of the taxpayers whose money went into it. But of course this private organization has the interest of its members closest to its mission; I only had hoped that Conyers would do the same for his constituents. Perhaps it is no wonder that the Congressional job approval rating averages less than 30%.

But don't let this news dishearten you. Conyers can't pass the bill on his own, no matter how much money he has behind him. Contact your Representatives and appeal to the better angels of their nature. Stop HR801 now, and in 2010 we can elect responsible persons to represent us.

Nathan

11 comments:

  1. Isn't it just as likely that their contribution followed Conyers's support for their bill, rather than the other way around? Even if their contribution was long ago, he may have told their lobbyist from way back then that he was behind this kind of legislation.

    As whorelike as politicians already are, there's no shortage of political support from causes that they already agree with. They don't really need to sell their votes as much as they market their existing opinions.

    Or is it easier to think that the only way he could disagree with you was to be bought off?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous above is correct. Campaign donations are almost always given to support the politicians who already agree with the person/organization donating.

    Also, get your facts straight, THOMAS reports Chris Smith as the bill's original sponsor.
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.801:

    ReplyDelete
  3. If he is on the up and up he should refuse their money to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry to say, but I find the first two comments to be quite naive. How does one reconcile the theory that politicians receive contributions primarily from those who support the views they already espouse with the fact that many large companies and interest groups donate to both major candidates for the same office, so as to guarantee "access" no matter who wins?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow that is quite impressive!

    RT
    www.anonymity.eu.tc

    ReplyDelete
  6. The link above to H.R.801 is incorrect. The poster is confusing the bill being discussed with one from the 107th Congress. Conyers is the sponsor. Try this url
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.801:

    ReplyDelete
  7. I worked for a PAC in DC, and we didn't give campaign contributions to candidates unless:

    1. they were documented as having taken our stance already in the mainstream media or on their own official materials, or

    2. they answered a questionnaire about our issue in exactly the way that we wanted them to. They take the questionnaire privately, so they wouldn't get any cues from us on which was the "right" answer.

    So, the PAC I worked for, at least, wasn't trying to convince people, but rather to get people elected who were already on our side.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Conyers is from Michigan. Now, doesn't Michigan have bigger problems than Intellectual Property law? For example, a stagnating economy on the brink of ruin. Why would he choose to re-introduce an IP bill at this point? Those are the questions that really concern me, and the money connection doesn't exactly help his cause.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nathan, IP law is the bailiwick of the Judiciary Committee. Hence, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Conyers and his Committe staff are actively involved in IP issues. Also, if you look at Conyers' legislative history, his position here is consistent with his overall stance for strong IP laws

    ReplyDelete