An ACORN Amendment for Pfizer
While some lawmakers are focused on exposing the hypocrisy of targeting ACORN and allowing the fraud- and abuse-plagued war industry to go untouched, McCollum's legislation takes aim at massive healthcare corporations. "It's time Congress get serious about taxpayer funding of corporate cheats, crooks and criminals," says McCollum. "Last month Congress took action to defund a nonprofit serving poor Americans but failed to act against the corporate crooks that are actually guilty of felonies--including defrauding taxpayers. Why are companies that break the law as a business strategy allowed to receive taxpayer funds? A government contract is a privilege, not a right. If a company commits a felony against the people of the United States, then that privilege must end." Significantly, McCollum's co-sponsors on the legislation include Wisconsin Democrat David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee. Obey was one of those 172 House Democrats who joined Republicans in voting to defund ACORN on September 17. McCollum, who voted against the Defund ACORN legislation, says that her own legislation is "modeled after" that one but "respects the Constitution by requiring a corporation to be guilty of a felony before federal funds are cut off."
McCollum's bill cites the 2008 Corporate Fraud Task Force Report to the President, which found that in fiscal year 2007, "United States Attorneys' offices opened 878 new criminal health care fraud investigations involving 1,548 potential defendants. Federal prosecutors had 1,612 health care fraud criminal investigations pending, involving 2,603 potential defendants, and filed criminal charges in 434 cases involving 786 defendants. A total of 560 defendants were convicted for health care fraud-related crimes during the year."
McCollum's bill singles out Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc., a subsidiary of Pfizer. Last month Pfizer agreed to pay a $2.3 billion settlement, which the Justice Department calls "the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice." The settlement stemmed from Pfizer's "illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products," where the company marketed dosages that had not been approved by the FDA. The company will also plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding the anti-inflammatory drug Bextra "with the intent to defraud or mislead." Prosecutors allege that the company marketed "off label" uses of the drug, despite FDA bans. As the New York Times reported, "Pfizer instructed its sales representatives to tell doctors that the drug could be used to treat acute and surgical pain and at doses well above those approved, even though the drug's dangers--which included kidney, skin and heart risks--increased with the dose, the government charged. The drug was withdrawn in 2005 because of its risks to the heart and skin." Pharmacia & Upjohn will also pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, "the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter," according to the DoJ. Federal prosecutors also stated:
Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs--Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug--and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.
On September 2, 2009, federal prosecutors, White House officials and military criminal investigators praised the settlement. "Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period," said Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. He added the fine against the company "demonstrates that such blatant and continued disregard of the law will not be tolerated."
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called it a "historic settlement" and said the government is looking "for new ways to prevent fraud before it happens. Healthcare is too important to let a single dollar go to waste."
Assistant Attorney General Tony West said, "Illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies puts the public health at risk, corrupts medical decisions by healthcare providers and costs the government billions of dollars," adding that the plea agreements "represent yet another example of what penalties will be faced when a pharmaceutical company puts profits ahead of patient welfare."
Patrick McFarland, inspector general of the Office of Personnel Management, said the settlement "reminds the pharmaceutical industry that it must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places healthcare consumers at risk."
The head of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service said that Pfizer's actions "significantly impacted the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense's healthcare system," saying "This illegal activity increases patients' costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the over 9 million military members, retirees and their families who rely on this system."
Yet, despite all of these tough statements--and many more by top officials--Pfizer and its vast network of subsidiaries continue to win massive government contracts. Last year Pfizer made more than $40 billion in profits, and in 2007 it had more than $73 million in federal contracts.
Loucks points out that "at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws." In other words, the criminal conduct continues even as the company settles cases. "The CEO and Board of Directors should have been indicted," wrote former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. "That is truly the only way to stop the practices which produce so much wealth for the company, its stockholders, officers and directors."
The glaring question here is, Why is the "corporate felon" Pfizer still on the federal dole? ACORN, which received a total of $53 million in federal funds over fifteen years, much of it going toward low-income housing initiatives, was singled out for a ban on funding over the actions of a handful of employees that were promptly fired. The fact is, Congress went after ACORN with a legislative nuke but, for years, has greeted Pfizer with welcoming arms and open wallets.
McCollum's legislation states that no federal contract, grant or "any other form" of agreement "may be awarded to or entered into with the corporation or company for a 5-year period beginning 30 days after the date of the criminal conviction involved" and states that "no Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the corporation or company for such 5-year period." The legislation also goes after criminal corporations' ability to inject cash into the campaign coffers of politicians, prohibiting "corporate felons" from "contributing to a candidate for federal office, to a political party, or to a federal political action committee for five years."
In 2008 Pfizer gave $980,048 in campaign contributions to Democrats, representing 52 percent of its total campaign contributions. It was the first year since 1990 that Pfizer gave more to Democrats than Republicans. The biggest recipients of Pfizer campaign dollars last year were Democratic Congressman Allen Boyd, who serves on the Appropriations Committee, and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. In the 2010 cycle, the company has given 60 percent of its campaign cash to Democrats. Barack Obama blew out John McCain in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, taking in some $2.1 million compared to the $668,000 contributed to McCain's campaign.
McCollum's legislation would limit the amount of lobbying expenditures by "corporate felons" to $1 million a calendar year. In 2009 Pfizer has already spent $11,720,000 on lobbying.
ACORN does not have high-powered lobbyists, and its 400,000 member families do not give major campaign contributions. If they did, the Defund Acorn bill would never have passed Congress. The question for those Democrats who voted to go after this community organization on dubious allegations is a simple one: will you apply that standard to actual corporate felons with real-life rap sheets whose actions have actually harmed ordinary Americans and ripped off taxpayers?
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
19 Comments so far
Show AllThey impose quotas on them and fire them if they don't meet the quotas. Voter regiatration rates are alredy very high in Pittsburgh's black and poor neighborhoods, so the registration gatherers were put in a posiition of having to "make up" registrations to avoid getting fired
http://www.killerpuzzlegames.com
The very fact that some of the Acorn employees were caught advising pimps, prostitutes and addicts is proof that they are a honest organization. The real crooks would never be caught on tape with such low lives.
John Kopchinski, the man who blew the whistle on Pfitzer, seems fishy to me on two accounts: 1) he was a West Point grad who served military time in Iraq and 2) he received a whopping $51.5 million of Pfiter's $2.3 billion settlement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN021592920090902?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11604
I would guess that the reason that "the left" if you are calling Democrats "the left" let ACORN be attacked was for one reason.
Most people that ACORN registers, to vote, do tend to vote Democratic. However, they also tend to vote "Progressive and/or Liberal Democratic" and not so much Blue Dog.
ACORN could probably mobilize votes against Blue Dog Democrats. That may bother some folks, (on "the left").
Hence, the steps taken (with "the left" as accomplice to, (instead of defender) to discredit the organization, and its members.
JMHO
Actually ACORN is doing nothing of the sort. Here is my experience:
ACORN hired poor people at minimum wage to gather voter registraitons. They impose quotas on them and fire them if they don't meet the quotas. Voter regiatration rates are alredy very high in Pittsburgh's black and poor neighborhoods, so the registration gatherers were put in a posiition of having to "make up" registrations to avoid getting fired. Thus, the Alegheny County elections office was getting flooded with fictitious registrations each of which nontheless reqired laborious effort to verify they were fictitious. It got so bad that I suspect the overwhelmed elections workers were throwing out handwritten regisration cards and only accepting DMV-collected motor-voter registrations and address changes. Most of pittsburgh's urban poor don't drive cars - many don't have drivers licenses. So, the effect of ACORN's effort was for registrations to be preferentially processed from white, republican suburban areas.
So do you now understand why we need to just let ACORN die?
And I don't know about you. but I find it puzzling why federal drug enforcers slapped Pfizer with a $2.3 billion fine for promoting off-label uses for drugs, while they still allow physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label uses. If off-label using is such a crime, meaning it has the potential to endanger patients' lives, why aren't physicians also being slapped with fines for prescribing drugs for off-label uses? I realize that the FDA is doing this because they are allowing physicians to exercise their so-called "best judgment" when prescribing drugs. But why won't the FDA allow pharmaceuticals to also exercise their best judgment when promoting drugs?
To me, the FDA is wrongly assuming that: 1) prescribing drugs have nothing to do with promoting them and 2) physicians, like banksters, are so damn God-like that they should be treated as if they are above the law. So I definitely see an unsettling double standard at work here in that pharmaceuticals, unlike physicians, must base what they do on sound science. In other words, I find it deeply unsettling that physicians are free to use their judgment when prescribing drugs, while pharmaceuticals are forbidden from using their judgment when promoting drugs.
Let me close by saying that if physicians continue this practice of putting their so-called "best judgment" over
sound science, their profession will soon fall into the hands of quacks!
Thanks to "Blackwater" author Jeremy Scahill for highlighting rare congressional heroes, people that common dreamers can admire. In defying the criminal corporate kleptocracy, heroes like Representative Betty McCollum, Senator Bernie Sanders, and many others deliberately spit into the wind and bravely tug on Darth Vader’s cape. We often focus on and enlarge the many villains, while forgetting such luminaries. For the spittle on their faces and worse, they deserve our gratitude and praise.
They may not win these battles or the war, but their acts become an important part of the official record for future historians. In the post mortem of this empire, they will shine as heroes of the post-imperial era to come.
The ACORN bill will die on the floor.
Corporations exist to make a profit, by any means, up to and including theft, rape, pillage and murder.
Anyone who tells you different is lying.
Corporations are 'super-citizens', meaning they exist in a para-legal exclusion zone that prevents their CEO's, board members and shareholders from being held accountable for their actions. Simply put, the corporations have more rights than you do.
What do I mean? here's an example: Ford Motors knew from extensive engineering experience that the Explorer SUV was too heavy for it's suspension, and it's center of gravity was higher than it's tipping point. This led to numerous rollovers that killed and injured thousands. But this was factored into the cost of the vehicle, and the cost of any lawsuit against the company for foreseeable death and suffering was simply paid off as part of 'doing business'. Compare that with you causing similar injury.
You go to prison. The Ford employee goes to the bank.
"Corporations exist to make a profit, by any means, up to and including theft, rape, pillage and murder."
What to you mean "up to and including?"
Those are actually their most lucrative departments.
Just ask United Fruit, Standard Oil, GE....etc..etc.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Re Galenwainwright... October 6th, 2009 9:29 am, who predicts,
"The ACORN bill will die on the floor."
I share your pessimism, having seen the same outrage over serial contract fraud by military contractors like Boeing and GE come to naught (or fines, amounting to a fraction of what was stolen from the public till, calculated as the cost of doing business).
Until we hit them with RICO suits carrying treble damage penalties, it's all theater.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of United Corporations of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under greed, avarice, death and destruction, with liberty and justice for all corporations.
Indeed, Galen, corporations are "super-citizens", persons who can never be put in prison and, although they are amoral and without souls, they are granted eternal life by imperial decree. Clearly many of these corporate malefactors deserve capital punishment, revocation of their charters; health insurers especially warrant a lethal injection.
Insanity: Wall Street good for America; Acorn bad for America
Why does the left let Acorn be attacked by the right and then jump in on the fight to hurt Acorn?
We don't stand up for ACORN becasue they have proved themselves not worth standing up for.
Leftists who have worked for ACORN find it to be an oppressive, corrupt and top-down graft-filled organization. My brother, worked for ACORN and called it "the graveyard of activists".
If ACORN dies, rest assured that other, there are plenty of more honest projects that will take it's place.
"Leftists who have worked for ACORN find it to be an oppressive, corrupt and top-down graft-filled organization."
I'm sure that your brother is a stand-up fellow but I'd like to see some substantiation for this claim.
q
I wish I could, but the mere mention of ACORN to my brother, a comitted activist and organizer who worked in some of the poorest parts of the country, sends him into a rant that lasts at least a half hour.
In urban activist parlance, it is a poverty-pimp organization - an organization that exploits the poor to accumulate donor money at the top.
Google it's founders name "Wade Rathke" to learn more.
The "Left"? What Left? What left wing group or organization jumped on Acorn? None that I know of! Oh my God...do you mean the Democrats? Are you saying Democrats are the Left in our government? L O L! There are but less than50 congressional members that even come close to being Left...by ANY standard... and even that small number will not admit it openly! There is no Left in Congress or as an outside source that is considered Left that has backed the attack on Acorn.
The article itself clearly exposes the myth of the "leftist" Democratic Party. Some names may have changed, but corporate governance has not.
"172 House Democrats...joined Republicans in voting to defund ACORN on September 17."
"The biggest recipients of Pfizer campaign dollars last year were Democratic Congressman Allen Boyd, who serves on the Appropriations Committee, and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd, a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. In the 2010 cycle, the company has given 60 percent of its campaign cash to Democrats. Barack Obama blew out John McCain in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, taking in some $2.1 million compared to the $668,000 contributed to McCain's campaign."
"Why does the left let Acorn be attacked by the right and then jump in on the fight to hurt Acorn?"
"The left" (whatever that means) doesn't. Some politicians do.
q