SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 11:55:44 AM
From: tonto  Respond to of 224744
 
Yup, supply is not keeping up with demand...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 12:44:41 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 
Campaign Cash: Clinton Bundler in More Trouble
By Kate Phillips

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are scheduled to make an announcement early this afternoon in the investigation into the fund-raising and business practices of Norman Hsu, the disgraced donor to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The Wall Street Journal, which first exposed Mr. Hsu’s fund-raising irregularities a few weeks ago, reported this earlier today :
Federal officials are expected to bring a criminal case against Norman Hsu today, charging the Democratic super-donor with operating a $60-million pyramid scheme and violating campaign-finance laws.
The case, to be announced this afternoon by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, encompasses complaints by investors who gave tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Hsu, who said he was putting it into a lucrative apparel operation. It also is expected to charge Mr. Hsu with crimes relating to his legendary fundraising.
The news comes on top of several new accounts of questionable campaign contributions in the wake of disclosures about Mr. Hsu. The Wall Street Journal also published an article today looking at another case of bundling donations (in and of itself not an illegal practice) for Mrs. Clinton:



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 12:44:59 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 
When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.
But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband’s boss for the donations. “It wasn’t personal money. It was all corporate money,” Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. “I don’t even like Hillary. I’m a Republican.”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 12:47:14 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 
Message 23898168



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 12:53:47 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 
Message 23898205



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 2:48:11 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 
The boss is William Danielczyk, founder of a Washington-area private-equity firm and a major fund-raising "bundler" for Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Layton's gift was one of more than a dozen donations that night from people with Republican ties or no history of political giving. Mr. Danielczyk and his family, employees and friends donated a total of $120,000 to Mrs. Clinton in the days around the fund-raiser.

In an interview, Mr. Danielczyk said he "did not and would not" reimburse employees or others for their political donations. Such reimbursement would be illegal. Mr. Danielczyk said he was a co-host for the event at Mrs. Clinton's home. "Everybody was asked to contribute," he said, "some said yes and some said no." He added, "No arm was twisted."

The episode adds to growing questions about the practice of "bundling" donations, in which ambitious fund-raisers collect money from friends, colleagues and sometimes employees to send to a campaign. Every major presidential campaign now relies on the practice to raise large sums. It is an especially important strategy for Mrs. Clinton. She has formed a group of "HillRaisers" who get special recognition for sweeping in more than $100,000 for her campaign.

Mrs. Clinton's campaign isn't the only one to be touched by suspicions about bundlers. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan last month indicted Geoffrey Fieger, a politically active attorney. Mr. Fieger is accused of laundering $127,000 in illegal campaign contributions through dozens of employees to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, who is running again for president. Mr. Fieger denies wrongdoing and says he was set up by the Bush administration.

Asked about the donations bundled by Mr. Danielczyk, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said yesterday it would return the $9,200 donated by Mr. and Mrs. Layton.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said: "These allegations are troubling and we will again ask each of the individuals solicited by Mr. Danielczyk to affirm that their contributions were given with their own funds." Mr. Wolfson said the campaign will return any contributions that didn't come from the donor's own money.

Mr. Wolfson also said the campaign provides information to its donors that "clearly spell out that donations must be from personal funds."

THE DONATIONS


See a sortable table of campaign donations from Norman Hsu and other donors whose giving pattern correlates with his.The Justice Department says it has seen an increase in the number of prosecutions against individuals who seek to reimburse employees and others for political donations. The increase began after Congress approved changes to campaign-finance laws in 2002. The new laws barred individuals from donating six-figure amounts to political parties.

Individuals can give a maximum of $4,600 per election cycle. The laws make it harder for donors who wish to influence elections or become close to a candidate to make their impact felt.

Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that donations raised by businessman Norman Hsu tracked contributions from a family in Daly City, Calif. The Justice Department later announced that it was investigating the matter. Mrs. Clinton and more than a dozen other Democrats who received money from Mr. Hsu and his fund-raising network have said they will return the money to donors or give it to charity.

Mr. Danielczyk, 46 years old, founded a private-equity firm called Galen Capital five years ago and began investing in companies. In 2003, Mr. Danielczyk took over FractionAir Inc., a Nashville, Tenn., company that sells partial ownership of private jets. He became chairman of FractionAir in September 2004.

The company went out of business last year after the Federal Aviation Administration asked FractionAir to voluntarily turn over its license. An FAA spokeswoman said the agency became concerned when the company wasn't able to produce documents to verify that pilots had completed their training.

"You have to have setbacks and failures in life," Mr. Danielczyk said in an interview. "You learn from that and move on."

Election records show that Mr. Danielczyk made his first political donation in June 2004 to former Sen. Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican. Mr. Danielczyk donated $2,100 to Mrs. Clinton in July 2006 and the same amount that September. He also gave $15,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative, a charitable organization run by her husband, according to public records.

This year, Mr. Danielczyk says he wanted to do a fund-raiser in April, but was "encouraged" by the Clinton campaign to do it before March 31, the close of the first important fund-raising period.

"I've never done this before. I'm new to political fund raising," Mr. Danielczyk said. "It's hard to believe in this day and age, I'm not looking for any favors."

About 100 people attended, though it's not clear how many of those were invited by Mr. Danielczyk, according to people there. Donors mingled in Mrs. Clinton's kitchen and outdoor patio and munched on simple appetizers. Mrs. Clinton made brief remarks, took pictures with donors and chatted for more than an hour, according to attendees. At a table, campaign aides collected donations.

One person at the event was a Washington-area investor who was considering putting some money in one of Mr. Danielczyk's ventures. The investor, a registered Republican, said he was invited by Mr. Danielczyk and a colleague who were wooing him to invest at least $125,000 in one of their companies.

The investor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says he didn't donate any money to Mrs. Clinton. Campaign-finance records show that the investor contributed $4,600 on March 30 to Mrs. Clinton. The reason for the discrepancy isn't clear.

Mrs. Layton, who lists her occupation as dental instructor at a wellness center, is a Republican, and her husband, Philip, has supported Democrats in the past. Mr. Layton is the information technology director at Galen Capital, according to the company's Web site.

"I was invited but I didn't want to go," Mrs. Layton said.

Other Republican voters who contributed the maximum amount to Mrs. Clinton at this event included Mr. Danielczyk's mother, sister, personal assistant and a half-dozen employees or their spouses. Most of the donors had never made a political donation before contributing $4,600 to Mrs. Clinton, according to fund-raising records.

Mr. Danielczyk said some of the attendees were Republicans, but "they may vote for her [Mrs. Clinton] now." He added, "It's odd ... You try to get involved in the political process and you come under scrutiny."

--T.W. Farnam contributed to this article.

Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com and Ianthe Jeanne Dugan at ianthe.dugan@wsj.com

RELATED ARTICLES AND BLOGS



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 2:50:15 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224744
 
Where HillaryCare Goes Wrong
By MITT ROMNEY
September 20, 2007

Some of the details have changed, but at the heart of Sen. Hillary Clinton's new health-care proposal are the same flaws that sunk her first version. They flow from her distrust of markets, from her distaste for profit-motivated private enterprise, and from her consequent faith that Washington knows best.

The truth is that the American people know best, and when a sector of the economy is not working as well as it might, you should look to give the people more influence, to unleash competitive forces, and to welcome private ingenuity. The last thing you should do is apply more government. But that's just what HillaryCare Version 2.0 does.

As governor of Massachusetts, I led the fight for reforms that used free markets and innovation, rather than big-government control, to lower health-care costs and cover the uninsured. I recently proposed a federalist reform plan that will use these principles to improve America's health-care system.

Sen. Clinton has a very different view about the changes we need to make. Her plan has several weaknesses and should be distinguished from the reforms I led in Massachusetts and the reform plan I have proposed. So let's take a closer look at what her new proposal would really do:

• Raise taxes. The new plan is slated to cost $110 billion a year. And to pay for the new entitlement -- a tax hike. That in turn will slow down the economy and make the cost of her system grow even higher. By contrast, both the reforms I led in Massachusetts and the federalist reform plan I recently proposed do not raise taxes or increase spending. In fact, in the new plan that I have proposed, funds currently sent to states to care for the uninsured are made flexible so that the states may use them to help the poor acquire their own private insurance.

• Expand government insurance. People who don't obtain insurance through their employer are invited to buy a government-run, Medicare-like plan or enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). And so, more Americans will end up in government-run insurance. It's the gentle slope to a single payer, socialized medicine model. My plan in Massachusetts instead allowed the uninsured to choose a private insurance product from one of the many private insurance companies.

• Impose a national model on everyone. Sen. Clinton fundamentally distrusts state governments. But the states are closer to the people, and more responsive to them. They are also the laboratories of democracy -- the best ideas can come from 50 states each doing their best work. The senator's plan is a one-size-fits-all approach. It ignores significant differences between people and the needs of the 50 different states. Federalism is the right approach. The national reforms I have proposed give states financial flexibility to craft their own program to cover the uninsured, a program tailored to the specific needs of their citizens.

• Significantly increase the role of the federal government at the expense of free markets. For example, Sen. Clinton proposes the creation of an entirely new government-run Medicare-like program for the uninsured. Inevitably, lobbyists will go to town adding coverage mandates, setting rates and re-shaping plans to fit the wants of their clients. The better path is the market path. Let the multitude of private companies compete for the consumer's dollar -- the quality and the cost will be much better than what government could ever cobble together.

• Leave the mandate problem unsolved. Before you can impose a mandate on employers or individuals to purchase insurance, you need to reform state health insurance markets. Otherwise, policies can be so beefed-up with state mandated coverage and regulation that they are simply unaffordable. Then a mandate is unfair.


Moreover, her employer mandate doesn't solve the problem of the uninsured -- that's why I vetoed a similar measure when I was governor of Massachusetts. I chose an individual mandate only after we had done our best to reform state insurance regulations -- lowering premiums by as much as 50%.

Let's be clear here: My plan in Massachusetts worked very differently than Sen. Clinton's plan would. First, we worked to reduce the burdens of regulation. The legislature insisted on more coverage mandates and regulation than I would have liked, but even so, less regulation has resulted in much lower premiums.

Second, we used the money we were already getting from the federal government to help the poor purchase their own private insurance -- without new taxes or spending. And even the poor paid their fair share of their premiums.

Third, with the help of the Heritage Foundation, we found a path for most individuals to purchase insurance with pre-tax dollars, just like people who get their coverage through their employers. And finally, once premiums had been lowered and the poor were able to afford private insurance, my plan called for people to either purchase insurance or pay their own way -- no more free riders.

I like the plan I put forward in Massachusetts. But even so, I wouldn't do what Sen. Clinton does -- impose my way on every other state. Other states may borrow from what we did. Some will surely improve on it. But let's keep faith in federalism, in private markets and in individual responsibility.

I have announced my health-care plan for the nation. It follows the principles I pursued in Massachusetts. Reform state insurance markets first, to lower the cost of policies. Give states financial flexibility with Medicaid funds and with existing "free care" payments so that states can craft their own programs to expand private insurance. End the tax discrimination against individual purchasers of health insurance who currently must buy their coverage with post-tax dollars.

These, among other features of my plan, will lower the cost of health insurance, get all of our citizens insured, remove the threat of losing insurance when you lose or change jobs, improve the health of our citizens, and reduce the growth in health-care spending. It's the free market way, the private sector way, the individual responsibility way -- the American way.

Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

RELATED ARTICLES AND BLOGS



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15269)9/20/2007 2:59:59 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224744
 
Trial-Lawyer Kowtow
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB
September 20, 2007; Page A12

Democrats staged an 11th-hour showdown this week over a bill that funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Their aim: a huge handout to the trial bar.

The furtive give-away is buried in the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (FDARA), a funding bill that needs to pass this week if the agency is to avoid a budget crunch that could force it to fire its drug reviewers. If drug safety is so critical, why would Democrats risk issuing pink slips at the FDA? The provision raises the question of whether the hyperbole and hearings over drug safety these past several years was about improving public health, or merely paying off the lawyers.

The key issue is whether state courts should second-guess FDA scientific decisions that are based on an exhaustive review of clinical data and the proposed drug labeling. This usually comes up when drug companies are alleged to have failed to warn consumers about emerging drug safety issues, which comprise the vast majority of product liability cases.

Companies and the FDA (under both Republican and Democratic administrations) have argued that when the FDA specifically addresses a safety issue -- often telling companies that they can't include certain warnings in drug labeling because it's not scientifically justified -- state courts are "pre-empted" from and have no business substituting their judgment for the agency's expert finding. Otherwise, drug labeling -- which is an important public health tool -- would get cluttered with dubious and confusing warnings aimed at only shielding firms from lawsuits.

One recent case where pre-emption was successfully asserted was Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham in California. The company was sued for failing to warn consumers that nicotine-replacement products allegedly cause birth defects, even though there wasn't any credible scientific evidence establishing that link. The FDA not only forbade SmithKline Beecham from including the superfluous warning in the drug's label, it also said that the public health was best served by encouraging pregnant woman to use nicotine replacement instead of smoking.

A California court initially said that more warnings were always better. Fortunately, after the FDA asserted that its judgment should prevail, the California Supreme Court unanimously agreed.

Even though pre-emption is a well established practice with respect to many federally regulated products, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) privately promised the American Association for Justice, a trial lawyer trade group, that Democrats would gut this doctrine when it came to drug regulation.

In a widely circulated email to its members, the American Association for Justice said "we have already begun implementing a strategy for seeking language in the House version of the bill that can improve the current landscape for plaintiffs." The result is the "rule of construction" in the FDA bill that says, notwithstanding massive new power being given to the FDA over drug labeling, that the bill should not be "construed to affect" the responsibility of drug companies to add additional risk information to drug labeling on their own, without regard to what the FDA tells them.

In other words, the FDA's very close regulation of drug labeling doesn't necessarily pre-empt state juries from second-guessing when companies, and the FDA, decide to issue new safety warnings.

Drug firms have come in for a steady drubbing from Democrats over the past several years for "going soft" on drug safety. The FDA's career scientists endured frivolous charges from Capitol Hill that they were "in the pocket" of "big drug companies." Each time Democrats dug into a prescription drug issue, they unleashed a mountain of piggyback litigation.

The new regulations being passed as part of FDARA will also force more drug labeling changes that create their own opportunities for lawyers to pile on to the agency's findings. Now thanks to the Democrats' maneuvering, the legislation will help trial lawyers more easily cash in off those suits.

The legislation has other shortcomings, such as a vast new framework for the government to actively regulate decisions doctors make with their patients in the name of promoting "safer" use of medicines. Nor does the bill fully address the need for changes in the way we collect information about how drugs are used and, more importantly, how safety findings are reported.

But in the end, after years of politicking on drug issues as a walk-up to the big "reform" package winding its way through Congress, Democrats who promised to bring a new way of doing business to Washington are showing that the only thing that matters is a high dose of steroids for the plaintiffs bar.

Dr. Gottlieb, a practicing physician, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former deputy commissioner of the FDA.

RELATED ARTICLES AND BLOGS