Is BIO’s Jim Greenwood A Lobbyist?
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 7th, 2009 // 9:50 am
The savvy former congressman from Pennsylvania has been effectively representing biotechs on Capitol Hill for the past few years, a period during which biosimilars have been a repeated flash point. And as head of the industry trade group, Jim Greenwood would appear to be a lobbyist like so many others, especially given his interactions with elected officials in the House and Senate. He is regularly protrayed this way in the press (see here).
Yet a quick check of the lobbying forms filed with Congress by BIO, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, reveals that Greenwood’s name isn’t listed. The reason? A BIO spokesman says Greenwood doesn’t pass the 20 percent threshhold, a reference to the amount of time spent lobbying (see here). To check the forms, please go to the House site and where it says Registrant Name, type in Biotechnology Industry Organization, and then to set sort to Primary Sort: Filing Year. For the Senate site, please look here.
But Public Citizen argues this strains credibility. “It’s not credible for him not to be considered a lobbyist,” says Craig Holman, the consumer advocacy group’s Capitol Hill lobbyist on campaign finance and governmental ethics. He notes the threshhold isn’t just the actual amount of time spent but two or more activities undertaken to facilite lobbying contacts within a three-month period, as well as income of $2,500 or more during that period.
“I think he’s evading the law. As head of one of the largest lobbying organizations, he probably spends closer to 100 percent of his time on lobbying activities,” he continues. “His argument would have to be that he’s putting 80 percent of his time on sheer educational activities and activities not related to pressing his legislative agenda. If that’s the case, BIO should be a university, not a lobbying organization.”
But what do you think?
Is BIO's Jim Greenwood A Lobbyist?
- Yes (85%, 57 Votes)
- No (16%, 11 Votes)
Total Voters: 67
Loading ...
Scott
As the CEO of BIO, Jim Greenwood himself may not be directly lobbying the way some do, but there’s little doubt that his direct reports and others use his name to meet with Congressmen and women to thereby influence the legislative agenda. The basic argument that Greenwood isn’t a lobbyist is a laughable argument, akin to saying that Pfizer’s CEO Jeff Kindler isn’t a drug salesman.
SteveM
Well he’s a typical DC Reptile regardless of his job description.
In this town soft corruption is a way of life. Greenwood being oily is normative. His title doesn’t matter.
Lisa Van Syckel
This isnt the first time that Mr. Greenwood’s integrity is being questioned. Pharma and Greenwood made a lame attempt to railroad Congresss’s Investigation into the role of antidepressants and suicide in the Pediatric population. He accepted a job with Bio just days before a Congressional Hearing, unfortunately for Pharma, the hearing was rescheduled.
Mr. Greenwood, in 2004 falsely stated that he was the elected official who was investigating the antidepressant scandal, he lied, it was actually Congressman Mike Ferguson, and his staff.
Condor
It would seem to me that a sensible rule would be to REQUIRE — at the FEC.gov rule-making level, that ALL former US legislators register as lobbyists, for a period of at least five years, after service in Congress.
Let’s face it — people don’t solely hire his firm for HIS good looks. They hire him — just like PhRMA hired Billy Tauzin — for the CONNECTS. Let’s get real, right?
There is simply no straight-faced argument to be made to the contrary.
We — the electorate — have the right to know who is hiring him, and for his CONNECTS on which issues. Okay — I’ll put a sock in it, now.
Namaste
Lisa Van Syckel
Gee, I wonder if Jim is monitoring the poll?
Atlex
Lisa,
Polls don’t matter. There is a legal definition as to who has to file papers as a lobbyist. There is no evidence (besides speculation by Public Citizen) that Mr. Edwards reached the thresholds as defined by the law. If this makes you and others unhappy, feel free to spend the time and effort getting the law changed. In the end, does it really matter? Everyone in DC knows who Mr Edwards is and who he works for.
Atlex
Condor
Except for the fact that we were talking about Greenwood, not Sen. Edwards, I think I agree with Atlex.
That is — we ought to change the law — ALL former Congress-critters consulting for any firm (even as lawyers) and using “jurisdictional means” (phone, fax, email, teleconference, or live meetings) to talk, or visit, anyone on Capitol Hill should be required to register, and disclose, as lobbyists — for say four years after leaving Congress. That would be on top of the existing 20 percent test.
Somewhat less seriously this early-morning, consider the plight of the “Cheech & Chong” former contract-truck drivers for old Schering-Plough — Heh! — perhaps they could have used the services of a lobbyist, in their cases, as well? [Ed, feel free to use the mostly-whimsical graphic -- in any way you like.]
Namaste
Lisa Van Syckel
Atlex,
In the past I have had a personal exchange with Congressman Greenwood, and I do believe, that negative polls , no matter how small, concerns him. I am not unhappy, and I actually have a soft spot for the man. The Congressman belongs to that very special group, that no parent wishes to join, and that is the loss of a child. I witnessed a verbal conversation in 2004 between the Congressman and one of his constituants who had lost a child to a zoloft induced suicide, and I can assure you that their conversation together was heartwrenching.
My advice to the Congressman is this, be yourself, but most of all, be upfront and honest he really does have the best of intentions, and dont try to hide behind the veil of secrecy.
And we are all entitled to have a foggy brain, early in the morning every once in awhile. Have a cup of stimulation, seems to work for ED.