Public Interest Groups

"Public interest groups" is an odd name for lobbyists whose only interest is increasing their corporate bottom line by getting Congress to support legislation that favors them. PBS.org (Retrieved April 27, 2005 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/108th/groups_3.html) published the following list of public interest groups and the amounts they spend on lobbying. It is interesting to note that the organizations that might truly represent the public seem to have the least amounts to spend on lobbying. More information about the amounts spent is available from the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/).

American Association of Health Plans
The AAHP represents a majority of Medicare+Choice HMOs, which provide coverage to seniors who have chosen that option over the traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The AAHP supports adding a prescription drug benefit through the expansion of Medicare+Choice.
Number of members: More than 1,000 health plans and more than half of Medicare+Choice HMOs
Total Lobbying expenditures: $3,644,342 (2000 data)

AARP
The AARP (formerly known as American Association of Retired Persons) represents the interests of Americans over the age of 50 and has been one of the most vocal supporters for adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare coverage.
Number of members: More than 35 million members
Total Lobbying expenditures: $4,000,000 (2000 data)

Families USA
Families USA advocates on behalf of health care consumers and works to ensure that all Americans have high quality, affordable health care.
Number of members: N/A
Total Lobbying expenditures: $80,000 (2000 data)

Public Citizen
Public Citizen is a consumer advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader. The group has been a vocal opponent of attempts to privatize Medicare.
Number of members: 150,000
Total Lobbying expenditures: $80,000 (2000 data)

American Hospital Association
The American Hospital Association represents hospitals and health systems and has been working to increase the amounts that its members are paid for treating Medicare patients.
Number of members: Almost 5,000
Total Lobbying expenditures: $11,960,000 (2000 data)

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of American
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. While not opposed to a Medicare coverage of prescriptions, the group has been fighting reforms that would decrease the cost of medications by pooling seniors' bargaining power or place government-imposed caps on drug costs.
Number of members: 34
Total Lobbying expenditures: $7,480,000 (2000 data)

American Medical Association
The American Medical Association represents many of the nation's doctors and has been advocating an increase in the payments its members receive for treating Medicare patients.
Number of members: 280,000
Total Lobbying expenditures: $16,640,000 (2000 data)

Consumers Union
Consumers Union represents consumers and is an advocate of comprehensive Medicare prescription drug coverage.
Number of members: 5 million members (subscribers to magazine and Web site)
Total Lobbying expenditures: $220,000 (2000 data)

Shoddy journalism

Columbia Journalism Review (March/April 2005) reported two accounts from TV stations where reporters openly bought large amounts of fertilizer ammonium nitrate (an ingredient in bomb). The reporter from KMOV-TV in St. Louis easily bought the product from two suppliers and then was refused by another. The reporter then left the truck, which had held the ammonium nitrate in St. Louis, where it was not observed by police. When shown the videotape, only then did police "step up their vigilance." A fertilizer plant is using the tape to train employees.

The reporter from KCTV in Kansas City was only able to by the fertilizer at a seventh stop. The fertilizer was the common kind used on lawns and was mixed with phosphorus and potash. To make a bomb, it would have required picking out the ammonium nitrate, an almost impossible task. The reporter stated, "It is clear tonight -- very clear -- that security remains a concern across the country." And Columbia Journalism Review added that it is also clear that "shoddy journalism remains a concern across the country."

I agree that both examples are "shoddy journalism." What do they prove? Only what we all know. In an open society, terrorists, criminals or even journalists can commit crime if they choose to. We are safe because as individuals we choose to support moral values and our way of life, where freedom and personal security are upheld. These silly antics only heighten our feelings of insecurity and make journalists look foolish.