Test Drive for Annual Sessions

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Test Drive for Annual Sessions Test Drive for Annual Sessions Oregon lawmakers, who meet every other year, decided to see how a more frequent approach would work. LORI CAIN/ STATESMAN JOURNAL BY PETER WONG Short of the governor summoning them Senate President Peter Courtney walks back to Salem for a special session, legisla- toward the Senate on the first day of the 74th o meet or not to meet? That’s the ques- tors dealt with budget matters between ses- session of the legislature, Jan. 8, 2007. tion these days in Oregon as lawmak- sions with a board consisting of the presiding ers wrestle with the issue of whether to officers, budget committee chairmen from Oregon is one of only six states where leg- go from biennial to yearly sessions. the previous session, and other legislators islators meet every other year. Kentucky used T The Oregon Legislative Assembly has met appointed by the leaders and ratified by the to be the seventh state, but voters approved every other year since statehood in 1859. chambers. a change to the constitution in 2000, and its The Emergency Board, as it is called, was General Assembly held its first annual ses- Peter Wong is a Capitol Bureau reporter for the Statesman increased this year from 17 to 20 members, sion in 2001. Arkansas voters will decide in Journal newspaper in Salem, Ore. He has covered Oregon but still is a small fraction of the 30 senators November if they want their General Assem- government and politics for three different newspapers in the past three decades, and is the dean of the Capitol press and 60 representatives. Other matters gener- bly to switch to annual sessions. corps. ally waited for the next biennial session. “Practically every state has gone to annual July/AUGUST 2008 State leGISlatuRES 33 A SPECIAL CHALLENGE he special session of Oregon’s T Legislative Assembly earlier this year did not come about with- out a fight. Normally, special sessions in Oregon result only from emer- gencies and are called on short notice. This year’s session, based on recommendations of a legislative review commission, was authorized by a resolution approved in Janu- ary 2007. Opponents challenged the constitutionality of the reso- lution in court, but on Jan. 28, an Oregon circuit court turned down the challenge. Oregon Senator Larry George brought the suit, arguing that spe- cial sessions can be called only for emergencies and that declaring an “emergency” through the 2007 resolution circumvented the con- stitution’s prescription for biennial sessions and amounted to a “sup- plemental” session. Senate President Peter Courtney and House Speaker Jeff Merkley contended the court had no juris- diction in the case. Instead, they argued, the state constitution gave the legislature “the sole and unre- viewable discretion to determine whether a special session is war- ranted pursuant to its emergency powers.” LORI CAIN/STATESMAN JOURNAL The court disagreed and framed Members of the House applaud legislative staff workers on June 28, 2007, the last day of the session. the issue as “whether the Oregon legislature has properly complied sessions over the years. I think there’s a rea- time to get the state’s business done. with the provisions of the Oregon son for it,” says Alan Rosenthal, a professor “You cannot put together a budget for Ore- Constitution in calling itself into of public policy and political science at the gon and you cannot react to Oregon’s needs in this forthcoming special session.” Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers Uni- education, health, safety and natural resources if Judge Lipscomb determined versity. “A legislature simply has to be around we meet for just a few months every two years,” that the resolution by itself was on a regular basis in order to behave as a co- says Senate President Peter Courtney, the legis- not adequate to trigger the legisla- equal branch of government.” lature’s senior member, who in his 24 years has ture’s emergency powers, but that At least some Oregon lawmakers agree with served in 15 special sessions. a formal notice issued by leader- Rosenthal. ship on Jan. 18, 2008, provided the Lawmakers tried out an annual session this necessary legal backing. year, ahead of asking voters for a permanent The Oregon Supreme Court change. If passed during next year’s session, SENATE PRESIDENT on Feb. 2 agreed with the lower such a measure could appear on a special elec- PETER COURTNEY court’s decision and allowed the tion ballot in 2009 or, more likely, on the pri- session to take place. mary ballot in 2010. OREGON —Larry Morandi, NCSL The every-other-year schedule frustrates some lawmakers, who say they don’t have 34 State leGISlatuRES July/AUGUST 2008 CHANGE AHEAD TRIAL RUN ON TO THE VOTERS Calls for change have been building in The commission proposed a 120-day ses- recent years. Two legislative review commis- sion in 2007 and a 60-day session in 2008, sions in 1968 and 1974 urged a move toward but legislative leaders decided on a more tra- annual sessions. ditional, longer session in 2007. Both cham- Voters approved a constitutional change bers decided in advance not only on a date in 1976 that allows legislators to call for adjournment, but also deadlines for com- themselves into session in an emergency, mittee and chamber action on bills. They also although it had been invoked only once proposed a 2008 session of no more than 26 before this year. With no active campaign days. The 2007 session ended at 172 days, for or against it, voters rejected the last bal- one day before the self-imposed adjournment lot measure on annual sessions in 1990, but deadline. by a margin of just 5,000 of almost 600,000 “I was convinced that if we did not design votes cast. LEGISLATURES THAT this [2008] session down to the min- When Richard Devlin came to MEET BIENNIALLY ute, we would lose control,” Court- the Oregon House of Representa- ARKANSAS ney says. “Everyone thinks about the tives in 1997, he says the schedule MONTANA adjournment deadline. That’s the made it tough to gear up for the NEVADA last thing we should worry about.” session. NORTH DAKOTA The public deadlines, novel as “Each session was an entirely OREGON they were to Oregon legislators, new beginning. You did something TEXAS were less controversial than a cou- during that time, and then it all went ple of other restrictions in House hile Oregon lawmakers could pass a away for 18 months,” Devlin says. “At the rules for the session. measure and call for a special election start of each session, you had to go through a Unlike senators, who were allowed to W in 2009, the more likely route would be to whole process of looking at all the changes in introduce one bill each, representatives could put a question on the 2010 primary ballot. membership, thinking about what the issues not sponsor individual bills during the 2008 Leaders say no matter when a ballot mea- are, and starting to work together again.” session. House bills were channeled through sure is written and referred, they learned Four ballot measures on annual sessions policy committees or the rules committee. two things from the February session: passed the Senate since the 1990 rejection Unlike the Senate, the House could debate u At just 19 days, even shorter than the 26 by voters—a couple of them sponsored by substitutes for bills only if a majority of days scheduled, it was too short. Devlin, who had moved to the Senate and is the chamber signed onto them. The Oregon u With 109 bills divided roughly between now the majority leader. But none passed the Legislative Assembly does not allow floor each chamber, more work could have been House. amendments for legislation. done. (Legislators passed 73; the ratio is Another legislative review commission “In my opinion, the rules were indeed a usually the reverse for a regular session, in 2006 came up with a different idea for little over-restrictive, but that’s politics,” when 3,000 bills are considered.) change: Legislators should test-drive annual says Wilhelms, a former leader of the House “This was a session to determine what sessions in the next two years before asking Republican minority, who observed the ses- might or might not work,” says Richard voters to approve a measure. sion as a 70-year-old college intern. “They Devlin, majority leader of the Oregon “Our trial-run recommendation was truly certainly did allow the House leadership the Senate. innovative in that it recognized the need to tight control desired by the commission.” Devlin heads the Senate committee that move toward annual sessions,” says Gary Some of the minority Republicans said the will draft a potential ballot measure. He Wilhelms, a co-chairman of the commission House rules gave Democrats too much sway said a session in the even-numbered year with three decades of experience as a legis- despite only a one-vote majority. House should be limited to 45 or 50 days. lator, legislative staffer and lobbyist. “But Republican Leader Bruce Hanna voted for A survey of citizens conducted by Riley at the same time, it sought a path that would the rules to smooth over tensions on the first Research Associates of Portland after the hopefully demonstrate success to Oregon day of the session. session indicated 60 percent support annual voters.” “But we have to give equal representation sessions and 24 percent oppose them. “I think it is a statement that people are starting to have some belief again that the SENATE MAJORITY HOUSE REPUBLICAN legislature can work, however imperfect, LEADER LEADER cumbersome, expensive, time-consuming and frustrating it is,” says Peter Courtney, RICHARD DEVLIN BRUCE HANNA the Senate president.
Recommended publications
  • Environmental Scorecard for the Oregon Legislature
    2011 envirOnmental scOrecard for the OregOn legislature O r e g O n l e a g u e O f c O n s e r v a t i O n v O t e r s yOu care abOut OregOn’s envirOnmental legacy. do your legislators? Oregon is our home. It’s a remarkable place to live, work, and play, but we can make it even better. For more than 30 years, with the support of our members across the state, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters has fought to protect our state’s great natural legacy for future generations. Part of our work is holding our elected officials accountable. And that’s where our Scorecard comes in. OLCV’s Environmental Scorecard shows how each legislator voted on critical conservation bills during Oregon’s 2011 Legislative Session. 1 find out. 2 get involved. 3 act. 4 tell your legislators you know the score. Your elected lawmakers answer to you. So whose side are they on: everyday Oregonians, like you, or special interests and big polluters? Join us and stand up for our home. For Oregon. Share this scorecard with your friends and family. Tell your legislators what you think. Together we can protect our home. Act now: www.olcv.org/scorecard ¡Tome acción!: www.olcv.org/calificaciones www.olcv.org/scorecard 3 Oregon’s 2011 legislative session: The Oregon League of Conservation Voters passes laws that protect Oregon’s environmental legacy, elects pro-environment candidates to office, and holds all of our elected officials accountable. OLCV Board Of directOrs Stephen Kafoury ChaIr Walt Gorman Treasurer Christine Lewis seCreTary Nancy Becker Steven Berman Nik Blosser Charlie Burr Nicole Cordan Robin Hartmann Progress and defense Ken Hayes Fred Heutte Margi Hoffmann Eric Lemelson in a tough climate Greg Macpherson Scott Pratt Given the often-contentious political divide in both Democrats and Republicans and received Andrea Salinas Oregon’s House and Senate, the budget crisis, and wide support in both legislative chambers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Political Contributions
    2012 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 2012 Lilly Political Contributions 2 Public Policy As a biopharmaceutical company that treats serious diseases, Lilly plays an important role in public health and its related policy debates. It is important that our company shapes global public policy debates on issues specific to the people we serve and to our other key stakeholders including shareholders and employees. Our engagement in the political arena helps address the most pressing issues related to ensuring that patients have access to needed medications—leading to improved patient outcomes. Through public policy engagement, we provide a way for all of our locations globally to shape the public policy environment in a manner that supports access to innovative medicines. We engage on issues specific to local business environments (corporate tax, for example). Based on our company’s strategy and the most recent trends in the policy environment, our company has decided to focus on three key areas: innovation, health care delivery, and pricing and reimbursement. More detailed information on key issues can be found in our 2011/12 Corporate Responsibility update: http://www.lilly.com/Documents/Lilly_2011_2012_CRupdate.pdf Through our policy research, development, and stakeholder dialogue activities, Lilly develops positions and advocates on these key issues. U.S. Political Engagement Government actions such as price controls, pharmaceutical manufacturer rebates, and access to Lilly medicines affect our ability to invest in innovation. Lilly has a comprehensive government relations operation to have a voice in the public policymaking process at the federal, state, and local levels. Lilly is committed to participating in the political process as a responsible corporate citizen to help inform the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support
    16 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support 1 16 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support Lilly employees are dedicated to innovation and the discovery of medicines to help people live longer, healthier and more active lives, and more importantly, doing their work with integrity. LillyPAC was established to work to ensure that this vision is also shared by lawmakers, who make policy decisions that impact our company and the patients we serve. In a new political environment where policies can change with a “tweet,” we must be even more vigilant about supporting those who believe in our story, and our PAC is an effective way to support those who share our views. We also want to ensure that you know the story of LillyPAC. Transparency is an important element of our integrity promise, and so we are pleased to share this 2016 LillyPAC annual report with you. LillyPAC raised $949,267 through the generous, voluntary contributions of 3,682 Lilly employees in 2016. Those contributions allowed LillyPAC to invest in 187 federal candidates and more than 500 state candidates who understand the importance of what we do. You will find a full financial accounting in the following pages, as well as complete lists of candidates and political committees that received LillyPAC support and the permissible corporate contributions made by the company. In addition, this report is a helpful guide to understanding how our PAC operates and makes its contribution decisions. On behalf of the LillyPAC Governing Board, I want to thank everyone who has made the decision to support this vital program.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Reform Oregon 917 SW Oak St., #422, Portland, OR 97205 503/283-1922 * 503/283-1877(Fax)
    Democracy Reform Oregon 917 SW Oak St., #422, Portland, OR 97205 503/283-1922 * 503/283-1877(fax) www.democracyreform.org www.oregonfollowthemoney.org Accessible politics, accountable government Here We Go Again: What the Money Trail Tells Oregonians about Measure 49 By Sarah Wetherson Executive Summary Oregon voters will again be asked to vote on land-use laws, this time in the form of Measure 49. This referral asks voters to approve a land-use law the legislature passed by a party-line vote in 2007 to address concerns about Measure 37. Measure 37 requires local and state governments to compensate landowners for any loss in value caused by land-use regulations, or to waive those regulations. The Measure 49 referral, according to its supporters, restores fairness to the land-use system by allowing landowners to build a limited number of houses on their land while stopping unfettered commercial development. Detractors say that the referral guts Measure 37, taking away important property rights granted by the measure and ignoring the will of the voters. Twelve legislators declared conflicts of interests before voting on the Measure 49 referral bill. Five legislators have actual conflicts because of Measure 37 claims that they or their family members filed. Demands – that is, the compensation landowners seek if land-use regulations are not waived – associated with those claims total more than $3 million dollars. Several campaign contributors to the Measure 37 campaign filed claims that, at the time they were filed, were worth nearly $700 million. In 2004, timber interests gave more than three-quarters of the money supporters of Measure 37 raised, and the top-10 contributors to the pro-Measure 37 campaign provided about two-thirds of the campaign’s funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Session Senate
    Special Session 2008 Special Session Senate SEVENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY – 2008 SPECIAL SESSION SS-1 OFFICERS OF THE SENATE PETER COURTNEY, President MARGARET CARTER, President Pro Tempore JUDY HALL, Secretary of the Senate SENATE CAUCUS LEADERS RICHARD DEVLIN, Majority Leader TED FERRIOLI, Republican Leader LAURIE MONNES ANDERSON, Deputy Majority Leader JACKIE WINTERS, Deputy Republican Leader ALAN BATES, Majority Whip JEFF KRUSE, Minority Whip MARK HASS, Majority Whip BRAD AVAKIAN, Assistant Majority Leader FLOYD PROZANSKI, Assistant Majority Leader SENATE DESK PERSONNEL BRITTON TAYLOR, Publications Coordinator JULIE MEDINA, Assistant Journal Editor CYNDY JOHNSTON, Calendar Composer/Journal Editor JAMES GOULDING/JIM STEMBRIDGE, Reading Clerk RYAN THORSON, Sergeant at Arms CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL We, the undersigned, having supervised the revision of the Journal and Status Report of the Senate covering the Special Session of the Seventy- fourth Legislative Assembly, hereby certify that such Journals and Status Report are correct to the best of our information and belief. PETER COURTNEY President of the Senate JUDY HALL Secretary of the Senate SS-2 SEVENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY – 2008 SPECIAL SESSION SEVENTY–FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY- 2008 SPECIAL SESSION SS-3 SENATORS' ADDRESSES Atkinson, Jason..............................P.O. Box 1704, Grants Pass, OR 97528................................................. Rep ............2 Avakian, Brad.................................17915 NW Lonerock Dr., Portland, OR................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legally Trained Legislators
    2005 Legislature Legally Trained Legislators Legally Trained Legislators Despite what many people may assume, there are relatively few lawyers in the Oregon legislature. Only 12 of the 90 members of the 73rd Legislative Assembly have any formal legal education, and only 10 are mem- bers of the Oregon State Bar. State Elected Officials with Legal Training 12 Legally Trained Legislators in the 2005 Session Oregon Senate: Statewide Office Peter Courtney (D) Ted Kulongoski (D) Marion County Governor Kate Brown (D) Hardy Myers (D) Multnomah and Clackamas Counties State Attorney General David Nelson (R)* Information Numbers Umatilla, Wallowa, Morrow, and Union Counties Legislative Committees Charlie Ringo (D) (503) 986-1813 Washington County House Democratic Office Floyd Prozanski (D) (503) 986-1900 Lane and Douglas Counties House Republican Office Oregon House of Representatives: (503) 986-1400 Dennis Richardson (R) Senate Republican Office Jackson and Josephine Counties (503) 986-1950 Phil Barnhart (D) Senate Democratic Office Linn and Lane Counties (503) 986-1700 Robert Ackerman (D) Legislative Counsel Lane County (503) 986-1243 Dan Doyle (R) Distribution Center (for copies of bills) Marion County (503)986-1180 Betsy Johnson (D)* www.leg.state.or.us Columbia, Clatsop, and Tillamook Counties Oregon State Bar, Public Affairs Brad Avakian (D) (503) 620-0222 ext. 376 Washington County Governor’s Legal Counsel Greg Macpherson (D), (503) 627-7006 Clackamas and Multnomah Counties *Not a member of the Oregon State Bar ■ 2005 LEGISLATIVE TIPS HANDBOOK 13 2005 Legislative Committees 2005 Legislative Committees 2005 Legislative Committees 2005 Judiciary Committee 2005 Ways & Means Committee Senate Senate Sen. Ginny Burdick, Chair Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITOL INSIDER OSB Public Affairs Newsletter for Bar Leaders
    CAPITOL INSIDER OSB Public Affairs Newsletter for Bar Leaders May 31, 2002 proposed laws. They tend to suggest many General Election Season Begins good amendments and closely consult with bar groups and other outside experts. There is By Bob Oleson also a strong commitment by judiciary committee members to the pre-session filing Given that the fall political season is just process that allows the legal community and beginning, it is difficult to make many others to submit and review legislative predictions about the 2003 legislative session. proposals in advance of the regular session. One negative prediction is that the state All of this serves the public interest. budget wars will become more intense. One positive prediction from the OSB Government Lawyers generally make excellent Relations staff is that the number of lawmakers because of their practicing lawyer legislators serving in the court/governmental experiences, legal next session will more than double—going to knowledge, and broad analytical abilities. at least 12. (See the list of Lawyer Lawyers of all philosophies are running this Candidates/Legislators on page 2.) year. It should be easy for anyone to find at least one candidate to support. The influx of There were no practicing lawyers serving lawyers may also help the Judicial on the Senate Judiciary Committee last Department get better treatment as the state session. Having more experienced lawyers budget struggles are played out in the next serving in the next legislative session helps to legislative session. ensure that the judiciary committees will continue to be influential centerpieces of the This summer, in addition to a heated race legislative process.
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON STATE SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES 2019 Legislative Session * Denotes That Only a Few City Precincts Are Located in That District
    OREGON STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES 2019 Legislative Session * Denotes that only a few city precincts are located in that district SENATE HOUSE D: 18 R: 12 D: 38 R: 22 City Senator(s) District Representative(s) District Adair Village Brian Boquist (R) 12 Mike Nearman (R) 23 Adams Bill Hansell (R) 29 Greg Barreto (R) 58 Adrian Cliff Bentz (R ) 30 Lynn Findley (R) 60 Albany Sara Gelser (D) 8 Shelly Boshart Davis (R) 15 Amity Brian Boquist (R) 12 Mike Nearman (R) 23 Antelope Bill Hansell (R) 29 Greg Smith (R) 57 Arlington Bill Hansell (R) 29 Greg Smith (R) 57 Ashland Jeff Golden (D) 3 Pam Marsh (D) 5 Astoria Betsy Johnson (D) 16 Tiffiny Mitchell (D) 32 Athena Bill Hansell (R) 29 Greg Barreto (R) 58 Aumsville Denyc Boles (R) 10 Raquel Moore-Green (R) 19 Aurora Fred Girod (R) 9 Rick Lewis (R) 18 Baker City Cliff Bentz (R ) 30 Lynn Findley (R) 60 Bandon Dallas Heard (R) 1 David Brock Smith (R) 1 Banks Betsy Johnson (D) 16 Tiffiny Mitchell (D) 32 Barlow Alan Olsen (R) 20 Christine Drazan (R) 39 Bay City Betsy Johnson (D) 16 Tiffiny Mitchell (D) 32 Beaverton Mark Hass (D) 14 Sheri Schouten (D) 27 Elizabeth Steiner Jeff Barker (D) 28 17 Hayward (D) Mitch Greenlick (D) 33 Ginny Burdick (D) 18 Ken Helm (D) 34 Margaret Doherty (D) 35 Bend Tim Knopp (R) 27 Cheri Helt (R) 54 Boardman Bill Hansell (R) 29 Greg Smith (R) 57 City Senator(s) District Representative(s) District Bonanza Dennis Linthicum (R) 28 Werner Reschke (R) 56 Brookings Dallas Heard (R) 1 David Brock Smith (R) 1 Brownsville Lee Beyer (D) 6 Marty Wilde (D) 11 Burns Cliff Bentz (R ) 30 Lynn Findley (R) 60 Butte Falls Dennis Linthicum (R) 28 55 Vacant Seat Canby Alan Olsen (R) 20 Christine Drazan (R) 39 Cannon Beach Betsy Johnson (D) 16 Tiffiny Mitchell (D) 32 Canyon City Cliff Bentz (R ) 30 Lynn Findley (R) 60 Canyonville Dallas Heard (R) 1 Gary Leif (R) 2 Carlton Brian Boquist (R) 12 Ron Noble (R) 24 Cascade Locks Chuck Thomsen (R) 26 Anna Williams (D) 52 Cave Junction Herman Baertschiger Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012
    VERIZON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS JANUARY – DECEMBER 2012 1 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012 A Message from Craig Silliman Verizon is affected by a wide variety of government policies ‐‐ from telecommunications regulation to taxation to health care and more ‐‐ that have an enormous impact on the business climate in which we operate. We owe it to our shareowners, employees and customers to advocate public policies that will enable us to compete fairly and freely in the marketplace. Political contributions are one way we support the democratic electoral process and participate in the policy dialogue. Our employees have established political action committees at the federal level and in 20 states. These political action committees (PACs) allow employees to pool their resources to support candidates for office who generally support the public policies our employees advocate. This report lists all PAC contributions, corporate political contributions, support for ballot initiatives and independent expenditures made by Verizon in 2012. The contribution process is overseen by the Corporate Governance and Policy Committee of our Board of Directors, which receives a comprehensive report and briefing on these activities at least annually. We intend to update this voluntary disclosure twice a year and publish it on our corporate website. We believe this transparency with respect to our political spending is in keeping with our commitment to good corporate governance and a further sign of our responsiveness to the interests of our shareowners. Craig L. Silliman Senior Vice President, Public Policy 2 Verizon Political Contributions January – December 2012 Political Contributions Policy: Our Voice in the Political Process What are the Verizon Good Government Clubs? and the government agencies administering the federal and individual state election laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010
    Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 Party Amount State Organizations Utah Democratic Party D 1,000 Total $1,000 National Organizations Democratic Governors Association D 10,000 National Governors Association - 20,000 Republican Governors Association R 35,000 Western Governors Association - 5,000 Total $70,000 Other Organizations Accountability for Colorado D 750 Colorado Leadership Fund R 2,500 One Oklahoma Coalition - 5,000 Senate Majority Fund R 2,500 Total $10,750 State Contributions Alabama Rep. Jim Barton R 500 Rep. Paul Beckman R 500 Rep. James Buskey D 500 Rep. Spencer Collier R 500 Rep. Chad Fincher R 500 Sen. Rusty Glover R 500 Rep. Betty Carol Graham D 500 Rep. Ralph Howard D 500 Rep. Mike Hubbard R 500 Rep. Thomas Jackson D 500 Sen. Marc Keahy D 500 Rep. Richard Laird D 500 Sen. Del Marsh R 500 Rep. Jimmy Martin D 500 Rep. Barry Mask R 500 Sen. Wendell Mitchell D 500 Sen. Jim Preuitt R 500 Sen. Bobby Singleton D 500 Sen. Cam Ward R 500 Total $9,500 1 Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 Georgia Lt. Governor Casey Cagle R 500 Sen. Bill Cowsert R 500 Rep. Katie Dempsey R 500 Sen. Bill Heath R 500 Sen. Emanuel Jones D 500 Rep. Jan Jones R 500 Rep. Chuck Martin R 500 Rep. Howard Mosby D 500 Rep. Larry O'Neal R 500 Rep. Don Parsons R 500 Rep. Alan Powell D 500 Rep. David Ralston R 1,000 Sen. Chip Rogers R 500 Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Political Contributions
    2011 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 2011 Lilly Political Contributions 2 Government actions such as price controls, pharmaceutical manufacturer rebates, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), and access to Lilly medicines affect our ability to invest in innovation. Lilly has a comprehensive government relations operation to have a voice in the public policymaking process at both the state and federal levels. Lilly is committed to participating in the political process as a responsible corporate citizen to help inform the U.S. debate over health care and pharmaceutical innovation. As a company that operates in a highly competitive and regulated industry, Lilly must participate in the political process to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, and its overall responsibilities to its customers and its employees. Corporate Political Contribution Elected officials, no matter what level, have an impact on public policy issues affecting Lilly. We are committed to backing candidates who support public policies that contribute to pharmaceutical innovation and healthy patients. A number of factors are considered when reviewing candidates for support. The following evaluation criteria are used to allocate political contributions: • Has the candidate historically voted or announced positions on issues of importance to Lilly, such as pharmaceutical innovation and health care? • Has the candidate demonstrated leadership on key committees of importance to our business? • Does the candidate demonstrate potential for legislative leadership?
    [Show full text]
  • Learn Which Candidates We Supported in Your Community PFIZER PAC ~ OUR VOICE in the POLITICAL PROCESS a Message from Rich Bagger, Chairman Pfizer PAC
    PFIZER PAC & CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS REPORT 2005 – 2006 CYCLE Learn which candidates we supported in your community PFIZER PAC ~ OUR VOICE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS A Message From Rich Bagger, Chairman Pfizer PAC Dear Colleagues: One of our five immediate priorities at Pfizer is to engage more actively and meaningfully with patients, doctors, payers, governments and other key stakeholders. We’re reaching out to these important groups and working harder to meet their needs. We're also working harder to engage all stakeholders in the dialogue on health policy and actively participate in the discussion over how to improve the quality of healthcare, access to medicines, and incentives for innovation. Pfizer PAC is one of the key ways in which we engage with candidates for public office. Through Pfizer PAC, we support candidates who understand the importance of innovative life sciences companies like Pfizer in fighting disease, improving health outcomes, and ensuring access to vital medicines. This report includes a list of candidates and political committees that Pfizer PAC supported during the 2005-06 election cycle. I hope you will take some time to review this report and see which candidates Pfizer PAC supported in your region. This was a successful year for Pfizer PAC. In the past election cycle, Pfizer PAC supported more than 2,277 candidates from both political parties, and at all levels of government. You, and Pfizer colleagues across America, definitely made a difference this past year through Pfizer PAC, by supporting candidates for public office who value access and innovation in healthcare. Thank you for your support—this report explains how Pfizer PAC put your generous contributions to use.
    [Show full text]