Dear Kirk Adams Supporter,
Following is what appears on Kirk Adams’ campaign site, front page, front and center. This is what I disputed on GilbertWatch. In fact, I boldly stated “Kirk Adams: You Lie!” My article was very precise. I stated," Every paragraph relating to this issue on Kirk Adams website contains LIES.”
You said that my facts were incorrect. I will assume that you believe that the following “facts” from Kirk’s website are correct, since you offered several pieces of documentation as supporting evidence that my facts were incorrect.
"Matt Salmon’s lobbying firm was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby for Obamacare. As an opportunist, Matt Salmon the lobbyist wanted to get his piece of the federal healthcare pie.
"Matt Salmon Lobbied to Expand Obamacare
"Salmon Listed as Obamacare Lobbyist on 7 Different Documents
"Today, Matt Salmon revealed that he lobbied for the expansion of Obamacare. Salmon says that his former firms were hired to “change a provision in the proposed law which would have restricted access of people with some rare form of disease from getting the appropriate drug therapy.” A really long Washington way of saying, they actually lobbied to expand the bill by expanding drug coverage. Only a Washington lobbyist could work to make a bill larger, and then claim, with a straight face, that he didn’t support its passage.
"Salmon says that he didn’t personally lobby on Obamacare. I’m sure he wishes this were true, but unfortunately his name is listed on 7 different disclosure documents under, “name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area.” Washington lobbyists like Salmon can find many ways to justify such doublespeak, but Arizonans know that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck.
"The companies that Salmon represented were both members of PhRMA, which spent more than $150 million to secure Obamacare’s passage. The truth is, that instead of opposing the bill, Matt Salmon was paid to make sure the pharmaceutical special interests got their cut."
Much of Kirk’s “proof” that Matt lobbied FOR ObamaCare rests on the 7 disclosure statements. Taken at face value, the uninformed voter would believe that they offer irrefutable evidence. They are, in fact, worthless as evidence. Please look at the following two disclosure statements. Exhibit A is one example of the 7 that Kirk has been using to “prove” that Matt lobbied for ObamaCare. Exhibit B is an example of Matt’s actual lobbying effort for a private company called Surefire, LLC. Regarding Takeda (Exhibit A), John Haddow’s name is listed as the Contact. John Haddow’s name also appears first in the list of principals within Policy Impact Communications.
Regarding Surefire, LLC, Matt’s name appears as the contact. Matt’s name is listed first in the list of principals within Policy Impact Communications (PIC). Kirk is betting that the average voter doesn’t see the difference. He hopes that if people see “Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area,” that they will take it at face value. The fact is, PIC is required to disclose all lobbyists within PIC on all of their disclosure statements. That’s why you see all their names listed on the Surefire, LLC statements.
All lobbyists within PIC are not subject matter experts in all areas. John Haddow’s expertise is in the health area, especially Orphan Drugs (as I stated in my article). He knows little to nothing about the body armor, goggles, etc, that our military are wearing in Afghanistan (Surefire, LLC).
No one in Policy Impact Communications lobbied "for" Obamacare
So, John Haddow lobbied “FOR Obamacare”? How did he do that? Explain. Surely Kirk had all the facts before he approved the radio ads and before he put his assertion front and center on his campaign ad. Where is his proof that the lobbying that John did was FOR Obamacare. Kirk can’t prove it, because John did NOT lobby FOR Obamacare.
I assume that you read my article which explains exactly what John Haddow did, so I won’t repeat it here. I carefully gathered these facts from telephone conversations and emails with John Haddow, including much clarification to be sure I was accurate.
Policy Impact Communications did Not "Expand" Obamacre
Kirk states, “Salmon says that his former firms were hired to “change a provision in the proposed law which would have restricted access of people with some rare form of disease from getting the appropriate drug therapy.” A really long Washington way of saying, they actually lobbied to expand the bill by expanding drug coverage. Only a Washington lobbyist could work to make a bill larger, and then claim, with a straight face, that he didn’t support its passage.”
Good grief. So, what Kirk is stating, and that you agree with, is that John should NOT have removed the restriction? You and Kirk agree that Obamacare SHOULD “restrict access of people with some rare form of disease from getting appropriate drug therapy.”
John Haddow doesn’t agree with "restricting access of people with some rare form of disease from getting the appropriate drug therapy", and neither do I!
We aren’t talking about handing out free birth control pills to junior high school students.
We are talking about “life saving medicine.” I wonder if the doctors at MD Anderson agree with Kirk, and you of course, on Obamacare’s restriction.
Kirk Adams also makes a big deal out of a donation to Matt Salmon’s campaign from one of John Haddow’s clients. Why wouldn’t he? It was a gesture of gratitude to John Haddow.
What I don’t understand is why Kirk Adams received a $1000 donation from the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world by revenue, GlaxoSmithKline. GSK was also a top spender on lobbyists to influence healthcare reform. In fact, in 2009, GSK’s lobbying spending was the highest on record for the company.
You said that my facts were incorrect in my article. Could you be a little more specific?
In the Name of God, Family and Civic Duty,