This man is a tool...
"...Wilson is a major recipient of contributions from the health care industry.
In fact, over his entire congressional career, health professionals represent Wilson’s top industry contributors, donating a total of $244,196 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org database. He received another $86,150 from pharmaceutical companies, $73,050 from insurance companies and $68,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.
Among Wilson’s top contributors are the American Hospital Association, a lobby group that represents the interests of hospitals and health networks, and the American Medical Association, which represents physicians.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/10/obama-speech-disrupter-a-health-industry-darling/
Is this the best you've got? Why don't you put the REST of the information supplied by OpenSecrets.org? What, because a politician, ANY politician has received donations from industry components they should just shut up and not participate in discussions regarding potential legislation for that issue? Please say that's not what you think.
Actually, that might be a good idea. They they could all just close up shop and go home. Washington DC could be a ghost town in nothing flat!
Back to the issue at hand: For example, you cite the American Hospital Association as one of Wilson's top contributors (per OpenSecrets.org.). Okay, let's see exactly what that is. And for simplicity, we'll just stick with the
2010 cycle:
- Wilson has received $7,000 from them.
- Pelossi has received $10,000 from them.
- As for the "top contributors (top 20) ranking, a total of 20 Republicans have received contributions, as opposed to 57 Democrat, contributions for individual candidates ranging from $1,000 on the low end to about the $10,000 high Pelossi received.
There are many more details like this let these suffice.
I'm not disputing that your facts, or those OpenSecrets.org, are inaccurate. I'm just disputing whether the political connections formed through financial support networks is necessarily a qualifying or disqualifying component. If that were the case, every Democrat (nearly) in Washington should recuse themselves from any issues and legislation even remotely connected with organized labor. There is more to this than simply the surface of the numbers.
And a side note to mention, that except for and until their recent opposition to government-controlled health care reform, the AMA, the ADA, and more of these groups have been cited and heralded by those now supporting reform. Because they are at odds on this issue, does that now disqualify everything in the past that they've held them as authorities on, and should be heeded? And will it again in the future when the dust settles on this?