# Question about Republican legislation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014 "2009-08-11T01:36:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/21 "2009-08-11T15:20:55Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > providing more money for the treatment of Native Americans with diabetes. Novo Nordisk, Accu-Chek, Syntra. 😛 > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > There’s the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, there’s the Patriot Act. Those were both major pieces of legislation, by any definition, and neither of them directly benefited corporations. Xe (Blackwater), KBR, Diebold, etc. OTOH, I would say that the question in the OP has been effectively answered in the negative. It is not true that all GOP lgislation is intended solely for the advancement of (large) private corporations. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/22 "2009-08-11T15:27:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Xe (Blackwater), KBR, Diebold, etc. Well, but neither of those bills directly benefited the companies you listed. The Homeland Security Act might have indirectly done so, because the Homeland Security Department went on to accept contracts from those companies, but it’s likely that the contracts still would have been handed out without the reorganization. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/23 "2009-08-11T15:36:03Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The Do Not Call List act was sponsored by Billy Tauzin, a Republican, and John Dingel, a Democrat. Benefits non-profit corporations by exempting them completely from the legislation. Benefits corporations by making the list “opt out” instead of “opt in.” Expiration of adding your number to the list. Wouldn’t it be better if you only had to call if you **wanted** telemarketers calling you? Really benefits politicians as they are exempted as well! > [@](#): > > The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (letting people get a free copy of their credit report) was sponsored by Spencer Bachus, a Republican. Benefits corporations by not allowing states to impose tougher restrictions. Benefited each of the credit reporting bureaus as they get to offer upsells right along side the free credit report. Feel free to peruse the annual reports of Experian, TransUnion and Equifax… they have been rolling in the dough since this was legislated > [@](#): > > The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, that set up Medicare Part D, was sponsored by Dennis Hastert, a Republican. Yeah, this didn’t benefit the insurance carriers or drug companies at all. Whatever. Medicare didn’t cover prescription meds, now it does, and you think that doesn’t benefit corporations??? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/24 "2009-08-11T15:48:04Z")
Well, first of all, hoss, hold up, because the person you want to be arguing with is **Tom Tildrum** , and not me. I do want to take issue with your comments about the Do Not Call List Act, though. Pre act-for-profits, not-for-profits, and politicians could cold call everybody. The bill was passed, and now for-profits can only call some people. That didn’t benefit any of the groups…it hurt for-profits and didn’t affect charities and politicians. not-for-profit organizations and politicians only benefited relative to for-profits because their status remained unchanged. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/25 "2009-08-11T17:01:32Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Again, not a gotcha, but a genuine question - did that money ever actually get paid? I remember driving home listening to NPR one night and them running a story a few years back about how the increased funding had been promsied but not yet delivered. Here is the official [fact sheet](http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/115411.pdf) (pdf) from PEPFAR’s website. It says that $18 billion had been spent through 9/30/2008. > [@PEPFAR](#): > > Prevention: > > Reached an estimated 58.3 million people through community outreach programs to prevent sexual transmission using the ABC approach in FY2008. > U.S. Government has supplied more than 2.2 billion condoms worldwide from 2004 to 2008. > Supported prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission during nearly 16 million pregnancies, antiretroviral prophylaxis for nearly 1.2 million pregnant women found to be HIV-positive, allowing nearly 240,000 infants to be born HIV-free. > > Treatment: > > Supported life-saving treatment for more than 2.1 million men, women and children worldwide through September 30, 2008, including more than 2 million in the 15 focus countries. > Treatment support is estimated to save nearly 3.28 million adult years of life through the end of September 2009. > Increased the share of those receiving PEPFAR-supported treatment who are children from 3 percent in fiscal year (FY) 2004 to 8 percent in FY2008. > > Care: > > Supported care for more than 10.1 million people affected by HIV/AIDS worldwide, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. > Supported HIV counseling and testing for nearly 57 million people. > Supported tuberculosis treatment for more than 395,400 HIV-infected patients through September 2008. The LA Times seems to [accept](http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/15/world/fg-aids15) the $18 billion figure and reports that 57,000 lives have been saved in Kenya through the program. Presumably, of course, money has been flowing to drugmakers and condom companies. > [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Benefits non-profit corporations by exempting them completely from the legislation. I suppose it’s possible that Republican lawmakers were motivated by a desire to benefit non-profits at the expense of for-profit companies. But even if that’s true, that still fits the spirit of the OP, it seems to me. [QUOTE=IAmNotSpartacus] Benefits corporations by making the list “opt out” instead of “opt in.” Expiration of adding your number to the list. Wouldn’t it be better if you only had to call if you **wanted** telemarketers calling you? [/QUOTE] Your proposal benefits corporations that advertise heavily. [QUOTE=IAmNotSpartacus] Benefits corporations by not allowing states to impose tougher restrictions. [/QUOTE] But it also bars states from permitting looser restrictions. [QUOTE=IAmNotSpartacus] Benefited each of the credit reporting bureaus as they get to offer upsells right along side the free credit report. Feel free to peruse the annual reports of Experian, TransUnion and Equifax… they have been rolling in the dough since this was legislated Yeah, this didn’t benefit the insurance carriers or drug companies at all. Whatever. Medicare didn’t cover prescription meds, now it does, and you think that doesn’t benefit corporations??? [/QUOTE] All true. But if Congress wanted to legislate money for the credit reporters or the drugmakers, it could have done so in a way that didn’t provide benefits for seniors and consumers as well. Look, Medicare Parts A and B benefit hospitals, device manufacturers, and drugmakers. Food stamps benefit Archer Daniels Midland. Civil Rights laws benefit diversity training companies. Sarbanes Oxley was a huge benefit to accounting firms. Legalizing gay marriage would benefit jewelers, hotels, and greeting card companies. Perhaps **Czarcasm** could clarify what sort of legislation would not constitute a benefit to corporations within the terms of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/26 "2009-08-11T17:16:56Z")
How about the restriction on federal funding on embryonic stem-cell research? Or was that an executive order and not legislation? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/27 "2009-08-11T17:23:27Z")
Executive order. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/28 "2009-08-11T17:54:13Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I suppose it’s possible that Republican lawmakers were motivated by a desire to benefit non-profits at the expense of for-profit companies. But even if that’s true, that still fits the spirit of the OP, it seems to me. Except non-profits are great ways for for-profits to get their messages out. Especially around election time. Especially with the disturbing amount of PAC money flowing around. > [@](#): > > Your proposal benefits corporations that advertise heavily. That’s being disingenuous at best. A national opt-in list would allow telemarketers to contact you, just as the opt-out list will preclude them from contacting you. So if one company gets you to sign up, every other company conducting telemarketing gets to contact you, > [@](#): > > But it also bars states from permitting looser restrictions. Again, disingenuous. Even if a state could loosen the restrictions (which they can’t) the Federal restriction would still be in place. > [@](#): > > All true. But if Congress wanted to legislate money for the credit reporters or the drugmakers, it could have done so in a way that didn’t provide benefits for seniors and consumers as well. Well, this is where the points converge. I would argue it’s because special interest lobbyists manage to wrangle their mitts on just about major bill that floats through the house, and in some cases, write the actual legislation themselves. Maybe that’s because I’m cynical 😃 ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/29 "2009-08-11T17:58:03Z")
Tariff-reducing legislation, which Republicans usually support and union-backed Democrats oppose, harm domestic corporations and benefit consumers. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/30 "2009-08-11T17:59:28Z")
Although nothing was ever passed, wouldn’t the immigration reform pushed for by a number of Republicans be considered anti-business? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/31 "2009-08-11T19:10:50Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > That’s being disingenuous at best. A national opt-in list would allow telemarketers to contact you, just as the opt-out list will preclude them from contacting you. So if one company gets you to sign up, every other company conducting telemarketing gets to contact you, Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were contemplating a system of opting in to inidividual companies. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014/32 "2009-08-11T19:36:11Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were contemplating a system of opting in to inidividual companies. The lobby would _never_ allow it 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-republican-legislation/506014.md?page=1)