British companies have spent more than $165 million (£93.7 million) since 1998 with an American lobbying industry that is being described by US Democrats as “part of a poison tree of corruption”. This week both the Republicans and the Democrats have announced proposals to clean up Washington lobbying after the scandal over Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to using gifts of money, lavish meals and foreign trips to buy political influence. Although British lobbying represents less than 10 per cent of this vast network’s earnings, British spending in 2004 totalled almost $30 million....According to Alex Knott, the political editor of the Centre for Public Integrity, British lobbying in Washington was higher than for any other country, and was more than the total spent by 35 American states. The highest spenders were GlaxoSmithKline ($32.4 million), BP ($26.8 million), HSBC ($23.8 million), Reed Elsevier ($12.5 million) and Reuters ($12.2 million). Defence manufacturers, such as Rolls Royce, have, Mr Knott suggested, obtained particularly good value for money.
Comment. Elsevier spent $12.5 million on lobbying in the US since 1998, the fourth largest amount of any UK company. This puts a number on an influence that we already knew existed. A key piece of Elsevier lobbying took place in the fall of 2004. In July, Congress directed the NIH to adopt an OA policy, in July and August the agency hammered out its first draft, and from September 2 to November 16 it collected public comments on the result. That version of the draft policy already retreated from the Congressional instruction to "require" OA but still included a firm six month deadline on deposits in PMC. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the NIH, later described the public comments as "overwhelmingly supportive". Four days after the comment period ended, on November 20, 2004, Zerhouni met with Crispin Davis, the Reed Elsevier CEO. Very soon after, Zerhouni decided to lengthen the permissible delay on PMC deposits from 6 to 12 months, contravening both the directive of Congress and the supportive public comments. I've heard that the decision came the day after the Crispin Davis meeting, though I have no proof. In any case, the decision was not announced until the final version of the policy was released on February 3, 2005. Timing is not causation and the timing itself is uncertain, but the lobbying and the result are both certain.
Update. For Elsevier's US lobbying outlays broken down by year, see William Walsh's 1/23/06 posting to Issues in Scholarly Communication. Not only did Elsevier spend more each year from 1998 to 2004, but the company's "annual spending on U.S. lobbyists increased 605%" during that period.
Update. For details on the bills and issues that occupied Elsevier's lobbying attention, at least in 2003, see William Walsh's 1/24/06 blog posting. It's a remarkably long list.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 1/23/2006 10:32:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
