Re: AHIMA friday meetings on S. 1360

[James Love <love@tap.org>]

  On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Robert Gellman wrote:
  > I really hate to disappoint you, Jamie, but I don't represent anyone on
  > this bill.  You asked this before and I told you this before.  I also told
  > you that if I undertook to lobby on the legislation, I would disclose it. 
  > I am sorry if this make it difficult for you to play your usual game of
  > impuning motives of those that express views that you disagree with.  My
  > views are my own, formed during more than 15 years of work on medical
  > privacy legislation. 
  
   
      Bob, thanks for the response on this.  But what I asked before was if 
  you had private sector clients who have an interest in this bill, not 
  whether or not you were retained to lobby on the legislation.  I think 
  that we all know that being hired to lobby Congress is only one type of 
  relationship.  
  
  I don't think I ever got an answer on that.  It's not a question of
  impuning motives, although there has been plenty of that going around from
  all sides.  Most everyone has been pretty up front about their
  affiliations.  I asked earlier if you had clients who would be impacted
  by the legislation.  After all, you are a privacy and information
  consultant, according to your email identifier.   So, at the risk or being 
  repetitive, do you?  jamie
  
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  James Love, love@tap.org
  P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
  Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt/cpt.html
  Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.essential.org/tap/tap.html