<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<dsr:documentSearchResults size="10863" mode="q" baseURL="/find.dyn/news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091214/bs_nm/us_xto_exxon" urlParams="" pageSize="25" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchResults1_0.xsd http://admin.grassroots.com/documentSearchResults1_0.xsd" xmlns:dsr="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchResults1_0.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
    <dsr:responseTime search="16" facets="0">187</dsr:responseTime>
    <dst:pagingToggle xmlns:dst="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchTypes1_0.xsd">on</dst:pagingToggle>
    <dst:documentOutput timeZone="America/Los_Angeles" xmlns:dst="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchTypes1_0.xsd"/>
    <dst:criteria xmlns:dst="http://www.grassroots.com/xml/schemas/documentSearchTypes1_0.xsd"/>
    <dsr:paging>
        <dsr:nextPage>
            <dsr:urlParams>?index=25</dsr:urlParams>
            <dsr:url>/find.dyn/news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091214/bs_nm/us_xto_exxon?index=25</dsr:url>
            <dsr:pageSize>25</dsr:pageSize>
        </dsr:nextPage>
    </dsr:paging>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11088">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T12:35:16.051-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33170</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Put corporate political spending to a vote</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/politicians/articles/?storyId=33170</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T12:34:51.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Carmen Balber</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4529835</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
When the US Supreme Court decided to allow corporations to spend
money directly on campaign advertising, they opened the floodgates to
excessive spending by companies to change the outcome of elections. The
long-term solution is a...
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9907</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>DirtyMoneyWatch</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
When the US Supreme Court decided to allow corporations to spend
money directly on campaign advertising, they opened the floodgates to
excessive spending by companies to change the outcome of elections. The
long-term solution is a...
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11091">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T12:42:34.612-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33169</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Oil Co's Look At Refinery Cuts</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.oilwatchdog.org/?storyId=33169</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T12:02:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Ron D. White, LA Times</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/media-cover.gif" />
<p>
<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers.</strong> Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8065</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Media Coverage</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>881</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/media-cover.gif" />
<p>
<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers.</strong> Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11089">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T12:41:13.292-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33168</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Oil Companies Look At Permanent Refinery Cutbacks</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/articles/?storyId=33168</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T11:53:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Ronald D. White, &lt;font size="3">THE LOS ANGELES TIMES&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers. Consumer advocates want regulators to examine the firms' plans.
</strong>
<p>
Consumer advocates want regulators to probe refinery closures or consolidations that slash supply. Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9878</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Energy Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Cleaner, Cheaper, Energy</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10082</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Oil Watchdog</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10267</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Gas Prices</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<strong>The
response to slumping gasoline use would likely mean higher prices for
drivers. Consumer advocates want regulators to examine the firms' plans.
</strong>
<p>
Consumer advocates want regulators to probe refinery closures or consolidations that slash supply. Judy Dugan, research director for the Santa Monica-based advocacy group
Consumer Watchdog, said that &quot;closing or selling refineries to others
who would limit production would be a serious case of corporate
irresponsibility.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11084">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T10:34:58.240-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33167</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Profiting From Collusion: Why Californians Can't Afford Health Insurance</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33167</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T10:33:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Don Monkerud, &lt;font size="3">COUNTERPUNCH.ORG&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>California's Consumer Watchdog group is suing Anthem Blue Cross after
they raised health care insurance premiums 39 percent, but the company
isn't budging. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs recommended buying health insurance company
stock because competition is decreasing and prices are going up. The
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that &amp;quot;the
typical married couple at age 65 should expect to spend&amp;quot; a whopping
$197,000 on uninsured medical expenses. Obama urges action on a
watered-down health care bill, but the Republicans and conservative
Democrats just say no and collect money from the private health care
lobby. Will we continue to tolerate skyrocketing health care costs?</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>California's Consumer Watchdog group is suing Anthem Blue Cross after
they raised health care insurance premiums 39 percent, but the company
isn't budging. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs recommended buying health insurance company
stock because competition is decreasing and prices are going up. The
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that &amp;quot;the
typical married couple at age 65 should expect to spend&amp;quot; a whopping
$197,000 on uninsured medical expenses. Obama urges action on a
watered-down health care bill, but the Republicans and conservative
Democrats just say no and collect money from the private health care
lobby. Will we continue to tolerate skyrocketing health care costs?</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11082">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-10T09:14:15.838-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33166</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Insurance Regulation Expert Calls For Freeze Of Health Rates Until 'Prior Approval' Regulation Is Adopted</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33166</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-10T09:13:54.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>CONTACT: Jerry Flanagan, (310) 889-4912; or Carmen Balber, (202) 629-3043</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
Washington, DC -- Harvey Rosenfield, author of California&amp;rsquo;s landmark
insurance regulation Proposition 103&amp;mdash;recognized as the most successful
insurance regulation in the country&amp;mdash;was joined today by people
struggling to pay for health insurance in calling on President Obama
and Congress to impose a national freeze on health insurance rates as
part of the final round of votes on reform. Consumers must have a
breather from yearly premium hikes like the 39% increase planned by
Anthem Blue Cross, said Consumer Watchdog, which Rosenfield founded.
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9871</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Press Release</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Breaking news</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10321</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>deregulation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
Washington, DC -- Harvey Rosenfield, author of California&amp;rsquo;s landmark
insurance regulation Proposition 103&amp;mdash;recognized as the most successful
insurance regulation in the country&amp;mdash;was joined today by people
struggling to pay for health insurance in calling on President Obama
and Congress to impose a national freeze on health insurance rates as
part of the final round of votes on reform. Consumers must have a
breather from yearly premium hikes like the 39% increase planned by
Anthem Blue Cross, said Consumer Watchdog, which Rosenfield founded.
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11079">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T16:05:20.753-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33161</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Australian news video calls Google "a company on steroids"</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33161</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T15:53:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
A video produced by &lt;a href="http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/well-here-we-are-then" target="_blank">Hungry Beast&lt;/a>, a weekly news show on Australian television puts Internet giant ...
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
A video produced by &lt;a href="http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/well-here-we-are-then" target="_blank">Hungry Beast&lt;/a>, a weekly news show on Australian television puts Internet giant ...
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11078">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T14:38:42.472-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33160</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Slide show features companies Google calls competition</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33160</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T13:56:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>I recently &lt;a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33077" target="_blank">delved into Google's 10-K filing&lt;/a> covering 2009 with the &lt;a href="http://sec.gov/" target="_blank">Securities and Exchange...&lt;/a></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>I recently &lt;a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33077" target="_blank">delved into Google's 10-K filing&lt;/a> covering 2009 with the &lt;a href="http://sec.gov/" target="_blank">Securities and Exchange...&lt;/a></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11074">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T12:43:34.656-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33157</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Google Identifies Competitors</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33157</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T12:42:56.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Mike Swift, &lt;font size="3">THE SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[Google sees an Internet far more crowded with competitors than just a year ago. At least, that's what the company is telling government regulators. Critics of Google's dominance in search &mdash; Americans use Google for
about two thirds of U.S. searches, and the company has more than 70
percent of U.S. search advertising revenue, and about 90 percent in
Europe &mdash; say the expanded list of competitors is an attempt by Google
to paper over its dominance. &quot;I think they are feeling the heat from several serious antitrust
investigations, and that's reflected in the language they are using in
the 10-K,&quot; said John Simpson, of Consumer Watchdog. He argued in a
recent blog post that Google's statements that it has many competitors
actually proves that &quot;the opposite is actually true&quot; and that &quot;the real
risk to Google's business is not from competition,&quot; but that regulators
in the U.S. and Europe &quot;will act in the interest of consumers and force
the Internet giant to engage&quot; in competition.]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[Google sees an Internet far more crowded with competitors than just a year ago. At least, that's what the company is telling government regulators. Critics of Google's dominance in search &mdash; Americans use Google for
about two thirds of U.S. searches, and the company has more than 70
percent of U.S. search advertising revenue, and about 90 percent in
Europe &mdash; say the expanded list of competitors is an attempt by Google
to paper over its dominance. &quot;I think they are feeling the heat from several serious antitrust
investigations, and that's reflected in the language they are using in
the 10-K,&quot; said John Simpson, of Consumer Watchdog. He argued in a
recent blog post that Google's statements that it has many competitors
actually proves that &quot;the opposite is actually true&quot; and that &quot;the real
risk to Google's business is not from competition,&quot; but that regulators
in the U.S. and Europe &quot;will act in the interest of consumers and force
the Internet giant to engage&quot; in competition.]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11076">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T13:02:38.352-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33156</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Sarah Palin wasn't the only Alaskan border-hopping for health care</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33156</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T11:31:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Judy Dugan</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5448270</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
Sarah Palin, the Cruella DeVille of anti-government-health care, caught everyone's attention with the story of her family hopping the
border from Skagway, Alaska, into the Yukon Territory for Canadian government health care when Palin was a child. &lt;a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/08/13158001.html">Canadian newspapers&lt;/a>
noted cattily that Palin previously described going to Juneau, Alaska, for the
same treatment for her brother's burned foot. Whatever. I wanted to
know whether other Alaskans went to Canada for medical care--and still
do.
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9914</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Affordable Medicine</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10262</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurance Mandate</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
Sarah Palin, the Cruella DeVille of anti-government-health care, caught everyone's attention with the story of her family hopping the
border from Skagway, Alaska, into the Yukon Territory for Canadian government health care when Palin was a child. &lt;a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/08/13158001.html">Canadian newspapers&lt;/a>
noted cattily that Palin previously described going to Juneau, Alaska, for the
same treatment for her brother's burned foot. Whatever. I wanted to
know whether other Alaskans went to Canada for medical care--and still
do.
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11075">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T12:59:01.531-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33155</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>The no. 1 cure for Anthem Blue Cross greed: Here's the plan, from the expert</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33155</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-09T10:32:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Judy Dugan</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5448270</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>Harvey Rosenfield, the founder of Consumer Watchdog and the author of
California's landmark insurance regulation, is the original expert on
making insurance companies friendlier to consumers. So when he outlines
a plan to make health insurance more affordable--and combat price spikes
like the recent 39% annual increase by Anthem Blue Cross--he's got 20
years in the trenches making insurance companies toe the line, to back
him up.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9914</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Affordable Medicine</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>Harvey Rosenfield, the founder of Consumer Watchdog and the author of
California's landmark insurance regulation, is the original expert on
making insurance companies friendlier to consumers. So when he outlines
a plan to make health insurance more affordable--and combat price spikes
like the recent 39% annual increase by Anthem Blue Cross--he's got 20
years in the trenches making insurance companies toe the line, to back
him up.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11071">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-08T18:36:44.173-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33150</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Auto Insurer Revs Measure's Motor</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=33150</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-08T18:33:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Howard Fine, &lt;font size="3">THE LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNAL&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>Opponents, including Doug Heller, who works with Proposition 103 author
Harvey Rosenfield at Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, said the
real aim of Mercury is to lift the ban on surcharges for drivers who
need to reinstate coverage after letting their auto insurance policies
lapse. &amp;ldquo;This would allow Mercury to jack up prices for customers they don&amp;rsquo;t
really want,&amp;rdquo; said Heller, spokesman for Campaign for Consumer Rights,
the main opposition group to Proposition 17.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9909</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Auto Insurance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10260</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Ballot Initiatives</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>Opponents, including Doug Heller, who works with Proposition 103 author
Harvey Rosenfield at Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog, said the
real aim of Mercury is to lift the ban on surcharges for drivers who
need to reinstate coverage after letting their auto insurance policies
lapse. &amp;ldquo;This would allow Mercury to jack up prices for customers they don&amp;rsquo;t
really want,&amp;rdquo; said Heller, spokesman for Campaign for Consumer Rights,
the main opposition group to Proposition 17.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11069">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-08T14:23:43.845-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33144</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Revisions to Health Care Reform Must Include Rate Freeze, Rate Regulation and States' Rights Provisions, Says Consumer Watchdog</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33144</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-08T14:23:26.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>CONTACT: Jerry Flanagan, (310) 889-4912; or Judy Dugan, (310) 392-0522, ext. 305</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;strong>Insurers Would Get Tens of Millions of New Customers Under
Reform, and Owe Americans a Break from Audacious Rate Spikes By Anthem
Blue Cross and Others&lt;/strong>&lt;br />
&lt;br />
Washington, DC -- Consumer Watchdog called on President Obama to impose
a national freeze on health insurance rates before health reform takes
effect to protect consumers from premium hikes like the 39% increase
recently announced by Anthem Blue Cross in California. The rate freeze
is one of five tools Consumer Watchdog urged the president to include
as part of his proposed fixes to the Senate health care bill.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9871</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Press Release</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Breaking news</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9909</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Auto Insurance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;strong>Insurers Would Get Tens of Millions of New Customers Under
Reform, and Owe Americans a Break from Audacious Rate Spikes By Anthem
Blue Cross and Others&lt;/strong>&lt;br />
&lt;br />
Washington, DC -- Consumer Watchdog called on President Obama to impose
a national freeze on health insurance rates before health reform takes
effect to protect consumers from premium hikes like the 39% increase
recently announced by Anthem Blue Cross in California. The rate freeze
is one of five tools Consumer Watchdog urged the president to include
as part of his proposed fixes to the Senate health care bill.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11077">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T13:06:39.291-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33158</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Lawsuits Over California Ballot Question to Be Heard Together</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=33158</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-08T13:03:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Sean P. Carr, &lt;font size="3">BESTWIRE&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>A judge will hear testimony on three related cases surrounding ballot
language for Proposition 17, which backers say will allow discounts for
more drivers and opponents claim will create back-door rate increases.
The latest is Attorney General Jerry Brown's attempt to change the
official title and summary to say the measure &amp;quot;will allow insurance
companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a
history of continuous insurance coverage,&amp;quot; according to the lawsuit.
Due to what Brown's office argued is its error, the language submitted
by the attorney general to the California Secretary of State reads,
&amp;quot;may allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers
who do not qualify for discount.&amp;quot;</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9881</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Affordable Car &amp; Home Insurance</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9907</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>DirtyMoneyWatch</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9909</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Auto Insurance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9911</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Prop 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10085</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Enforcing Prop. 103</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10259</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Insurance Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10260</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Ballot Initiatives</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10321</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>deregulation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>A judge will hear testimony on three related cases surrounding ballot
language for Proposition 17, which backers say will allow discounts for
more drivers and opponents claim will create back-door rate increases.
The latest is Attorney General Jerry Brown's attempt to change the
official title and summary to say the measure &amp;quot;will allow insurance
companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a
history of continuous insurance coverage,&amp;quot; according to the lawsuit.
Due to what Brown's office argued is its error, the language submitted
by the attorney general to the California Secretary of State reads,
&amp;quot;may allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers
who do not qualify for discount.&amp;quot;</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11070">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-08T14:36:22.430-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33145</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Anthem's Rate Hikes To Add To Burdens Of Jobless</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33145</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-06T14:28:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Tom Kisken, &lt;font size="3">THE VENTURA COUNTY STAR&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>There have been demands for explanations from state and federal
lawmakers as well as the White House. Documents of financial records
have been subpoenaed. Last week, Consumer Watchdog filed a lawsuit in
Ventura County Superior Court alleging the insurer doesn&amp;rsquo;t offer
adequate alternatives when it closes a policy.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>There have been demands for explanations from state and federal
lawmakers as well as the White House. Documents of financial records
have been subpoenaed. Last week, Consumer Watchdog filed a lawsuit in
Ventura County Superior Court alleging the insurer doesn&amp;rsquo;t offer
adequate alternatives when it closes a policy.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11063">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-05T13:24:23.771-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33108</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Run From Guys With Clipboards</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.oilwatchdog.org/?storyId=33108</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-05T13:24:26.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Judy Dugan</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5448270</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/IN_IN_WT.gif" /> 
<p>
Interesting that it took a New York newspaper to tell Californians that a couple of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/03/03climatewire-texas-refiners-mum-about-funding-push-to-hal-73127.html">giant Texas oil refining companies</a>
are bankrolling a ballot initiative to kill the state's popular climate
change/green energy law. The whole saga is much like Oklahoma oilman T.
Boone Pickens' <a href="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=23675">failed effort</a>
in 2008 to make California taxpayers subsidize his natural gas business. Except that Pickens was honest about paying for his own
ballot initiative.<a href="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=23675"></a>
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8059</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>The Industry</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8061</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Influence</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8069</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privatization</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8073</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Environment</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8078</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Global Warming</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8151</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Media Critique</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8273</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>cash register politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>8855</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Schwarzenegger</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10345</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Refining Operations</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>881</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<img class="icon" src="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/images/blog/5844684/IN_IN_WT.gif" /> 
<p>
Interesting that it took a New York newspaper to tell Californians that a couple of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/03/03climatewire-texas-refiners-mum-about-funding-push-to-hal-73127.html">giant Texas oil refining companies</a>
are bankrolling a ballot initiative to kill the state's popular climate
change/green energy law. The whole saga is much like Oklahoma oilman T.
Boone Pickens' <a href="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=23675">failed effort</a>
in 2008 to make California taxpayers subsidize his natural gas business. Except that Pickens was honest about paying for his own
ballot initiative.<a href="http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=23675"></a>
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11073">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-09T06:13:02.469-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33107</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Front page as advertising, shame on LA Times for selling its masthead</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33107</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-05T08:16:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Jamie Court</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4530210</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
I have heard of full page advertising, but until I got my Los Angeles
Times from the driveway this morning I never heard of Front Page As
Advertising.
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>13338</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Media-Critique</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
I have heard of full page advertising, but until I got my Los Angeles
Times from the driveway this morning I never heard of Front Page As
Advertising.
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11062">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-05T09:46:43.509-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33104</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Thanks Blue Cross, you gave the public its reason to reform</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33104</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-05T03:50:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Jamie Court</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4530210</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;!--StartFragment-->
&lt;p class="MsoNormal">
The President called for an up or down vote on health care
reform, but I can say from my own experience this week working with Blue
Cross patients, who are part of Consumer Watchdog&amp;rsquo;s lawsuit against he company, that the public has already cast its vote.&amp;nbsp; 
&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10222</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Universal Health Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10262</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurance Mandate</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10264</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Sacramento</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;!--StartFragment-->
&lt;p class="MsoNormal">
The President called for an up or down vote on health care
reform, but I can say from my own experience this week working with Blue
Cross patients, who are part of Consumer Watchdog&amp;rsquo;s lawsuit against he company, that the public has already cast its vote.&amp;nbsp; 
&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11066">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-05T16:02:01.650-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33109</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Candidates Find Incumbent Advantage Extends To Web</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33109</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-04T15:53:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Sara Jerome, &lt;font size="3">THE NATIONAL JOURNAL&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
Thirteen years in the House and a stint as majority leader have furnished Rep.Roy Blunt, R-Mo., with useful GOP and K Street support for his Senate bid. But Blunt's long resume also means a boost from another source: Google. Google's overwhelming dominance of the search market has brought its
power to determine marketplace outcomes under new scrutiny this year.
Tech company Foundem and other so-called &quot;search neutrality&quot; advocates
allege that the search engine is gaining an unfair advantage by
favoring its own products in searches. The advocacy group Consumer
Watchdog wrote the Justice Department last week urging it to
investigate the issue, while the European Commission is already
checking out complaints from Foundem and others.<strong><br />
</strong>
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9907</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>DirtyMoneyWatch</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
Thirteen years in the House and a stint as majority leader have furnished Rep.Roy Blunt, R-Mo., with useful GOP and K Street support for his Senate bid. But Blunt's long resume also means a boost from another source: Google. Google's overwhelming dominance of the search market has brought its
power to determine marketplace outcomes under new scrutiny this year.
Tech company Foundem and other so-called &quot;search neutrality&quot; advocates
allege that the search engine is gaining an unfair advantage by
favoring its own products in searches. The advocacy group Consumer
Watchdog wrote the Justice Department last week urging it to
investigate the issue, while the European Commission is already
checking out complaints from Foundem and others.<strong><br />
</strong>
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11060">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-04T13:08:47.027-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33099</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Good news for consumers at the FTC</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33099</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-04T12:19:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>The senate confirmed two appointees to the &lt;a href="http://ftc.gov/" target="_blank">Federal Trade Commission&lt;/a> Wednesday night, tipping the balance on the five-member commission to three seats appointed by Democrats to two held by Republican...</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>The senate confirmed two appointees to the &lt;a href="http://ftc.gov/" target="_blank">Federal Trade Commission&lt;/a> Wednesday night, tipping the balance on the five-member commission to three seats appointed by Democrats to two held by Republican...</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11053">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-03T17:52:12.520-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33082</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>The Onion nails Google on privacy</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33082</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-03T16:53:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;p>
&lt;a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/index" target="_blank">The Onion&lt;/a>, the satirical newspaper, has an on-the-mark article today that makes you realize why people are concerned about the amount of information Internet giant...&lt;/p></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9918</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Privacy</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;p>
&lt;a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/index" target="_blank">The Onion&lt;/a>, the satirical newspaper, has an on-the-mark article today that makes you realize why people are concerned about the amount of information Internet giant...&lt;/p></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11052">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-03T13:58:19.922-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33081</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>President Obama's best ally--Anthem Blue Cross</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33081</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-03T12:47:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by Judy Dugan</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5448270</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
President Obama's &quot;get it done&quot; <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/obama-give-my-health-care-proposal-an-up-or-down-vote-in-the-next-few-weeks.php?ref=fpa">speech on health reform</a>
Wednesday may have been a day late, but I hope it's not a dollar short,
as the old saying goes. At least he has one tremendous ally in his call
for action by Congress: Anthem Blue Cross, and the continuing outrage at its huge rate increases.
</p>
<p>
&nbsp;
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9914</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Affordable Medicine</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
President Obama's &quot;get it done&quot; <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/obama-give-my-health-care-proposal-an-up-or-down-vote-in-the-next-few-weeks.php?ref=fpa">speech on health reform</a>
Wednesday may have been a day late, but I hope it's not a dollar short,
as the old saying goes. At least he has one tremendous ally in his call
for action by Congress: Anthem Blue Cross, and the continuing outrage at its huge rate increases.
</p>
<p>
&nbsp;
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11058">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-04T12:10:06.098-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33098</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Consumer Group Sues Anthem Blue Cross Over Rate Hike</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33098</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-03T12:06:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Al Slavin, &lt;font size="3">BESTWIRE&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>A consumer group has filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthem Blue
Cross of California, alleging the company's strategy in deploying an
average 25% rate increase for individual plan customers violates state
law. The lawsuit was filed by Consumer Watchdog on behalf of two Anthem
policyholders who are covered under a program the insurer closed to new
enrollees on Sept. 25, 2009. This triggers a &amp;quot;death spiral&amp;quot; as rate
increases fall to &amp;quot;those remaining in the closed book of business until
they can no longer afford coverage,&amp;quot; the lawsuit stated.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>A consumer group has filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthem Blue
Cross of California, alleging the company's strategy in deploying an
average 25% rate increase for individual plan customers violates state
law. The lawsuit was filed by Consumer Watchdog on behalf of two Anthem
policyholders who are covered under a program the insurer closed to new
enrollees on Sept. 25, 2009. This triggers a &amp;quot;death spiral&amp;quot; as rate
increases fall to &amp;quot;those remaining in the closed book of business until
they can no longer afford coverage,&amp;quot; the lawsuit stated.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11048">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-03T11:35:12.335-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33077</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Google tries to highlight competition in SEC filing</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporateering/articles/?storyId=33077</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-03T11:30:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>Posted by John M. Simpson</dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>5264575</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>&lt;a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/" target="_blank">Google&lt;/a>, under antitrust scrutiny by the &lt;a href="http://www.justice.gov/atr/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Justice&lt;/a>, the ...</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9877</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Blog Post</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>On the blog</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9916</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>11589</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Google</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>&lt;a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/" target="_blank">Google&lt;/a>, under antitrust scrutiny by the &lt;a href="http://www.justice.gov/atr/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Justice&lt;/a>, the ...</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11054">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-03T18:00:32.402-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33084</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>Senate Panel Mulls Consumer Protection Deal</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/politicians/articles/?storyId=33084</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-02T17:57:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Jennifer Liberto, &lt;font size="3">CNNMONEY.COM&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content>The Senate might break its impasse on financial overhaul if it moves forward with a proposal that would put a consumer financial protection watchdog inside the Federal Reserve. &amp;quot;It's time for Senator Dodd to stop negotiating with Senators who have
dug into battle trenches with the big banks in their attempt to block
any meaningful consumer protections, and move a bill that will give the
rest of the Senate a chance to vote for Main Street and support real
reform,&amp;quot; said Carmen Balber, Washington director for Consumer Watchdog,
an advocacy group.</dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9879</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>legislation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9880</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>lobbying</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9883</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Politicians Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Keeping Politicians Honest</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9907</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>DirtyMoneyWatch</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10088</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Reforming Politics</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10097</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Corporateering Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Fighting Corporateering</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10261</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Campaign Finance</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10265</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Washington DC</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10321</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>deregulation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>13552</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Financial Reform</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt>The Senate might break its impasse on financial overhaul if it moves forward with a proposal that would put a consumer financial protection watchdog inside the Federal Reserve. &amp;quot;It's time for Senator Dodd to stop negotiating with Senators who have
dug into battle trenches with the big banks in their attempt to block
any meaningful consumer protections, and move a bill that will give the
rest of the Senate a chance to vote for Main Street and support real
reform,&amp;quot; said Carmen Balber, Washington director for Consumer Watchdog,
an advocacy group.</dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
    <dsr:story score="0.021030825" indexId="11061">
        <dsr:indexDate>2010-03-04T17:46:44.127-08:00</dsr:indexDate>
        <dsr:type>story</dsr:type>
        <dsr:id>33100</dsr:id>
        <dsr:title>More Bad News For Anthem</dsr:title>
        <dsr:externalLink xsi:nil="true"/>
        <dsr:url>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=33100</dsr:url>
        <dsr:postDate>2010-03-02T17:43:00.000-08:00</dsr:postDate>
        <dsr:author>
            <dsr:screenName>By Evan George, &lt;font size="3">THE DAILY JOURNAL OF LOS ANGELES&lt;/font></dsr:screenName>
            <dsr:authorId>4563274</dsr:authorId>
        </dsr:author>
        <dsr:content><![CDATA[<p>
The company used controversial rate hikes, as high as 39 percent, to
force older and sicker customers into high-deductible plans with fewer
benefits so it could save money, Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog
alleged in the complaint. The lawsuit seeks to end that tactic of &quot;closing&quot; an insurance product
and raising rates to members while offering them cheaper plans, which
plaintiffs say is known in the industry as the &quot;death spiral.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:content>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9872</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>News Clipping</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>In the media</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9882</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Protecting Patients Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Protecting Patients</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9884</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Courts Campaign</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description>Going to Court</dsr:description>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>9905</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Litigation</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10077</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Action on Medical Care</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10079</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>HMO/PPO Abuse</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10219</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Health Insurer Accountability</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10228</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>vs. Insurers</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:topic>
            <dsr:topicId>10342</dsr:topicId>
            <dsr:name>Unfair Billing</dsr:name>
            <dsr:description xsi:nil="true"/>
        </dsr:topic>
        <dsr:publicationStatus>published</dsr:publicationStatus>
        <dsr:blogId>1222</dsr:blogId>
        <dsr:totalNbrComments>0</dsr:totalNbrComments>
        <dsr:excerpt><![CDATA[<p>
The company used controversial rate hikes, as high as 39 percent, to
force older and sicker customers into high-deductible plans with fewer
benefits so it could save money, Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog
alleged in the complaint. The lawsuit seeks to end that tactic of &quot;closing&quot; an insurance product
and raising rates to members while offering them cheaper plans, which
plaintiffs say is known in the industry as the &quot;death spiral.&quot;
</p>]]></dsr:excerpt>
        <dsr:featured>false</dsr:featured>
        <dsr:commentsClosed>false</dsr:commentsClosed>
    </dsr:story>
</dsr:documentSearchResults>