Anthony Wright is executive director of Health Access California, the statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition. He blogs daily at the Health Access Weblog and is a regular contributor to the Treatment.

A week ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was upset when The Yes Men, a group of pranksters and activists, held a fake press conference, claiming that the Chamber has reversed their opposition to climate change legislation. It’s true that the Chamber was misrepresented. But the real question should be, who does the Chamber represent--particularly when it comes to health care reform?

The Chamber of Commerce has traditionally fought health reform at the state and federal level. Health policy experts find this maddening: Employers, who are the conduit for providing coverage to more than half the population, should have as much interest as any stakeholder in reforming the health system and bringing down health care costs.

But the Chamber has clear conflicts of interest. It claims to speak for employers. But it also represents--and speaks for--health industry groups that have a distinct, frequently opposing, set of interests.

Time's Karen Tumulty and Michael Scherer have a thoroughly enlightening, and thoroughly depressing, article in the new Time about how the drug industry got its way in health care reform. The industry spends more than $600,000 a day in lobbying, they note. And, from the looks of things, it's money well spent.

The focus of the article is the debate over "exclusivity" for biological drugs--that is, the period during which the maker of a drug can manufacture and sell it without threat of generic competition. Reformers, like Representative Henry Waxman, had been pushing to cut the exclusivity period down to five years. The industry wanted twelve. Guess who won?

The power of special interests is an old story, of course. But the reach of pharma's influence is still something to behold, as it goes well beyond the usual game of campaign contributions and revolving door connections: