Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, and Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, who for years has championed aggressive scrutiny of conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, [...]]]> The Senate Finance Committee is taking yet another foray into the murky connection between drugmakers and drug pushers, launching an investigation into the tactics used to promote pain medications.

Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, and Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, who for years has championed aggressive scrutiny of conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, sent letters Tuesday to drug companies, advocacy groups and academic researchers, seeking details on their financial ties. Days earlier, the American Pain Foundation, an advocacy group largely funded by drugmakers, voted to go out of existence.  It’s unclear if that decision was related to either the Senate’s impending investigation or a ProPublica report several months ago detailing the group’s close ties to drug companies. The foundation received 90 percent of its funding from drugmakers, ProPublica reported, and its recommendations fit neatly with the agenda of its corporate sponsors.

More than 40 people die every day from overdoses of prescription painkillers, including OxyContin and Vicodin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That figure has tripled in the last decade.

“Overdoses on narcotic painkillers have become epidemic and it’s becoming clear that patients aren’t getting a full and clear picture of the risks posed by their medications,” Baucus said in a statement.

Health advocates have long been concerned with conflicts of interest in medicine. A dozen years ago, the Courant explored the financial links between drugmakers and academic researchers, finding that industry cash had changed the culture of scientific inquiry at top universities, with some researchers skewing studies to assure favorable outcomes and taking money to promote the drugs they were studying.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued the preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the American [...]]]> A federal appeals court Tuesday blocked an Illinois law that made it a felony to record police officers performing their duties in public, saying the broadly worded statute likely violates the First Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued the preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has plans to record police activities during protests in the Chicago area. Fearing arrest, the ACLU put those plans on hold, and filed suit.

Illinois officials argued that the law was necessary to protect the privacy rights of police officers and those they are speaking to. But in a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that the law’s broad reach — making it illegal to record any conversation without consent, regardless of whether the parties have any expectation of privacy — went too far.

“The expansive reach of this statute is hard to reconcile with basic speech and press freedoms,” the panel wrote. “The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here,  it  likely violates  the  First  Amendment’s free-speech and free-press guarantees.”

Under Illinois law, eavesdropping is a Class 4 felony. But it is elevated to a Class 1 felony — with a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison – for anyone recording police officers, even if they are within earshot and the recording is not surreptitious. The law applies only to audio recording. Taking pictures or recording silent video is not illegal;  but turning on a microphone criminalizes the act.

Last month, the Connecticut Senate gave its support to a bill that would make police officers subject to civil litigation for interfering with a person recording the officer or a colleague performing police duties.

The Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act was first passed in 1999 in an [...]]]> As my colleagues Chris Keating and Daniela Altimari report, the Connecticut House of Representatives today overwhelming approved changes to the state’s racial-profiling law, to make sure data is collected during police stops and to make sure it gets analyzed.

The Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act was first passed in 1999 in an effort to amass data that would indicate whether certain police officers or agencies were mistreating motorists on the basis of race or ethnicity. But most departments don’t report their data to the state, and the African-American Affairs Commission, which under the current law is responsible for analyzing the data, has for years said it lacks the funding to do so.

Earlier this year, the Courant obtained data on more than 100,000 traffic stops reported by police departments, and an analysis of that data showed that  black and Hispanic motorists were significantly more likely to receive a ticket or court summons during a motor-vehicle stop, compared to white motorists pulled over for the same violation. Proponents of the bill said the analysis put hard numbers behind their longstanding belief that black and Hispanic motorists face harsher treatment when pulled over. Critics said the analysis merely revealed flaws in the data-collection system the state has used for the past decade.

Under the revisions approved today, the Office of Policy and Management will develop a standardized form to be used during police stops, and OPM will also take over responsibility for analyzing and reporting on the data. The racial-profiling bill now goes to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who has said he will sign it.

The unusual letter [...]]]> Connecticut’s entire Congressional delegation sent a letter this week to the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, urging the watchdog agency to investigate the Veterans Support Organization, a Rhode Island-based nonprofit that has raised millions of dollars, much of it via camouflage-clad solicitors who stand outside grocery stores and other shops.

The unusual letter was in response to complaints by officials with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who are concerned that VSO is employing solicitors who claim to be volunteers, but are actually paid a commission based on the money they bring in. The senators and House members also expressed alarm at the group’s finances, noting that VSO collected $5.8 million in fiscal year 2010, but spent only $379,000 on grants to veterans and veteran groups.

“We urge the FTC to continue to prosecute sham charities and protect the credibility and effectiveness of legitimate nonprofit organizations that really help America’s heroes,” the delegation wrote.

Several years ago, the Courant ran a lengthy investigation of veterans charity, noting their inefficiency and identifying those that spent pennies on the dollar — and in some cases, less than a penny on the dollar — for charitable purposes.

So how does the Veterans Support Organizations stack up? It’s a complicated question, because the way the charity keeps its books, it counts all of the commissions paid to those solicitors – reportedly up to 30 percent – as part of an “on-the-job training program” for down-on-their-luck veterans and others.

As a result, the group in fiscal year 2010 claimed to spend not one penny on fundraising expenses, and attributed 70 percent of its $5.7 million in spending to that job-training program, which was also the source of virtually all of its fundraising. That purported jobs program has come under fire not only for allegations that solicitors falsely claim they are volunteers, but also because some have given the false impression they are military veterans. The nonprofit in fiscal 2010 spent more than $70,000 on uniforms — which it also classified as a charitable program expense — and in recent years solicitors have generally been dressed in fatigues, camouflage or khakis when collecting money.

The Veterans Support Organization has also run afoul of charity laws in Tennessee, leading to a negotiated $20,000 settlement. And consumer reporter Arnold Diaz sent an undercover producer to interview solicitors last year, and caught them making false claims about how the group spends its money.

Despite the controversies, it’s a lucrative operation for founder Richard Van Houten. In fiscal year 2009, he collected $120,000 as chief executive officer. The following year, donations more than doubled – and so did his salary, reaching $255,000.

For more details on the group’s finances, click the image below.

The craigslist ad is a fake — one of scores of bogus car ads that [...]]]> The showroom-clean 2004 Toyota Avalon offered on Hartford’s craiglist site may seem like a steal at $2,135. But that stealing, sadly, will come at the expense of any overly eager car buyer willing to fork over the money.

The craigslist ad is a fake — one of scores of bogus car ads that continue to pop up every day on the popular classified-ad site. Last October, I wrote about the craigslist used-car scam, describing the clever methodology crime rings in Romania have perfected to steal nearly $50 million from more than 15,000 victims.

Six months later, the scammers show no sign of letting up, as illustrated by a spin through Hartford’s craigslist offerings. The 2005 Acura TL for $2,617? Fake. The 2007 Lexus IS 250 with air-conditioned seats for $2,350? Fake. The 2006 Nissan Altima “Janice Johnson” is willing to let go for the same $2,350? Fake, fake, fake.

The Altima is actually a recycle job — one of the vehicles we featured in the Courant’s October story. Back then, the exact same vehicle was offered by “Brenda Cullen,” who claimed to be in Omaha, Neb., and willing to part with the car for $2,400. (The real car had an $11,800 sticker at a dealership outside Chicago.)

Overseas crooks have gotten rich by combining too-good-to-be-true deals with untraceable Western Union payments. To lure would-be buyers, they spin tales of new jobs or medical problems or military deployments to explain the low prices. And they have gotten a big assist by convincing victims that the sales are processed through independent escrow agents affiliated with eBay’s well-regarded Vehicle Purchase Protection program. But it’s all a tech-savvy lie, and the moment a mark hands over cash to a Western Union agent, that it almost certainly the last he or she will see of the money.

The scam is especially lucrative because the same car can be “sold” to multiple victims. Better hurry if you want to be first to put money down on that 2004 Avalon (“I am selling it because I now have a company car dont need it.”) The exact same car is being peddled on more than 20 different craigslist sites, from Charlotte, N.C., to Seattle, Wash. – while the real vehicle was actually for sale at a dealership in Florida for $11,500.

How did that car get picked? Simple: The vehicle is in pristine condition and the legitimate ad featured plenty of cream-puff photographs the criminals could display to car shoppers to drum up business.

The FBI takes the global scam seriously enough that it has actual boots on the ground in Romania trying to stop the flow of money, and several scammers have been caught and put behind bars. But it’s an uphill battle.

What can you do as a consumer? Craigslist, Western Union and eBay all have the same advice: Only deal locally, don’t buy a car you haven’t personally inspected, and never send money through Western Union to someone you don’t personally know. On craigslist, any seller who responds with a tale that the vehicle is out of state but will shipped for free is almost certainly a crook. And be aware that eBay never permits the use of its Vehicle Purchase Protection program for cars bought on craigslist.

Wanna be a scambuster? Bogus ads can be reported to craigslist, which will ultimately pull them off the site. Complaints can also be filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. And you can post details of scam ads – including email addresses used and the text of correspondence from sellers – to any of a number of sites that have sprung up to amass information on Internet scams (in the hopes that future victims will search the Web and discover the scam in time). A site called fightthescams.com is a popular choice.

We’ve all seen the ads for Good Ole Tom’s and Fast Eddy, [...]]]> For his The Bottom Line column and blog, the Courant’s Kevin Hunt toted two gold coins and a silver bowl to a dozen pawn shops, jewelers and gold-and-diamond exchanges to see how widely prices varied in the booming market for precious metals.

We’ve all seen the ads for Good Ole Tom’s and Fast Eddy, as well as pitches from more-staid buyers, including tony suburban jewelry stores. With gold prices rising and a recession squeezing consumers, it’s a growing business.

So who ponies up the most money? In his column, Hunt said the pawn shops and gold-and-diamond exchanges he visited generally offered more than jewelry stores. But his top advice: Do your homework and know what your goods are worth before shopping for offers.

The chart below shows what various stores offered to pay for Hunt’s bounty, with the highest offer more than 50 percent above the lowest. Click the image for an interactive chart with more figures.

Conference and dining expenses are commonplace in any large organization. But at the same time the city is cutting expenses and trying to close a $56 million budget [...]]]> The Courant’s Jenna Carlesso has an eye-opening piece today on hotel, restaurant and other expenses charged to purchasing cards by Hartford city and school officials.

Conference and dining expenses are commonplace in any large organization. But at the same time the city is cutting expenses and trying to close a $56 million budget gap, top officials were racking up big bills at tony eating establishments, including Morton’s steakhouse, Salute and Feng Asian Bistro. Hotel bills in the hundreds and even thousands of dollars were also run up, including stays at the Marriott Long Wharf and Nine-Zero hotels in Boston and the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas.

Especially curious is a $150 charge at Coach, the fancy handbag store, by Kinsella Magnet School Principal Pamela Totten-Alvarado — who had her city purchasing card revoked last year, and who won’t comment on the Coach shopping spree other than a description that it was a reward for a student at the school.