This will shock you, I know, but corporate interests have signficiantly outspent consumer groups in the health care reform debate.
In the first three months of 2009, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has spent more money on lobbying since 1998 than any other company, trade association, or advocacy group, and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA)--the No. 6 all-time spender--paid lobbyists a combined $22.5 million to promote their interests.
Meanwhile, prominent champions of the public insurance option spend very little on lobbying or campaign contributions. Families USA, a self-described consumer watchdog dedicated to health care issues, for example, has spent a mere $10,000 on lobbying this year and only $32,000 total in 2008. Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a national network that unites doctors' associations, consumer groups and other activists, spent $80,000 last year. And the National Health Council (NHC), which has remained mum on this issue but supported putting pressure on insurers to cover pre-existing illnesses, has not spent any money on lobbying since 2007.
Of these more prominent organizations, in fact, only the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is a major lobbyist--$4 million spent so far this year and $158.8 million since 1998--but the group has not publicly endorsed or rejected the president's proposed legislation.
Yowza. All that money spent to keep us getting lousy health care. Or, rather, paying exorbitant costs for insurance and prescription medications--there isn't a lot of actual "care" involved in those pursuits. Is it likely to make a difference with our (ahem) public servants? Nate thinks so, after doing some of his famousl number crunching:
The insurance industry's influence appears to swing about 9 votes against the public option. Whatever number of senators wind up supporting the public option, add 9 to it, and you'll have a decent ballpark estimate for what the level of support might be if not for insurance industry contributions...
The single senator who's position on the public option is most likely to have been changed by lobbying money is Mark Warner of Virginia, who has already raised $69,000 from insurance industry PACs in spite of having been in the Senate for less than six months. Absent industry money, the model estimates about a two-thirds likelihood that Warner would support the public option; with it, the model thinks the chances are very low. Indeed Warner has been mum on the public option to date.
Ranking next on the list is Harry Reid, who has taken some $78,800 from insurance industry PACs and who has also yet to articulate a position on the public option in spite of his status as Majority Leader. If the model is right, Reid's noncommittal stance on the issue might be better conceived of as tacit, if somewhat soft, opposition. Following Reid is Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who has floated a compromise bill that would replace the public option with a co-op system, a version of which the Senate Finance Committee appears likely to adopt.
There are many issues in which I think a "with us or against us" attitude is short-sighted and politically damaging. On health care, it's different. It's us, the consumer, the people who are having to shell out all this money for health "care" vs. the people taking all of our money and giving us shoddy product. And then taking all that money and pouring it into lobbying the people who are supposed to be representing our interests.
Nine votes, many of them on the Finance Committee, conveniently. Mosey on over to slinkerwink's action diary, and make a call or two to the Senators on the Finance Committee. They'll also all probably be home for the 4th recess, and will be having townhalls and constituent meetings. Ask them point blank, are they with us, or against us? Are they among those nine Senators who will be swayed by campaign contributions from industry PACs, or are they looking out for us? (That's a really good question to ask in a public setting.)