Bloomberg gets a great scoop on the Chamber of Commerce, reporting that the health-insurance industry gave the secretive nonprofit a stunning $86.2 million last year to oppose Obama’s health-care reform.
The Chamber, as we’ve seen, isn’t required by law to disclose who its donors are. That ought to change. But meantime, how are journalists supposed to get at that information? Here’s how Bloomberg did it:
The organizations disclosed the funding yesterday in annual tax records required under U.S. law. The Chamber’s records show it received $86.2 million from a single group, which a second person briefed on the transaction by those involved identified as Washington-based America’s Health group.
Insurers gave the $86.2 million to the Chamber in August 2009, funded by health insurers, said the first person. Early that month, America’s Health Chief Executive Officer Karen Ignagni said Democrats were trying to “demonize” insurers.
Nicely done.
How big a number is $86 million? Well, remember how the Chamber said it would spend $75 million mostly opposing Democrats in the midterms—people went nuts over that. This is for a single issue from a single industry. A couple of observers quoted by Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong call it “breathtaking” and “astonishing.”
But it’s also worth noting how small a number $86 million is in the grand scheme of things. That’s not that much money for a health-insurance industry trying to stave off radical reform. Wellpoint alone earned $4.7 billion last year.
Once again, we see the Chamber serving as a front for an industry to lobby hard for what it wants without anybody knowing it’s doing so. It’s a reputation laundry for issues pushed by loathed industries. Wall Street wants to lobby against financial reform while saying publicly it favors it? Funnel the money to the Chamber. Health-care insurers want to influence the process without having their hated names attached? Do the same.
It shouldn’t take the journalistic shoe leather it did here to get this information to the public. For one thing, it often comes too late, as it did here. But until these massive, secret corporate donations are made illegal or at least brought into the daylight, on shoe leather we’ll depend.
A round of applause is in order for Bloomberg and Armstrong.
Agreed. The next step, it would seem, is detailing exactly how that $86 million was spent. On whom? On what? Was it funneled to key members of Congress? Did Grassley get any of that? Did Olympia? Ben Nelson? How much did Karl Rove's groups get? How much did Fox News get out of that? How about Betsy McCaughey? How big a chunk did she get? Did the Palins profit from CofC largesse? How does an organization like that spread $86 milllion around on the sly?
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 06:19 PM
I'm surprised it wasn't a lot more than that.
Imagine for a moment that you are in a business where (1) the government is about to change the rules on you, and (2) you have been specifically targeted by politicians ("loathed" as you put it).
What exactly would you have them do? Sit back and hope for the best?
Increased lobbying efforts are a direct result of government meddling. Expect it to increase, substantially.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 09:18 PM
Also, what justification do you cite for describing the health care industry as "hated" and "loathed"? Are you implying that most people hate the industry? Or are all of the people that work there just plain evil? Either way, how is it good practice to use such inflammatory language without backing it up with hard facts?
It seems the Democrats' efforts to demonize insurers are successful, at least in your case.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 02:32 AM
To JLD - really, that's the best you can come up with?
Great story, kudos to Bloomberg. I, for one, will be watching for more shoe leather to drop.
#4 Posted by JJV, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 02:42 PM
To JLD - really, that's the best you can come up with?
Great story, kudos to Bloomberg. I, for one, will be watching for more shoe leather to drop.
#5 Posted by JJV, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 02:43 PM
These are only the "hidden" one available since the SC allowed anyone to spend esp. corporation without listing how much and to whom. In NY Times this past week, Republicans were complaining that their coffers were empty and the money they spent was over $1 million in the hole. What do they expect!!! Now that the "Big Boys" can spend their money without listing name and recipient, why should they give anything to the Republican Party? The Republicans pushed this through the Court and ended up shooting themselves in the foot--at least monetarily. Yes, it applies to the Democrats but their BIG corporations are the unions and they have to tell their members so it's already up and onboard. Health care is here to stay--with some minor changes and/or additions in time. Too many people will end up in the Emergency rooms and die for lack of physicians. Then these same insurance companies will be paying for lack of care to hospitals--along w/ the rest of us in our insurance and tax money.
#6 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 03:38 PM
I agree with the previous comment that it would be interesting to see a folo on where the money went. Another potentially interesting story is that there's a good chance that what the national C of C organization is doing is not in the best interest or with the approval of the majority of Chamber members at a local level.
#7 Posted by Perry Gaskill, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 04:54 PM
The "$86 million" to the C of C is, of course, in addition to health insurers' already large lobbying expenditures. It would be interesting to see a grand total of each major insurer's annual (or quarterly) Congressional lobbying expenses. That total would include any money spent by the insurer directly on lobbying, money it gave to APIC (the trade and lobby group for insurers), and the Chamber's $86 million.
#8 Posted by Suzanne Batchelor, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 06:18 PM