Quantcast
Channel: The Center for Public Integrity Latest Stories
Viewing all 3299 articles
Browse latest View live

Canadian-owned firm's mega-donation to super PAC raises ‘legal red flags’

0
0


A million-dollar donation by a foreign-owned corporation to a Republican super PAC has raised legal concerns and opened up the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision to new criticism.

Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Republican Mitt Romney’s run for president, received a $1 million donation in mid-August from reinsurance company OdysseyRe of Connecticut, a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of Canadian insurance and investment management giant Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited.

Fairfax Financial’s founder is Indian-born V. Prem Watsa. Watsa serves as CEO and chairman and owns or controls 45 percent of the company’s shares. He is also the chairman of the board of OdysseyRe, the American subsidiary.

The law says that any foreign national is prohibited from “directly or indirectly” contributing money to influence U.S. elections. That means no campaign donations, no donations to super PACs and no funding of political advertisements.

But campaign finance law is not as clear for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies as it is for individuals.

Most of the regulations on political spending by subsidiaries of foreign companies were written before corporations were legally allowed to fund political advertisements or donate to super PACs. And Republican members of the Federal Election Commission have thwarted the implementation of new rules regarding the practice.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., is among those concerned about foreign-controlled corporations "exploiting loopholes in existing law" to influence U.S. elections. He calls the practice a “direct threat to our democracy.”

“You can bet that wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign commercial entities have an agenda when they spend millions to sway the outcome of an election,” Whitehouse told the Center for Public Integrity in a statement. “And you can bet that agenda is not promoting the interests of middle-class American voters.”

OdysseyRe’s donation “raises some legal red flags,” says Paul S. Ryan, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center.

The law lays out clear rules for political action committees associated with U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, Ryan says, but it is hazier on spending allowed in the wake of Citizens United.

“I would be very wary if I was a corporation based in the U.S., owned wholly by foreign nationals, of contributing to a federal political committee or making independent expenditures,” he said.

He faults the FEC for failing to “provide clarity and guidance in this controversial and important area of the law.”

Ellen Weintraub, the Democrat who currently serves as the FEC’s vice chair, agrees with Ryan that the commission’s leadership in this area has been lacking.

“We should make some decisions about what we think the appropriate role of these organizations is in this brave new world of corporate money in politics,” she said.

“By not addressing [these issues] in a rulemaking, we’re leaving uncertainty out there,” Weintraub continued. “And when there’s uncertainty, there’s always a risk that folks may try to use that uncertainty to their own advantage.”

Officials with OdysseyRe and Fairfax Financial maintain that no U.S. laws were broken.

Paul Rivett, Fairfax Financial’s vice president of operations, said that OdysseyRe’s Canadian parent company had “no role” in the decision to donate to Restore Our Future. Peter Lovell, general counsel of OdysseyRe, likewise said the firm’s contribution was executed by a subcommittee of the company’s board of directors comprised only of U.S. nationals.

“Neither our Canadian parent nor any other foreign nationals were part of the decision-making process to contribute to the super PAC,” Lovell said.

Watsa has been called the Canadian Warren Buffett and his companies have flourished.

On its website, Fairfax boasts that it is “results oriented” and “not political.” It reported more than $33 billion in assets and nearly $7.5 billion in revenue last year, despite a “record level of catastrophe claims.” OdysseyRe reported assets of $10.6 billion at the end of 2011.

Watsa and his company cashed in on the collapse of the U.S. housing market by investing in complex financial instruments known as derivatives, according news accounts.

Since the beginning of 2008, Fairfax Financial has spent $320,000 on lobbying in Washington, D.C., and its issues include how derivatives are regulated under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

The company is the subject of an IRS whistleblower’s complaint, according to the New York Times, alleging that it received an unwarranted tax break of $400 million between 2003 and 2006, a claim Fairfax disputes.

The $1 million donation will likely be used for attack ads against President Barack Obama. And with less than five weeks until Election Day, $1 million is no insignificant amount. It’s enough to buy at least a week or two’s worth of ads in critical media markets. It also represents one-seventh of the money Restore Our Future collected in August.

Lovell said the company decided to donate because it favors Romney’s stance on tax policy.

OdysseyRe “operates at a significant disadvantage” compared to its peers in the reinsurance industry because of U.S. tax laws, Lovell says. Romney’s proposed changes “would help to level the playing field” for OdysseyRe against competitors “domiciled in more favorable tax jurisdictions.”

“A victory by Gov. Romney in November would be beneficial to OdysseyRe,” Lovell added.

Notably, two of OdysseyRe’s board members are also deep-pocketed Republican donors.

In May, board vice chairman Andrew Barnard donated $75,800 to the Romney Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee, and Brandon Sweitzer has donated more than $80,000 to federal candidates and political groups since 2002, federal records show, including $5,000 to Romney’s current campaign.

All of Sweitzer’s money has gone to Republicans, with the exception of $2,000 given to the PAC of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where Sweitzer also serves as a senior fellow.

Since the Citizens United decision, concerns have been raised about foreign influence on U.S. elections — a specter that in the past has plagued both Democrats and Republicans.

Scandal tainted the 1996 re-election of President Bill Clinton after Democratic Party fundraisers accepted millions of dollars from China, Korea and other foreign sources. And ahead of the 1994 election, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee Haley Barbour secured a $2 million loan from a Hong Kong businessman for a Republican group linked to the RNC.

In October of 2010, 15 Democratic senators, including Whitehouse, urged the FEC to “protect our elections from foreign influence.” Weintraub and her two fellow Democratic commissioners pushed a proposal that outlined a variety of options to keep foreign money out, but it was not adopted by the commission.

The Democratic commissioners proposed that U.S. subsidiaries owned or controlled by foreign nationals should, at a minimum, establish a political action committee or “separate segregated fund,” with money kept in a bank account separate from the general corporate treasury. Furthermore, foreigners should be prohibited from making decisions about spending that money on political ads.

A more restrictive proposal the three commissioners floated would have banned domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations from funding political ads if more than 20 percent of the corporation’s shares were owned by foreign nationals, or if a third of the corporation’s board of directors were foreign nationals.

All of these ideas were met with unified opposition by the three Republican commissioners on the FEC, resulting, twice, in deadlocked 3-3 votes in 2011.

None of the GOP commissioners could immediately be reached for comment, but Weintraub says she hopes the regulatory body takes the initiative to grapple with these issues.

“We shouldn’t just ignore it and let people make their own calls,” she said.

Andrea Fuller and John Dunbar contributed to this report.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney writes on a white board as he talks about Medicare during a news conference in Greer, S.C . Michael Beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/michael-beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/05/11148/canadian-owned-firms-mega-donation-super-pac-raises-legal-red-flags

Suit alleges retaliation for exposure of upcoding

0
0


Paula Sellers suspected the small Nevada hospital where she worked was overcharging Medicare and other health insurers for some emergency room services.

Sellers ran Boulder City Hospital’s health information department, which helped apply the complex series of Medicare billing codes doctors and hospitals must use to get paid for treating the sick.

But Sellers alleges in a lawsuit that her bosses told her to “back off” when she doubted the accuracy of the coding — and fired her in May when she refused to sign off on it.

“When she tried to complain, she got terminated,” said her lawyer, Jesse Sbaih. The wrongful termination lawsuit, filed in July in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, has been moved to federal court, where it is pending. The hospital and its billing agent deny the allegations.

Every year, hospitals and doctors use the five-digit billing codes, developed by the American Medical Association, to bill Medicare for hundreds of millions of office visits and other services. Hospitals use these “Evaluation and Management” codes to bill for emergency room and outpatient physician charges and other fees. In past years, Medicare has for the most part paid medical bills with few questions asked, even though the coding process can be confusing and subjective.

But billing practices are facing new scrutiny as Medicare officials and other insurers seek ways to put the brakes on escalating health care costs. On Sept. 24, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder notified five groups representing hospitals and medical professionals that they could face criminal prosecutions for padding bills by choosing higher-paying codes even if the services delivered didn’t justify them — a process known as “upcoding.”

The federal government action follows The Center for Public Integrity’s “Cracking the Codes” series, published last month. The year-long investigation found that thousands of medical professionals used the codes to steadily bill higher rates for treating seniors over the last decade — adding $11 billion or more in Medicare costs shouldered by taxpayers.

The Center’s probe uncovered a broad range of costly billing errors and abuses that have plagued Medicare for years — from confusion over how to pick proper payment codes to apparent overcharges in medical offices and hospital emergency rooms. The findings also suggest that Medicare billings are rising as doctors and hospitals switch to electronic health records.

In campaign speeches, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have promised to tame Medicare’s spending growth while protecting seniors. But neither candidate has said much about how suspect billing and coding practices drive up costs — even as many in the health care industry are debating possible solutions.

Like several other court cases before it, the Sellers lawsuit shows how disagreements over what’s acceptable coding and billing practice can prove contentious.

In her suit, Sellers said that in December 2010 the Boulder City hospital hired Emcare Inc., which provided emergency room physicians and took over coding duties as part of its contract.

Sellers alleged in her suit that said she quickly concluded that the new coding policy was “alarmingly inaccurate.” In October 2011, she audited 428 claims and found 353 errors, which she said could have caused the hospital to be hit with “penalties by Medicare, Medicaid and others improperly and fraudulently billed,” according to the suit.

Deborah Hileman, senior vice president for corporate communications at Emcare, said in an e-mail that the company “does not comment on legal matters.” But Emcare, which is a defendant in the Sellers suit, has denied wrongdoing and any role in the woman’s dismissal.

Boulder City Hospital officials did not respond to requests for comment. However, hospital lawyers alleged in court filings that Sellers was fired after more than two years on the job for refusing to carry out her duties and for “repeated acts of insubordination.”  

In one court filing, Emcare’s lawyers called Sellers an “insecure department head who felt unappreciated and threatened by the hospital’s decision to rely on another provider to perform certain coding tasks.”

Emcare supplies emergency room and other physician staff to more than 500 hospitals across the country. The Dallas-based company says its services can improve the quality of medical care, and asserts that its coding software and billing practices can help hospitals boost their revenue through more accurate coding. The company’s billing arm, for instance, states on its website that one Florida hospital increased its facility charges by 47 percent using the firm’s services.

In her suit, Sellers cited a federal court case in which Emcare Inc in May 1997 paid $7.75 million to federal and state governments to settle accusations of overcharging. Justice Department records state that Emcare allegedly hired a billing company that inflated codes “to reflect more expensive medical procedures than what was actually performed.” according to Justice Department records.

Medicare officials have not said if they are reviewing records from any individual digital medical record or billing companies. But recent Medicare audits of hospital emergency rooms have found high rates of coding errrors, including one review in March of emergency rooms in Texas and Oklahoma that found $45 of every $100 was “paid in error.” Officials worry that some in the rapidly growing industry, which routinely boasts that its software can boost the bottom line, may be tempted to overcharge.

“There are troubling indications that some providers are using this technology to game the system, possibly to obtain payments to which they are not entitled,” the Sept. 24 warning letter from Sebelius and Holder states.

The letter went on to say that “false documentation of care is not just bad patient care; it’s illegal,” and threatened criminal prosecutions.

Hospital and physician groups don’t dispute that coding levels have been on the rise, or that digital records systems are partly responsible. But they argue that computers are simply better than the human hand at documenting services rendered and billing for them — a position echoed by the software companies.

For instance, the American Hospital Association agreed that “upcoding” should not be tolerated, but added that “more accurate documentation and coding does not necessarily equate with fraud.” 

The group also suggested that federal officials are partly to blame for failing to write clear guidelines for hospital emergency department and clinic visits — a request the group said it had made 11 times since 2001.

Dr. Donald W. Simborg, a California physician who headed two government panels that warned of a surge in fraud related to use of electronic health records, commended government officials for cracking down. But in a Sept. 25 letter in response to Sebelius, he argued government needs to move “beyond threats of prosecution” and focus on adding fraud detection to the electronic systems sold to doctors and hospitals.

As officials in Washington step up scrutiny of the process, thousands of workers who assist in coding for doctors and hospitals sometimes struggle to interpret the rules accurately.

Sellers, for instance, argued that she couldn’t go along with what she considered to be a breach of ethics and so she decided to change the coding against the wishes of her bosses.

In response, administrators at Boulder City Hospital said they took Sellers’ claims of unethical coding seriously and hired an outside firm to investigate. The firm found her claims to be “unsubstantiated,” the hospital wrote in a disciplinary report.

“Your actions of recoding resulted in errors and loss of revenue,” the report said.

Sellers’ “unjustifiable failure and refusal to comply with her supervisors’ directives delayed the billing and reimbursement of more than $250,000 in revenues at a time when the hospital was in dire need of funds,” hospital lawyers wrote in court filings.

Fred Schulte http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/fred-schulte http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/05/11158/suit-alleges-retaliation-exposure-upcoding

Daily Disclosure: California contest tops outside spending in House races

0
0


The U.S. House race between Republican Rep. Dan Lungren and physician Ami Bera in central California has already seen more outside money than any other House race, and with a new campaign from the nonprofit League of Conservation Voters Inc., the money continues to pour in.

The League of Conservation Voters Inc. reported spending nearly $382,000 opposing Lungren in California’s rejiggered 7th District this week as part of its “Flat Earth Five” campaign, which targets five Republican representatives for their denial of global warming.

The $2 million campaign includes telephone calls to voters, direct mail and television ads in an effort to unseat Lungren and Republican Reps. Dan Benishek of Michigan, Ann Marie Buerkle of New York, Francisco Canseco of Texas and Joe Walsh of Illinois.

California’s 7th District has seen in $4.3 million in outside spending so far, and $3.1 million of that has been spent opposing Lungren, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The race has attracted many the big hitters, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, House Majority PAC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This is not the first time Lungren has been criticized for his environmental policies. In September, Sierra Club Independent Action, a super PAC, released the ad “Oily Politics,” which emphasizes Lungren’s campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he has received $46,800 from oil and gas corporate political action committees and employees, the No. 9 industry contributor to his campaign.

Lungren has voted to support new oil refineries and for offshore drilling, as well as to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. He opposes cap-and-trade and tax credits for wind energy production and green transportation initiatives, according to congressional voting records compiled by the website Ontheissues.com.

His opponent Bera favors tax credits and increased investment in renewable energy and opposes offshore drilling, according to his website.

The Sacramento Bee, which endorsed Lungren in 2010, supports Bera this time around, though it says both are “thoughtful candidates who have a passion for their communities.”

Bera’s commitment to fighting global warming, according to the editorial, helped him win the Bee’s endorsement.

In other outside spending news:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a series of ads in New York congressional districts at a total cost of $1.8 million:

  • Pay More” opposing Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop  in New York’s 1st District cost $305,000;
  • Wrong” opposing Democrat Sean Maloney in New York’s 18th District cost $380,000;
  • Broken Trust” opposing Democratic Rep. Bill Owens in New York’s 21st District cost $390,000;
  • Closed” opposing former Democratic Rep. Dan Maffei in New York’s 24th District cost $185,000;
  • Wrong Way” opposing Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter in New York’s 25th District  cost $185,000;
  • Failure” opposing Democratic Rep. Kathy Hochul in New York’s 27th District cost $130,000.

The Chamber also released “Fast Pace,” which supports Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., and cost $103,000, and reported spending $100,000 on an ad opposing Democrat Lois Frankel, who is running for U.S. House in Florida’s 22nd District.

  • Two more ads from conservative groups responded to Wednesday’s first presidential debate. Conservative nonprofit American Future Fund’s “Out of Time” shows clips edited together making GOP nominee Mitt Romney sound like a smooth, strong speaker and making President Barack Obama sound stumbling and lost. The Republican National Committee’s video highlights three of Romney’s “zingers.”
     
  • Pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future released “The New Normal,” opposing Obama.
     
  • Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action reported spending $3.5 million on ads opposing Romney.
     
  • Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC, released “Working for Wisconsin,” supporting Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who is running for U.S. Senate in the state.
     
  • House Majority PAC, a super PAC backing Democrats running for U.S. House, released “Bills,” opposing Rep. Allen West, the Republican running for election in Florida’s 18th District. The super PAC reported spending $1.6 million on ads in races across the country.
     
  • American Bridge 21st Century posted an online video called “The No-Show Treasurer” opposing Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the state.
     
  • American Unity PAC, a conservative super PAC, released “Wrong Prescription,” an ad opposing emergency room doctor Raul Ruiz, the Democrat running for Congress from California’s 36th District.
     
  • Conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has a politically active “social welfare” nonprofit called Heritage Action for America, which reported spending $25,000 opposing Obama, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Sen. Robert Casey Jr., D-Pa. This is the group’s first reported campaign expenditure. The Heritage Foundation has received significant funding the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and the billionaire sits on the Heritage Foundation’s board. It is unknown who funds Heritage Action because nonprofits are not required to disclose their donors
     
  • AFSCME PEOPLE, the political action committee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, reported spending $302,000 on ads opposing Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, the Republican running for U.S. Senate in the state.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., has been hit by environmental groups for his support of increasing oil drilling. This ad from the Sierra Club highlights his votes. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/05/11183/daily-disclosure-california-contest-tops-outside-spending-house-races

Top House Republicans demand suspension of electronic medical records program

0
0


Four Republican House leaders want federal officials to suspend payments to hospitals and doctors who switch from paper to electronic health records, arguing the program may be wasting billions of tax dollars and doing little to improve the quality of medical care.

In an Oct. 4 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius, they suggested that $10 billion spent so far on the program has failed to ensure that the digital systems can share medical information, a key goal. Linking health systems by computer is expected to help doctors do a better job treating the sick by avoiding costly waste, medical errors and duplication of tests.

The letter urges Sebilius to “change the course of direction” of the incentive program to require that doctors and hospitals  receiving tax money get digital systems that can “talk with one another.” Failure to do so, the letter says, will result in a “less efficient system that squanders taxpayer dollars and does little, if anything, to improve outcomes for Medicare.” The letter urges Sebelius to suspend payments under the program until rules are written requiring that the systems share information.

The letter is signed by Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, D-Mich., Ways and Means health subcommittee chairman Joe Pitts, R-Pa. and energy health subcommittee chair Wally Herger, R-Calif.

The Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, which runs the incentive program, did not respond to a request for comment on the letter on Friday.

The harsh criticism from Congress is unusual given the strong support that digitizing medicine has received from both political parties in recent years.

President George W. Bush in 2004 first set the goal of creating a digital medical record for every American within ten years. But in early 2009 the Obama administration championed using stimulus money to achieve the goal, hoping electronic health records would both enhance the quality of medical care and hold costs in check.

In all, the Obama administration expects to spend more than $30 billion to help doctors and hospitals purchase the gear and use it to improve health care. More than half the nation’s hospitals have received some payments from the program, and so far more than $10 billion has been spent. About half the doctors now billing Medicare are using digital records.

Many medical leaders also hope digital records revolutionize the nation’s health care delivery. For starters, researchers hope to be able to mine data from millions of patients to discover better ways to treat disease and improve the nation’s overall health, which requires computers to link to each other. The initiative also is backed by a broad coalition of groups, from an elite corps of technology experts to organized labor.

But the congressmen also noted emerging concerns that so far the digital medical revolution has prompted doctors and hospitals to bill higher charges to Medicare.

The Center for Public Integrity’s “Cracking the Codes”  series, published last month, found that thousands of medical professionals have steadily billed higher rates for treating seniors on Medicare over the last decade — adding $11 billion or more to their fees.

The Center’s year-long investigation strongly suggested that Medicare billing errors and abuses are worsening as doctors and hospitals switch to electronic health records. A similar report was subsequently published by the New York Times.

“Recent reports revealed that the EHR (electronic health records) program may be leading to higher Medicare spending and greater inefficiencies while doing little if anything to improve health outcomes,” the House Ways and Means Committee said in a statement.

Obama administration officials acknowledged the problem for the first time last month, asserting that some doctors and hospitals may be cheating Medicare by using electronic health records to improperly bill the health plan for more complex and costly services than they actually deliver — a practice known as “upcoding.”

HHS Secretary Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder on Sept. 24 warned five hospital and medical groups of their intention to ramp up investigative oversight, including possible criminal prosecutions, of upcoding.

The Center for Public Integrity investigation found that digital medical and billing equipment can with the touch of a button create an exquisitely detailed medical file and thus present a challenge to government auditors concerned about preventing billing abuse and fraud.

But in the rush to get the program off the ground federal officials failed to impose strict controls over billing software, despite warnings from several prominent medical fraud authorities to do so. Now officials admit they lack a system to monitor the hundreds of billing and medical software packages in use across the country to prevent overbilling.

Most manufacturers and medical professionals using the gear contend that it merely allows them to more efficiently bill for their services, which in the past was often done by hand.

Medicare’s shaky finances also have emerged as a presidential campaign issue, with both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney promising to tame its spending growth while protecting seniors. But there’s been little talk about the impact of billing and coding practices in driving up costs, and what to do about them.

 Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Fred Schulte http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/fred-schulte http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/05/11189/top-house-republicans-demand-suspension-electronic-medical-records-program

OPINION: Romney's phony answers to tough health care questions

0
0


During last week’s debate, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney once again pledged to repeal Obamacare, but he was light on details about what he would replace it with, other than to suggest that his administration would encourage states to come up with reform plans of their own.

“What we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state,” he said. “And I said that at that time. The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.”

But considering that the Massachusetts law was the model for Obamacare, what, other than replicating what Massachusetts did, are the states to do?

High on the list of recommendations in Romney’s health care platform is an idea frequently touted as a silver bullet by conservatives: allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Doing so, they say, will increase competition and, consequently, bring down the cost of coverage.

The problem is that no one had done a study to determine definitively whether the across-state-lines idea would work — until now. And the conclusion of that study, conducted by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, is that allowing coverage to be purchased across state lines is much more of a blank than a bullet.

The study also finds that no new federal law is even needed to allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

“With or without changes to federal law, states already have full authority to decide whether or not to allow sales across state lines and, if so, under what circumstances,” the study noted.

Of course, you wouldn’t know that from listening to Romney and other politicians who seem to believe than an act of Congress is needed. It isn’t. State legislatures can make it happen whenever they want, but, so far, only six have decided to try it. Georgia, Maine and Wyoming have enacted legislation in recent years to allow out-of-state insurers to sell policies within their borders. Lawmakers in Kentucky, Rhode Island and Washington passed bills requiring their insurance departments to research the idea and determine interest from out-of-state insurers.

The lawmakers who championed the legislation expected their states would be inundated with applications from insurers far and wide eager to sell their policies. But it hasn’t happened. In fact, not a single insurance company has expressed the slightest interest in doing business in any of those six states.  

The problem is that the think tanks and politicians haven’t taken the time to understand how health care is delivered in this country — which is locally — and how the insurance industry has evolved.  

Only those of us of a certain age can remember the days before managed care when indemnity health insurance policies were the norm. If you had an indemnity policy, you could go to any doctor or hospital and get your claims paid. No more. Just about every insurance policy these days is network-based, meaning your choice of providers is limited. That’s because insurers these days negotiate reimbursement rates with doctors and hospitals in any given market. The more “members” a health plan has, the more clout it has at the negotiating table with providers.

Insurers that have a long-established presence in a market typically have relatively large memberships and can demand hefty discounts from providers. That enables them to price their policies lower than smaller and less-established insurers. And that, in turn, allows them to attract more customers.

Thus, the barriers to enter a given market have become exceedingly high. Even big national insurers face this problem. Cigna, where I used to work, really wanted to have a large share of the market in Philadelphia, where it was based, but has never been able to compete effectively against Aetna and Blue Cross, the dominant players in Philly.

As the Georgetown researchers wrote, this is no small challenge. “To compete with domestic insurers, out-of-state insurers must build a network of local providers and negotiate competitive reimbursement rates. Out-of-state insurers thus face a chicken-and-egg dilemma: they must build a sufficient membership to negotiate competitive rates with providers, but, to garner that membership, they must show customers they have an adequate network of providers and charge a premium that is comparable to their competitors.”

The researchers also pointed out numerous other problems that contribute to the lack of interest in across-state-line selling. Among them: differences of opinion among insurance departments over who would regulate out-of-state insurers to assure their solvency and the adequacy of their policies.

So the next time you hear a candidate tell you how great it will be when insurers can sell their products across state lines, be aware that they already can. They just don’t have the slightest interest in doing so.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, left, listens as President Barack Obama speaks during their first presidential debate at the University of Denver Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012 in Denver. (AP Photo/The Denver Post, John Leyba) MAGS OUT; TV OUT; INTERNET OUT Wendell Potter http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/wendell-potter http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/08/11205/opinion-romneys-phony-answers-tough-health-care-questions

Big donors give far and wide, influence out-of-state races, issues

0
0


The focus on billionaires’ and corporations’ contributions to Super PACs this year has highlighted the impact of the rich and powerful on the presidential campaigns.

But an analysis by the Investigative News Network of contributions by wealthy individuals in seven states shows that their giving is greater than any one cause or race reveals — with millions flowing into state, federal and even local campaigns, parties and committees far and wide.

Take Colorado software entrepreneur and gay rights activist Tim Gill. He has given $450,000 to Colorado independent expenditure committees so far this political cycle, which began in 2011. He’s also given generously out of state —$100,000 to the Ohio Democratic Party Executive Committee and $25,000 to the Iowa Democratic Party—and smaller amounts to 26 candidates and causes in that time, from President Barack Obama to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, to candidates running for the Colorado state house.

All told, Gill, who did not respond to a request for comment, has doled out nearly $3.7 million to state and federal causes and campaigns in the past five years, making him the largest political donor from Colorado who wasn’t funding his own campaign.

Gill is no exception.

Wealthy Iowans put most of their money into causes at home, but they have also donated to candidates, parties and causes in New Jersey and Washington state this election cycle. Likewise, donors from Missouri have given to political parties and campaigns in Tennessee and Indiana. Money from Vermont has flowed into Wisconsin, from Colorado into Pennsylvania, from Massachusetts to Washington State and from California into Georgia. Donors in all seven states examined for this report gave to Governor Walter Scott’s successful campaign to beat a recall election this summer.

The findings illustrate what Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute in Washington, DC,  has been seeing in his own research.

“Politics is becoming increasingly national,” said Malbin, the author of several books and a professor at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany, SUNY in New York. “Means of communication, fundraising and also campaigning are becoming national — and it’s affecting state and even local races.”

This is different from the century-plus-old participation by national corporations and labor unions in state politics, he said.

“There are a much broader variety of actors, often ideologically motivated, who are involved now. And they can bring resources to bear that can overwhelm local resources,” he said. “It does create questions about representation that could be troubling.”

There is no single government database that captures all of the contributions by any prolific donor. They are recorded in piles of reports to federal and state elections officials by the campaigns and causes that have received the money.

To get this rare, comprehensive look at the top donors in seven states, the Center for Responsive Politics, which collects and analyzes contributions on the federal level, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which gathers and studies contributions in state races, merged their data on the top donors. The organizations, both members of INN, looked at donations to and from California, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Vermont. The data do not include so-called “dark money” contributions to 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits, which are exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

Supplemented with reporting by INN-member newsrooms across the country, the analysis showed that looking at state and federal donations together gives a more complete picture of the most generous political contributors in each state —and where their money is going. In some cases, to look at only one would grossly misrepresent who the top donors even are.

The list of top donors to state campaigns and causes in Massachusetts and Vermont would be different from the list of top donors in those states to federal candidates, parties and causes – which is where they sent most of their political contributions.

In Colorado, Iowa and Missouri, the situation is reversed. The biggest contributors donated the largest sums to state candidates and issues.

Of California’s top 10 donors in 2011 and so far in 2012, four contributors gave overwhelmingly to state causes and campaigns while the other six have given most heavily on the federal level. Only by merging both sets of records does the
full picture of the state’s most active political contributors emerge.

San Francisco hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer, for instance, gave nearly $22 million this year to support a ballot initiative he’s spearheading that would force corporations with operations out of state to pay more California taxes. Another top California donor, DreamWorks founder and CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, has given relatively little to California campaigns and causes this cycle, around $10,000—but has donated $2 million to the top Super PAC supporting Obama, Priorities USA Action.

Some wealthy individuals give so broadly that it’s only by looking at contributions across states and federal campaigns that the full breadth of their political reach is revealed.

Retired ING Insurance Executive Fred Hubbell has donated just shy of $102,000 in this election cycle — divided about evenly between state and federal causes and campaigns. He gave much of it in $1,000-or-smaller contributions to individual Democratic candidates in his home state of Iowa.


The analysis also illustrated how fluidly money moves across states.

In the 2012 election cycle, New York billionaires George Soros and Michael Bloomberg and Chicago billionaire Nick Pritzker, whose family owns the Hyatt hotel chain, were among the single biggest donors to three ballot initiatives in California in 2012, with donations of about $500,000 each. (Disclosure: Soros’ Open Society Institute is among the nonprofit Investigative News Network’s funders.)

The trio donated, respectively, to the Committee for Three Strikes Reform, which seeks to limit the use of life sentences to violent third strike offenses; Californians for a Cure, which sought to increase cigarette taxes to fund cancer research (the proposition was narrowly defeated this summer); and Taxpayers for Public Safety, which is trying to repeal California’s Death Penalty.

“Criminal justice is an issue that George Soros had been concerned about for many years,” said his spokesman Michael Vachon. “And what happens in California is relevant. It’s a bellwether state. California immigration policy, prison reform, all kinds of things that happen in California tend to have a ripple effect through the country.”

Bloomberg spokesman Marc LaVorgna said public health initiatives are a key issue for the mayor of New York and “he has always been willing to back up his support with contributions.”

Pritzker said through a spokesperson that he feels it’s “high time” California gets rid of its death penalty, as Illinois has.

“Economic and moral reasons compel the conclusion that life without possibility of parole is far superior to the death penalty,” he said. “The entire country should be interested in this referendum in the largest state in the country.”

While some would cringe at wealthy individuals influencing laws in states where they don’t live, Candice Nelson, chair of the Department of Government at American University and an expert on campaign finance, said there’s another argument.

“If you believe in a cause, why should you only be able to give to a cause in your state?” she asked.

She said a deep look at individuals’ donations gives an indication not only of the causes that matter to them, but also of their social and political networks and what seats are in play that are seen as having national importance.

“It gets to the question of the network, of who’s asking who for money,” Nelson said.

Bill Stetson, who together with his wife and daughter is the heaviest donors from Vermont this political cycle, said his personal friendships often motivate his donations.

“If you have the money to give, just as is the case with giving to charities and nonprofits, you must give to candidates you believe in — or who’s going to support those candidates? What kind of people will be in Washington and Montpelier?” asked Stetson, an environmental policy consultant. He said he donates principally to environmental causes and candidates who support them, regardless of party or state lines.

The Stetson family has donated more than $200,000 to the national Democratic party and Democratic party committees in a long list of states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, and New Hampshire. Jane is the finance chair for the DNC and a significant Obama bundler.

The INN analysis also showed the impact of state limits.

Vermont caps individuals’ donations to a maximum of $2,000 to state candidates and Political Action Committees. So far this year, the Stetsons have given only $9,000 to state campaigns and causes, even though they are close to prominent state politicians like former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

By comparison, Missouri’s top donor, St. Louis financier Rex Sinquefield, has spent nearly $7 million in political contributions already this election cycle, much of it to fund committees that seek to eliminate the Missouri’s state income tax and phase out the state control of St. Louis Police Department through ballot measures. Missouri is one of four states with no campaign contribution limits.

A multi-millionaire who won’t divulge his net worth, he has given a total of $21.5 million since 2008.

But state limits aren’t the only determining factor.

Iowa doesn’t limit state contributions either and the biggest donor there so far this campaign cycle, real estate businessman Bill Knapp II, gave a comparatively small $199,850.

One other factor could be at play: Unlike Missouri, Iowa does not have an initiative process for ballot measures.

Iowa still has its share of contentions issues. It is a battleground state for the presidential election and a state Supreme Court retention vote has drawn interest — one of the justices facing voters backed a 2009 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, angering conservatives.

As a result, it has been getting donations from out-of-state donors, large and small.

Chicago millionaire and Democratic supporter Fred Eychaner donated $25,000 to the campaign of Iowa Senate candidate Michael Gronstal in September 2011, making him the campaign’s largest single contributor. Florida businessman Gary Chartrand gave $50,000 to the Iowa Republican Party in November. It also received $15,000 from Susan and Howard Groff, who own a construction equipment rental company in California called Northwest Excavating. State candidates and parties in Iowa have also received donations from residents of New York, Texas, Michigan, and a number of other states.

According to the party, they’re giving of their own initiative.

"Some Republicans, in say, California, will donate to help the Republican Party [in Iowa] because they feel it will go further than if they donate where they live in a more Democratic state,” said Megan Stiles, spokesperson for the Iowa Republican Party. “But in terms of seeking out-of-state donations, we haven't really been doing that."

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper at a campaign stop for President Barack Obama in Fort Collins, Colo. Hickenlooper is one of more than 20 candidates and causes to recieve money from wealthy Colorado entrepreneur Tim Gill this election cycle, an example of wealthy donors are affecting races at many levels.   Evelyn Larrubia http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/evelyn-larrubia http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/08/11208/big-donors-give-far-and-wide-influence-out-state-races-issues

Daily Disclosure: Firefighters mad at Denny Rehberg over lawsuit

0
0


U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg cost taxpayers in his constituency more than $20,000 when he and his wife sued the city of Billings, Mont., and its fire department in 2010 for damage caused to their property during a fire. Two new ads from Democratic outside spending groups are making sure voters don’t forget.

Rehberg, a Republican who is challenging Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, ultimately dropped the suit, but he was nonetheless hit over the Columbus Day weekend with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s “Only Out for Himself” and Majority PAC’s “Always There.”

Rehberg and his wife sued the City of Billings and the Billings Fire Department for equipment and property damage during a 2008 fire on Rehberg Ranch Estates. Two days after the fire was contained, it flared up again. The Rehbergs alleged breach of duty and negligence on the part of the fire department, according to the Associated Press.

Majority PAC spent $339,000 on the ad and mailers. It is unknown how much the DSCC spent.

The lawsuit became fodder for his 2010 re-election campaign against Democrat Dennis McDonald, who told the Billings Gazette the lawsuit was “embarrassing for the congressman, who is suing the taxpayers.”

Rehberg dropped the lawsuit in November 2011, but it cost Billings taxpayers almost $21,000 according to documents released by the city, Billings’ KTVQ-TV reported. Rehberg announced his intent to run for U.S. Senate three months later.

The Senate race in Montana has attracted $11.1 million in outside spending, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and the race is considered a tossup. The Democratic-held seat could be a possible pickup for the GOP, which expects to win the state in the presidential election.

The state is heavily unionized, so while Montanans may prefer Republican presidents, they have a Democratic streak when it comes to down-ticket races, Real Clear Politics says.

The race has attracted money from many of the big-name outside spenders, including the League of Conservation Voters, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, and both abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has spent $2.2 million and the DSCC has spent $2 million, according to CRP, making them the top spenders in the race. Conservative nonprofit Crossroads GPS is second with $1.5 million and the League of Conservation Voters follows with $1.3 million.

Rehberg and Tester faced each other Monday in the only debate of their race, with Rehberg attempting to link Tester with President Barack Obama and Tester attempting to link Rehberg to lobbyists.

VoteVets.org Action Fund, a nonprofit, also went after Rehberg over the weekend, spending $250,000 on canvassing and door hangers.

Rehberg holds a slight lead in the polls.

In other outside spending news:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a new wave of ads in U.S. House races:

  • Real” opposing Democrat and retired general Bill Enyart in Illinois’ 12th District cost $428,000;
  • Here” opposing Democrat and former health care executive Cheri Bustos in Illinois’ 17th District cost $622,000;
  • Can’t Afford” opposing Democratic Rep. Bill Foster in Illinois’ 11th District cost $540,000;
  • Can’t Gamble” opposing Democratic Rep. John Tierney in Massachussetts’ 6th District cost $400,000;
  • Opens Doors” supporting Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson in Utah’s 4th District cost $202,000.

     
  • Majority PAC spent a total of $994,000 on ads in the Nevada, North Dakota, Montana and Arizona races over the weekend.
     
  • Majority PAC and Patriot Majority USA co-released “Cynthia,” which opposes Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev. Majority PAC’s share of the ad as $324,000.
     
  • The American Hospital Association spent $1.4 million on ads supporting Reps. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Richard Hanna, R-N.Y., Chris Gibson, R-N.Y., and Lois Capps, R-Calif.
     
  • Pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future reported spending $1.2 million on ads opposing Obama.
     
  • The NRA Political Victory Fund, the political action committee of the National Rifle Association, reported spending $1.8 million on ads opposing Obama.
     
  • Conservative super PAC Club for Growth Action reported spending a total $1 million on U.S. Senate races in Arizona and Indiana.
     
  • VoteVets.org Action Fund released “Pledge,” which opposes Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, the Republican running for U.S. Senate in the state. The ad cost $300,000.
     
  • American Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit, released “A New Path” supporting Romney. It also reported spending $950,000 on three spots released last week.
     
  • Out of Step” from SEIU COPE, the political action committee of the Service Employees International Union, opposes Republican Rep. Chris Gibson in New York’s 19th District. The SEIU’s super PAC also reported spending $2.3 million on U.S. Senate and House races in Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia.
     
  • The nonprofit League of Conservation Voters Inc. came out with “Defeat the Flat Earth Five,” a Web video criticizing Republican Reps. Ann Marie Buerkle of New York, Dan Benishek of Michigan, Francisco Canseco of Texas, Dan Lungren of California and Joe Walsh of Illinois for an “anti-science view” regarding global warming.
     
  • FreedomWorks for America, a conservative super PAC, released “Vote Smith,” supporting Tom Smith, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, who, until 2011, was a Democrat.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

New ads, including this one from Majority PAC, make sure voters remember that Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., now a candidate for U.S. Senate , sued Billings and its fire department for fire damage to his property in 2010.  Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/09/11313/daily-disclosure-firefighters-mad-denny-rehberg-over-lawsuit

Nonprofit profile: Patriot Majority USA

0
0


Type of organization: 501 (c)(4)

Supports candidate: Democrats

Location: Washington, D.C.

Founded: 2010

Web site: http://patriotmajority.org/

Social media: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook

Finances (calendar year 2010):

  • Total Revenue: $5.2 million
  • Total Expenses: $5.3 million
  • Net assets: $25,800

IRS 990: 2010

Principals:

  • Craig Varoga (president/treasurer): Varoga, who is head of the Patriot Majority network, is a longtime Democratic political strategist who has worked on the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and others. He has also been a strategist or consultant in numerous successful gubernatorial campaigns, including those of Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
  • Joe Householder (secretary): Householder is a strategist in the Texas office of the public relations firm Purple Strategies. He specializes in crisis communications. Householder worked with Varoga on the campaign of former Iowa governor and current Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and was previously a spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
  • Bill Burke (director): Burke is the executive director of the Foundation for the Future, a nonprofit working to represent the interests of Democrats during the redistricting process. Burke has worked on campaigns in more than 30 states and in the communications department of the Democratic National Committee.

Profile:

Patriot Majority USA is a liberal nonprofit, whose multifaceted agenda includes support for workers’ rights, preserving social safety nets and reforming tax laws. It is the most active branch of a family of organizations that includes a 527, a super PAC and a political action committee, all launched before Patriot Majority USA.

The nonprofit and its sister groups can all be traced back to one person: Democratic strategist Craig Varoga.

Patriot Majority USA is not required to disclose its contributors, but its sister organizations historically have been backed by a handful of well-known Democratic political donors and labor unions, especially the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. AFSCME is both the largest donor to Patriot Majority’s 527 and a co-founder of Foundation for the Future, a nonprofit whose executive director is Bill Burke, the secretary of Patriot Majority USA.

A recent blog post from the Center for Responsive Politics reported the often confusing, circular movements of the Patriot Majority network’s funding. For example: In 2010, AFSCME sent Patriot Majority’s 527 a total of $500,000. Another $350,000 came from a group called Patriot Majority West, another Varoga 527 funded almost entirely by AFSCME.

So far this election cycle, the nonprofit has targeted U.S. Senate candidates Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., Sen. Dean Heller, R-N.V., and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont. It has also spent money in support of Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

In August, Patriot Majority USA launched “Stop the Greed Agenda,” a multi-year campaign aimed at shining a light on the political activities of the Koch brothers and related special interests. These entities, the group says, are pursuing a “greed agenda…”

The day after announcing its campaign, Patriot Majority USA released two ads costing $500,000: “Greed Agenda” and “Tycoons.” The ads, which the Center wrote about in our Daily Disclosure feature, accuse the Koch brothers of “buying this year’s election” with their promise to spend more than $400 million to elect their preferred candidates.

Advertisements:

  • Greed Agenda” and “Tycoons,” two ads attacking the Koch brothers.
  • Means” opposes Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont.
  • Minimum Wage” attacks Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., for voting against raising the minimum wage.

Last updated: Oct. 8, 2012

 

 


Daily Disclosure: Dems looking to pick up Chicagoland seats

0
0


Redistricting in the Chicago metro area has endangered Republicans that hold House seats in the already Democrat-dominated region and attracted some major spending by a labor union and a liberal super PAC.

Republican Reps. Joe Walsh, Bob Dold and Judy Biggert are targeted in a new ad from House Majority PAC and SEIU COPE, the political action committee of the Service Employees International Union, as part of a $2.4 million campaign in the region.

The ad shows what appears to be an angry tirade from Walsh and a list of housing and health care votes House Majority PAC calls “extreme.”

Walsh is running in the redrawn 8th District and faces the well-liked Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth. Duckworth has the backing of the Now or Never super PAC, which has spent $1.8 million supporting her, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Walsh is considered one of the most conservative freshman members of Congress and has the backing of tea party-aligned super PACs including FreedomWorks for America.

Dold faces Democrat Brad Schneider, a management consultant, in the redrawn 10th District. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in with a half-million-dollar ad campaign supporting the Republican. The race is taking place in one of the most Democratic districts in the state, according to The New York Times, and Dold has appealed to his constituency by becoming more of a moderate.

Biggert, running in the 11th District, has a record of being moderate on social issues. She faces former Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Foster.

She was one of the few Republicans to vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and is supportive of abortion rights, according to The Washington Post. She also earned the endorsement of the National Education Association, which usually favors Democrats. The NEA backed her with a $546,000 ad buy at the end of September.

House Majority PAC also released “Hiding,” opposing Biggert specifically, and will release an ad opposing Dold next week.

In other outside spending news:

Conservative nonprofit Crossroads GPS launched a new series of ads targeting Democratic Senate candidates:

  • Vision” opposing Sen. Brown of Ohio cost $1.4 million;
  • Extreme Takeover” opposing Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin cost $1.2 million;
  • Pay the Price” opposing Sen. Jon Tester of Montana cost $727,000;
  • Looming” opposing former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine cost $544,000;
  • Stamp for Him” opposing former North Dakota Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp cost $245,000.

     
  • Liberal nonprofit Patriot Majority USA reported spending $3 million on U.S. Senate races in North Dakota, Montana and Nevada and on the U.S. House race in Connecticut’s 5th District.
     
  • Crossroads GPS’s affiliated super PAC, American Crossroads, reported spending $388,000 opposing Nelson of Florida, and $110,000 supporting GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
     
  • The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, a nonprofit, reported spending $835,000 opposing Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson in Florida and Sherrod Brown in Ohio as well as the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, former Gov. Tim Kaine.
     
  • Mitt Romney isn’t stylish, wears “mom jeans” and just isn’t cool. Despite his lack of hipness, he is still the best person for the job, says an ad from Crossroads Generation, a super PAC launched in part by American Crossroads and targeted at young voters. It’s called “Vote Responsibly.”
     
  • House Majority PAC in tandem with SEIU COPE released “Stripes,” opposing California state Sen. Tony Strickland, the Republican candidate for U.S. House in the state’s 26th District.
     
  • SEIU COPE also released “Offshore” opposing Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, in the state’s 16th District.
     
  • AFSCME released “Confused,” a radio ad opposing Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-Minn. AFSCME PEOPLE, the political action committee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, hit Rep. Bobby Schilling, R-Ill. with a new ad.
     
  • Debate,” a joint effort from AFSCME PEOPLE and Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC, opposes Romney.
     
  • The conservative nonprofit American Future Fund produced “China Motors,” an ad criticizing President Barack Obama for the auto industry bailout.
     
  • Bailout Joe” from the super PAC Senate Conservative Action opposes Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., who is running for U.S. Senate in the state against tea party favorite and State Treasurer Richard Mourdock.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

This ad from House Majority PAC and SEIU COPE shows Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., yelling during a public appearance. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/10/11348/daily-disclosure-dems-looking-pick-chicagoland-seats

Romney benefits from post-Citizens United spending

0
0


Since Labor Day, the once-unofficial start of the election season, 70 percent of outside spending on the presidential race made possible by the Citizens United  Supreme Court decision has benefited Mitt Romney, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

More than $106 million of the $117 million spent on the Obama-Romney matchup since Sept. 3 has been on negative ads, with President Barack Obama absorbing more than $80 million in attacks, according to the analysis of Federal Election Commission data.

By way of comparison, the Obama campaign has spent $346 million over the entire election and Romney has spent $288 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove, is the top anti-Obama spender as well as the top overall spender among outside groups in the presidential election. Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC, is the second-biggest outside spender in the race and the primary source of anti-Romney ads.

Overall, since Labor Day, super PACs, nonprofits and other Citizens United spenders have spent $217 million on “independent expenditures,” ads and campaign activities that urge voters to support or oppose a candidate and are reported to the FEC. The total does not include regulated political action committees and party spending.

Super PACs, which can receive and spend unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and unions, are responsible for 55 percent of the spending. Nonprofits, which can act in the same way as super PACs but need not publicly disclose their donors, make up 44 percent of the total.

The rest comes from union treasuries, 527 committees not organized as PACs or super PACs, individuals and corporations.

U.S. Senate races attracting the most attention are in the battleground states of Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin. Republicans are hoping for a strong enough showing to take control of the upper chamber this election.

In Virginia, tops among Senate races in outside spending, former Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, and former Sen. George Allen, a Republican, are aiming to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Jim Webb in a race that has drawn $12.8 million since Labor Day.

In Ohio, Republicans are desperate to unseat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, and in Wisconsin, Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin and former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson are vying to replace Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl. Both races have attracted $11.1 million.

The top U.S. House race in terms of outside spending is California’s 7th District, which pits physician Ami Bera, a Democrat, against Republican Rep. Dan Lungren. The race has attracted $5.3 million.

Ohio’s rejiggered 16th District, where Democratic Rep. Betty Sutton squares off with Republican Rep. Jim Renacci, has been the second-most expensive House race for outside spenders since Labor Day, bringing in $4.6 million. And Pennsylvania’s 12th District race — Democratic Rep. Mark Critz versus attorney Keith Rothfus, a Republican — comes in a close third with $4.5 million.

Total Citizens United-related spending since Labor Day: $217.3 million       

Super PACs — $119.9 million

Nonprofits — $95.9 million

Unions — $1.3 million

Other — $160,000

Total spent on the presidential race since Labor Day: $118.7 million*

Pro-Romney and anti-Obama ads: $85 million

Pro-Obama and anti-Romney ads: $32.2 million

Most expensive House races since Labor Day:

California’s 7th District, $5.3 million

Ohio’s 16th District, $4.6 million

Pennsylvania’s 12th District, $4.5 million

Most expensive Senate races since Labor Day:

Virginia, $12.8 million

Ohio, $11.1 million

Wisconsin, $11.1 million

 

*Third-party candidates make up the remainder.

 

 

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign rally on Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2012 in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci) Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/10/11360/romney-benefits-post-citizens-united-spending

Pro-environment group gave grant to conservative nonprofit

0
0


“Environmentalists punish companies without protecting people” is the headline of a column that appeared on the website of the American Action Forum a year ago.

The group has called for increased domestic production of oil, coal and natural gas. Officials there have criticized President Barack Obama’s “eagerness to speed our progression to a low-carbon economy” and argued that the administration is “regulating coal out of existence.”

The American Action Forum is also connected with a nonprofit and a super PAC that have spent millions of dollars on ads backing anti-regulation Republican candidates since 2010.

So why did the Energy Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization that funds the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund and Earthjustice give the conservative nonprofit a six-figure donation last year?

Records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity show that the Energy Foundation, touted as the “leading funder of projects that address climate change,” awarded the American Action Forum a $125,000 grant in 2011 for “high-level outreach and communications around carbon policy.”

Jenny Coyle, a spokeswoman for the Energy Foundation, says her organization is “proud to fund a wide variety of organizations whether they are viewed as progressive or conservative.”

“Clean energy is not a partisan issue,” Coyle continued. “We believe that all demographics and groups will see the benefits of a prosperous and healthy clean energy economy.”

Officials at the American Action Forum declined to comment about the grant.

According to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the Energy Foundation doled out more than $97 million in grants in 2010 to projects aimed at the adoption of stronger fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, the promotion of renewable energy technologies and the retirement of existing coal-fired power plants, among others.

Against that backdrop, the American Action Forum stands out as an unlikely beneficiary.

The group is not known as an environmental advocate. One of its projects tracks coal plants in the U.S. that are likely to close down under the Obama administration’s new “regulatory burdens.”

American Action Forum’s president is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who headed the Congressional Budget Office under President George W. Bush, served as top adviser to 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain and has had stints as a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Its board includes former Nixon operative Fred Malek, former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, former GOP Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania and former GOP Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the consumer group Public Citizen — which has also received grants from the Energy Foundation — says the American Action Forum “is not dedicated to clean energy.”

He says the group favors deregulation and ending federal subsidies for renewable energy technologies that would tilt the playing field toward “established, traditional dirty sources of energy.”

Catrina Rorke, the director of energy policy at the American Action Forum, argues that federal subsidies “are not the best tool to integrate new fuels into the market.”

“We don’t want to preferentially support one kind of energy over another,” Rorke said.

Organized under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code, American Action Forum is focused on policy research and is affiliated with the American Action Network, which engages in advocacy as a “social welfare” group organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The groups are also linked to a super PAC called the Congressional Leadership Fund.

All three organizations share office space and personnel, with Coleman and Malek playing leadership roles in each.

Malek founded both the American Action Network, where he is still a board member, and the American Action Forum, where he serves as chairman of the board. He also is a board member of the Congressional Leadership Fund.

Coleman, meanwhile, is a board member of the American Action Forum and is the chairman of both the American Action Network and the Congressional Leadership Fund.

Veteran GOP operative Brian Walsh — who served as the National Republican Congressional Committee’s political director during the 2010 election cycle — is the president of both the American Action Network and Congressional Leadership Fund, which have run a plethora of attack ads against Democrats.

Records filed with the Federal Election Commission show that during the 2010 election cycle alone, American Action Network reported spending more than $18 million on political advertisements — more than any other “social welfare” nonprofit, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In this fall’s hotly contested race in Minnesota’s 8th District, it has attacked Democrat Rick Nolan for siding with the Environmental Protection Agency against a mining company. Nolan’s campaign has said the former congressman will support the mining industry “without rolling back environmental and safety regulations for workers."

Similarly, in the highly competitive race in Ohio’s 16th District, the Congressional Leadership Fund has spent more than $1 million on ads blasting Democratic Rep. Betty Sutton. Among the reasons given to oppose Sutton in November? Her vote during the 111th Congress in support of the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation, which sought to establish both a cap on carbon emissions and a requirement that large utilities in each state increase the percentage of electricity they produce from renewable sources.

Donors to the Congressional Leadership Fund include Alpha Natural Resources, one of the country’s leading producers of coal, which made a $5,000 donation from its corporate treasury in April.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Congressional Leadership Fund has also received contributions from the political action committees connected to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Edison Electric Institute, energy conglomerate Koch Industries, oil refining giant Valero Energy and Exelon, which is the largest nuclear power plant operator in the U.S. and last year was awarded a $646 million loan guarantee by the Department of Energy for one of its solar generation subsidiaries.

Super donors Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner from Nevada, and Bob Perry, the millionaire home builder from Texas, have both given generously to the Congressional Leadership Fund.

Neither American Action Forum nor American Action Network is required to publicly disclose donor information.

A review of IRS filings by the Center for Responsive Politics, however, found that donors to the American Action Network include the Republican Jewish Coalition, the American Natural Gas Alliance and Crossroads GPS, the nonprofit sister organization of conservative super PAC juggernaut American Crossroads.

The Energy Foundation, which has given millions in support of renewable energy and environmental causes, made a six-figure contribution to a conservative nonprofit that opposes regulations on the energy industry. Michael Beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/michael-beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/11/11357/pro-environment-group-gave-grant-conservative-nonprofit

Daily Disclosure: Union-funded ads slam Allen in Virginia Senate race

0
0


Three labor unions have teamed up to try to thwart the election prospects of former Sen. George Allen, the Republican running for U.S. Senate in Virginia.

The political action committees of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union and the National Education Association launched “Better” on Wednesday, attacking Allen on Medicare and women’s health.

“That’s George Allen,” the narrators say. “Cuts Medicare. Reduces care for women. More power for insurance companies.”

Allen supports vice presidential nominee and Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, which proposes a voucher-type system for Medicare that Democrats argue would result in deep cuts. When speaking of women’s health, the ad refers to Allen’s support of a failed amendment to the Affordable Care Act that would allow employers to refuse to cover contraceptives for “moral reasons.”

Allen faces former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, in the race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, to whom Allen lost in 2006.

“Tim Kaine’s friends have reached a new level of desperation,” Allen spokeswoman Emily Davis said in an emailed response to the Washington Post. “Virginians know scare tactics when they see them, and they know George Allen has a record of fighting to strengthen and expand Medicare coverage and women’s access to quality health care.”

The ad, produced by AFSCME PEOPLE, SEIU COPE and the NEA Fund for Children and Education, is part of a $2.25 million campaign that the team will run through Election Day, according to a press release.

Majority PAC, a super PAC supporting Democrats for U.S. Senate, also helped pay for it, according to the disclaimer at the end of the version posted by the super PAC, though this fact was left out of the unions’ press release.

This is not the first team ad of the election season. Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, the Democratic super PAC backing U.S. House candidates, have occasionally joined forces with union PACs — in particular SEIU or AFSCME —to produce and air ads. Other Democratic groups, like the nonprofits Patriot Majority USA, VoteVets Action Fund and League of Conservation Voters, have also teamed with super PACs and unions.

Joint ads have been largely absent from Republican outside spenders.

Virginia is the second-most expensive U.S. Senate race for independent spending, having attracted $18.5 million to date, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly $10 million of that has gone toward opposing Democrat Kaine.

Crossroads GPS, a conservative nonprofit, is the top spender in the race at $5.2 million, followed by Majority PAC, which has spent $4 million. The race has attracted ads from environmental groups, anti-abortion and abortion rights groups and business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The Virginia Senate race is rated a tossup by The New York Times, but Kaine has pulled ahead since the beginning of October.

In other outside spending news:

  • Crossroads GPS’ sister super PAC American Crossroads reported spending $7.3 million on ads opposing President Barack Obama. American Crossroads began airing the ad “Four More” on Wednesday.
     
  • The National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund, a PAC, reported spending $2.5 million opposing Obama and Democratic Senate candidates in Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia.
     
  • Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC, reported spending $807,000 opposing GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
     
  • Women Vote!, a super PAC affiliated with the abortions rights group EMILY’s List, reported spending $341,000 opposing former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the state. Thompson was also hit with a reported $778,000 ad buy from AFSCME PEOPLE.
     
  • Women Vote! is targeting U.S. House races in New Hampshire with “Too Extreme,” which opposes Republican Rep. Frank Guinta, and “Not on Our Side,” which opposes Republican Rep. Charlie Bass.
     
  • House Majority PAC launched “Flashlight” opposing Republican Chris Collins, running for U.S. House in New York’s 27th District against Democratic Rep. Kathy Hochul, and “Wrong Plan” opposing Republican Martha McSally, who is running in Arizona’s 2nd District against Democratic Rep. Ron Barber.
     
  • The American Hospital Association PAC reported spending $244,000 opposing Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
     
  • The NRDC Action Fund, the advocacy nonprofit of the National Resources Defense Council, reported spending $287,000 opposing former Republican Rep. Heather Wilson, who is running for U.S. Senate in New Mexico. Wilson has been the target of environmental groups’ spending throughout the election.
     
  • The conservative super PAC Ending Spending Action Fund reported spending $657,000 on ads opposing Obama and supporting Romney.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

 

SEIU, AFSCME and the National Education Association teamed up to produce this ad opposing U.S. Senate candidate George Allen, a Republican. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/11/11368/daily-disclosure-union-funded-ads-slam-allen-virginia-senate-race

Daily Disclosure: Ads quick to criticize after VP debate

0
0


Last night’s debate between Vice President Joe Biden and GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan has already produced at least two ads from outside spenders criticizing both the style and substance of the debate.

American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal super PAC, released a web video called “VP Debate Fact Check,” which takes issue with many of Ryan’s statements.

The Republican National Committee responded to the debate with “Laughing at the Issues,” portraying Biden as not serious about the country’s problems.

The debate, which was feistier and livelier than the first presidential debate, saw Biden laughing and sometimes shaking his head as Ryan, of Wisconsin, argued his points. Biden was particularly aggressive in calling Ryan out when he seemed to bend the facts.

Republicans, as seen in the RNC ad, are portraying Biden’s behavior as condescending and as evidence of a lack of gravitas on important national issues.

Democrats are concentrating on factual errors in Ryan’s arguments, including what Politifact once named the “Lie of the Year” — that the Affordable Care Act is a “government takeover” of health care and mischaracterizing the effects of the Obama administration’s sanctions on Iran.

Both candidates bent the truth according to several fact-check reviews of the debate, but the Democrats were the first to pounce on the veracity of the other party’s claims.

One of Biden’s more egregious mistruths, according to the Associated Press, was his claim that he and President Barack Obama were unaware that the U.S. embassy in Libya requested more security before the attack on Sept. 11 in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

Testimony from Obama administration officials contradicts this claim.

The presidential race has attracted $407 million in outside spending, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Since Labor Day, 70 percent of outside spending on the presidential race made possible by the Citizens United ruling has benefitted GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

In other outside spending news:

  • Pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future reported spending $5.9 million on ads opposing Obama.
     
  • Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action reported spending $4.1 million on ads opposing Romney.
     
  • Democratic super PAC House Majority PAC released “Serve,” opposing Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., and “How Far,” a joint effort with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, opposing businessman Danny Tarkanian, the Republican candidate for U.S. House in Nevada’s 4th District. House Majority PAC reported spending $1.9 million on numerous ads on Thursday.
     
  • Republican U.S. Senate candidates Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock and Rep. Connie Mack in Florida got a boost from two spots produced by FreedomWorks for America. The conservative super PAC also hit former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, the Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Arizona.
     
  • The Campaign for American Values PAC, a socially conservative super PAC run by evangelical leader Gary Bauer, released “Religious Freedom Starts at Home,” criticizing Obama and the Affordable Care Act.
     
  • Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC, criticizes Romney in “Still Completely Wrong on Women’s Health.”
     
  • The conservative nonprofit Center for Individual Freedom reported spending $1.9 million on U.S. House races across the country.
     
  • SEIU COPE, the political action committee of the Service Employees International Union, reported spending $2 million on the presidential, Senate and House races.
     
  • The Spirit of Democracy America, a joint super PAC and regular PAC, reported spending $358,000 on the increasingly contentious U.S. House race in California’s 24th District, where former Republican Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, who benefited from the expenditures, faces Rep. Lois Capps, a Democrat.
     
  • The U.S. Senate race in New Jersey, which until Thursday had only received $334,000 in outside spending, saw $260,000 come in from Patriot Prosperity Political Action Committee in support of Republican state Sen. Joseph Kyrillos. Kyrillos is challenging Sen. Bob Menendez in a seat considered safely Democratic.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

Ads released hours after the vice presidential debate hit Biden for grinning too much and Ryan for bending the facts. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/12/11404/daily-disclosure-ads-quick-criticize-after-vp-debate

OPINION: Myths of the healthy uninsured

0
0


I understand where Mitt Romney was coming from when he said last week that Americans without health insurance don’t have to worry about dying at home.

“We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance,” the GOP presidential nominee told members of the Columbus Dispatch editorial board. “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack.’ No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital.”

I have no reason to believe that Romney saw anything wrong with what he said. In fact, I probably would have said the same thing back when I was still a health insurance PR guy and trying to convince folks that the problem of the uninsured wasn’t really such a big deal.

And Romney is absolutely right, people who are uninsured don’t have to die in their apartments. They can indeed be rushed to a hospital, and the hospital is obligated to treat them. It’s what he didn’t say, and likely doesn’t understand because he simply can’t relate to 47 percent of us, that is actually more important: many of the uninsured die in the hospital, in the emergency room, because they could not afford to get care earlier when it might have saved their lives. Instead of going back home to their apartments, many of them, unfortunately, go to the morgue.

In 2007, when the Democratic candidates for president were beginning to talk about health care reform, I was asked to write a policy paper that the insurance industry would use to “educate” people about the uninsured. I found that if you sliced and diced the data in just such a way, you could make people believe that many of the uninsured were simply shirking their responsibility by not buying coverage.

It is true, for example, that young adults comprise almost a third of the uninsured. We in the insurance industry perpetuated the belief that those young people consider themselves so bullet-proof that they didn’t see the need for insurance. Hence the term “young invincibles” that insurers use to describe them.

It is also true that some relatively high-income people are uninsured. A lot of politicians have pointed this out over the years, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said this last year on Meet the Press:

"A large number of the uninsured earn $75,000 or more a year (and) don't buy any health insurance because they want to buy a second house or a better car or go on vacation.”

It is true, as I pointed out in that paper, that about 20 percent of the uninsured live in households with median household incomes of $75,000 or more.

But there are some crucial facts I left out of that policy paper — and of course, I left them out on purpose.

Many of those “young invincibles” were (and still are) unemployed. Consequently, they are not eligible for employer-subsidized coverage and don’t have the extra cash lying around to buy health insurance. And many who are employed work for small employers that don’t offer coverage, and they make so little that they must live paycheck-to-paycheck.

And many of those folks in households that bring in $75,000 or more a year would love to have health insurance but simply can’t buy it — at any price — because of pre-existing conditions. A Silicon Valley millionaire told me his wife went back to work for no reason other than for him to qualify for coverage as her spouse. He had been deemed uninsurable because he had been treated in the past for — get this — gout.

The reality is that most people who are uninsured are not that way by choice; they have no insurance because they can’t afford coverage or can’t even find a company willing to sell it to them. That will change in 2014 under Obamacare. Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to anyone because of a pre-existing condition — unless Romney is elected and persuades Congress to repeal the law.

A 2009 study published in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that almost 45,000 annual deaths in this country are associated with a lack of health insurance.

The researchers found that uninsured Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts. One main reason: the quality of care for those with insurance is considerably higher than for those without it.

Those unfortunate folks might not have to die in their apartments. But many of them are dying prematurely, nonetheless, because they are not fortunate enough to have insurance.

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pauses during a town hall meeting at Ariel Corporation, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012, in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. Wendell Potter http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/wendell-potter http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/15/11413/opinion-myths-healthy-uninsured

Obama order protects intelligence community whistleblowers

0
0


President Barack Obama signed an executive order last week creating new protections for national security and intelligence community whistleblowers, effectively sidestepping a congressional impasse provoked by the reservations of congressional Republicans.

The order — formally known as "Presidential Policy Directive 19" and signed by Obama out of public view on Oct. 10 and without a White House announcement — directs intelligence agencies to establish procedures for the protection of employees reporting waste, fraud and abuse.

The order is meant to address longstanding concerns that whistleblowers in the intelligence agencies lacked legal protections like those available to employees of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.

The new order bans retaliation against whistleblowers in the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and other intelligence organizations. Until now, these agencies were not specifically prohibited from retaliating against whistleblowers. 

A House bill aimed at improving protections for most federal employees, known as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and passed by that chamber in September, lacked the safeguards ordered by Obama. Angela Canterbury, from the Washington, D.C. watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said House Republicans had narrowed the bill’s focus due to worries that its provisions might encourage Wikileaks-type disclosures of sensitive information.

She called this a "red herring," explaining that by protecting those with security clearances who want to blow the whistle on wrongdoing at intelligence agencies, a new law could have encouraged them to “use safe internal channels.” The Senate has yet to take up its own version of the bill.

In the meantime, Obama’s order "fills a vacuum," according to Tom Devine, a legal adviser to the Government Accountability Project, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit that provides legal support for government whistleblowers, including many working on national security matters. The order could function as a "beachhead" for further reforms in future legislation, he says.

The executive order, which Devine said was devised by the White House over the past year, protects certain disclosures of classified information to Congress and agency inspector generals; creates an appeal channel for whistleblowers facing punishment; and promises that those who prove improper retaliation can be reinstated and given financial compensation. The Director of National Intelligence is responsible for ensuring that each agency puts new review procedures in place. (A spokesman for the DNI did not immediately respond to questions about this story.)

But one advocate said the order is "toothless" because the role it gives the DNI, who is an intelligence official. Stephen M. Kohn, the Executive Director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Whistleblower Center, another group that counsels whistleblowers, calls the directive a "smokescreen" that masks real reform. Kohn also highlighted a disclaimer in the presidential directive that he says cancels the order's other provisions. "This directive is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law," the order reads. 

"We are concerned that national security employees may think that this directive gives them some much-needed protections when it does not," Kohn says. But Canterbury says the order's disclaimer is boilerplate for presidential directives and should not be read as undermining its real, and positive, changes.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz says the directive provides new recourse for those facing retaliation. Besides giving the Director of National Intelligence authority to oversee intelligence agencies handling of whistleblower cases, the order requires agencies for the first time to provide “whole” relief for employees whose right to free speech is violated, he noted.

"We'll be pressing very hard to get permanent statutory fix,” Devine said.

President Barack Obama waves as he boards Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Tuesday, July 10, 2012, for a flight to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen) David Axe http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/david-axe http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/15/11473/obama-order-protects-intelligence-community-whistleblowers

Daily Disclosure: Web video implies Biden ‘on something’ in debate

0
0


Americans for Limited Government, a well-funded, shadowy nonprofit that has released a series of videos attacking the administration of President Barack Obama, released a new one that implies Vice President Joe Biden was on drugs during last week’s vice presidential debate.

The video has gotten few views on YouTube, but the group behind it, Americans for Limited Government, has considerable resources. The 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit is not required to publicly disclose its donors but in its 2010 tax filing, the most recent available, it reported revenue of $9.1 million. The group has also spent at least $1.4 million on election expenditures, according to the filing.

Democrats praised Biden’s aggressiveness in the debate with GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Republicans have played his interruptions and derisive laughs as an inability to take the country’s problems seriously.

A spokesman for Americans for Limited Government says the ad was intended as satire. "There's no evidence Joe Biden was on anything," he said.

The group calls itself a nonpartisan advocacy organization that works against the expansion of government. All of the videos on its YouTube channel oppose Democrats and support Republicans.

Communications director Rick Manning said that ALG consider itself to have several functions, including providing news content. He declined to reveal the organization's donors. He asked if the Center reveals its donors, which are available here.

The Center for Public Integrity reported in 2005 that ALG received 99 percent of its contributions from just three unknown donors. The website lists Bill Wilson, a longtime limited government activist, as the group’s president and Howard Rich, who is linked to several nonprofits with similar goals and overlapping board members, as chairman.

Americans for Limited Government has a history of funding Rich’s nonprofits, which in 2010, led to initiatives against government seizure of private lands in eminent domain cases in western states, the Center for Public Integrity reported.

Nearly all the groups at the time refused to answer questions about their donors and activities.

Another board member, according to the 2010 tax filing, is Ed Crane, co-founder with billionaire conservative Charles Koch, of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Rich’s organizations have been criticized for operating under the guise of grassroots activism when in fact they have a history of funneling out-of-state funding to state- and local-level ballot initiatives, PBS reported.

The Center for Responsive Politics discovered that Americans for Limited Government received a $5.6 million grant in 2010 from the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, another non-disclosing nonprofit. That grant makes up more than half of the group’s revenue that year.

CRP also discovered that the American Justice Partnership, Dunn’s Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and Farago Foundation have been past donors. All advocate for free-market and small government issues except for the Farago Foundation, whose mission wasn’t clear based on a review of their tax filing.

The vice president’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In other outside spending news:

  • Conservative nonprofit Crossroads GPS released eight new ads over the weekend. Three versions of “Silly Spending” oppose Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter, N.Y.-25, Tim Bishop, N.Y.-1, and Leonard Boswell, Iowa-3. Four versions of “Vision” oppose Democratic U.S. House candidates Gary McDowell, Mich.-1, Brendan Mullen, Ind.-2, Cheri Bustos, Ill.-17, and John Hernandez, Calif.-21. “Damaged” opposes Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford, Nev.-4.
     
  • Crossroads GPS reported spending $3.1 million on these and other ads over the weekend. A full $1.1 million went to opposing Rep. Shelley Berkley, who is running for U.S. Senate in Nevada.
     
  • Americans for Tax Reform, also a conservative nonprofit, released four versions of “Wrong Prescription,” opposing Democratic Reps. John Barrow, Ga.-12 and Mark Critz, Pa.-12, as well as Democratic House candidates Sal Pace, Colo.-3, and Scott Peters, Calif.-52. “Boxer” opposes former Democratic Rep. Charlie Wilson in Ohio’s 6th District, and a sixth spot opposes Democratic candidate Sean Maloney in New York’s 18th District, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton.
     
  • Americans for Tax Reform reported spending $2.5 million over the weekend.
     
  • Conservative nonprofit American Action Network released four spots targeting Democratic House candidates. “Working Hard” opposes former Rep. Rick Nolan in Minnesota’s 8th District. “Search” opposes former astronaut Jose Hernandez in California’s 10th District and cost $687,000. “Three Wishes” opposes Rep. Kathy Hochul in New York’s 27th District and cost $276,000. And “Rubber Stamp” opposes former Rep. Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire’s 1st District.
     
  • American Action Network reported spending $1.2 million on ads over the weekend, including the ones above.
     
  • American Commitment, a conservative nonprofit, released “Vote Coal: Vote Against Tim Kaine,” which opposes the former Democratic governor of Virginia’s run for U.S. Senate.
     
  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a conservative-leaning trade association, released “Fact Is,” opposing independent U.S. Senate candidate Angus King, the former governor of Maine who is running for U.S. Senate in the state. The ad buy cost $500,000.
     
  • Pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future reported spending $2 million opposing Obama.
     
  • Public sector union the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees reported spending $2.4 million on ads presidential, Senate and House candidates.
     
  • The National Republican Congressional Committee reported spending $9.1 million opposing Democratic U.S. House candidates.
     
  • House Majority PAC, a super PAC backing Democratic candidates for U.S. House, reported spending $899,000.
     
  • The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, a nonprofit, reported spending $1.2 million on ads opposing Obama and in support of several House candidates.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

 

Americans for Limited Government, a non-disclosing nonprofit, mocks Biden's debate performance in a new ad. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/15/11475/daily-disclosure-web-video-implies-biden-something-debate

Debate preview: Who can be the toughest on global challenges?

0
0


Closely-fought presidential campaigns can confound expectations by constricting — rather than broadening — public debate about significant policy issues, a phenomenon most recently on display during the debate between Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Rep. Paul D. Ryan.

The two men, offering a preview of the foreign policy issues expected to arise at the Oct. 16 and Oct. 22 debates between President Obama and Mitt Romney, mostly competed to demonstrate the muscularity of their teams’ approaches to a vexing set of international challenges.

Each vowed their party would play tough with Iran and stick by the current hard line leadership in Israel; spend whatever is needed for critical U.S. military operations and forces; safely extract U.S. troops from Afghanistan; and efficiently engineer the ouster of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

Ryan argued that Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon has been relentless, and that it is closer now to achieving its goal than it was when Obama won election. Biden responded that Iran is more isolated now than ever before, and said international sanctions are seriously harming the Iranian economy.

Both men were actually right, but their convictions masked the fact that much mystery remains about how the drama over the Iranian program will play out.

Will the toll of tough sanctions eventually cause Iranian citizens to sack their leadership and reverse course? Could that happen soon? Will the sanctions — or the threat of the government’s ouster by its own citizens — convince Iran’s leaders never to mate fissile materials with the other components of a working bomb? Or will the heightened foreign pressures only goad Iran to move faster and farther along the nuclear path?

Public opinion polling on Iran is generally poor, and rife with tendentious or misleading questions. But there is general support for pursuing sanctions before undertaking any military action against Iran — the course the administration is now on. At the same time, neither candidate was candid enough to say frankly, “Look, we don’t know how this is going to turn out, and there are no guarantees.”

Nor did either candidate say much about the consequences of what many politicians in Washington claim is the only alternative to sanctions, namely a sizable military attack on Iran. Biden skirted the question by asserting that “it is not in my purview to talk about classified information, but we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians.” He warned vaguely that the outcome “could prove catastrophic, if we didn’t do it with precision,” but did not explain how such strikes might be considered “precise” when some Iranian air defenses and other key targets are located near many Iranian civilians. Ryan ducked the issue entirely.

The contours of the debate were also too narrow to touch on claims by some intelligence and regional experts that Iran’s attainment of a full or near-weapons capability might not be as dangerous as the Israeli leadership — and Obama and Romney — have asserted. Since Obama promised, as his campaign for reelection shifted into high gear, that America will not let Iran get a nuclear bomb, dissent over that absolutist posture has mostly been relegated to a few academic journals.

Citing Ambassador Chris Stevens’ violent death in Benghazi, Libya, Ryan said that “what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” which he said was making America less safe. Biden responded by trying to shift the topic to U.S. slaying of Osama Bin Laden, and by blaming the intelligence community for initially attributing Stevens’ death to a mob, rather than a death squad.

What neither man said was that the political forces transforming the Middle East over the past two years have proved largely immune to U.S. political influence, and that the history of U.S. foreign policy is replete with interventions around the world that have had unpredictable consequences. Were those mistakes, or simply a reminder of the need for humility?

On the issue of defense spending, Ryan drew from a script shared with his Republican colleagues in the House. He misleadingly called the Obama administration’s decision to halt a previously planned budget increase and keep Pentagon funding mostly level a devastating funding “cut.” He also said his party believes “in peace through strength” — a favorite phrase in at least eight Republican presidential platforms. “If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest — the smallest it has been since before World War I,” Ryan said.

The size of the Navy has been steadily declining for years, as individual ships become increasingly capable. And Biden responded indignantly that the budget changes embraced by Obama were requested by the military. But he did not mention that the military service chiefs did so only after Obama and his top national security advisers decided in 2011 — as part of their new economic policies — to shoehorn the Pentagon’s decade-long spending plan into a box roughly 7 percent smaller.

Biden also did not mention that Panetta, in a letter to lawmakers last year, had himself cited the same statistic about the Navy while warning against further cuts that could be imposed early next year under a budget “sequestration” plan approved by both parties. The plan would come into effect if they failed to reach accord about tax hikes and other spending cuts.

Neither debater mentioned that the public — after being informed about how much the United States is actually spending on the nation’s defense — overwhelmingly wants to cut it by more than the leaders of both political parties do. This support extends to all age groups, both genders, both parties, and residents of both red and blue congressional districts, according to an April survey by the Center for Public Integrity, the Stimson Center, and the Program for Public Consultation.

The two men also quarreled over the timing of U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan: Ryan asserted that more soldiers should have stayed there this year to consolidate battlefield gains, and Biden responded that a quick pace was needed to pressure Afghanistan to assume responsibility for its own security and to meet a deadline for complete withdrawal by 2014.

As they strove to show how the war effort can still achieve its goals, neither debater mentioned how unpopular the war has become, or said what most Americans now believe, according to an Aug. 28 summary of public opinion polling by the Council on Foreign Relations: Namely, that it won’t be successful, has not been worth the costs, and has not improved U.S. security.

In the Center’s own survey, 85 percent of respondents expressed support for a statement that said in part, “it is time for the Afghan people to manage their own country and for us to bring our troops home.” A majority of respondents backed an immediate cut, on average, of $38 billion in the war’s existing $88 billion budget, or around 43 percent.

“In the context of presidential debates on foreign policy, candidates are often not genuinely engaging the policy questions, especially when it comes to questions about the use of military force,” said Steven Kull, a political psychologist who runs the Program on International Policy Attitudes, affiliated with the University of Maryland. “Rather the goal is to project that they have vital animal spirits, expressed in their readiness to use military force, which will intimidate other nations.  They will even take positions that are considerably more aggressive than those of the public — such as talking about a military strike against Iran — to get this point across.”

Political unrest and violence in the Mideast are unsettling to American interests in the region in the short term. R. Jeffrey Smith http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/r-jeffrey-smith http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/15/11479/debate-preview-who-can-be-toughest-global-challenges

Daily Disclosure: Smaller super PACs target down-ticket races

0
0


A new batch of super PAC donor information arrived at the Federal Election Commission Monday, and among the top contributors was the nonprofit Americans for Limited Government, profiled by the Daily Disclosure Monday.

The organization, which released a Web video implying that Vice President Joe Biden was on drugs during last week’s vice presidential debate, gave 86 percent of the $1.7 million received by Now or Never PAC, which has spent most of its money opposing the candidacy of Democrat Tammy Duckworth.

Duckworth is running for U.S. House in Illinois’ 8th District. Super PACs report donors to the FEC monthly or quarterly. Quarterly reports were due  by the end of the day Monday.

Super PACs that file quarterly are generally less well-known. For example, Restore Our Future, which favors Mitt Romney, brought in $9.4 million in August alone. American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal super PAC that acts as a sort of opposition research arm for Democrats and produces anti-Romney Web videos, for the third quarter brought in $2.1 million.

Notable contributors include the American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, a nonprofit that does not disclose donors, the National Education Association and top Democratic donor Barbara Stiefel.

America’s Next Generation, primarily an anti-President Barack Obama super PAC, was funded mostly by small donors, who helped contribute to its $1.1 million take in the third quarter.

The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion nonprofit, recently created a super PAC, Women Speak Out PAC. Its quarterly report shows that it is funded almost entirely by Republican donor and investor Virginia James of New Jersey, a major donor to free-market super PAC Club for Growth Action, who gave $200,000.

A Republican super PAC targeting young voters, Crossroads Generation, only had two donors July through September: super PAC American Crossroads, co-founded by Karl Rove, and the Republican State Leadership Committee. Crossroads Generation was launched by those two groups along with the College Republican National Committee.

Many of the super PACs that filed reports Monday night are race-specific. The reports revealed that these super PACs are often out-of-state donors whose connections in the states they target are unclear.

Freedom PAC, which supports Republican Rep. Connie Mack’s run for U.S. Senate against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, received major funding from Texas super donor Bob Perry, who gave $250,000, Wyoming super donor Foster Friess, who gave $50,000, and an organization called Americans for Liberty and Prosperity.

Americans for Liberty and Prosperity is a political committee with backing from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, among others.

Florida Freedom PAC, a liberal super PAC focused on Florida races for Congress and helping Obama, received all $2.9 million of its third-quarter support from the Service Employees International Union.

A third Florida-specific super PAC, Treasure Coast Jobs Coalition, took in $1.1 million. The super PAC supports Republican Rep. Allen West, running in Florida’s 18th District. The super PAC received a $1 million contribution from New Jersey-based Richard Roberts of Mutual Pharmacy Co.

The quarterly filing report from Maine Freedom, the super PAC backing the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, Charles Summers, showed only four donors: Paul George Coulombe of White Rock Distillery and his trust gave $100,000 each. The distillery operates a facility in Maine, though Coulombe is not based there.

W.E. Bosarge of Quantlab Financial gave $100,000. He, too, is not based in Maine, though he owns a home there.

And billionaire John Malone of Liberty Media rounded out the group with another $100,000. Malone is the biggest private landowner in the country, including more than 1 million acres in Maine, according to The New York Times.

The tight race for U.S. Senate in Virginia heated up with the entrance of Independence Virginia, a super PAC supporting former Republican Sen. George Allen. It took in $1.1 million, with $1 million from super donor Perry and $10,000 from super donor Friess.

Union super PACs were funded by small donors and union treasury funds:

  • NEA Advocacy Fund, the super PAC of the National Education Association was funded entirely by the union itself, to the tune of $3.3 million;
  • UAW Education Fund, the super PAC of the United Auto Workers, also received 100 percent of its $4.5 million in contributions during the third quarter from the union itself;
  • Service Employees International Union PEA-Federal, the SEIU’s super PAC, brought in $7.1 million in contributions during the third quarter. Its contributions were entirely from small donors giving less than $200 apiece.

In other outside spending news:

  • Conservative nonprofit American Future Fund released two ads opposing Obama: “Abound” and “Florida Homeowners,” which also attacks Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.
     
  • AFSCME PEOPLE, the political action committee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, released two spots opposing Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., and one opposing Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco, R-Texas.
     
  • Conservative super PAC Ending Spending Action Fund released “Work Ethic” opposing Obama and targeted at Wisconsin voters. “Opposition” opposes former Sen. Bob Kerrey who is running for the office in Nebraska.
     
  • The nonprofit League of Conservation Voters and Democratic super PAC Majority PAC co-produced “We Can’t Risk Jeff Flake,” an ad opposing the Republican congressman running for U.S. Senate in Arizona. The League of Conservation Voters also released “Wrong for New York,” opposing Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y.
     
  • SEIU PEA-Federal, the union’s super PAC, reported spending $2 million supporting Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate, House and president.
     
  • The National Republican Senatorial Committee reported spending $4.2 million opposing Senate Democrats.
     
  • Pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future reported spending $1.4 million on anti-Obama ads.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

Super donor Bob Perry, owner of Perry Homes Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/16/11494/daily-disclosure-smaller-super-pacs-target-down-ticket-races

IMPACT: Administration official asks for Medicare billing review

0
0


The nation’s top health information technology official has launched an internal review to determine if electronic health records are prompting some doctors and hospitals to overbill Medicare.

Dr. Farzad Mostashari, the Obama administration’s National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, said in an interview Monday afternoon that his policy-setting committee of experts would examine the issue and make recommendations on how to address it. 

It is the second government action in the wake of the Center for Public Integrity’s “Cracking the Codes” series, which found that thousands of medical professionals have steadily billed higher rates for treating seniors on Medicare over the last decade — adding $11 billion or more to their fees.

The Center’s year-long investigation, published in September, suggested that Medicare billing errors and abuses are worsening as doctors and hospitals switch to electronic health records. A similar report was subsequently published by the New York Times.

Mostashari said he wants to find out if the digital systems are triggering higher billing codes by allowing doctors to cut and paste records from prior encounters with a patient, a practice known as “cloning.” Many experts say that this process can raise the size of a patient’s bill, even though it reflects little in the way of added or necessary medical service.

“If we are just copying the same information over and over, that’s not good medicine,” Mostashari said. “I’ve asked the policy committee to provide guidance on that.”

Mostshari also said that he wanted to determine if some software functions that do little more than prompt doctors to inflate the size of their bills “should be off limits.”

In a Sept. 24 letter, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder warned five hospital and medical groups of their intent to ramp up investigative oversight, including possible criminal prosecutions, of doctors and hospitals that use electronic health records to improperly bill for more complex and costly services than they actually deliver — a practice known as “upcoding.”

In response, the American Hospital Association and other groups that received the letter have sought to shift blame to the federal government, which the groups say has done little to set guidelines for acceptable billing tactics, particularly in hospital emergency rooms.

Meanwhile, the 64,000 member American Health Information Management Association has announced it will hold an industry summit in Chicago early next month to press for standard electronic health record guidelines that discourage billing fraud and abuse.

The group said in a statement earlier this month that “recent concerns” that electronic health records “could lead to fraud further highlights the need to establish these standards.”

“We urge the government to truly investigate the depth of the recently reported problems so we can determine the scope of the issue and take steps to fix it,” said Lynne Thomas Gordon, the group’s chief executive officer.

Lydia Washington, an association executive who is chairing the conference, said she hopes the group’s panel of experts will “suggest policy and standards that are needed” both to prevent billing fraud and assure patient safety and data integrity.

President George W. Bush in 2004 set the goal of creating a digital medical record for every American within ten years. In early 2009, the Obama administration added billions of dollars in stimulus funds in the hopes that electronic health records would both enhance the quality of medical care and hold costs in check.

In all, the Obama administration expects to spend more than $30 billion helping doctors and hospitals purchase the gear and use it to improve health care. More than half the nation’s hospitals have received some payments, and so far more than $10 billion has been spent. Just over half the doctors now billing Medicare are using digital records.

In his interview with the Center, Mostashari stressed that doctors and hospitals must do more than simply buy digital systems to collect stimulus dollars. Medical professionals must gradually meet a series of medical quality standards that are designed to “keep people healthier,” he said. Many medical leaders also want to use digital records to mine data from millions of patients in the hope of discovering better ways to treat disease and cut costs.

But the push for better quality medicine is facing off against an aggressive sales push by technology companies, which typically stress that their products can significantly boost the bottom line. One company predicts an increase of one Medicare coding level for each patient visit to the doctor,  potentially adding $225,000 in new revenue in a year, for instance.

Federal officials lack a system to monitor the accuracy of hundreds of billing and medical software packages in use across the country. That shortcoming caught the eye of the American Medical Association, which helped develop the billing codes and favors stricter government standards. In May, the doctors’ group urged officials to require testing that assures digital devices bill accurately and “do not facilitate upcoding.”

The information technology industry generally agrees that computerized medical records can lead to higher costs. But it argues that the software makes it easier for doctors and hospitals to more efficiently document all of the work they do—which they often failed to do on by hand on paper.

While the drive to digitize medicine has received strong support from both political parties in recent years, some cracks have begun to appear.

In an Oct. 4 letter, four Republican House members urged HHS Secretary Sebilius to suspend government payments to hospitals and doctors, arguing the program may be wasting tax dollars and doing little to improve the quality of medical care. They argued that tax dollars spent so far have failed to ensure that the digital systems can share medical information, a key goal. Linking health systems by computer—called interoperability—is expected to help doctors avoid costly duplication of tests and medical errors.

The letter was signed by Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, D-Mich., Ways and Means health subcommittee chairman Joe Pitts, R-Pa. and energy health subcommittee chair Wally Herger, R-Calif.

The Ways and Means Committee added in a statement: “Recent reports revealed that the EHR (electronic health records) program may be leading to higher Medicare spending and greater inefficiencies while doing little if anything to improve health outcomes.”

The industry’s trade association, the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society,  opposed the suspension. It said in a statement that “significant progress has been made” and that “widespread interoperability is within reach.” 

Medicare, which covers 49 million elderly and disabled people and spent more than $500 billion in 2011, has emerged as a presidential campaign issue, with both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney promising to tame its spending growth while protecting seniors. But there’s been little talk about the impact of billing and coding practices in driving up costs, and what to do about them.

Dr. Farzad Mostashari is the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Fred Schulte http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/fred-schulte http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/16/11499/impact-administration-official-asks-medicare-billing-review

Lobbyists rake in $14 million for Romney

0
0


As Republican Mitt Romney works to unify the party faithful behind him, the number of lobbyists raising money to help him secure the White House has soared.

More than five-dozen lobbyist-bundlers have raised at least $14 million for Romney’s election efforts, according to reports submitted Monday. That includes 42 who raised nearly $9 million during the third quarter of 2012.

The third quarter marked the first period of pro-Romney fundraising activity for two-dozen lobbyists, according a review of Federal Election Commission documents by the Center for Public Integrity.

Among them, former Republican Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York, who raised $238,200; John Castellani, president and CEO of pharmaceutical trade group PhRMA, who raised $61,000; Brian P. Miller of oil and gas giant BP America, who raised $36,550; and Joseph Seidel of Credit Suisse, Switzerland’s second-largest bank.

Two lobbyists each collected more than $1 million for Romney’s election efforts from July through September, records show. Bill Graves, the president and CEO of the American Trucking Association, and attorney David Beightol of D.C.-based firm Dutko Grayling both raised about $1.1 million.

To date, Graves has now raised more than $1.6 million — more than any of the other 62 lobbyists whose names have been disclosed in federal filings.

Romney, unlike President Barack Obama, has not voluntarily released a list of bundlers — elite political fundraisers who turn to relatives, friends and business associates to raise large sums and then deliver the funds in a “bundle” to the candidate. They are often given perks and special access — both on the campaign trail and once politicians are elected.

But thanks to a 2007 law passed in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, all federal candidates are required to report information about the lobbyists who bundle money for their campaigns.

Obama, who, as president, has taken a tough stance against lobbyists in his rhetoric and policies, has not taken money from lobbyist-bundlers, according to records. He has voluntarily disclosed the names of everyone who has raised at least $50,000 for his re-election efforts.

According to his campaign’s most recent disclosure in July, nearly 650 bundlers had collected more than $143 million for Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The president is expected to release an updated list with his third-quarter bundlers later this week.

All of the GOP presidential nominee’s lobbyist-fundraising muscle has aided not only the Romney campaign but also the “Romney Victory Committee” — a joint fundraising organization that funnels cash to his campaign, the Republican National Committee and several other party entities.

Individuals can donate up to $75,800 to the Romney Victory Fund. The first $5,000 is directed to the Romney campaign while the next $30,800 goes to the RNC. The remaining funds are split between other participating party committees.

Romney has rejected calls from good-government groups such as the Center for Responsive Politics, the Sunlight Foundation, the League of Women Voters and the Campaign Legal Center to release additional information about his top fundraisers, unlike former GOP presidential candidates George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Romney’s fundraising network extends well beyond those lobbyists named in FEC filings. Earlier this year, USA Today released a list of more than 1,000 individuals that the newspaper identified as bundlers for Romney.

Even as Romney has denied requests for increased transparency, he plans to list the names of all bundlers who raise at least $200,000 in a commemorative book after Election Day. Top supporters are also being offered special access to weekly strategy sessions, VIP retreats and signature apparel, according to Politico.

Those who raise at least $200,000 between the primary and general election will be honored at the “Stars” level, according to documents obtained by Politico, while those who bundle at least $400,000 enjoy “Stripes” level status.

Some of Romney’s lobbyist-bundlers have blown past these thresholds.

In addition to Graves and Beightol, Dirk Van Dongen, the president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, and Patrick J. Durkin, Sr., of Barclays have each bundled more than $1 million. Van Dongen has raised roughly $1.2 million, including nearly $961,000 during the third quarter, and Durkin has collected about $1.1 million.

Sixteen other lobbyists have raised at least $200,000 for Romney, according to the Center analysis.

Abramoff, once a top Washington lobbyist, pled guilty to federal corruption charges in 2006 and served 43 months before being released in late 2010. The scandal prompted Congress to pass a package of new ethics rules.

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands during a campaign rally at the U.S. Cellular Center on Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012 in Asheville, N.C. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci) Michael Beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/michael-beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/16/11500/lobbyists-rake-14-million-romney
Viewing all 3299 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images