Blue Dog opposition may be ?underwritten? by pharmaceutical giants
BY JOHN BYRNE
Published: July 31, 2009
Updated 1 day ago
Typical ?Blue Dog? Democrats ? moderate members of Congress who have been the most ardent among Obama?s own party in thwarting ongoing national healthcare legislation ? receive 25 percent more campaign cash from the healthcare and insurance industry than other Democrats, an investigation has found.
In fact, a Blue Dog?s average receipts from the medical industry was just $3,625 less than that of the average Republican. Republicans have worked to block plans to enact universal health insurance legislation, saying that it would restrict individual choice and lead to the rationing of medical care.
Blue Dog Democrats say they?re for moderate fiscal policy and aim to reduce the overall cost of a health insurance measure. It appears, however, that their ideological opposition is underwritten by the industry most affected by proposed changes.
Notably, the Blue Dog Political Action Committee has received lavish financial support from pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Novartis; insurers WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual and the trade group American?s Health Insurance Plans.
The average Blue Dog got more than half (54 percent) of total 2009 financial contributions from the medical care industry. Its PAC has more than doubled in size since 2005 ? at a time when both national Republican and Democratic campaign committees reported double-digit drops in funding.
?PAC fundraising has increased in every cycle since the Blue Dogs founding in 1995,? the watchdog Center for Public Integrity writes. ?Between the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 cycles, as fundraising for the National Republican Congressional Committee declined 33 percent and fundraising for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee grew by just 26 percent, the Blue Dog PAC more than doubled its receipts. In all, 357 political action committees donated to the Blue Dog PAC in 2007-2008, up from 223 in the previous cycle.?
Blue Dog Democrats have, on average, received more than $10,000 each from the healthcare industry.
?The support for Blue Dogs from health care professionals is even more evident,? notes campaign watchdog OpenSecrets. ?Health pros are among the top 20 industry donors to 38 Blue Dogs since 1989 and are the No. 1 donor for five of them. Health pros have also given the typical Blue Dog $47,550 more than the typical non-Blue Dog Democrat in the House.?
The American Medical Association opposes the creation of a ?public plan,? an option that would let Americans buy insurance from a government-run not-for-profit. Such a plan appears to be dead in the Senate. The public plan is also vehemently opposed by the private health insurance industry, which argues that they will be bankrupted by a government-run option that could survive on below-market reimbursement rates from hospitals and doctors.
?The Blue Dogs are carrying water for the industry instead of their constituents,? Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a progressive pro-reform group, told The Washington Post. ?In effect, the Blue Dogs and the Republicans are taking positions that are closer all the time and further away from what most Americans want.?
Speaking in defense of the moderate Democrats, former Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX) told the Post, ?The idea behind giving to a group like the Blue Dogs is that you believe that they will agree with your positions most of the time. The same is true for liberals or anyone else. It?s normal in politics.?
BY JOHN BYRNE
Published: July 31, 2009
Updated 1 day ago
Typical ?Blue Dog? Democrats ? moderate members of Congress who have been the most ardent among Obama?s own party in thwarting ongoing national healthcare legislation ? receive 25 percent more campaign cash from the healthcare and insurance industry than other Democrats, an investigation has found.
In fact, a Blue Dog?s average receipts from the medical industry was just $3,625 less than that of the average Republican. Republicans have worked to block plans to enact universal health insurance legislation, saying that it would restrict individual choice and lead to the rationing of medical care.
Blue Dog Democrats say they?re for moderate fiscal policy and aim to reduce the overall cost of a health insurance measure. It appears, however, that their ideological opposition is underwritten by the industry most affected by proposed changes.
Notably, the Blue Dog Political Action Committee has received lavish financial support from pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Novartis; insurers WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual and the trade group American?s Health Insurance Plans.
The average Blue Dog got more than half (54 percent) of total 2009 financial contributions from the medical care industry. Its PAC has more than doubled in size since 2005 ? at a time when both national Republican and Democratic campaign committees reported double-digit drops in funding.
?PAC fundraising has increased in every cycle since the Blue Dogs founding in 1995,? the watchdog Center for Public Integrity writes. ?Between the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 cycles, as fundraising for the National Republican Congressional Committee declined 33 percent and fundraising for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee grew by just 26 percent, the Blue Dog PAC more than doubled its receipts. In all, 357 political action committees donated to the Blue Dog PAC in 2007-2008, up from 223 in the previous cycle.?
Blue Dog Democrats have, on average, received more than $10,000 each from the healthcare industry.
?The support for Blue Dogs from health care professionals is even more evident,? notes campaign watchdog OpenSecrets. ?Health pros are among the top 20 industry donors to 38 Blue Dogs since 1989 and are the No. 1 donor for five of them. Health pros have also given the typical Blue Dog $47,550 more than the typical non-Blue Dog Democrat in the House.?
The American Medical Association opposes the creation of a ?public plan,? an option that would let Americans buy insurance from a government-run not-for-profit. Such a plan appears to be dead in the Senate. The public plan is also vehemently opposed by the private health insurance industry, which argues that they will be bankrupted by a government-run option that could survive on below-market reimbursement rates from hospitals and doctors.
?The Blue Dogs are carrying water for the industry instead of their constituents,? Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a progressive pro-reform group, told The Washington Post. ?In effect, the Blue Dogs and the Republicans are taking positions that are closer all the time and further away from what most Americans want.?
Speaking in defense of the moderate Democrats, former Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX) told the Post, ?The idea behind giving to a group like the Blue Dogs is that you believe that they will agree with your positions most of the time. The same is true for liberals or anyone else. It?s normal in politics.?
