Advancing Health Care Reform Through the Swamp of
$187 Million in Interested Political Money

A report by Public Campaign Action Fund
Released July 2009


Highlights

• Members of five committees working on health care reform legislation received $187.1 million in campaign contributions over their career from health and insurance interests
  
  
• Elected officials who voted against health reform legislation received 65% more in contributions from health and insurance interests than officials who voted for reform
  
  
• Health reform legislation is bottled up in two committees whose members have received nearly $100 million in campaign contributions from vested industries
  

Background

Health care reform legislation has advanced through three congressional committees in Washington, D.C.; it has hit significant snags in key committees.

Public Campaign Action Fund (PCAF) conducted an analysis of health and insurance industries campaign contributions to members of the five congressional committees with jurisdiction over health reform legislation. Those five committees are the House Committee on Education and Labor, the House Committee on Ways and Means, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Finance Committee.

In total, PCAF reviewed campaign contribution totals for 193 current members of Congress – more than a third of Congress.(1)

Three of these committees – Education and Labor and Ways and Means in the House, and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) in the Senate – have already cast votes to pass comprehensive health reform. Over the past few weeks, 60 members on these three committees voted for comprehensive reform and 50 voted against.(2)

Specifically, PCAF reviewed records to find what, if any, pattern emerged in the total amount of money contributed to members of Congress over their careers from these interested industries to determine if there was a relationship between the amount of money and votes cast. Below are our findings.

The average committee member received nearly a million dollars ($969,414) from the health and insurance interests. For Senators serving on the Senate Finance or HELP Committees, the average was $1,879,786, considerably larger than their House counterparts on the three committees, who received, on average, $692,612.

 

There was also disparity between the committees in each chamber, with the leading committees in each chamber, as measured by average total contributions, are Senate Finance and House Ways and Means. The following chart details the total given to each committee and the average received by members of each panel.

Perhaps the most significant finding is that a review of 110 voting members across three congressional committees showed a dramatic difference in campaign support between those who voted for the legislation and those who voted against it. The average member on the three committees who voted in favor of health reform legislation received $353,105 – 65% – less than their colleagues who voted for the legislation.

 

The table below summarizes the difference between the average yes and no votes for each committee.

In total, the 82 members of the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Finance Committees have received $96,583,686 from the health and insurance industries. The 111 members of House Ways and Means, House Education and Labor, and Senate HELP Committees have received $90,513,191 from the same industries. Members of the non-voting committees have taken, on average, $362,416 more than their counterparts on the committees that have already cast votes on reform legislation.

 

This finding may speak to one reason the pace of comprehensive health care legislation has slowed in these two committees.

The seven Blue Dog Energy and Commerce members have received, on average, $711,828 from health and insurance interests. Their Democratic colleagues on the committee have received, on average, $83,805 less, or $628,023. Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee outpace both the Blue Dogs and all Democrats with an average total of $1,048,443 from the interested industries.

 

Conclusion

Americans believe that campaign contributions impact policy decisions in Congress, and in particular, that progress on current policy debates in Congress regarding health care, energy policy, banking regulation, and the economy will be hampered by special interest campaign donations.(4) In the case of the health care debate, the numbers assembled here tell a similar story.

Whether an individual member of Congress is more likely to vote for or against a piece of legislation because of contributions is not at issue. Many other factors play into that decision. Yet when one looks at the committees as a whole, an unquestionable pattern emerges that those who cast “no” votes on health care legislation have benefited more from health and insurance interests than those who voted "yes."

These findings also point to a need to address the fundamental problem in the financing of American politics. Members of Congress spend time courting donors when they could be passing legislation, building relationships with other lawmakers, or addressing constituents’ needs. With ever increasing campaign costs, members follow the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton’s advice to go to “where the money is” – the industries regulated by their committees. That only makes the public more skeptical that policy is for sale. The clear answer to this unsustainable system is public financing of elections and an emphasis on small donor fundraising, embodied by Fair Elections Now legislation now advancing in Congress.

About Public Campaign Action Fund

Public Campaign Action Fund is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing comprehensive public financing of elections and working to hold elected officials accountable for favors they do for special interest backers. The organization is tracking the role of money in politics in a number of legislative debates, including the reform of the nation’s health care system.

For more information about the organization or this report, contact Public Campaign Action Fund at 202-293-0222, or visit our website at http://www.campaignmoney.org.

1. Public Campaign Action Fund reviewed data compiled and coded by the Center for Responsive Politics, and posted at their website, http://www.opensecrets.org.

2. One member of the Senate HELP Committee, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), is ill and was unable to cast a committee vote. His campaign contributions are included in overall analysis but not in the analysis of the votes.

3. Numerous news reports have indicated that seven Blue Dog Coalition members, led by Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), are negotiating with Chairman Waxman. See Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn, “Democrats Divide Fuels Turmoil on Health Care,” New York Times, July 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/politics/25health.html.

4. Bipartisan polling conducted by Lake Research and the Tarrance Group, http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/content/february-2009-polling-memo.