ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Bachmann Claims That The Chamber Is Using A ‘Separate’ PAC To Fund Campaign Attack Ads

By Ben Armbruster on Oct 12, 2010 at 7:45 pm

Since ThinkProgress first reported on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s foreign sources of funding last week, the Chamber — and its enablers on the right and in the media — have engaged in a whitewash campaign that has deflected attention away from the core issue: that undisclosed monies from foreign entities may be improperly funding the Chamber’s political attack ads.

Yesterday on Fox Business, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) joined in when host Charles Payne asked the Minnesota lawmaker to comment on White House and Democrats’ calls for the Chamber to disclose its donors:

BACHMANN: This is about as low as it goes. It’s more than just disingenious, it’s a flat-out, patent lie. The Chamber of Commerce, who has been accused of taking foreign contributions to spend on elections, is absolutely not doing that. They have a separate political action fund and they use that only from American donors.

Watch it:

The Chamber does indeed have a political action fund. However, its PAC has so far raised $161,000 and spent only $104,000. Yet, the Chamber itself has spent more than $12 million so far this election season (and plans to spend $75 million), largely helping Republican candidates. Why is the Chamber spending so much while its PAC stays on the sidelines? Disclosure. Federal election law requires political action committees to reveal who is giving money to fund its campaign interests.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the Chamber would have had to run its political ads out of its PAC, contributions to which are disclosed. But the Court’s decision allows large corporations — such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns without publicizing their donors. Citizens United provided the Chamber with an end-around campaign finance law. Indeed, after ThinkProgress’s report, the Chamber not only refuses to say where the funding for its $75 million campaign comes from, but also will not prove that it separates foreign from domestic funding. “We are not obligated to discuss our internal procedures,” a spokesperson has said.

“If I was an enterprising reporter…I might ask the Chamber of Commerce to let me see their donors,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today. “That seems like a pretty simple way to solve the debate…They say they take money from overseas, we know they are spending $75 to $80 billion running ads. Lets see where the money comes from to pay for those ads. There is an easy way to prove it all wrong.”

Health

Congressional Report Details Consequences Of Repealing Affordable Care Act

By Igor Volsky on Oct 12, 2010 at 7:35 pm

A new report from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has found that the top four insurers “denied health coverage to 49 percent more people in two years for reasons such as pregnancy and the likelihood of adopting a child,” resulting in some 651,000 rejected applicants between 2007 and 2009. Before the Affordable Care Act, moreover, “each company had a business plan to exclude pre-existing conditions, said the report, citing internal insurer documents the panel obtained“:

A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49%. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16%.

Look:

PreviewScreenSnapz011

The report also concludes that certain medical conditions like pregnancy, surgery, or infertility treatments triggered an automatic denial, which “no longer require a review for declination.” In some cases, the companies granted coverage to sicker individuals “but used medical riders to exclude coverage or increase deductibles for the pre-existing conditions. In the case of one of the companies, nearly 15% of the company’s customers in the individual market in 2010 had policies with riders limiting coverage or increasing deductibles for certain medical conditions.”

Insurers considered these tactics standard business practices and planned on developing new ways to avoid expensive risk, the report finds:

- Increasing the look-back period on pre-existing conditions: When an individual applies for health insurance, the company will “look back” at the applicant’s prior medical history for a certain period of time to identify pre-existing conditions that could provide a justification to deny coverage.

- Assessing separate deductibles specifically for identified pre-existing conditions: In a presentation concerning risk assessments in the individual health insurance market, executives at another company were provided a “[p]re-ex opportunity overview.”

- Denying payments for prescription drugs related to pre-existing conditions: Executives for a third company have recently introduced a project to withhold insurance reimbursement for prescription drugs if the medication is used to treat pre-existing conditions.

- Linking additional claims to pre-existing conditions exclusions: During an internal evaluation of the individual business, executives at the fourth company discussed “[c]ontrol[ling] cost by conducting Pre-Existing Condition Investigations.”

- Narrowing the definition of prior creditable coverage: Prior creditable coverage is a period of past health insurance coverage that can shorten the length of time a new insurer can exclude insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions. Internal documents reveal that executives at one of the companies considered changing “the definition of prior creditable coverage to exclude prior individual coverage.”

Repealing the Affordable Care Act could leave the door open to all of these abuses, but that last point is particularly relevant since the GOP’s repeal and replace health care Pledge would only extend pre-existing conditions exclusions to individuals with prior creditable coverage. Depending on how one defines that term, it could exclude millions of Americans.

Yglesias

Heading Home

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 12, 2010 at 6:27 pm

By the time this posts, I should be on a flight bound for Atlanta where I’ll switch planes and be in DC by the morning of October 13. So I’d like to thank the New America Foundation for an excellent and informative trip to Israel and especially Matt Duss, Didi Remez, and Tom Kutsch for their work organizing it:

IMG_0143

I think it’s be a little silly to decide you’d learned striking new things about something as complicated and well-rehearsed as the Arab-Israeli conflict over the course of a week-long trip (I do think I now know a lot more about Palestinian politics, but that’s largely a reflection of my pre-trip ignorance and I wouldn’t dare claim to really understand it) so it’s no surprise that I still basically think what I thought before about “the issues.” I basically buy the fundamental conceit of secular Zionism and want to see a homeland for the Jewish people. I think the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza are unjust and that the former is killing Zionism as a project to boot. I’m much more skeptical about the efficacy and morality of force as a tool of policy than are Israel or Hamas. I’m convinced that a peace deal is within reach in the short term if Israel is willing to take risks, and I think Israeli politicians and the Israeli public are gripped by a risk-aversion that if not checked will likely lead to national suicide.

What you get on a visit is essentially everything amped-up on an emotional level. It’s exhausting, honestly, both the good and the bad.

The other thing I would add is that if you go to Hebron and then to Tel Aviv it’s impossible not to find yourself baffled by the apparent blindness of many Israelis to what’s being done in their name. What’s harder is to recognize that the shoe fits America, too. I wouldn’t analogize the situation in Palestine to anything else, but Americans very much live in an emotional bubble isolated from the practical realities of the acts of violence committed in our names over the years.

Economy

Stimulus Critic Christie Using Stimulus Bond Program To Fund Infrastructure Projects

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 12, 2010 at 6:20 pm

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) has become quite the conservative darling for refusing to raise taxes (even on millionaires) and slashing social services, while simultaneously proposing new tax cuts for the well-off. But Christie has also taken a stand against some of the economic recovery policies implemented by the Obama administration, particularly the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e. the stimulus package).

“If they’re going to put strings on that money, then they’re going to tie your hands and make you expand programs, and not be able to have the freedom of choice that people elected you for, then you shouldn’t take the money,” Christie told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “I think that it certainly helped states like New Jersey and others to not have to confront the difficult choices that we’re now having to confront. But it really just put it off,” he added at a National Governors Association meeting. “My view on it is, what it did was, at least from a personal perspective, push off the problem from the Corzine administration to the Christie administration.”

However, with his state’s Transportation Trust Fund running dry, Christie is taking full advantage of the Recovery Act to get suspended infrastructure projects back underway:

New Jersey is set to issue $1.4 billion in Transportation Trust Fund Authority bonds Oct. 13 and 14, about a week after James Simpson, the state’s transport commissioner, said the infrastructure account is “broke” and suspended 100 projects because of a lack of cash. The sale, a combination of tax-free refinancing securities and federally taxable Build America Bonds scheduled to mature in December 2027, will raise about $900 million for the trust fund.

The Build America Bonds program was created as part of the stimulus package, and entails having the federal government pay 35 percent of the interest on the bonds. As The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz explained, Build America Bonds “is one of the most successful programs of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, spurring productive investment, job creation, and creating a more progressive and democratic method of local finance.”

This isn’t the first time that Christie has taken advantage of the Build America Bonds program, as New Jersey made a $500 million bond offering in April to finance school construction. At the time, Christie said “the sale of these bonds is a fiscally responsible way to continue to address the school-construction needs of New Jersey’s public schools.”

Christie is doing the right thing by taking advantage of the bond program to keep transportation projects funded. But he’s doing it while traipsing around the country criticizing the very bill that made those projects possible.

Politics

Karl Rove And Chamber Defenders Raise ‘Absurd’ Red Herring About CAP Funding

By George Zornick on Oct 12, 2010 at 5:48 pm

Defenders of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have adopted a new line of attack in trying to defend the Chamber against ThinkProgress’s report that detailed how the Chamber may be using foreign money to fund political attack ads in the United States. In recent days, Karl Rove, former RNC chair Ed Gillespie, and Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s chief lobbyist, have all parroted the line that since the Center for American Progress doesn’t disclose its donors, there is hypocrisy afoot and the ThinkProgress report must somehow be questionable. Watch a compilation:

Just to be clear, the Center for American Progress is not involved in running political ads like the Chamber is. CAP released a statement today explaining the difference:

Neither the Center for American Progress nor the Center for American Progress Action Fund electioneer or run candidate campaign ads. If CAPAF ever does run such ads, we will disclose the donors funding that activity. 501c4′s are not required to disclose donors and we do not see a disclosure problem with 501c4′s, like CAPAF, that continue to operate in the traditional role of a public education and issue advocacy organization; nor have we criticized the Chamber for its traditional work in support of its mission. Our concern is with organizations like the Chamber and others who have taken advantage of the Citizens United ruling to behave like a PAC by running massive amounts of candidate campaign ads without disclosing the source of funding for the ads. There is a long standing legal requirement for PACs to disclose donations, the Chamber and others are acting like PACs but without the disclosure.

As Greg Sargent writes at the Plum Line, “The comparison to the Center for American Progress is absurd, because it does not and has never run campaign ads…[and] even so, Rove’s assertions about these groups are still absurd, because we already know what their issue positions and agendas are.”

Rove and company are attacking the messenger with a false comparison, thereby sidestepping the central issue: will the Chamber reveal the well-heeled special interests behind their unprecedented political ad campaign?

LGBT

Obama DOJ To Defend DOMA In Court

By Igor Volsky on Oct 12, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Back in July, a Federal District Court in Boston ruled that Section 3 of Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) — the section of the 1996 law which denies federal benefits to legally married same sex couples — is unconstitutional because it interferes with the traditional state right to define marriage and forces the state to “violate the equal protection rights of its citizens.” The decision was composed of two separate challenges, one brought by the state of Massachusetts and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) “on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts” who have been denied federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples.

While the ruling represented a significant step forward for LGBT equality, some legal scholars raised concerns about the Judge’s interpretation of the 10th amendment, arguing that accepting such a broad interpretation of states’ rights could undermine future cases, particularly the government’s defense of the Affordable Care Act. Thus, it is of no particular surprise that the federal government filed a notice of appeal in both cases. From GLAD:

“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits. We are confident in the strength of our case.”

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The next step will be for the government to file its brief to that court arguing that Judge Tauro’s ruling was wrong. GLAD will then file its brief in opposition to the government, and finally the government will file a reply brief. At that point, the appeal will be scheduled for oral argument. Briefing could be concluded by the spring of 2011 with oral argument to follow by the fall of 2011.

The Obama administration defended DOMA when both cases came before the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, although some legal scholars have argued that it’s under no legal obligation to appeal the case further. “I think that it’s clear now that the president has the option of declining to defend laws that he believes are not constitutional,” Richard Socarides, a gay New York attorney and former adviser to President Clinton has said. “This law has now been declared unconstitutional, so he could agree with the federal district court … and choose not to defend it.”

Obama has pledged to fully repeal DOMA, although he has yet to press Congress to act on the issue. In 2009, Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced The Respect for Marriage Act of 2009, which would repeal the DOMA and allow the government to provide benefits to married gay couples.

LGBT

Beyond Florida: At Least 6 States Still Unfairly Restrict Adoptions By Gay People

By Igor Volsky on Oct 12, 2010 at 5:00 pm

news-gay-parent-families-child-topMy colleagues Jerome Hunt and Jeff Krehely point out that, while the recent court ruling against Florida’s ban on gay adoption is a terrific step forward for equal rights, “several states still unfairly target gay men and lesbians who want to adopt or foster children“:

– 6 states expressly prohibit discrimination against gay and lesbian adoptions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York.

– 3 states still restrict adoption by same-sex couples: Michigan, Mississippi, and Nebraska. The Michigan attorney general issued an opinion in 2004 that prevents same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions from adopting children in Michigan. Single gay and lesbian individuals, however, may petition to adopt. The director of Nebraska’s Department of Social Service issued a directive in 1995 that prohibits adoption by gay individuals and unmarried, cohabiting individuals. Mississippi, on the other hand, simply prohibits adoption by all same-sex couples.

– 3 states currently have laws or policies on their books that may effectively restrict adoption by gay men and women: North Dakota, Utah, and Arkansas. North Dakota allows social workers to make decisions about potential adoptive parents on the basis of their moral or religious convictions. Utah passed two provisions on adoptions in the last 10 years. The first, in 2000, prohibited unmarried cohabiting individuals from adopting. The second, in 2007, gave preference to married heterosexual couples over single adults in placement decisions. Finally, Arkansas prohibits unmarried, cohabitating individuals from adopting.

These policies come at an economic cost. The Florida ban kept 165 children in foster care, costing the state $2.5 million per year, the Williams Institute found and a nationwide ban on foster care by same-sex couples would cost somewhere between $87 million to $130 million a year. As Hunt and Krehely conclude, “During a time of state budget crunches it makes no sense to continue these discriminatory policies. Such laws and regulations are based on animus toward gay men and women, not on sound economic or social science. It’s time to erase them from the books.”

Politics

Federal Judge Bars Enforcement Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Igor Volsky on Oct 12, 2010 at 4:42 pm

Earlier today, Judge Virginia Phillip — the California federal judge who ruled that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and freedom of speech under the First Amendment — granted the Log Cabin Republican’s request for a broad injunction against further discharges:

(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command;

(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act, or pursuant to U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed an objection to the proposed injunction, insisting that the judge’s decision be limited to the plaintiffs in the suit. The government argued that a wide injunction would “foreclose the US from litigating the constitutionality” of DADT in other cases and frustrate the ongoing Pentagon review of the policy. The Justice Department will now have 60 days to make a decision on whether or not to appeal the case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In an opinion that accompanied the injunction, Phillips explains that the plaintiff (the Log Cabin Republicans) “has established standing to bring and maintain this suit on behalf of its members. Additionally, Log Cabin Republicans has demonstrated the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act, on its face, violates the constitutional rights of its members. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Update

The Department of Justice decided this afternoon to appeal Judge Tauro’s rulings.


Update

,The Obama administration also filed a notice today that they will appeal a federal district court’s ruling in Massachusetts last July that declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.


[u

Health

Huckabee Hits Romney: His Reform ‘Is The Blueprint For Obamacare And Provides Abortions For 50 Bucks’

By Igor Volsky on Oct 12, 2010 at 4:30 pm

During a somewhat uncomfortable interview with Ann Coulter, Mike Huckabee attempted to persuade the controversial columnist that he was more conservative than other potential GOP presidential contenders, going so far as to attack Mitt Romney’s health care reform plan for covering abortion services:

HUCKABEE: And I do appreciate you’re pro-life because you’ve been consistent on that except for one thing. During the campaign you called me a liberal, except you supported Mitt Romney whose health care bill is the blueprint for Obamacare and provides abortions for 50 bucks. So, is that conservative?

Watch it:

For his part, Romney has tried to portray his law as a conservative measure, telling Fox News’ Chris Wallace in March, “that it’s saving lives” and “is the ultimate pro-life effort.” But his law does provide Massachusetts residents with a comprehensive package of benefits which include “doctor’s visits, surgery, radiology and lab” and abortion services — a procedure Romney says he now opposes.

Yglesias

The Scarcest Resource

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 12, 2010 at 4:28 pm

The Australian surveys the vast military resources under the authority of US Pacific Command chief Admiral Bob Willard, the most important of America’s military proconsuls. Spencer Ackerman comments:

[I]t’s a reminder that the U.S.’s most important long-term commercial and security interests are found in the Pacific Ocean and rim (and, I would wager, the Indian Ocean, too). Whatever we’re doing against al-Qaeda and in the Middle East pale in comparison to the terrible consequences to the U.S. of a deteriorated relationship over the next 20-30 years with China, for instance. It’s not an accident that we give Pacific Command such overwhelming resources, whatever “Long War”-style neologisms pop up to raise the stakes of the contingencies of the moment.

I think this is a bit too optimistic. The United States does face some material resource constraints, but when you look at the mightiest empire the world has ever known I think you’ll find that our scarcest strategic resource is time and attention at the highest levels. Barack Obama can’t freeze time à la Zack Morris and figure out what to do. There are 24 hours in the day, human beings need to sleep, and that’s all she wrote. Delegation is possible, of course, but the US government is a complicated entity and delicate issues require some level of coordination across silos. Consequently, the more deeply engaged we are with places like Afghanistan and Iraq the more crowded off the Presidential agenda issues related to China and India become.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up