Public Campaign Action Fund recently launched a shameful campaign, slurring U.S. Senators who don’t support the health care bill as “Insurance Puppets.”
It blasted out a release today naming Sen. Chuck Grassley an “Insurance Puppet,” announcing an online advertising campaign in Iowa and Washington, D.C. The group has also named Sens. Mitch McConnell and Joe Lieberman “puppets.”
Their alleged offenses?
“Sen. Grassley has done all he can to derail passage of meaningful health care reform this year,” said David Donnelly, Public Campaign Action Fund’s national campaigns director.
But, there must be some evidence of bribery or a large campaign contribution affecting a vote, right?
Nah: “The nearly half a million dollars he’s received in campaign cash from health insurance interests and his close family ties to the industry certainly help explain his opposition to reform.”
These types of baseless allegations are ridiculous and petty. There’s very little evidence that campaign contributions sway lawmakers to vote a certain way; in fact, most research shows that lawmakers votes mainly depend on their previously-held principles, party affiliation, constituent preferences, etc.
It’s really remarkable that Public Campaign Action Fund cannot contemplate a single possible reason a senator might oppose the health care legislation besides allegedly nefarious campaign contributions. It shows a below-childish level of analysis of how the political system operates, and relies on the most flimsy evidence possible to advance their goal of government subsidies for congressional campaigns: the “Fair Elections Now Act.”
This summer, the Center for Competitive Politics took on similar allegations from Common Cause:
Self-styled “reformers” are willing to push restrictions on individuals’ First Amendment rights and lawmakers’ right to association without evidence of cause and effect. This report demonstrates an even more nuanced strategy of the “reform” community – that the bottom line goal is not good government, however one defines that, but rather the desire to silence opponents, in this case the health care industry, so that the policies favored by one group can pass without debate or opposition.
Campaign contributions are not a danger to the legislative process, and it’s irresponsible to stoke unfounded assumptions to pass an agenda when the public policy issue in question is so important. While there may be such a thing as the “public option,” there’s no such thing as the “public interest” when it comes to health care or other complex policy matters. We are a nation of factionalized and diverse interests, and we have lawmakers to represent constituent views and lobbyists to represent specific interests. There’s nothing wrong with that: it’s how our republic operates.