Lines of Causation

Paul Krugman does an excellent job of expressing something I was mumbling incoherently while walking around Chicago the other day:

And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?

This is the right point to make about candidates and their donors. Worrying about whether or not contributions are corrupting people is rarely going to provide a definitive conclusion and doesn't necessarily tell you much about the merits of a proposal, either. The issue is that we should probably assume the people giving the money have some basic level of competence. The health care industry has, over the years, become a major financial backer of Clinton's. It seems they feel that she doesn't pose a huge threat to their interests. Maybe they're making a huge mistake but, as Krugman says, given that she hasn't committed herself to anything resembling a specific universal health care plan, we have to worry that they may be right.

Comments

A minor terminological point, but...

The "health care industry" that wants poor kids to die when they get sick is composed of big insurance and big pharma. The people who provide health care, doctors and especially nurses, and not standing in our way. Neither are hospitals themselves, as far as I know.

Posted by DivGuy | August 6, 2007 7:54 AM

Edwards' challenge in the Saturday debate was the first time anyone has drawn blood on Hillary in a debate.

A weakness has been exposed. It may be a minor weakness, but the Death Star only had a minor weakness too.

Posted by Petey | August 6, 2007 8:08 AM

"A weakness has been exposed. It may be a minor weakness, but the Death Star only had a minor weakness too."

See how to use the force.

Posted by Petey | August 6, 2007 8:12 AM

Matt:

It's a bit sloppy that you would discuss the lobbyist issue without addressing the fact that Obama accepts money from state lobbyists as well as from firms and people connected to federal lobbyist.

If the lobbyist issue is indeed an issue, then all candidates should be scrutinized equally!

The LA Times reports today that even after presidential hopeful Barack Obama made a show of standing up to Washington insiders by returning donations from lobbyists, he received help raising campaign money from at least two of them.

Even as he shuns donations from lobbyists, Obama has taken more than $1.4 million this year from law and consultancy firms that have partners who are registered to lobby, a Times analysis of Obama's fundraising shows. He has received hundreds of thousands more from corporate executives while turning down money from their lobbyists.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-obama4aug04,1,4742821.story?coll=la-p olitics-campaign&ctrack=2&cset=t rue

Further, the Des Moines Register reports that Obama's fundraising team has used state lobbyists, former lobbyists, spouses of lobbyists and partners in lobbying firms who are not registered for specific clients to reach the rich, the Washington Post reported in April.
As a U.S. Senate candidate, Obama was no stranger to PAC donations. From 2001 to 2006, he received $1.8 million, or about 8 percent, of what he raised from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070803/NEWS09/708030378/1001/NEWS

The New York Times reports that Howard Wolfson, Clinton's advisor, told reporters that campaigns had made different decisions about fund-raising sources. Playing to character, Mr. Wolfson didn’t hesitate in discussing this to take his own shot — at Mr. Obama’s campaign — by pointing out that the Illinois senator (Obama) had accepted money from lobbyists in his home state.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/revisiting-the-heated-debate-exchange-on-lobbying/

Posted by JoeCHI | August 6, 2007 8:27 AM

You should be worried when you have to rely on fiction to inspire hope in your candidate. Besides, the force is strong in Edwards, but he is not a Jedi yet.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 6, 2007 8:28 AM

When I watched Sicko, and the footage of Sen. Clinton in it, I realized why she's ahead, and why the weak support in the blogosphere. She's the cynic's choice.

Compared to both Edwards and Obama, who are going to DC with huge visions, she's the more realistic candidate, the candidate of, "I'll do what I can, but it's just this town. Ya know?". And her answer on the lobbyist thing is the cynics answer.

She's the choice for the people who believe that change in Washington is basically impossible.

Posted by Karmakin | August 6, 2007 8:33 AM

I don't think it's all cynicism. I think plenty of us are just pretty sure that "change in Washington" is a bullshit line no matter who's using it. If the government were transformed overnight from the bloated and incestuous nest it is into a model of ideal governance, what would politicians run on? Candidates would still have to manufacture some BS reason to explain why they should be the ones in power rather than someone else. "Changing Washington" works, because it is suggestive without actually involving some definite promise or plan of action. Besides, what do you expect the next president to do? Point at Congress accusingly every time they do something bad? Swear to veto every bill until the Senate gets its act together? If Hillary has dispensed with that little gem of rhetorical nonsense, well good for her. I don't want to hear some rosy scenario about how if I only elected candidate X, the systemic problems that beset our government would melt away in response to his magical make-everything-all-better-instantly powers. I'd rather hear something definite about health care or taxes or foreign policy than hear a tired line about how the establishment's gotta go.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 6, 2007 9:02 AM

Besides, what do you expect the next president to do? Point at Congress accusingly every time they do something bad? Swear to veto every bill until the Senate gets its act together?

No, we just expect them to vote according to the interests of their constituents, rather than the interests of their money machines.

The Democratic electorate, overwhelmingly, supports universal health care. If Hillary gets elected, she's quite clear that she won't deliver on this. Taking money from the people who are working and spending feverishly to prevent sick children from getting health care points to precisely where her allegiances lie - not with the Democratic electorate, but with big pharma and big insurance.

That's why the lobbyist thing is such good politics - it's good theater since no one likes a "lobbyist", and it highlights one of the key places where Hillary is well to the right of the primary voters.

Posted by DivGuy | August 6, 2007 9:17 AM

"I'd rather hear something definite about health care or taxes"

While I understand that you're a no-talent Canadian, Gordon Lightfoot, you are still capable of finding out what positions the candidates have been laying out.

John Edwards has put forward solid progressive proposals on healthcare and taxes. Hillary Clinton, not so much.

This isn't news for anyone who's been paying even minimal attention.

-----

"She's the choice for the people who believe that change in Washington is basically impossible."

She's also the choice for folks who think electing a woman trumps the issues and for low-information Dems who haven't gotten deeper into the candidates than acknowledging the Clinton brand.

Folks who believe that change in Washington is basically impossible aren't going to vote, so who cares about them?

Posted by Petey | August 6, 2007 9:24 AM

I don't dispute the point that Hillary's silence on the matter of health care is telling. This is a pretty solid reason to not want her to win the nomination if you want a universal health care system (although don't be surprised if she whips something out here eventually-even with all that lobby money she's received). You might even find it particularly galling that the woman who tried to put forward a program of this kind 15 years too early now appears to be in bed with the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. These are the solid issues I'm talking about. However, I do not think that an Edwards promise to implement universal health care, even if it were guaranteed to be implemented, constitutes "Changing Washington." All it constitutes is changing the way health care works in this country. Sure, maybe significant interests that have dominated lobbying for years will suffer, and we can all celebrate the chance to stick it to the Man. But the basic game of politics will be no different when all is said and done. It's this generic idea that politics can be purified of the taint that human participation brings to it I dispute. Neither Edwards nor Obama, no matter how enlightened or well-intentioned, have a chance in hell of doing anything about that.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 6, 2007 9:46 AM

"All it constitutes is changing the way health care works in this country. Sure, maybe significant interests that have dominated lobbying for years will suffer, and we can all celebrate the chance to stick it to the Man."

Yeah. Folks are eager for universal healthcare so they can "stick it to the Man". Dumbass.

Posted by Petey | August 6, 2007 9:50 AM

And when Edwards was asked whether he'll stop taking money from hedge fund managers, he said no. And I would imagine he continues to accept funds from "trial lawyers," which is another "special interest group."

Everyone takes money from someone. Campaigns can't operate effectively without a lot of money. And small donations, even as many as Obama has received, don't add up to enough.

Each of these candidates has a record, some more extensive than others. This, it seems to me, is the better place to look to determine the effect of political donations. If there's a connection between big money donations and policy, then focus on the policy, if it's something with which you disagree.

So many different organizations employ lobbyists. Some folks lobby for causes I support and some lobby against. So for Edwards to make an issue out of barring all contributions from all lobbyists seems simply a cynical effort to push Clinton into a position designed to elicit the jeers of the audience at YearlyKos.

Posted by Cleocat | August 6, 2007 9:57 AM

"Yeah. Folks are eager for universal healthcare so they can "stick it to the Man". Dumbass."

What I said makes sense if you read it in good faith. But I realize that isn't as fun as interpreting what others say in the least favorable light possible, so if it's cheaply bought self-aggrandizement you're after, by all means, assume I'm just a little stupidhead.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 6, 2007 10:04 AM

Krugman's larger point is exactly right. Clinton has yet to lay out any specifics about her healthcare plan (which she now says is her top priority!). She wants us to trust her. And if we should have learned anything over the last so many years, it's that politicians shouldn't be trusted. We need to know their plan.

Posted by JJF | August 6, 2007 10:17 AM

Cleocat (and JoeCHI...and Gordon Lightfoot, to a lesser extent)

So many different organizations employ lobbyists. Some folks lobby for causes I support and some lobby against. So for Edwards to make an issue out of barring all contributions from all lobbyists seems simply a cynical effort to push Clinton into a position designed to elicit the jeers of the audience at YearlyKos.

You're missing the point. The point of rejecting lobbyist money isn't because "OMG Lobbyists = teh evilest!!1!", the point is that the President is going to have to interact with lobbyists on regular basis, and having received money from them creates a conflict of interest. I personally don't think getting a couple thousand dollars when these candidates are raising tens of millions is actually that influential, however, someone who bundles IS in position to eventually ask for a return favor.

And that's why Obama and Edwards don't just deny checks written by lobbyists, they deny checks gathered by lobbyists as well. This is important.

All the candidates are going to have bundlers, and in an ideal world, they wouldn't. However, people whose job it is to specifically convince the President (or Congressmen) of the value of certain positions specifically pose an ethical issue.

So...who cares if Obama takes money from state lobbyists. They're state lobbyists. They can't lobby him when he's President. There's no conflict of interest. So no, Obama is not running on some fiction. The suggestion as much elides the entire substance of the ethical issues surrounding lobbyists in Washington, which is their ability to gather money for candidates and then shower politicians with gifts and favors, all with an eye on purchasing influence. Nobody has presented anything that even suggests we should think Edwards and Obama are selling influence in their Administration to lobbyists; what's more, Obama (along with Feingold) is the reason the ethics bill passed just last week has the amendment about disclosure of bundlers, probably the most important part of the bill. And on top of that, Obama has offered specific ethical guidelines for his own hypothetical administration closing the "revolving door" for lobbyists in the executive branch.

That's not fiction. There is a difference here between Edwards/Obama and Clinton.

Posted by mrl | August 6, 2007 11:56 AM

Re: Maybe they're making a huge mistake but, as Krugman says, given that she hasn't committed herself to anything resembling a specific universal health care plan, we have to worry that they may be right.

Strictly speaking, a universal healthcare system would not necessarily be counter to the interests of the healthcare industry: certainly not in the case of providers who are the ones left holding the bag for uncompensated care (and I also don't think that most doctors or even most hospital admins are avatars of Scrooge or Simon Legree). Even the health insurance industry could benefit if the universal plan was not a single payor but instead a universal insurance plan with the government underwriting premiums for the uninsured. My guess is that's why they're looking likely to bet on Mrs Clinton: they know major reform is fast becoming an unstaoppable juggernaut, and they know the GOP is unlikely to be in a position to champion their interests come 2009, so Clinton is the closest thing they can find to someone who might be willing to accommodate their interests in the coming healthcare overhaul.

Posted by JonF | August 6, 2007 1:35 PM

Jon F, it sounds like you're giving the Insurance Lobby and Big Pharma (the pertinent elements of the "health-insurance industry" in this context) more credit than they deserve. They clearly have read the writing on the wall, that Ms. Clinton is the Democratic candidate coziest and most in sync with Big Business and the plutocrats who run our country. They want to do anything they can to keep the wonderful Uber-Profit-Making-Machine-For-The-Few that currently exists, to the detriment of sane and humane health-care policy, in place. And they're confident Clinton won't rock the boat in any fundamental way. They're only hedging their bets with Hillary vs. the more egregious Republican plutocrats because they see the whole Republican presidential ship smashing up against the rocky shoals and they're being prudent per their own disgusting, greedy interests. Your contention that some universal system could play into this scheme, or that they have any problem with the system as it is, seems wildly off. The system as it stands is utterly rigged to their benefit.

Posted by Warren | August 6, 2007 4:19 PM

My difference is that I think Big Insurance knows major reform is coming and is unstoppable. So they are angling to include themselves in that reform. (While Pharma especially has nothing to fear and much to gain from universalizing coverage) The template here is Medicare Part D where the pharmaceutical industry realized a nice profit from the reform. I can easily see the insurance industry trying to pull one off like that: let us make huge profits and sure we'll cover everyone. Romneycare and Schwatzeneggar's CA proposals are already moving that way. The 1994 plan was a gesture in that dircetion too, at first widely supported by big insurance until the ideologues of the Right raised their own objections and so provided a possible way to defeat any reform at all. This time around I don't see that as a possibility as the Right has destroyed its public influence through its continued embrace of all things Bush (and as you note, it's hit a rock). So the insurance industry if it wants to survive must hop on the bandwagon at some point and direct the Healthcare Reform parade straight to its own bank vaults.

Posted by JonF | August 6, 2007 5:30 PM

Interesting take, I'll have to mull it over.

Posted by Warren | August 6, 2007 11:00 PM