Money Well Spent?

The clearest sign you could ask for that Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to win in 2008 is this graphic which appeared in yesterday's New York Times showing all segments of the health care industry now favoring Democrats with their campaign contributions even though Democrats are all promising tough new regulations that would seem to ill-serve the industry's interests.

The question of course arises of what these firms are buying for their trouble. It's something I'd like to see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both address. I don't think there's any sense in asking them (or anyone else) to disavow accepting contributions from this sector of the economy (it's giant, after all, and "health professionals" and hospital administrators can be donating out of a complicated mix of interests) but as long as we're in the phase of the political process where these people are supposed to be "pandering" to the Dread Base, I'd like to see us, the voting public, wring a bit more out of them in terms of rhetorical bridge-burning.

Comments

I'd like to see us, the voting public, wring a bit more out of them in terms of rhetorical bridge-burning.

Good luck with that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 30, 2007 4:37 PM

One of the things I've noticed as a result of being more active politically, is that people tend to misuse this information. I'm an attorney, who works for a large national bank. I give only in my individual capacity, but I'll be aggregated into the larger group of banks or attorneys supporting candidate 'x'. I'm not sure what the answer is, just that I think the system as devised is an imperfect indicator of candidates being corrupted by a particular industry.

Posted by Keith | October 30, 2007 4:46 PM

That's a pretty interesting point, Keith. Do we know how HC breaks out as campaign donation area vs. its size in the economy (17%, IIRC) or per person employed, etc.?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 30, 2007 4:53 PM

Yeah, let's require all our candidates to piss on their donors. That'll teach 'em for giving to Democrats!

Posted by Steve | October 30, 2007 5:39 PM

"The question of course arises of what these firms are buying for their trouble."

They are buying a seat at the negotiating table. The health care industry knows that changes are coming, and they know that Hillary is most likely to be the one leading the changes. They will be shut out of the debate if they don't give Hillary money. So they give in the hope that they will be given some input on the changes that are coming.

Posted by fostert | October 30, 2007 6:11 PM

One thing emerges as a pattern: some people in health care industry have a warm spot in their heart for a handsome and hugely succesful trial lawyer.

But not too many. So what less sentimental health care professionals and organization may be buying is avoiding the worst. And to American industries, not just the healthcare. Edwards is the worst.

If this is so, Edwards may be doing a tremendous service to Clinton and Obama. It is almost a given that the next president will be a Democrat. Health care professionals, those with money, unlike the nurses, used to be a conservative bunch, but I would suspect, also believing in evolution, stem cell research and also in belief that some kind of reform is necessary, and someones ox will be gored.

Posted by piotr | October 30, 2007 6:49 PM

As the Democratic Party becomes the one dominant party and the only political party that is relevant to law and policy making, then no group can afford to seen as being on the outside. In the near future, all business groups will have to abandon the Republican party for fear of retribution from the Democratic party.

The real question is how will the American political process function when it becomes a one party state.

Posted by superdestroyer | October 30, 2007 6:55 PM

The clearest sign you could ask for that Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to win in 2008 is this graphic which appeared in yesterday's New York Times showing all segments of the health care industry now favoring Democrats with their campaign contributions even though Democrats are all promising tough new regulations that would seem to ill-serve the industry's interests.

But the Democrats also seem to be promising lots of new customers for the health care industry--that big untapped pool of 45 million who don't currently have insurance. The insurance industry stands to make a lot of money from selling insurance to them, even if it comes with strings attached.

Posted by Mixner | October 30, 2007 7:13 PM

"The real question is how will the American political process function when it becomes a one party state."

Just look around you.

Posted by kafka | October 30, 2007 10:52 PM

Thank you for posting this. It pretty much sums up a major reason I don't want to see HRC in the top spot. Why would you assume that change is coming? These dollars are being spent to make sure that what token change does happen, won't hurt the insurance company bottom line. The candidates getting this cash will do nothing, and I mean nothing, substantial to fix the system. All they will deliver is a program that further strengthens the insurance companies with a few patches and tweaks that make them look like they give a damn. Go Edwards!! Come on Democrats, get your head out of the clouds and get serious about winning this thing.

Posted by jbaker | October 31, 2007 7:45 AM

I know a lot of liberals in these areas that are giving for the same liberal reasons that I am, so I'm somewhat skeptical. Show who the lobbyists are donating to.

Posted by bob | October 31, 2007 7:12 PM