Van Hollen: Senate Bill’s Brand May Be Irrevocably Tarnished, So We May Go Reconciliation Instead
In a candid assessment of the politics of health care, DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen said in an interview that the Senate bill’s brand may be irrevocably tarnished, particularly among independents — and confirmed that partly for this reason, Dem leaders may pass a new set of reforms via reconciliation, which could be repackaged free of the Senate bill’s taint.
Van Hollen also added that it would be a mistake for Dems to pretend the unpopularity of the Senate reform proposals wasn’t a factor in the Massachusetts loss.
Van Hollen’s comments provide perhaps the clearest glimpse yet into the thinking of Dem leaders and the options they’re considering, and illustrate why they may be reluctant for the House to pass the Senate bill, as some want.
“Because of provisions like the Nebraska deal, the Senate bill has been branded in a way that understandably makes it unacceptable in its current form to many voters, especially independents,” Van Hollen told me, adding that Senator Ben Nelson has acknowledged this provision is problematic and must be changed.
He said this was a lesson of Tuesday’s loss: “The Massachusetts election turned on lots of factors. One factor was health care reform,” he said, referring to the Senate bill.
Van Hollen stressed that all options remain on the table, including the House passing the Senate bill with significant legislative changes. But he said the Senate bill’s image problems had led Dem leaders to give serious consideration to assembling a new package and passing it through reconciliation.
“One option would be to pick up where we were in the House and Senate negotiations and work to incorporate those agreements into some legislative package,” Van Hollen said. “It would have to move through what we are calling the majority rule procedure in the Senate. The provisions that had been agreed to between the House and Senate would be able to survive that process.”
“We would focus on essential elements in the health care package that have wide public support,” he said. Among them: Creating more competition and more consumer choice; taking away special deals for the insurance industry, like the antitrust exemption; and “making sure that insurance companies couldn’t deny you coverage at the time you need it the most.”
These provisions “have gotten lost in the public discussion,” Van Hollen said, adding that repackaging the proposals would let Dems “make it clear that this is a different bill.”
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
namotec:
The problem is corrupt politicians.
Yes! How can foreign corporations have any influence unless elected politicians allow them to? If a foreign entity somehow manages to influence Obama’s foreign policy, that is an indictment of his integrity, not of the foreign entity.
“Is it legal for foreign corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political ad campaigns”?
HOw many times do I have to answer this?
Again, from previous posts:
And if a company has a presence in the United States, it should be allowed to spend money on campaign commercials, given the recent ruling.”
A FOREIGN COMPANY WITH A PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES IS PROTECTED BY THE RECENT RULING WHICH ENABLES THE SPENDING OF MONEY ON CAMPAIGNS. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, no company could spend unlimited amounts on campaign ads, so distinguishing between foreign companies WITH A PRESENCE IN THE US and those that are wholly owned by Americans is pointless. As for entirely foreign owned companies, they have been protected by the Constitution, and never will be, THUS IT IS STILL ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. But as the link I provided in the above post, the law HAS NEVER made a distinction between foreign-owned subsidiaries in the US and a wholly-US owned company when it comes to the participation of corporations.
In closing, if it is not obvious already, I don’t oppose subsidiary companies spending money on campaign ads. They have never been treated differently under US law. Wholly foreign companies have never been afforded Constitutional protections, and I couldn’t care less if they are barred from spending money on ads.
“Is a resounding:
YES!
Thank you.
Case closed”
Only subsidiary companies, not foreign companies without any American presence; there is an obvious distinction that you seem to be ignoring. I fail to see how this is some sort of gotcha, unless you can explain to me how wholly-owned American companies on US soil should be treated differently than foreign owned companies that operate on US soil that have US employess, are subject to US law and our directly impacted by American political decisions.
Scott C
Expenditures while making a free speech endorsement do not equal campaign contributions and you know it.
Admittedly my comment was not posed as a question, so no reason to answer it I guess.
This case may represent the first time in American history when individuals have actually argued that infringing on the First Amendment is the best way to fight the problem of corrupt politicians.
Anyone think that money corrupts?
And when I say this case, I should broaden that to mean restrictive and obviously unconstitutional Campaign finance laws in general.
“Expenditures while making a free speech endorsement do not equal campaign contributions and you know it.”
So then why do you think corporations spending money on issue ads are unconstitutional, as if it is the same as a corporation giving money to a candidate.
“So then why do you think corporations spending money on issue ads are unconstitutional…”
That should read “is” constitutional, not “are”, and the sentence should end in a question mark.
The problem is not the amount of money being spent on issue or campaign ads or the increased participation of corporations in the political process
So you don’t see a problem in corporations spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ad campaigns to influence people and politicians?
Do you honestly think that politicians won’t experience a chilling effect on how they vote knowing that multi-national corporations are free to spend billions if they want on an ad campaign against that particular candidate?
Do you honestly think that type of chilling effect is good for electoral democracy?
Tell me again, how does this benefit the Main Street, Middle Class Americans to have multi-national corporations intimately involved in the political process?
How is this good for America again?
Only subsidiary companies, not foreign companies without any American presence
Okay, fair enough.
But just so you know, there are American subsidiaries of both Sinopec (Chinese government’s oil company) and Aramco (Saudi Arabia government’s oil company).
Not entirely sure how enabling those companies to have influence over domestic politics is such a good idea and a victory for Freedom of Speech.
I can’t for the life of me believe that you all think that the majority of this country is ready for marxism.
Echo
You have totally missed the point. The SC expanded the issue and extended the free speech credo to all corporations effectively opening the flood gates. They didn’t just deliberate the issue before them, they turned themselves into an activist court and went further. Big win for corporations, big loss for individuals. We all know where you stand now so thanks.
lmsinca:
…and you know it.
Legally speaking, of course, you are correct. But as a practical matter, you are not. What is the substantive difference between 1)Writing an endorsement of a candidate and the paying X amount to have it printed and distributed and 2) Donating X amount to a campaign in order that they can write, print, and distribute an endorsement? In each case I have used X amount of my money to have an endorsement of the candidate written, printed, and distributed.
Anyone think that money corrupts.
Necessarily? No, I don’t. Are you corrupted by money? How much would it take to get you to campaign vociferously on behalf of the insurance industry?
…so no reason to answer it I guess.
I am happy to answer any question you have. I just don’t know what your question is.
Speaking of which, aren’t you going to answer my question about the NYT? Is my example a restriction on freedom of speech or not?
CCZ, please define “marxism.” What do you mean?
Prohibiting the NYT from publishing opinions and paying the expenses incurred by doing so would be a restriction of freedom of speech. Obviously.
No amount of money.
Scott C
The above was for you. Answering your two questions. I think that was it.
lmsinca:
So, then, we now know that money does not corrupt you (and is therefore not necessarily a corrupting agent). And we also know that you agree that preventing a corporation from expending money on political speech is indeed a violation of free speech.
So what is your objection to the SC ruling?
Because I am not able to be corrupted by money does not mean others aren’t, clearly. What’s your point, politicians aren’t either? Dumping huge amounts of money into a campaign means their decisions will not be influenced? Allowing foreign owned businesses within the US to influence politics doesn’t bother you because it’s the politicians fault for being corruptable? Okay.
The SC expanded the case before them and made a ruling that is detrimental to the country and our democracy. Why do you think they would do that?
Scott C, why don’t you address the chilling effect that unlimited corporate ad funding would have on candidates and sitting Congressmen/women?
For example, a scenario:
You are in the House or Senate and you had to take a vote on a bill that was supported by 53% of your constituents, but you KNEW that a major corporation in your state was going to run a $250M ad campaign against you if you voted for the bill.
Do you see — and will you acknowledge — the chilling effect that huge sums of money will have on politics and governance?
Notta-
“I fail to see how this is some sort of gotcha, unless you can explain to me how wholly-owned American companies on US soil should be treated differently than foreign owned companies that operate on US soil that have US employess, are subject to US law and our directly impacted by American political decisions.”
Honestly you’ve got a point-to a point. Either the courts or legislatures are going to have to decide the limits on this. You cannot agree with unfettered political access by corp “X” when they have some minimal amount of employees/stockholders.
Some democratic entity will have to decide terms that limit influence. I hope they are liberal.
HURRY THE F UP AND HAVE RESULTS TO SHOW FOR YOURSELVES!
kmsinca:
What’s your point, politicians aren’t either?
My ppoint is that your blanket claim that “money corrupts” is incorrect.
Dumping huge amounts of money into a campaign means their decisions will not be influenced?
Again, not necessarily, and certainly not necessarily in a nefarious way.
Allowing foreign owned businesses within the US to influence politics doesn’t bother you because it’s the politicians fault for being corruptable?
No, but this idea of “influence” is fairly nebulous. Do I want foreigners determining what US foreign policy is going to be? Obviously no. But should a US based business owned by a foreign company be able to protect and advance its political interests within the US? Sure. I don’t see why such a company should be treated differently from a US company.
The SC expanded the case before them and made a ruling that is detrimental to the country and our democracy. Why do you think they would do that?
I don’t think they did that, but regardless of how it was characterized, they did it because that is what the Constitution called for. You do realize that the Constitution may in fact allow things of which you disapprove, don’t you?
Scott C
“My point is that your blanket claim that “money corrupts” is incorrect.”
I didn’t make such a blanket claim. Once again you’ve mis-interpreted my words and then mis-represented them. It’s a habit of yours I’m getting tired of.
“Again, not necessarily, and certainly not necessarily in a nefarious way.”
Okay. You see positive results from financial influence in the political system, I see negative.
“I don’t see why such a company should be treated differently from a US company.”
Again, okay. Now that there is no limit to financial investment in our political process by corporate entities as individuals, foreign or otherwise, I guess I’ll just have to work even harder to get out the vote and make sure everyone knows exactly who is endorsing whom and what. I get it. I happen to think this is a by-product of their decision that needs to be addressed, but you and echo don’t seem to have any problem with it.
“You do realize that the Constitution may in fact allow things of which you disapprove, don’t you?”
Yes, especially if you’re a conglomerate with business interests and money to burn and no limits in how much you can actually spend. Corporate free speech will overwhelm the voice of the people. I don’t think this was the intent of the founding fathers. Whoever has the most money wins. And back in March the case was very narrow in scope and was more of an oddity. This summer they expanded it to go back and reverse earlier decisions. That’s their perogative but I call it activism, you call it upholding the Constitution.
Tena’s the lawyer, not me, and she thinks we’ll get better campaign finance reform because of it. That’s what I’ll be working for.
The Court did not “expand” the case. That is a phony complaint of liberals who preferred the unconstitutional Austin and McConnell decisions to the First Amendment and is grasping at straws. Read through the opinions. Kennedy — no right winger — dispatched those complaints quite persuasively.
Liberals like to pretend that con law is a one-way ratchet where they make all the radical judicial amendments they want and constitutional conservatives may not touch them. But it isn’t so. The Constitution itself trumps liberal precedents that patently contradict it, as Austin’s and McConnell did.
I keep asking why the liberals are not attacking Obama’s and his SG, who did not even defend Austin. Why do you think that was? Why did the Admin not even try to defend the argument all the liberals are still trying to make?
I get it qb, I just don’t like it. And since transparency was maintained, I’ll just have to fight harder for campaign finance reform. You might admit this ruling, while constitutional, has ramifications that may need to be addressed. Since the courts have already addressed the issue of corporations as people perhaps we need to change the tax laws so they also carry the same burden and responsibilities as people.
The Republican Party has now completely embraced FASCISM, by definition:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/fascism-coming-to-a-court_b_226256.html
Activist right wing Supreme Court Judge’s opinions that Corporations should be given free reign in America is Fascism, by definition.
Worse, right wingers here are actively defending FOREIGN MONEY to corruptly influence American politics.
Right wingers only loyalty is to MONEY and it doesn’t matter who or where it comes to.
Rebrand? Repackage? Are these dems beyond “out of touch” and rapidly approaching totally nuts?
How about rebranding these idiots as the crooks they evidently are, and repackaging them in striped suits?
But, as these fools apparently believe: What do mere stupid voters know, anyway?
These dems deserve all of those stupid voters, even if those voters are a little kooky right now because they are “just a bit upset” over nothing. This is one crisis the voters certainly don’t want to waste.
Is it too much to ask that we move the elections up so the dems can get the voters they urgently deserve?
The fierce ugency of now .. . vote em out, now.
Reconciliation is now palatable and even more so being touted as a way to do the deal… The Johny Come Latelys of the Dems have a lot to learn about just doing it right the first time… namely taking the public’s needs into the mix and making the bill meet them!Oh, and what about the economy, tanked and more to come…
are you kidding me?! wake up, people! to pass something BRAND NEW through reconciliation will take forever and a day. and then it will be November and the Dems will not have passed healthcare reform and then we’ll all be f**ked anyway — the 45K who DIE each year b/c they are uninsured, and anyone who cares about climate, about bank regulation, about don’t ask don’t tell, about anything other than tax cuts and sticking it to the middle and working classes.
the FASTEST and SUREST way to git-r-done is for the House to have the guts, balls, and spine to pass the Senate bill FIRST, and have it signed into law, and give Dems something POSITIVE to campaign on, for chrissakes — and then LET’S FIX IT through budget reconciliation.
Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of presentation?