For decades, the answer to that question has been a firm “no.” As far back as 1907, Congress has passed legislation banning corporations and national banks from contributing money to federal campaigns. In fact, in 1947 legislation was passed that also banned independent campaign expenditures by both corporations and unions. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce upheld that ban in 1990, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 went even further in its regulation of campaign donations.

But just a week ago, the Supreme Court made a decision that might change the answer to our question forever. The high court postponed a narrow ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and instead ordered a second argument, setting the stage to broadly re-examine whether corporate campaign expenditures may be restricted at all.

In the case, the conservative group Citizens United asked the court to reject restrictions in the BCRA that would have forced a disclosure of who paid for “Hillary: The Movie,” a film critical of the then-presidential candidate. But the court appears poised to go much further.

Instead of making a decision on the case at hand, the court ordered a second argument for September 9. In doing so, the Court now has asked whether it should overrule two of its landmark campaign finance rulings, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, both of which held that corporations can be prohibited from spending their own cash in direct support of or opposition to political candidates.

It seems as though the entire decades-long effort to keep corporate (and union) money from dominating our political campaigns is to be unceremoniously scrapped. A decision to overrule Austin and McConnell would transform our elections into free-for-alls with massive corporate and union spending flooding the airwaves and officeholders beholden to the deep pockets that promoted their candidacies.

And we’re not the only ones who think so. Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School, was quoted by the National Journal, saying that if the court reverses itself,

it’s going to undo much of what Congress has done over the last at least 40 years in trying to make sure that the vast economic inequalities in this country are not translated into political inequality.

Even now, American corporations are attempting to influence health care legislation and financial reform. Allowing them outright power over our democratic elections would be devastating. Do you want your next senator to be chosen by big businesses or the people? Stay tuned for more action, as this battle has only begun.

Flickr photo by kool_skatkat.

That’s how much the Washington Post reports that drug companies, health insurance companies and others in the corporate health-care business are spending on lobbying to water down health care reform in Washington, D.C.

I wonder if many uninsured and underinsured patients think that  is money well spent. Or the people who have filed for bankruptcy because they couldn’t pay for health care – who are, in fact, most people who file for bankruptcy in the U.S. – do they think these millions are well-spent health-care dollars?

Instead of health care, what is the health-care industry buying with this money – more than $126 million in the first quarter? They’re buying more than 350 former Congress members and former staffers, who sell their influence to advocate on behalf of special interests.

Those in the business of corporate health care have gotten into the habit of calling government programs inefficient, but is spending money like this on lobbying instead of actually delivering care what they call “efficiency”? In truth, the most efficient reform of the health care industry would be a single-payer national health-care system.  

Watch Public Citizen’s acting president, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, M.D., on PBS’s Bill Moyer’s Journal to learn more about single-payer.

Flickr photo by Brooks Elliot.

Say you bought a car in 2001 – a Volkswagon, for example. Let’s also say that you thoroughly read your car’s warranty detailing what type of gasoline to use. Filling up the pump shouldn’t be a big deal, right?

Wrong – if the ethanol industry gets its way.

Growth Energy, an ethanol trade association, petitioned the E.P.A. back in March to increase the allowable amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 percent (10E) to 15 percent (15E). The group, co-chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, claims this increase would be harmless, resulting in cleaner air and posing no risks to vehicle engines.

But, Growth Energy’s proposal is anything but harmless.

Let’s return to the example of the 2001 Volkswagon. Most vehicle manufacturers specifically instruct consumers in warranty agreements not to fuel their vehicles with ethanol blends greater than 10E. Available research on “legacy” fleets, or cars currently on the road, shows that lots of problems can occur if higher ethanol blends are used, including damage to engine components and control systems, and increased combustion temperatures (things all vehicle-owners want to avoid).

If the E.P.A. approves 15E ethanol blends, this kind of damage could occur to many consumers’ vehicles. And, since consumers bought their cars with a warranty stating not to use blends over 10E, there’s a chance they won’t be eligible for warranty claims should any damage occur.

As if that isn’t reason enough to oppose the increase, ethanol also could pose more dangers to your health. Research – for example, a 2007 Stanford University study that explored the effects of ethanol vs. gasoline – shows that ethanol is related to ground-level ozone, which can cause or worsen asthma and other respiratory problems.

The environmental benefits are unclear – the E.P.A. is currently studying the lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts of ethanol and other biofuels. So, it would be premature for the E.P.A. to permit 15E before it has publicly released the results of its study.

All this information is pretty disheartening, but luckily, there is something you can do about it. The E.P.A. is asking for public comments on Growth Energy’s petition for an ethanol increase. This is your chance to speak out against the dangers of 15E and counter the ethanol industry’s efforts.

Public Citizen has set up a page for you, with a sample comment, that you can send straight to the E.P.A. It will only take a minute. So take action today!

Yesterday, President Obama submitted his proposal to create a new consumer protection agency to Congress—and it’s already stirring up a debate.

First, take a look at some of the functions of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CPFA), as outlined by the Associated Press:

• oversee products used by consumers such as mortgages, credit cards, payday loans and terms on savings accounts;
• be in charge of implementing a law passed by Congress this spring that protects consumers from sudden interest rate increases on unpaid credit card balances;
• be required to police the market continuously and publish its findings once a year; and
• consist of a five-member board, with four members nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The fifth member would be the director of the new National Bank Supervisor, a proposed merged agency to create to take over bank regulation duties.

We think the president’s proposal to create a new CFPA will add much needed oversight of an industry that has run wild at great expense to consumers and homeowners. The current lack of oversight and regulation, along with Wall Street’s unchecked greed, drove this country into its current financial crisis. Americans deserve an agency that will put their financial well-being ahead of the short-term profits of a few Wall Street banks.

But the bankers don’t seem to agree. According to the Washington Post,

an intense lobbying effort has already begun to win over the few undecided lawmakers who will be critical in deciding which details will be included in the final bill. Industry groups say they are forming a coalition to persuade members of Congress to scale back the bill.

What’s their concern? Money, of course. U.S. News and World Report says it’s possible that the CFPA “would be funded through assessments on banking firms themselves—similar to the way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp’s insurance fund is paid for—[and the banks] aren’t going to be happy about anything that involves coughing up extra cash.”

This agency will not work if its powers are diluted and the banks get what they want. The whole point of financial reform and oversight is to change the status quo for the better, so that consumers are protected from risky practices by lenders.

Further, if the president and Congress are serious about ensuring that new laws are enforced, they should give consumers the ability to enforce their own rights in court – not depend on government regulators to protect them. Want to take action? Sign our petition demanding transparency, oversight, and accountability in the financial industry. With your support, we’ll keep working with Congress and the administration to ensure passage of the strongest possible consumer protection agency.

That’s how Public Citizen’s Craig Holman characterized the push back against President Obama’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) pick by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in a Politico story today. “[I]t’s good to see McCain and Feingold working together again on the campaign finance front,” said Holman in the story.

Politico reports:

[Holman] and other campaign finance reformers had worked closely for years with McCain on campaign finance matters until the senator began distancing himself from them in the run-up to his presidential campaign as he courted the GOP base. It considers restrictions on political spending to be a violation of free speech.

In regards to reconfiguring the FEC, Holman, who has met with Obama’s representatives several times about campaign finance issues since the election, said, “The White House needs pushing on this. [Obama] hasn’t come out in front in the battle.”

Currently, the FEC is stuck in political gridlock – three anti-regulation Republican commissioners (of the six total) have voted as a bloc against enforcement over and over and over again, resulting in 3-3 deadlocked votes that prevent the FEC from doing anything about alleged violations. The result? Ideological groups get away with meddling with elections.

To try to break the deadlocks, Obama must replace the ringleader of the Republican caucus, Bush-appointee Don McGahn. Instead, he has chosen only to replace one Democrat with another Democrat, a move unlikely to change anything.  McCain and Feingold’s hold on Obama’s nominee, labor lawyer John Sullivan, has been calculated to force the president’s hand to replace the three Republican commissioners — all of whom are ideologically opposed to the idea of regulation.

And if Obama doesn’t shake up the FEC? Midway through, this Talking Points Memo story gives a good run down of the kinds of abuses that are likely to continue. For example:

 A case in which Wal-Mart was accused of having managers give presentations informing employees that the Employee Free Choice Act, if passed, would hurt Wal-Mart and its employees, and that the law would be passed if Democrats won Congress and the White House in 2008. As the Wall Street Journal revealed (sub req.) in August 2008, some presenters went off-script to attack EFCA and Barack Obama directly. In a report to commissioners, FEC employees said Wal-Mart later acknowledged “even more egregious” violations than those exposed by the Journal. But the commission’s Republicans voted against opening an investigation even to determine whether violations of law had occurred.

This sort of election meddling must not be allowed to continue; in this instance, Obama should listen to McCain for a “change.”

…then you’ll love George Will’s insight on what to do about the health care crisis in today’s Washington Post!

Honestly, it’s amazing to me how these folks think sometimes. What does Will propose? Why, blind faith in the market’s invisible hand, of course.

Apparently, it looks to Will like distributing health care to everyone is just too darn hard. So let’s just not try – and then – ta-da! – we’ll “ration” health care only to those who are able to pay for it. Just like we already do right now – except, instead of calling health care costs outrageous, insidious and murderous, we’ll call these costs “rational,” Because, according to Will, “[P]rices produce a rational allocation of scarce resources.”

Good call! Prices are just so … rational? Just ask the 62 percent of people who file for bankruptcy because of medical bills. Given the simple, market-based “free choice” question, “Your money or your life?” all of them gave the correct answer. Until they ran out of money.

If this situation seems untenable to you, well, too bad, says Will:

Regarding reform, conservatives are accused of being a party of “no.” Fine. That is an indispensable word in politics because most new ideas are false and mischievous.

False and Mischievous, eh? The New York Times editorial page sheds some light on false and mischievous goings on in the health insurance industry today. Here’s an insightful tidbit:

 A House oversight subcommittee took a close look at a particularly shameful practice known as “rescission,” in which insurance companies cancel coverage for some sick policyholders rather than pay an expensive claim. The companies contend that rescissions are rare. But Congressional investigators found that three big insurers canceled about 20,000 individual policies over a five-year period — allowing them to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims.

 You see, booting people off of health insurance because they are sick is rational rationing ­– rational, because it’s profitable. Just like George Will thinks!

As the editorial shows, the health insurance industry is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I’m not a doctor, but I’m sure that trying to reach a political consensus with a disease isn’t the best way to cure it. Reformers should follow the same line of thought while trying to fix health care, and they’ll realize that a single-payer plan is the best option for our nation’s health.

flickr photo by charles.hope

As has been the norm of late, Public Citizen has been very busy over the past week advocating for safe drugs, doctor accountability, and comprehensive trade legislation. Testifying in front of Congress and the FDA is only part of what we’ve done. Check out these news highlights.

An Associated Press story picked up by newspapers all over the country tells of a contact lens solution that caused eye infections and, in some cases, even blindness. Even though consumers complained, the problems went unreported by the solution maker for over a year. Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of our Health Research Group, weighed in on the issue. Dr. Lurie also voiced his concern about “off-label” uses of botulinum toxin products as news of a Botox alternative, Dysport, emerged.

ABC News caught up with our hospital report this past weekend, featuring it and Dr. Sidney Wolfe, our acting president and director of our Health Research Group, on ABC World News with Charles Gibson. Their segment features Dr. Robert Ricketson, a surgeon who used a screwdriver instead of titanium rod during a back surgery. Three corrective surgeries later, his patient was left bedridden, paralyzed from the waist down. The catch? Dr. Ricketson lost his medical license in Oklahoma and Texas, but found a job in Hawaii because his previous employers had not reported negligence.

Most recently, Reuters wrote about mounting pressure on President Obama to enact new trade legislation. As over 100 lawmakers called Wednesday for such a change, Bill Holland, deputy director for our Global Trade Watch, speaks of our support for the new Trade Act, as it’s been called.

Flickr photo from Michele Catania.

As the debates surrounding climate change, trade and health care legislation heat up on Capitol Hill, Public Citizen has been busy urging lawmakers to craft bills that truly benefit the public. News highlights below.

 Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, was quoted in a Reuters story on the “cap-and-trade” climate legislation that is fast approaching a House vote. Slocum spoke on the weakened bill, expressing doubts on the measure’s ability, in its current form, to benefit low-income energy consumers: “Language tailored to retail rate payers was absent any sort of specific language that set aside a certain amount of benefits for household ratepayers… we’re not satisfied with the way the current language is structured,” he said.

Roll Call (subscription only) reported on the TRADE Act, the pending trade law that would re-open international trade agreements and provide an opportunity to create real progress. Kate Ackley reports:

Lori Wallach, director of [Public Citizen’s] Global Trade Watch, said anyone in favor of continuing international trade should get behind the [Rep. Mike] Michaud proposal.

“It lays out, going forward, what a good agreement should look like,” she said. It would correct previous agreements that are “packed with corporate protections” and give trade critics their own pro-active agenda, Wallach said.

In a Philadelphia Inquirer story about the federal indictment of a maker of bone-mending cement for illegally promoting the product for off-label uses, Public Citizen’s Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of our Health Research Group, weighed in. “It’s an attempt to do an end-run around the approval process,” said Lurie. Miriam Hill reports:

The indictment casts a spotlight on the cozy and lucrative relationships between doctors and makers of drugs and medical devices. The allegations, if true, also illustrate how a company can exploit regulatory gray areas to boost sales while undermining patient safety.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, M.D., Public Citizen’s acting president, appeared on PBS’s Nightly Business Report to discuss the new tobacco law signed by President Obama. Dr. Wolfe said the law finally gives the FDA the authority to get tough on tobacco companies.

In Alabama, disclosure of that states’ Congress members’ millions of dollars in personal assets has raised questions about how connected these affluent public servants can possibly be with their struggling constituents. The Press-Register’s Sean Reilly quotes Public Citizen’s Craig Homan: “This will affect many aspects of public policy,” [said Holman.] “They don’t know the fear of having a child who is sick and you’ve just lost your job and don’t have insurance.”

Flickr photo by brianbutko.

Karl Rove, former senior advisor to President George W. Bush, published a column today in the Wall Street Journal. The article, entitled “ObamaCare Isn’t Inevitable,” derides President Obama’s ideas of a public option for health insurance and blames the inability of Congress to put together health care reform on the American people.

Citing a Resurgent Republic (a group he calls a “nonprofit, right-of-center education organization” whose creation he assisted with) poll released Tuesday, Rove declares that “by a 60%-to-31% margin, Americans prefer getting their health coverage through private insurance rather than the federal government.”

Hold on, Mr. Rove. A New York Times/CBS News poll was released on Saturday, and its findings are a bit different:

The national telephone survey…found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers…The proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.

So if it has such broad support, why hasn’t health care reform made much progress since it began a little less than a month ago? The answer: lobbyists. Remember how the American Medical Association (AMA) told Congress it “does not believe creating a public health insurance option… is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs”? Well since the 2000 election cycle, its political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to Congressional candidates.

This weekend, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus is taking a break from health care reform to hold a fundraiser, where lobbyists can pay thousands to hang out with the senator. Our own Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s Legislative Representative, recently told CQ Politics:

It’s unseemly to be doing this just before the markup [of Baucus’ draft health care bill]…This kind of schmoozing of lawmakers clearly buys influence.

When the AMA, insurers and pharmaceutical companies get involved, they are going to look out for the best interests of those they represent, and that isn’t the American people.

We’ve said it again and again: Congress cannot exclude single-payer advocates from the debate on health care reform. At meetings and rallies around the country, Americans have demanded to know why Congress has not considered single-payer, the most popular health reform proposal around. On June 11, Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program testified before the full Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions – the first time all year someone advancing single-payer had been allowed to participate in the Senate discussion of health care reform.

At the time, we said Dr. Flowers’ testimony wasn’t enough. A great deal of misinformation was still floating out there about single-payer that Congress had not yet addressed. But today, our own Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research group and our acting president, was invited to testify in front of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the single-payer option.

Why do we so strongly believe in the single-payer option? Well, we’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: replacing private insurance companies with a national health insurance program could save $400 billion a year in excessive administrative costs, provide coverage to the 45 million people in the United States who are uninsured, and help prevent the more than 18,000 deaths a year from a lack of health insurance. Why, then, is Congress so hesitant to consider the single-payer option? Politics, plain and simple. President Obama has said that if we could start our health care system from scratch, we would have a single-payer system, but right now it’s too disruptive.

We know that single-payer is the answer, even if it doesn’t align with our current health care system. If our president is such a fan of change, as he campaigned last year, why won’t he get behind the single-payer answer?

Flickr photo by seiuhealthcare775nw.