Progressives Threaten To Cut Off Money For Dems Who Oppose Health Care

With the finish line for health care reform in sight, progressive groups are taking an aggressive approach to make sure that Democrats in Congress vote with their party. They're threatening to stop giving them money.

In the past few weeks, several separate groups have announced they will withhold fundraising money and political support from any Democrats who either vote against the bill in the House or support a GOP filibuster of the bill in the Senate.

On October 27, the progressive advocacy organization MoveOn.org sent a petition to four moderate Democratic senators, signed by past donors and volunteers for those senators, declaring that the well would dry up if they prevented health care from going to an up-or-down vote. The recipients were Evan Bayh of Indiana (who received a petition signed by 244 former donors or volunteers) Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (166 signatures), Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (35 signatures) and Ben Nelson of Nebraska (51 signatures).

"[MoveOn] Members in key states are stepping out and saying to their senators, 'if we can't count on you to get an up or down vote on this critical bill, you won't be able to count on us come election time,'" explained Ilyse G. Hogue, director of political advocacy and communications for MoveOn.org. "Progressives no longer want to work to elect members who stand with special interests when it comes time to fix our country's problems."

A similar effort is being launched on the House side. On Tuesday, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the popular Daily Kos blog, urged readers to simply stop writing checks to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as an explicit message to those "18 most endangered" Democrats who voted against health care legislation.

"It's clear that if you don't want your money to go to bad Democrats, then it's impossible to donate to the party committees," Moulitsas told the Huffington Post. "Some of the most endangered Democrats in 2010 are also some of the worst. If you want to contribute to the good ones, it's best to target your money directly to them."

A DCCC spokesman declined to respond.

Meanwhile, an aide with the AFL-CIO tells the Huffington Post that they have begun discussing the possibility of urging members to withhold contributions to lawmakers who oppose health care reform or a cloture vote.

It is a decidedly more aggressive approach than that which was employed when the debate started. And it extends well beyond the wallet. Jane Hamsher, founder of the blog FireDogLake, has long been pushing the proposition that Senate Democrats who don't support reform should get a primary opponent in their next election.

"I think there are a lot of people sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how this plays out," Hamsher told the Huffington Post. "If Congress sides with the corporations over the people because they allow themselves to be taken hostage by the so-called 'centrists,' we're going to be looking at a really interesting 2010."

But some inside-the-beltway strategists aren't necessarily enamored with a tactic that is more sticks than carrots. Noting that the House was able to pass legislation by intra-caucus negotiations and horse-trading, the argument they make is that if the legislative strategy isn't broke, it doesn't necessarily need fixing.

"I think it is a very powerful point of influence when you go to people who rely on donations to fund very expensive campaigns and tell them the people they count on won't be there to support them because of their position on a single issue," said Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic strategist. "It's real and it is powerful. Having said that, do I think it is the way to get 60 votes in the Senate? No I don't. I think the way you do it is the way they did it in the House, which was to follow a process whereby you work with members and empower leadership. And for our side to be huffing and puffing on this and threatening people isn't the best way to empower leadership."

Comments

[Mike182]

I am all for meaningful health care reform......

I cheered when the bill squeaked through in the House. Now that I have read it, I'm not so sure why I was so happy. There is something inherently wrong with Congress. It's total lack of accountability and proper service to its constituents. Nothing will ever change when money and greed are at play. The bill seems to worry more about compromise (if you can even call it that) with health insurers than meaningful change for the people. You would think in a 2,000 page document they would be able to close all the loop holes but they are still there to be exploited. Much like the financial bailout these loop holes will be exploited and then the health insurers can hold up the bill and say nothing we are doing is against the law. One can imagine them thumbing their noses at us while they say it. What Congress fails to realize is health care reform has to be iron clad sweeping meaningful reform. It has to be a great for Americans because you are mandating Americans to buy insurance. How can anyone trust that this bill will make insurance or health care less expensive or better. I blame both parties for failing health care reform. Their lack of cooperation, their lack of civic duty and their readiness to put aside what Americans want for their own greed.

[research]

and what about the insruance companies throwing you out when you get sick?

`(f) Rescission- A health insurance issuer may rescind individual health insurance coverage only upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection (b)(2), under procedures that provide for independent, external third-party review.'.

(3) GUIDANCE- The Secretary of Health and Human Services, no later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall issue guidance implementing the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2), including procedures for independent, external third-party review.

That is, they can throw you out, let you die, then a review board will slap them on the wrist.

[research]

Here's another loophole:

(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS- If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.

Read the bill. It's so complicated and bureaucratic, it is DESIGNED to fail.

When you are dying from cancer, you don't have the energy, the clarity of thought, the resources to fight your way through the thicket of requirements they are throwing up.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111qEJiEt:e28214:

[research]

This bill has been compromised to death.

besides 50 years abortion backstep, and forcing and penalizing people for not buying corrupt unreliably private insurance,, too bad if you are high risk:

"High risk pool eligibility:

(3) who has not had health insurance coverage or coverage under an employment-based health plan for at least the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of the individual's application for high-risk pool coverage under this section; or

(4) who on or after October 29, 2009, had employment-based retiree health coverage (as defined in subsection (i)) and the annual increase in premiums for such individual under such coverage (for any coverage period beginning on or after such date) exceeds such excessive percentage as the Secretary shall specify."

So if you have cancer you only have to wait till the Secretary pick a percentage lower than what the insurance companies want.

Worse, you will be without insurance for 6 months.

So you will probably die.

THIS BILL, the way it is now, SHOULD not pass.

[pup sydney]

they threaten to withdraw money or support? I already DO withdraw support for these spineless people and dccc

[tempting]

Everyone please call the faith based groups who are defending people like this and scaring off votes for health care in God's name. today I was checking channels and heard the CTN channel constantly harping on how bad the HR bill is and asking folks to call [phone] to sign a petition to stop the bill. Well I called and told them that they should be ashamed of using their faith to lie to the public. These people are with out guile.
The playing field is not level and there are hardly any outlets for those of us who are progressive in MSM. Their site is www.ctnonline.com.

[barbzee]

Guess they'll have to get their funds from Big Pharma then. No problem

[reasonshouldrule]

I'm proud to be a card-carrying, contributing member of MoveOn. They are generally the only group staying on message and acting accordingly.

[kevinw]

Oh yeah, do it the way you did it in the House, a watered down public option with limited entry and the Stupack anti-woman amendment. Yeah that worked great. What the strategest are trying to tell us is that we need to be good and loyal little kids and be happy with the Robust trigger thingie that they are putting together. Thats how it is done. Promise something tansformative and historic and then water it down to where with the individual mandate it may be worse than it is today.

The conservadems have the right to vote as they please, they do not have the right to my time and money. If they can't get this passed then why did we need to work so hard to get 60 votes? Whose side are they on.

[bluefire66]

Well considering that most politicians only listen to you if you wave money in their faces, I believe this is a step in the right direction. I remember the days when politicians used to listen to their constituents. If that no longer works, then withhold as much money as you can. Maybe this is the way voters should lobby.

[treetracker]

"And for our side to be huffing and puffing on this and threatening people isn't the best way to empower leadership."

Well, Tad, that's your first mistake...thinking these people are leaders rather than what they really are...sellouts to the corporate dollar.

[steve-annie]

Exactly! Anyone who is described as a longtime Democratic strategist is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I haven't given a dime to the Democratic party for several years because I was tired of seeing my hard-earned money used to elect people you couldn't tell apart from Republicans. I make my contributions directly to the campaigns of people I feel comfortable supporting and the party itself won't get anything until they start supporting truly progressive candidates. If the folks in Congress aren't worried about this they should be, because MoveOn polled its 3 million-plus membership asking whether they should take the kind of action discussed above and the response was overwhelmingly in favor of it. Obviously, I was not alone in my disgust at the way the party was being run.

[treetracker]

I'm putting together a list at:
http://www.pdawa2nd.org/house.html and
http://www.pdawa2nd.org/senate.html
(currently needs updated with the latest votes).

I've had it - doesn't matter what party they are - they are either enablers or full fledged participants.

There are just a VERY FEW worth keeping - the rest MUST GO!

[MadridFrank]

Another eloquent example of Republican "civil war"?

[themainpoint]

And maybe Moveon can target the dems who whittled this so-called reform down to nothing, too. (at least for those of us who wanted a real public option and a truly fair system). As far as I'm concerned, they need to start over, and they need to get it right and deliver genuine reform:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/9/house_passes_healthcare_bill_with_amendment

[yankee222]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Democrats for their healthcare plan. My WellPoint stock has increased 15% since I bought it one month ago.

Go Dems!

[apresdeluge]

Glad to hear you are profiting off the pain, suffering and death of others. You are in good company: the health insurance industry and Republican's who have sold their souls to them. Sleep well tonight.

[jimfl]

Thank you MoveOn. I depend on you.

[MadridFrank]

Moveon is the Sopranos without principles!

[mlbee2002]

I completely agree with this! If the Dems, especially in the Senate, are too whimpy and spineless to do what they have always said that they wanted to do and would do if only they had the majority, if they won't live up to their own party platform on an issue that effects every single American and has life or death consequences then please, lets withhold the donations. How long are we supposed to be the P R ! S O N B ! T C H E S of the Democratic Party if they can't get a strong health care billed passed with a 60 seat majority in the Senate? If Congress fails on this issue, then I'm done.

[yankee222]

It starts at the top with a spineless POTUS who canned single payer, trashed the public option and signed a sleazy backroom deal with big pharma.

[ConjureMan]

Good vision. Much as we all have trouble admitting it. BO is most assuredly the ring-leader. After the Pharma & AMA deals i was disgusted, and gave up on politicians. They are all the same, maybe different skin-tone, maybe more articulate, but down deep, just the same.

[schicklett3]

Move On is the best political group in the nation!
I support their efforts fully.
They're the only group with enough guts to take on the republicans, and the blue dog democrats.