Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

Arnold's Freedom to Choose: Subprime Lending Regulation and the Bubble in California
California and the Nation’s Financial Mess: It’s About Transparency
Conservatives Should Be Appalled by the Iraq War and the Administration’s Other Self-Destructive Policies on Terror
Regarding California’s Deadliest Train Collision: What Was Learned and Done Thus Far and What May Lay Ahead
Three Overlapping Seats Winnable in Central California Blue Wave: Congress, State Senate, and Assembly
Taking a Close Look at Prop 4, Californians Will Vote No—As They Have Two Times When Similar Measures Were on the Ballot
Stuck in Traffic? Think a Moment on How Important High Speed Rail is to California

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Campaign Contributions and Healthcare Legislation in California: What the Data Shows

By Dan Newman

Healthcare is a critical issue to ordinary Californians, but it seems that voters have little say about the fate of healthcare legislation in California. At MAPLight.org, a nonpartisan watchdog group that studies the connection between money and politics, we found that California lawmakers’ votes on key healthcare bills align with their big campaign contributors alarmingly often.

We looked at seven key healthcare bills and found that, on five of them, California legislators’ votes correlated closely with the money they received from interests supporting or opposing those bills. This pattern reveals a consistent and persistent bias in our legislative system. Whether campaign donations help convince a legislator to cast votes that are favorable to a specific group, or industries fund candidates who are already sympathetic to their interests, campaign contributions are distorting public policy.

Let’s take a look at the hard data. In a report just released, MAPLight.org examined seven significant health-related bills in the California legislature during the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 legislative sessions. In five out of the seven bills, campaign contributions from both supporters and opponents correlated with how legislators voted. For the two remaining bills, contributions from groups on one side of the bill (support or opposition) correlated with how legislators voted, while contributions from groups on the other side did not.
For example, AB 977 (2006) would have required health plans and health insurers to seek regulatory approval before selling most health care plans.

Unions, such as the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, and consumer groups supported this bill. Health plans, such as Blue Cross of California and Kaiser Permanente, were opposed. The bill passed the Assembly and died with a vote in a Senate committee, with 2 Senators voting yes, 4 voting no, and 5 not voting.

Supporters of the bill, like the unions, gave an average of $3,750 to each of the 2 Senators voting Yes. They gave much less--$478 on average--to each of the 9 Senators voting No or not voting.

Opponents of the legislation, mostly health insurance firms, gave an average of $13,951 to each of the 9 Senators voting No or not voting. They gave 14 times less--an average of $1,000--to each of the two Senators voting yes. The study used campaign contribution records from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

This report, California Healthcare - Dollars and Politics, might justly make you cynical about our legislative system. Many of us have simply come to expect this kind of bias. Legislators listen to big-money donors, not to regular people. But why do we entrust decisions on critical issues like healthcare to a biased system?

Dan Newman is Executive Director of MAPLight.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in Berkeley, California. MAPLight.org’s website provides an unprecedented database of campaign contributions and legislative outcomes, illuminating the connection between money and politics.

Posted on October 20, 2007

Comments

Interest Groups contribute money to candidates who's philosophy embraces their concerns. Typically those candidates divide by party. That is fact.

To say that this fact proves that money drives policy is simply false - nothing is yet "proved".

A liberal Democratic lawmaker voting against insurance interestrs who accepts money and suddenly switches his voting pattern - that might be evidence

Posted by: william cavala at October 20, 2007 10:43 AM

One dollar, one vote. Our system of government may not
be representative per capita, but ad valorem it sure can't be beat. Cavala's argument basically breaks down into an honest politician is one who stays bought.

A better way to demonstrate the influence of money on
politics is to look at issues which are not addressed in our politic system and then note when they begin being addressed by our system and noting whether this correlates with money. A classic example are the Indian tribes--before they were given a (semi-)monopoly on gambling, when they went to Sacramento they were treated, well, like Indians have usually been treated in this country. After they got the monopoly, and money, they are treated with tremendous "respect."

Posted by: Random at October 20, 2007 11:43 AM

How about California lesgislators stop caving in to special interest groups who line their pockets????

Posted by: lasonya at October 21, 2007 08:22 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker