[EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Sat Jun 16 06:44:49 PDT 2012
Right, but the original claim was that Aetna was expressing its support
for "medical markets" and "free enterprise."
In fact, they are simply using their resources to intervene in an
election. Is there any reason that should be treated differently, for
purposes of disclosure, than other electoral interventions, such as
contributing directly to a campaign?
On 6/15/2012 6:40 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> And of course, trying to persuade voters to "elect friendly
> legislators" has nothing to do with expressing political views.
>
> /Bradley A. Smith/
>
> /Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault/
>
> / Professor of Law/
>
> /Capital University Law School/
>
> /303 E. Broad St./
>
> /Columbus, OH 43215/
>
> /614.236.6317/
>
> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Mark
> Schmitt [schmitt.mark at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 5:31 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment
>
> Gingrich's views changed when his interests changed. His interests
> changed when he switched from being a lobbyist for the health
> insurance industry to being a Republican candidate for president. And
> I didn't say Aetna's best outcome would be a mandate. It would be a
> mandate with no other regulation -- a terrible policy and the opposite
> of public opinion. The parts of the health care law they want to get
> ride of are not the mandate.
>
> I doubt is so unsophisticated as to fall for something just because it
> "looks enticing." They have, you know, computers and actuaries and stuff.
>
> But ultimately, they believe that their best shot at having the
> influence that will get them closest to the policy results they want
> is to elect more Republicans. I keep coming back to this because I
> want to emphasize that these donations aren't about the corporation
> "expressing its views." They are about electing friendly legislators.
>
>
> On 6/15/2012 5:06 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>> Aetna's views might change for the reasons Newt Gingrich's views
>> (may) have changed. An individual mandate looks enticing, until one
>> begins fully to understand what the Progressives will do with it, and
>> at what cost. (I don't just mean dollars).
>>
>> Don't be so sure "Aetna's ideal outcome, in terms of interests, would
>> be a mandate." Aetna, too, may be learning. Indeed, I'm betting
>> there was a time GM's former CEO Rick Wagoner might have thought a
>> ten-year tax break for General Motors would be /nirvana/ -- "an ideal
>> outcome, in terms of interests." Guarantee you he doesn't think so
>> any longer.
>>
>> I am glad to see you are willing to watch the experiment. I too will
>> watch. Of course, as Bill suggests, it may be hard to gauge what
>> concessions Aetna may already be making behind the scenes. But that
>> won't keep us from watching. If you discover anything interesting,
>> Mark, please let us know.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com
>> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Why would Aetna's views change? It's interests haven't changed.
>> And in answer to Bill, it's supported the mandate through
>> Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses, so it's
>> not likely doing it just to curry favor.
>>
>> Aetna's ideal outcome, in terms of its interests, would be a
>> mandate, which delivers customers, mostly healthy low-cost ones,
>> without any insurance regulation, so they could continue to
>> screen out the less healthy, higher-cost applicants. Of course,
>> that's the very worst combination by any interpretation of the
>> public interest. (People who really need insurance still wouldn't
>> get it and would wind up in super-expensive high-risk pools, or
>> uncompensated care, and the whole thing would be staggeringly
>> expensive.)
>>
>> I'm happy to treat the revelation of Aetna's political
>> contributions as an experiment in political retaliation. It's
>> unlikely that a consumer boycott would follow, since most Aetna
>> customers (I'm one) aren't choosing to buy from them directly,
>> the cost of shifting is high, and most other large insurers take
>> a similar position (since they have similar interests). And
>> because the health reform /is /a market-based program,
>> administrators at HHS don't have a lot of room to randomly punish
>> large insurers for their political involvement, since they
>> desperately need those insurers to implement the program. But
>> let's see where the experiment stands in a year or two. And let's
>> also see whether Aetna's influence in Congress helped it get
>> closer to the result most in its interests.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/15/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> First let me say, I would not be at all surprised if Aetna's
>>> views have evolved or changed in the past decade. To the extent
>>> those views have not changed, perhaps Aetna would, on a balance
>>> of factors, be willing to support candidates who would repeal a
>>> law containing an individual mandate in its entirety for fear of
>>> keeping a law that contains, say, an IPAB. I don't know the
>>> particulars of Aetna's calculation.
>>>
>>> What I do know is that the Chamber's ads will be independent of
>>> the candidates it supports and will be non-corrupting as a
>>> matter of law. (We will soon see if that legal proposition is
>>> burnished or dented in the Montana litigation currently before
>>> the SCOTUS). Therefore, all that is being further by this
>>> compelled disclosure is not anti-corruption, but only the
>>> so-called "informational interest."
>>>
>>> My point and question, however, is not yours, which, if I can
>>> summarize it, is tied to the informational interest as follows:
>>> Won't it be interesting to see if Aetna backs someone who will
>>> repeal an individual mandate?"
>>>
>>> Rather, my point is this: Will this recent disclosure of $7.8M
>>> bring the heat down on Aetna? That's the experiment I want to
>>> see run. I don't flatter myself enough to think my mentioning
>>> the potential of retaliation against Aetna here will constrain
>>> anyone from retaliating against Aetna. So, the integrity of the
>>> experiment survives, and we shall see.
>>>
>>> But I will flatter myself -- flatter my spotting of this issue
>>> some time ago, anyway -- to this degree. Senator McConnell's
>>> speech on government-on-citizen retribution at AEI, and a
>>> related speech at CPAC, show that my theory -- that we have now
>>> reached in America a state of affairs where Capitalists Need
>>> /Socialist Workers/
>>> <http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/266623/when-capitalists-need-socialist-workers-stephen-m-hoersting>
>>> -- will have its day.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Steve Hoersting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Schmitt
>>> <schmitt.mark at gmail.com <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We already know Aetna's position on health reform, from it's
>>> actual /speech/ on the issue, which is different from the
>>> contributions it makes to influence elections. Aetna's
>>> position on health reform, going back a decade, has been
>>> that it supports an individual mandate, but opposes other
>>> insurance regulations.
>>> (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/3/667.full)
>>>
>>> Aetna's contributions to Republican candidates through these
>>> electoral committees will likely fund a message that, if it
>>> talks about health reform at all, will take the opposite
>>> position, attacking the mandate while promising to retain
>>> some of the more popular insurance regulations, such as
>>> guaranteed issue. Why? Because that's simply a more
>>> effective message for electing Republicans.
>>>
>>> That contradiction is interesting to know about. And if the
>>> Supreme Court overturns the whole health law, and the Romney
>>> administration somehow neglects to fulfill its promise to
>>> restore or keep the insurance regulations, the influence of
>>> mega-donors like Aetna might just have something to do with it.
>>>
>>> It's also strong evidence that these contributions have
>>> nothing to do with expression of a corporation's views, but
>>> simply getting Republicans elected.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/15/2012 8:49 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>>> So, Aetna has disclosed the fact that it supports those who
>>>> support medical markets. This is interesting, and
>>>> surprising. Finally, the voters will learn that the
>>>> Chamber /really/ supports free enterprise.
>>>>
>>>> But let's see what, if anything, happens to Aetna in the
>>>> next few months. We will see whether the voters simply take
>>>> their cues from this disclosure and better understand the
>>>> Chamber's message. Or see whether the disclosure paves the
>>>> way for boycotts or brickbats.
>>>>
>>>> If the Target
>>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/target-gay-marriage-ban-minnesota_n_1564739.html>
>>>> matter is any indicator, Color of Change or, perhaps,
>>>> Kathleen Sebelius in this case (/see/ Michael Cannon and
>>>> Diane Cohen's latest study
>>>> <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302876/ipab-obamacare-s-super-legislature-michael-f-cannon?pg=2>
>>>> to understand what I mean) will have Aetna selling "Single
>>>> Payer" t-shirts by October.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Hoersting
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Rick Hasen
>>>> <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back Monday <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35746>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 9:01 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35746> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> See you then.
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35746&title=Back%20Monday&description=>
>>>> Posted in Uncategorized
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Aetna Confirms It Gave $7.8 Million To Chamber,
>>>> American Action Network"
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35744>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 9:00 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35744> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Tip of a very large iceberg, I suspect.
>>>>
>>>> Must-read
>>>> <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=27071457&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d3d5m7n5&split=0>
>>>> Bloomberg BNA: "The insurance company Aetna confirmed
>>>> June 14 that it donated about $7.8 million to two major
>>>> Republican-leaning organizations---the U.S. Chamber of
>>>> Commerce and American Action Network---which have
>>>> sponsored tens of millions of dollars worth of
>>>> political ads but have never disclosed their funding
>>>> sources. The revelation---which came due to an
>>>> accidental filing by Aetna---was significant because
>>>> few, if any, political donations from large, public
>>>> corporations have been revealed previously....'We
>>>> support organizations and candidates who share our
>>>> views on how to fix the problems facing our health care
>>>> system, as well as our country,' [Aetna President]
>>>> Bertolini said. 'We fully comply with all federal and
>>>> state disclosure requirements.'...The Chamber spent
>>>> over $30 million on television ads in the 2010
>>>> congressional elections---nearly all of it backing
>>>> Republican candidates or attacking Democrats."
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35744&title=%E2%80%9CAetna%20Confirms%20It%20Gave%20%247.8%20Million%20To%20Chamber%2C%20American%20Action%20Network%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and
>>>> election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> |
>>>> Comments Off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Let Them Give Millions"
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35741>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 8:54 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35741> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Rosenthal
>>>> <http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/let-them-give-millions/?ref=politics>
>>>> on Newt Gingrich's campaign finance complaints.
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35741&title=%E2%80%9CLet%20Them%20Give%20Millions%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "FEC Deadlocks On Attempted Evasion of Disclosure
>>>> Laws" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35738>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 5:28 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35738> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> This item
>>>> <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1766:june-14-2012-fec-deadlocks-on-attempted-evasion-of-disclosure-laws&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>
>>>> appears at the CLC Blog.
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35738&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Deadlocks%20On%20Attempted%20Evasion%20of%20Disclosure%20Laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election
>>>> commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> |
>>>> Comments Off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Florida governor mistaken for dead in 2006 vote"
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35736>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 5:27 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35736> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Reuters
>>>> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-voting-florida-idUSBRE85D15R20120614>:
>>>> "Florida's governor, who is leading a disputed purge of
>>>> voter registration rolls, had to cast a provisional
>>>> ballot in 2006 because officials mistakenly thought he
>>>> was dead, election officials said on Thursday."
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35736&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20governor%20mistaken%20for%20dead%20in%202006%20vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in election administration
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "WyLiberty Attorneys File Lawsuit to Stop FEC Chill
>>>> on Free Speech" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35733>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 2:03 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35733> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Press release
>>>> <http://wyliberty.org/feature/wyliberty-attorneys-file-lawsuit-to-stop-fec-chill-on-free-speech/>:
>>>> "Wyoming Liberty Group attorneys filed a lawsuit
>>>> <http://wyliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Free-Speech-v-FEC-Verified-Complaint.pdf>
>>>> in the Wyoming federal district court today against the
>>>> Federal Election Commission (FEC) on behalf of Free
>>>> Speech, a Wyoming grassroots organization...The suit,
>>>> Free Speech v. Federal Election Commission, argues that
>>>> vague and overbroad FEC regulations, which require
>>>> grassroots groups to register as 'political committees'
>>>> (PACs), effectively shut down much speech in the
>>>> heartland."
>>>>
>>>> It is not clear how much this complaint overlaps with
>>>> the recent 4th Circuit decision
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35602> in the /Real
>>>> Truth About Obama/ case.
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35733&title=%E2%80%9CWyLiberty%20Attorneys%20File%20Lawsuit%20to%20Stop%20FEC%20Chill%20on%20Free%20Speech%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Law & Order: Election Administration Unit; News
>>>> Roundup: 2012 has been a litigious year"
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35730>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 12:17 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35730> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> That's the lead story in this week's Electionline
>>>> Weekly.
>>>> <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35730&title=%E2%80%9CLaw%20%26%20Order%3A%20Election%20Administration%20Unit%20News%20Roundup%3A%202012%20has%20been%20a%20litigious%20year%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in election administration
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Justice Kennedy Issues Temporary Stay in Arizona
>>>> Voter Registration Case
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35727>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 12:11 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35727> by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> SCOTUSBlog
>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/new-arizona-election-plea/>:
>>>> "FINAL UPDATE Thursday 2:20 p.m. Justice Kennedy has
>>>> issued a temporary order
>>>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Kennedy-order-11A1189.pdf>
>>>> delaying the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling, at least
>>>> until further briefs are filed in the case. The
>>>> Circuit Court mandate was due to be issued tomorrow,
>>>> but now will be delayed until at least next Wednesday
>>>> afternoon. The challengers to the Arizona citizenship
>>>> proof requirement are to file a brief by Monday
>>>> afternoon, with a state reply due by noon Wednesday.
>>>> Earlier today, this post was updated to provide a link
>>>> to the application, here
>>>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11A1189-AZ-applic.pdf>."
>>>>
>>>> Share
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35727&title=Justice%20Kennedy%20Issues%20Temporary%20Stay%20in%20Arizona%20Voter%20Registration%20Case&description=>
>>>> Posted in NVRA (motor voter)
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33> | Comments Off
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rick Hasen
>>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>>> UC Irvine School of Law
>>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>>> 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>>>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>>> Pre-order The Voting Wars:http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>>>> www.thevotingwars.com <http://www.thevotingwars.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Schmitt
>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
>> 202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350>
>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>> twitter: @mschmitt9
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> --
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: @mschmitt9
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120616/1fab7f00/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120616/1fab7f00/attachment.png>
View list directory