[EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment

Sat Jun 16 14:33:15 PDT 2012

"The communications are absolutely about groups of citizens expressing
views on candidates -- no question about it, Mark.  We agree there."

Where the heck did the idea that Aetna is owned by "citizens" come from?
There is no reason to think that 100%, or even 50%, of the equity is held
by American citizens.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:

> The communications are absolutely about groups of citizens expressing
> views on candidates -- no question about it, Mark.  We agree there.
>
> We were promised in 1938, in a *Carolene* compromise, that it is safe to
> close the courts to economic claims because economic deprivations are
> unlikely to occur in a system of robust political processes: Economics
> would be deemed a political question.
>
> Retaliation 1) by government officials 2) with the regulatory *means* to
> determine a business providers' very economic fate (*see* IPAB and
> Dodd-Frank for its sweeping authority and lack of checks by co-equal
> branches), who have 3) demonstrated a *motive* to retaliate (*see* Attack
> Watch, the selective application of the DISCLOSE Act, a selective
> application of Draft executive orders, Sebelius' threat to keep outspoken
> opponents from healthcare exchanges and multiple other examples) and you
> quickly begin to see the *Carolene *compromise is dead without a
> meaningful exemption from campaign disclosure for independent,
> non-corrupting speakers who rightly see political participation as their
> only remedy but do not relish being next to be abused.
>
> If the *Carolene* compromise is dead, so is popular sovereignty.  What's
> a reviewing Court to do?
>
> - S
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  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>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>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>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.
>>>>>  [image: 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.”
>>>>>  [image: 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.
>>>>>  [image: 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.
>>>>>  [image: 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.”
>>>>>  [image: 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.
>>>>>  [image: 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>
>>>>>  [image: 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>
>>>>> .”
>>>>>  [image: 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>>>>> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> 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
>>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>>> twitter: @mschmitt9
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120616/5d3c7094/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/20120616/5d3c7094/attachment.png>