Archive for the ‘Article’ Category

Eric Receives Money from Health Care Industry

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

This appeared in Style Weekly today.

Cantor’s Friends

The minority whip is a leading recipient of contributions from the health care industry. Will his role as a leading critic of its reform come with a steep price?

by Peter Galuszka

When it comes to keeping big-spending liberals and big government in check, U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Henrico, often cites his steadfast allegiance to ordinary taxpayers. The rising Republican star and minority whip is a particularly staunch defender of the status quo in today’s system of managed care, although he acknowledges it’s too expensive.

On the national political talk-show circuit where he’s a frequent guest, he insists that the government should stay out of health care as much as possible. In his frequent newspaper columns and speeches at fundraisers, he says that the government-led “public option” of providing health insurance is a horrible idea.

Health care companies need Cantor badly to make their case. They stand to lose billions if the system that’s served them so well is changed significantly by reforms pushed by President Barack Obama.

And they’re paying well for the service. Cantor is one of the leading recipients of health industry contributions in Congress. He led the list in the House of Representatives for funding from both lobbyists and health care company employees and their political action committees, receiving a total of $157,500 since 2007.

The data was compiled by two Washington-based watchdog groups, the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. While there’s nothing illegal about accepting such contributions, “he’s way up there on the list,” says Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the center, which collects and analyzes campaign contribution data. Total donations from the health care industry to Cantor are higher if totaled up for the decade or so he’s been in office.

Yet back home in Richmond, Cantor’s close ties to big health rarely come up. At a Sept. 21 health care forum held by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, for example, Cantor debated U.S. Rep. Robert “Bobby” C. Scott, D-Newport News. Scott insisted that a public option for health insurance is needed to keep the system competitive, while Cantor argued against health care reform, calling it intrusive and unnecessary.

At no time did any of the 225 people at the session, or any reporters, ask about Cantor’s health care industry donations. Indeed, doing so might be considered bad form by Richmond?s business and political elite who are proud of their favorite son.

His staff says there’s nothing wrong with accepting health care funding. Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Cantor, says “when citizens invest in Mr. Cantor’s campaign, they are investing in his agenda and not the other way around.”

Others say the practice raises questions. Whether Cantor’s directly affected by industry money isn’t clear, but “it certainly doesn’t look great,” says Naomi Sullivan, spokeswoman for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Campaign records show that Cantor has accepted money from companies, lobbying groups and professional associations such as the Federation of American Hospitals, Aetna, Amerigroup Corp., Humana, Wellpoint and United Health Group. All of them have a huge stake in preserving the health care system – it’s been enormously profitable for them. According to a study by investment bank Goldman Sachs, insurers Humana and Wellpoint have the highest percentage of their earnings at risk should health care reform press forward.

This year Cantor has also received contributions from as many as 21 physicians groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, which gave $5,000, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, which contributed $4,000. Other donors include drug companies such as AstraZeneca, a $31 billion drug manufacturer, which makes purple pill Nexium to fight acid reflux disease and cholesterol-reducer Crestor.

The money flowing to Congress is critically important as legislators prepare to merge parts of five different health insurance reform proposals into one sweeping proposal that could come to a vote in the Senate at the end of this month.

Lobbyists are swarming Capitol Hill trying to push the five proposals their way. Raising the pressure, health care industry advocates have spent more than $380 million in recent months to block the public option and stall other parts of Obama?s proposed reforms. Some industry money is going for television ads that try to scare the public into believing that its premiums will soar or their loved one’s futures will be decided by government-led “death panels” if Obama?s heath-care reform becomes law.

Democrats are raking in health industry money as well. Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who heads the Senate Finance Committee, has received $1.5 million from industry groups. His committee has proposed the leading reform bill.

Mark Warner, a Democratic senator from Virginia, has received $131,100 from health care lobbyists and companies and ranks No. 7 in such contributions in the Senate. Although he took in almost as much as Cantor from health care lobbyists, he hasn’t been a key player on health reform efforts other than backing the idea of health insurance cooperatives. “We haven’t figured out why Warner is getting so much, especially since he is new and incumbents generally get the funding,” says Bill Allison, editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation.

Warner spokesman Kevin Hall says the $131,100 should be put in context against the $14 million Warner raised for his 2008 campaign. He offers one reason why Warner is attracting donors from the health industry: He’s knowledgeable about the topic.

The tentacles of health industry funding also are wrapping around consulting companies that supply much of the analysis and information that politicians cite in public debates. In a July 12 column by Cantor that was published in the Times-Dispatch, for example, the congressman wrote that “two out of three Americans who get their health care through their employer will lose it” under a plan proposed by House Democrats. For his source, Cantor cited “the nonpartisan” consulting firm Lewin Group.

Stories in the national news later revealed that the Lewin Group, in fact, is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, a Minnesota managed care provider that gave Cantor $28,000 through its political action committee. Another twist, according to the Washington Post, is that the Lewin Group is part of another UnitedHealth entity, Ingenix, which has been accused by the New York Attorney General’s Office and the American Medical Association of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing faulty data.

Dayspring, who works in Cantor’s minority whip office, says that plenty of legislators, including liberal Democrats, cite the Lewin Group?s data.

To some political experts, Cantor’s ties to managed care firms are no surprise. “He’s a classic business Republican,” says Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia.

Another factor is that when Cantor assumed the role of House minority whip last year, his profile and influence immediately skyrocketed and he started picking up much more in campaign contributions. Part of his job is to raise money for other GOP candidates and their causes and by all accounts, he?s done a bang-up job.

“He’s one of the most prolific fundraisers in Congress,” says Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, which publishes the newsletter and blog, “Party Time.” “We’ve tracked 60 events hosted by Cantor or ones where he was the chief draw.”

One issue highlights so-called Coffee with Cantor fundraising events in which lobbyists or others pay $2,500 to sip lattes and chat with the congressman at a two-story Starbucks at 237 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, just a couple of blocks from Cantor?s office in the Cannon House Office Building. The $2,500 payment includes four brief, morning sessions with Cantor. “You asked for it and it?s back!” reads a recent flyer advertising the sessions.

“It’s pay to play access — for a price he’ll meet with you. Not everyone does it,” says Levinthal of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Health care, however, is not Cantor?s largest source of funding. Leading the list is real estate, which could be explained by Cantor?s background and expertise in real estate law. The second largest is financial securities. Richmond-based Genworth Financial, a major Cantor backer, is in his district and his wife, Diana, is a finance executive, and sits on the board of directors at Media General, which owns the Times Dispatch. Insurance is the third-largest supporter of the congressman. Locally, large corporate contributors include law firm McGuireWoods and electric utility Dominion Resources.

Bankrolling Washington has been the status quo for more than two centuries. The ethical issue is whether companies and interest groups are paying a politician to change his or her mind or if the official would have voted that way regardless of money. “The issue is whether a member of Congress will immediately call back a contributor on an issue if he is a big contributor,” says Sullivan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

One person who may not have that burden when it comes to health is Democrat Bobby Scott, who pushed Obama’s health care proposal at the Times-Dispatch forum. He gets only a few thousand dollars each year from big health — pin money compared to Cantor. The curious thing for the Richmond audience, however, is that nothing about it ever came up.

When He Hears the Roar, Cantor Trembles

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

In a post yesterday in politico about how few Republicans stand up to the extremist voices like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Cantor had this to say:

“We need more voices,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of the party’s up-and-coming leaders. “Our party’s challenge has been that we need to be more inclusive — we need to attract the middle again. … When one party controls all the levers of power in Washington, they’re going to try and villainize whoever they can on our side. It gives us an opportunity now to try and harness the energy and point it in a positive direction, so that we can attract the middle of the country to the common-sense conservative views that we have been about as a party.”

It sounds like he wants it both ways. He talks of attracting he middle but is unwilling to stand up to the right wing and somehow blames the Democrats for the Republican extremists. Read the article in Politico.

Cantor is Trying to Kill Internet Neutrality

Monday, October 5th, 2009

In a familiar refrain from previous regulatory wars over the Internet, House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Republican whip Eric Cantor tell Obama new network neutrality rules proposed by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will stifle investment in networks.

The House Republican leadership warned President Obama Oct. 2 that expanded network neutrality rules and the formal codification of those rules will jeopardize future broadband network investment by carriers. Moreover, the minority leadership claimed, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is inserting politics into the National Broadband Plan the FCC is preparing for Congress.

“We believe that network neutrality regulations would actually thwart further broadband investment and availability, and that a well-reasoned broadband plan would confirm our view,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., wrote in a letter to Obama. “So to hastily begin the process of adopting network neutrality rules months before issuing such a plan implies that politics are driving the FCC?s decision-making process.”

Genachowski proposed Sept. 21 new network neutrality rules that would require carriers to deliver broadband in a non-discriminatory manner and to disclose their network management policies in a transparent manner. Genachowski also said the FCC would explore whether or not to extend network neutrality rules to mobile carriers.

The FCC currently enforces network neutrality on a case-by-case basis through four principles the agency approved in 2005. The principles prohibit broadband carriers from blocking lawful Internet content, applications and services and allows users to attach legal devices to the network. The FCC network neutrality principles are currently under legal challenge by Comcast.

“As Americans wade through the current economic situation, a decision by the FCC to discourage broadband investment would be irresponsible,” Boehner and Cantor wrote. “The United States needs broadband providers to increase investment and create jobs. This will not occur if broadband providers are saddled with unnecessary, burdensome requirements that interfere with their ability to manage their networks and create innovative broadband products that maximize consumer choice and benefit.”

In what is becoming a political tit-for-tat over network neutrality, groups supporting network neutrality quickly responded to Boehner and Cantor’s letter to Obama.

“It is truly unfortunate that the House Republican leadership has put itself in the position of trying to slow down the greatest economic engine for job creativity and innovation ever created. Under the neutral, non-discriminatory Internet, thousands and thousands of new businesses were created and millions of dollars were invested,” Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement.

Added Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition: “The Internet existed for more than 25 years under a neutral regime. During that time, a national data network was built out by telcos and cable providers, despite a neutrality requirement. To suggest that a return to that status quo threatens broadband investment is not borne out by experience. In fact, it is critical to investment that this issue be addressed sooner rather than later?further delay in addressing this core policy issue will harm investment flows into new and innovative technologies.”

Obama supported network neutrality during his campaign for the White House, and his appointment of Genachowski, who wrote the president’s communication policy, is widely seen as an endorsement of network neutrality.

On the same day Genachowski proposed to expand the FCC’s network neutrality rules, Obama said in a speech: “FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is announcing a set of principles to preserve an open Internet in which all Americans can participate and benefit. I am pleased that he is taking this step. It is an important reminder that the role of government is to provide investment that spurs innovation and common-sense ground rules to ensure that there is a level playing field for all comers who seek to contribute their innovations.”

Editors: Does Eric really understand this issue? Net Neutrality has been the defacto status quo. All the tremendous growth in the internet has been in a free internet. It is just recently that carriers and providers of “last mile” connections are trying to block some traffic types as they try to tilt things toward their own content or the content from affiliated providers.

NJDC Response to Cantor’s Comment on Obama

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

The NJDC responds to Cantor’s remark

Cantor Plays Partisan Politics with U.S. – Israel Relationship

Aaron Keyak – September 23, 2009 – 11:46 am

Today, Ira N. Forman, CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), released the following statement in response to Representative Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) remark that President Barack Obama seems not to be a “‘true friend’ of the Jewish state” as reported in Politico today:

Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) has decided to position himself as the arbiter of who is and who isn?t pro-Israel in this country. Setting aside Cantor?s lack of sterling professional foreign policy credentials, is it wise for him to set himself up as such a figure? This is a particularly salient question considering the fact that President Barack Obama is on the record repeatedly praising Israel and committing himself to its security needs throughout his administration. Moreover, Cantor should understand that these types of partisan attacks damage the longstanding tradition of bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.

At least one columnist has speculated that Cantor wants to modify his extreme partisan image to reveal a “newly civil Cantor.” Cantor?s insulting characterization of Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as his willingness to play the cheapest kind of partisan politics with the U.S.-Israel relationship call into question whether Cantor wants to turn over a more “civil” leaf.

Eric’s answer to those that lost their health insurance

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

Charity!

At the forum held with Bobby Scott and Eric Cantor, Eric says to appeal to charity if you lose your health care!

I dreamt I saw Joe Wilson last night

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

Cantor has not joined in the call for a reprimand of Congressman Wilson’s (R SC) disrespect to the president.

Joe Wilson: "Liar"

Joe Wilson: "Liar"

Rep. Joe Wilson’s rude interruption of President Obama’s speech to Congress with the words, “You lie,” when the president said his health care plan would not cover illegal immigrants.

Remember Cantor’s “National Council for a New America?”

Monday, August 10th, 2009

This appeared in Politico this evening.

GOP rebranding effort flames out

Eric Cantor

Eric Cantor

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) generated the kind of buzz other politicians covet when he launched his bid to help rebrand the Republican Party last spring.

Television crews and reporters wedged themselves among the crowd of party faithful to cover the National Council for a New America’s first event at a packed pizza parlor in an Arlington, Va., strip mall. The resulting coverage dominated cable news chatter for the next week. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney were also on board.

But the council has since flamed out – at least publicly.

Since its launch, the National Council hasn?t held a single public event, despite more than 5,000 invitations to take their show out on the road. Congressional ethics rules limit what Cantor can do with the group because he launched it from his leadership office, making it harder to organize events and recruit partners. Despite that caution, the group is still taking heat from outside watchdog groups that argue he is violating the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of those rules.

Read more: here.

“Faith and Family Alliance”

Monday, August 10th, 2009

In Mr. Cantor’s 2000 Republican primary, Tim Phillips organized a 527 group called “Faith and Family Alliance which used anti-Semitic tactics to try to defeat Cantor. Larry Sabato described this tactic as “A despicable, underground campaign that was unquestionably anti-Semitic nearly beat Cantor in the GOP primary for U.S. House to succeed Tom Bliley in June 2000.”

The same Tim Phillips is now involved with “Americans for Prosperity” which is generating pseudo “grass roots” efforts to defeat health care reform. Tim Phillips was on Rachel Maddow on MSNBC the other night: Watch the MSNBC video here on huff post.

Now Mr. Phillips claims Cantor as a friend. He says:“Eric Cantor is a good friend of mine today.”

Do you think Eric Cantor will refute Philips and others that use tactics deployed to stifle the discussion on healthcare?

In case we thought he left, Mr. No is back

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009
Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 – Vote Passed (283-142, 8 Not Voting)

The House passed this food safety legislation, which would give the FDA more oversight and expand its role in inspections.

Rep. Eric Cantor voted NO
Supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program – Vote Passed (316-109, 2 Present, 6 Not Voting)

The House approved an additional $2 billion for the ?Cash for Clunkers? program, which had run out of funds.

Rep. Eric Cantor voted NO
Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act – Vote Passed (237-185, 11 Not Voting)

The House passed this bill that intends to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation and to prevent certain incentives in the compensation practices of financial institutions.

Rep. Eric Cantor voted NO

These are all popular bills. Is Cantor voting in our interests or is he continuing to polish his credentials with the Republican base? Let the reader decide!

Group provides “Research” to Cantor about public option for health care

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

We meant to post this last week. This item appeared in the Washington Post about a week ago about the “nonpartisan” research that Cantor and other Republicans wee using to back up their argument that the public option would increase costs for consumers of health care.

Research Firm Cited by GOP Is Owned by Health Insurer

By David S. Hilzenrath

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 22, 2009; 6:46 PM

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is “the nonpartisan Lewin Group.” To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an “independent research firm.” To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is “well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country.”

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers. …..

Read more here