UnitedHealth helped bankroll the anti-healthcare reform effort

by: The Big E

Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 09:07:10 AM CST

That money, between $10 million and $20 million, came from Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, according to two health care lobbyists familiar with the transactions. The companies are all members of the powerful trade group America's Health Insurance Plans.

The funds were solicited by AHIP and funneled to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to help underwrite tens of millions of dollars of television ads by two business coalitions set up and subsidized by the chamber. Each insurer kicked in at least $1 million and some gave multimillion-dollar donations.

"There's no question that AHIP has quietly solicited monies from their members which were funneled over to the chamber for their ads," said a source. The total donated by the health insurers, according to one estimate, was as much as one-quarter of the chamber's total health care advertising budget....

The U.S. Chamber has spent approximately $70 million to $100 million on the advertising effort, according to lobbying sources. It's unclear whether the business lobby group went to AHIP with a request to help raise funds for its ad drives, or whether AHIP approached the chamber with an offer to hit up its member companiesThe U.S. Chamber has spent approximately $70 million to $100 million on the advertising effort, according to lobbying sources. It's unclear whether the business lobby group went to AHIP with a request to help raise funds for its ad drives, or whether AHIP approached the chamber with an offer to hit up its member companies
(National Journal, h/t Daily Kos)

Maybe someone ought to investigate?

Why Nuclear Energy is the Worst Choice UPDATED

by: Grace Kelly

Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 16:03:58 PM CDT

To make this easier I have added the red lines on the original graph of supply and demand of uranium from Oil Drum. Ten years is a reasonable timeframe for building a nuclear plant. At that time, the top red arrow showing demand is now way above the lower red arrow showing supply. The various other lines and hills show that no matter how optimistic, that the new nuclear plants would start operating right when the costs for nuclear power source of uranium starts soaring!

Utter hilarity

by: Joe Bodell

Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 07:23:23 AM CDT

Well, sort of. That depends on your definition of mud.

There are several different types of attack ads, and not all are as evil as one might think. Al Franken's ads with the talking fish, for example, are definitely attack ads -- they go after Norm Coleman for engaging in unethical behavior by going on fishing junkets organized by one of the most corrupt public officials in recent memory and including oil executives whose favored bills then got Coleman's vote. It's a lot of logic to stuff into one ad -- that Coleman can't be trusted because of a fishing trip that media didn't cover and then later he voted with the interests of the corporate guys with whom he fished. Complicated, but ultimately truthful.

Then there are Coleman's ads attacking Franken's career and off-color jokes before he was a Senate candidate. While factual, these ads leave out an important bit of context about Franken's f-bombs and insults to right-wing bloviators: they have nothing to do with his campaign or the issues on which he's running. These ads, while they may be effective with conservative-leaning voters in some parts of the state, are the kind of mudslinging Fox9's report needed to be lamenting. That context is the difference between factual and truthful, an issue for many Republican officials and verbatim press-release blog-posters.

More after the break, including real hilarity in political advertising

CD3 Debate wrap: Madia solid, Paulsen decent

by: Joe Bodell

Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 15:38:58 PM CDT

That being said, DFLer Ashwin Madia turned in a solid performance this morning before a neutral crowd, unfriendly question framing, and often facing two opponents at once.

Madia aggressively stuck to his talking points, repeatedly using the word "specific" to describe his proposals on various issues. This is his strength: succinctly framing the issue at hand, and offering bullet-list proposals for solving it.

Republican opponent Erik Paulsen displayed plenty of message discipline as well, but at a higher, more meta-level. Paulsen was careful to slip in notes about how he has worked in a bi-partisan fashion in the State Legislature, citing an initiative on which he worked with Sen. Larry Pogemiller (I was reminded of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's 2006 ad in which he said he'd even worked with gasp Hillary Clinton...) even to this committed Democrat watching the debate, it's clear Paulsen knows his stuff, and his answers about education are somewhat reasonable (one issue among many).

But given the environment, Madia's performance stood out. He answered poison-pill questions about free trade (in which the moderator asked whether the candidates supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was likely to find plenty of support in a business-interest-oriented debate) by focusing on government's goal in ensuring an equal playing field on labor and environmental standards. On a question about the Employee Free Choice Act, Madia stood his ground despite a clearly anti-EFCA environment, by sticking to the facts (the EFCA will NOT remove the secret ballot in unionization votes) and by pivoting smoothly to large-scale economic policy changes.

This was my first chance to see Independence Party candidate David Dillon, and regardless of my preference in this race, he didn't do much to impress. He repeated his own rhetorical stylings several times ("we've heard that {issue x} is important, and it is..."), and came off as siding with Paulsen on several more issues than with Madia -- all that, in the same breaths as he derided partisan politics as a whole for causing the problems we face.

Dillon's answers were short, and his attempts to engage the other candidates by challenging them to follow his lead on a no-earmarks pledge (thus building his own leadership meme) fell flat. Madia engaged him only once, to pivot effectively back to his talking points on transportation policy, and Paulsen engaged him exactly never. If Dillon hopes to be a factor in this race, it will take more than today's performance to make it happen.

Bottom line from today's debate: Erik Paulsen is a nice guy, but he should have owned the debate from start to finish. Friendly audience, friendly questions, and he came off as merely so-so. Madia took tough questions, stuck to his guns, and hit yet another debate home run to deep left-center field.

Check out my liveblog from this morning for a blow-by-blow of the entire debate.