An entirely predictable, nakedly apparent campaign of political outrage flurried briefly after Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) sought input from business groups and others about regulations that his House Oversight Committee could review in committee hearings. See, see, he’s letting Big Business set his agenda!

Phhpt. A committee chairman who seeks information about the economic impact of regulations logically talks to the people who are being regulated. If you’re concerned that excess regulations discourage hiring, it makes sense to talk to groups that represent employers.

The Daily Caller summarized the artificial controversy in a piece Thursday, including links to letters sent to Issue from business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers.

From, “In letters to Issa, industry and policy groups target expanding reach of EPA regulators“:

A series of letters solicited by top GOP oversight official Rep. Darrell Issa put the Environmental Protection Agency in crosshairs, urging the aggressive new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to investigate a series of strict new regulations finalized by the Obama administration.

Letters from the Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation all focus on a slew of new EPA regulations, especially the agency’s “endangerment finding” giving it the green light to regulate to stop global warming.

Of course EPA raises the most concern. It’s the source of the largest number of jobs-killing regulatory proposals, as the Administration itself documents!

(continue reading…)

The National Rifle Association issued a statement defending its deal with the House leadership on H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, which exempted the group from some of the more onerous disclosure requirements. From “The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act“:

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.  H.R. 5175 would put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threaten our members’ freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government.  We would also be forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members.  We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes H.R. 5175. From its letter to the House:

The election of public officials is an essential aspect of a free society, and campaigns for public office raise a wide range of sometimes competing civil liberties concerns. Any regulation of the electoral and campaign process must be fair and evenhanded, understandable, and not unduly burdensome. It must assure integrity and inclusivity, encourage participation, and protect privacy and rights of association while allowing for robust, full and free discussion and debate by and about the candidates and issues of the day. Measures intended to root out corruption should not interfere with freedom of expression by those wishing to make their voices heard, and disclosure requirements should not have a chilling effect on the exercise of rights of expression and association, especially in the case of controversial politicalgroups. Small donations to campaigns – and contributions of any size to political communications that are wholly independent of any candidate for office – have not been shown to contribute to official corruption. Accordingly, disclosure of such donations serves no legitimate public purpose.

Unfortunately, the DISCLOSE Act would wipe away such donor anonymity –most notably, that of small donors to smaller and more controversial organizations, even when those donors have nothing to do with that organization’s political speech. It would also restrict speech rights in an arbitrary manner, favoring one type of organization over another. While this bill may have been intended to shine a light on the core funders of political advertising, it goes far beyond that goal. The DISCLOSE Act blurs the line between issue and campaign advocacy and puts at risk of exposure the heretofore confidential donor records of millions of Americans and thousands of legitimate nonprofit advocacy organizations.

The self-styled “watchdog” group and supporters of speech regulation, Citizens for Responsiblity and Ethics in Washington, issued a statement supporting the legislation even with the NRA’s exemption. Excerpt: (continue reading…)

In a post this morning, we noted the failure of the Center for Public Integrity to include trial lawyers in its list of interests lobbying on health care issues. If you’re going to be querulous about groups exercising their First Amendment rights to influence health care legislation, you have to wring your hands about the American Association of Justice (AAJ) and its allies, too.

Not just lobbying, but campaign contributions also provoked fretting today in the goo-goo-sphere. The National Journal picked up a news release from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington that tallied up the campaign contributions that went to the attendees of the President’s Blair House health care meeting. From “CREW’s study of health care contributions to summit participants“:

A review of campaign finance records shows the health care establishment has invested heavily in the campaigns of the members of Congress invited to the meeting. In total, these 21
lawmakers have taken nearly $28 million in campaign donations from health care interests since
2005. These donations include contributions from health professionals (including physicians,
pharmacists, nurses, and others providing health care services) and their trade associations, as
well as the employees and political action committees (PACs) of hospitals and nursing homes;
pharmaceutical and health product companies; health services firms; HMOs; health and accident
insurers; and miscellaneous health care interests (such as research groups).

“Invested heavily in” is the sneering way of saying, “contributed to.” Shocking in a representative democracy, we know.

Strangely, CREW omits from its list contributions made by trial lawyers and labor unions. (At least the Center for Public Integrity included the unions.) Are the trial lawyers NOT a health care interest?

Well, of course they are, and they prominently contribute to campaigns, too. The Manhattan Institute’s latest edition in its “Trial Lawyers, Inc.” series reports, “In the last decade, lawyers and law firms—excluding lobbyists—have injected $780 million into federal campaigns, on top of $725 million donated to state races.”
Legal Newline, a legal reform-oriented publication backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, today reported on the litigation industry’s campaign contributions to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), “Durbin gets big bucks from trial lawyers.” At today’s health care meeting, the Senator argued impassionedly for the necessity of lawsuits in achieving recompense for injured patients. Sen. Durbin’s argument is an important point of view, and it absolutely deserved to be heard at today’s health care event.

But to omit trial lawyers and their campaign contributions from any accounting of health care interests is ridiculous on its face. CREW’s political selectiveness belies its claim to the moral high ground on “responsibility and ethics” in Washington. Or anywhere else.

It would be much easier to consider Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington a fair-minded advocate for transparency in government if the group weren’t so selective in its protests.

CREW has filed FOIA requests and now sued the Department of Homeland Security (complaint) in an attempt to get Secret Service records of the White House visits by health-care industry and trade association executives. Indeed, the group’s FOIA request names specific health-care officials CREW wants more information on.

From CREW’s home page, a statement posted on the latest developments, “White House Reponse to CREW Suit for health care execs visitor records insufficient,” and excerpts:

Washington, D.C. – While Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is pleased the White House has taken a step towards delivering the transparency promised in the first days of the administration, the letter sent by White House Counsel Greg Craig in no way satisfies CREW’s June 22nd Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the Secret Service visitor records of 18 health care executives.

And…

Finally, transparency is not situational. It is not sufficient for the White House to release certain visitor records shortly before a press conference to avoid distraction. In a separate case, CREW recently sued the administration for failing to provide records related to White House visits by coal company executives.

Transparency is not situational, and yet CREW is interested in only health care executives and coal company executives. One of the Obama Administration’s welcome attributes is its openness, its willingness to hear from all sides of a policy issue, and yes, that includes health care and energy company executives.

So why is there not similar interest being demonstrated in the visits of labor officials or top lobbyists with the lawsuit industry? There’s good evidence that a top lawyer for the SEIU wrote at least one of the President’s first executive orders, and clearly organized labor has an open door and great influence with the White House. Then there’s the green lobby. Has CREW made a similar demand to acquire detailed information on which environmentalist leader has been meeting with Carol Browner?

By complaining only about business groups with access to the White House, CREW shows that its priority is not responsibility or ethics in government but rather opposition to the policies those businesses advocate. That’s just your usual anti-business lobbying cloaked by claptrap about transparency.