Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Received $20 Million from Healthcare Industry in 2008 Campaign
Almost three times the amount given to McCain
While some sunlight has been shed on the hefty sums shoveled into congressional campaign coffers in an effort to influence the Democrats' massive healthcare bill, little attention has been focused on the far larger sums received by President Barack Obama while he was a candidate in 2008.
A new figure, based on an exclusive analysis created for Raw Story by the Center for Responsive Politics, shows that President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289, the Center found.
The new figure, obtained by Raw Story through an independent custom research request performed by the Center for Responsive Politics -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics -- is the most comprehensive breakdown yet available of healthcare industry contributions to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.
Currently, the Center's website shows that Obama received $19,462,986 from the health sector, which includes health professionals ($11.7m), health services/HMOs ($1.4m), hospitals/nursing homes ($3.3m) and pharmaceuticals/health products ($2.1m). Miscellaneous health donations (from which Obama received $860,411) are also factored into the current total health sector numbers but are not accessible on the site.
Health insurance industry contributions, however, are not included within the Center's current health sector totals. Rather, contributions from the health insurance industry are contained within the site's finance and insurance sector. Seeking a more complete total, the Center culled health and accident insurance donations from this sector (for which Obama received $712,317) and combined them with his existing health sector total ($19,462,986) to arrive at his healthcare industry total ($20,175,303).
The Center employed the same methodology in its analysis for John McCain and based all of its findings on the latest data released by the Federal Election Commission.
Dave Levinthal, the Center's communications director, noted that Obama out-raised McCain in nearly all business sectors that contributed to the 2008 presidential candidates. In that regard, the healthcare industry figure is not in itself an anomaly.
But Levinthal underscored the significance of the industry's largess.
"What it also means when you look at it just on its own merit is that Obama definitely has a relationship with the health sector," Levinthal told Raw Story. "When you raise $20 million from one group, obviously they've curried some favor with you and you have a lot of people in that sector who support you. So to say that just because he out-raised McCain overall doesn't mean anything in the context of the health sector might not necessarily be true."
"People want to be able to curry favor with those who are in power," he added. "And one way to do that is by making donations to candidates and officials who are represented by the party in power. Or who look like they're going to win."
The White House did not respond to a request for comment for this article.
Gary Jacobson, a campaign finance expert and political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, says the healthcare industry saw the writing on the wall and sought to "protect their interests."
"Contributors expect access," Jacobson, author of Money in Congressional Elections, told Raw Story. The healthcare industry "anticipated an Obama victory and they wanted to be in the game."
While experts agreed that there is certainly nothing illegal about receiving such copious contributions from the industry within the current U.S. system of campaign financing, all emphasized the inevitable impact this money has in influencing public policy.
Obama's considerable windfall from the healthcare industry merits attention, they said.
Mary Boyle, spokeswoman for government watchdog Common Cause, said that her organization has been mostly focused on what members of Congress have received in campaign contributions from the healthcare industry. But she called Obama's campaign receipts from the industry "not surprising."
"The healthcare industry has been ramping up in recent years in anticipation of this healthcare debate, giving both to Democrats and Republicans," Boyle explained in an interview with Raw Story.
Some experts who spoke with Raw Story also noted the rather stark evolution from candidate Obama, who once advocated for universal healthcare and was a vocal critic of mandated health insurance, to President Obama, who excluded single-payer advocates from White House healthcare summits and who has since strongly embraced mandates.
Obama delegate now takes umbrage with healthcare position
Historian and media critic Norman Solomon, who was also an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention, called the president's transformation on healthcare since taking office "shameful."
"Overall it's been a very corporate friendly healthcare approach from Obama as president," Solomon said in an interview with Raw Story. "Corporate friendly in a way that I believe is injurious to public health."
He underscored the subtle but substantive change in healthcare language used by Obama and the White House.
"We don't hear so much now about ‘healthcare reform,'" Solomon said. "We're hearing a lot more about ‘health insurance reform.' And that is absolutely in large measure driven by the White House."
He also concurred with Boyle's assessment on the success of the industry's special interests.
"The funding from the healthcare industry to the Obama campaign, in retrospect, was not misplaced," Solomon said. "It appears, based on policy, that those funders are getting what they would've hoped for."
"Let me put it this way," he added. "Single-payer advocates literally couldn't get into the White House. And you have [chief pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and former Republican congressman] Billy Tauzin and Big Pharma and all of these in-depth strategy meetings in the White House in mid-2009 cutting deals. And I think it's shameful."
But Boyle puts the blame more on the campaign financing system than on President Obama.
"It's getting worse every year," she said. "This story line is going to continue until the end of time until we change the way we pay for our political campaigns. It's the system. Everyone's stuck in it. Everyone gets kind of caught up in it."
Yet she believes these new numbers clearly show the industry was "trying to gain access and influence to the president, just as they have tried -- and been quite successful -- at gaining access to members of Congress."
Boyle also noted the industry's success in achieving this goal over the course of the healthcare debate.
"We've seen many examples of the healthcare industry's interests - and we would argue that a lot of it has to do with the money - prevailing over the public interest," she said. "The fact is, we have this broken system that allows interests that want the most out of government to have the loudest voice and to get that loudest voice by contributing the most money and spending the most money."
Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story.



60 Comments so far
Show AllThis is a twenty million dollar bribe. This bribery shall continue until someone drives a stake through the heart of corporate personhood.
Infinitely easier said than done.
"This bribery shall continue until someone drives a stake through the heart of corporate personhood."
There is one, and maybe only one, way to do it and you have the stake in your own hand. Can you guess what it is?
It just keeps getting better with this Obama dude. The comparisons to Reagan are starting to ring true.
This explains why the doctors and nurses who showed up at the table to advocate single-payer were arrested without any comment from Obama, and why in Sept. 2009 when it looked like the companies that caused the health care crisis might need to compromise a dime (after the victims of the system had already capitulated everything) Obama hastily convened his Sept. 9, 2009 speech wherein he stated that the focus of Obamacare would be "to preserve insurance company profits".
The blood on Obama's hands keeps creeping further up his wrists.
RayDelCamino
Ironically Sept. of 2009 was also the time when the Harvard Medical School released a study which said that, quoting from a New York Times article in Sept. of that year, "the lack of [health insurance] coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States-a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease." This research was also published in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health. The study said that the increase in risk was probably the result of two factors. "One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure."
Obama receiving $20 million dollars from the health care industry during the 2008 presidential campaign begs the question: quid pro quo?
Lack of insurance may cause those 45,000 deaths but insurance also allows needles deaths. Conventional medicine is the third leading cause of death in the US, and providing more people with access to this type of care isn't the type of reform that we need. pHARMa and the insurance companies are going to get what they paid for in whatever reform come out of Washington.
I couldn't find that quote in the text of Obama's speech. But, he did say:
"I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors."
I'm shocked!...shocked that there is bribery going on in the sacred halls of our government.
Louie, round up the usual suspects...
What we have is a bill promoting Child and Elder Abuse, which are crimes throughout the land, and taxpayer abuse, which ought to be a crime but isn't. The bill also contains many illegal unfunded mandates. Then there is the indenturing of the citizenry to insurance providers, which as slavery is also illegal.
IMO, one of the greatest successes of Obama's Clio-winning marketing campaign is that so many were absolutely convinced that Obama is truly a Man of the People because said campaign was funded by millions of modest donations from ordinary unprivileged citizens.
Long-time CD regulars will remember how frequently this talking point was hurled at skeptics by Obama/Democratic Party supporters. The hype evoked sentimental images of impoverished people from coast to coast putting change in a cracked jelly jar at great personal sacrifice in order to do their bit to Make History.
As with so many other egregious falsehoods reported with great fervor and conviction, long afterwards there is a modest correction quietly published in an obscure location. Thus honor is satisfied.
Incidentally, I expected at least one comment by now bashing Norman Solomon, the seemingly-humbled and chastened Obama cheerleader, quoted in this article. OK, it's done!
But if Norman starts getting all lesser-evilly and goes in Democratic heat again this year, off to the vet he goes!
· Yr Obd't Servant
My own brother-in-law sent a donation to help the Obama campaign. He wanted a show of force after eight years of Bush. The Obama campaign's hope mantra was powerful stuff, even though it was a total con. I feel sympathy for anyone who was duped into supporting Dem candidates with their hard-earned money.
Unfortunately, the Dem Party, under Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) control, long ago switched to bundling corporate campaign donations, just like the Republicans, as it's main fund-raising method. The Dem Party now prefers corporate cash to individual contributions, but I suppose they still take chump change from the faithful. Obama isn't a DLCer, but he's considered "an honorary member" of the DLC, and it's easy to see why that's so.
In essence, the attitude of the Democratic Party to its loyal voters is "fuck the base and grab the corporate cash." Sorry about the foul language, Obedient Servant and others. I couldn't say it politely.
-TIA
It's in the "News" section.
Reputations and integrity? Who need reputations and integrity when they can have the bucks instead?
Looks like Obama supports Single Payer after all...
...as long as he's the 'Single' and the health care industry is the payer.
Obama - Cha-ching you can believe in
More and more it appears that the only hope for the United States is for everyone concerned - every single one - to try to bring our parlous state to the attention of a hundred others who do not yet know that the reform of federal elections law is the single most significant cause any of us can take up.
Start at www.change-congress.org or www.youstreet.org and see what is being done and how much more needs to be accomplished.
best thing we can do is NOT TO VOTE FOR THE RE ELECTION OF ANYONE IN CONGRESS NOW. It is possible that up to six are not corrupt to the core. Is your rep one of those six decent representatives? Did he/she vote against the bankster bailout? Did he/she vote against the surge in Afghanistan? How about Single payer, Medicare for all? Did he/she support that? You can rate their degree of corruption with these three votes. If your rep did not vote to please you, don't vote for them again.
And don't say that one corporate party is less evil than the other one. Get a grip. Do you like the 'change' the Democrats gave us? Can you see any change? Looks like the same old corruption to me.
A total election boycott. Not one vote.
That's what I've been saying for years. Voting is giving them power. They only need us sheeple for three things: (1) to produce their crap; (2) to buy the same crap we produce from them; (3) to pull the lever on those voting machines. Well, yeah, our tax dollars help 'em fight wars for profit too.
A close look at the stats raises more questions.
By far the largest chunk of the donations were from "health professionals" (11.7m)
Next to that figure, the contributions from HMOs (1.4m), pharmaceuticals (2.1m) and even insurance ($712,317 - or relative chump change) pale by comparison.
Are not health professionals generally considered to be doctors (AMA), nurses (union), lab techs and the like?
Are THESE the groups who coerced Obama and CONgress to shovel public money to the corporate sector?
Excellent point which I was going to make!
In 2007 I was exploited by Jamie Dimon 24x7 slaving for JPMorganChase...
And I gave contributions ...
That hardly means my contributions were in the interests of bankster Jamie Dimon and
JPMorganChase! Actually it was amazing the hatred of ordinary workers in the belly
of the bankster beast for their employer and highest managers.
Now I work for a bio-tech company and contribute to independent progressives.
That hardly means MY contributions are in favor of Big Pharma, quite the contrary.
The true tragedy of Obama is that he could have screwed these Corporate bankster/Pharma, Insurance contributors with his independent base of small
contributions from Drs., Nurses, and people like me and those with means on this
Website.
Instead he has stabbed US in the back!
If he would have gone with his small-time contributors he would have been a hero
with 70% approval ratings!
Are we getting money out of politics yet?
Just say 'no'.
I know that we seem at times to be able to think about only one thing at a time, but I think it's useful to be reminded that this story of the huge 08 contributions to Obama of the "health care industry" (by no means a new story except in its details--the currently outraged Norman Solomon, for example, had to know most of this story when he went lesser-evil during the campaign and promoted Obama's candidacy) is connected with another story that will break any day now. I refer to the likelihood that our Supreme Court will enshrine corporations with "personhood" and effectively remove the prohibition under Feingold/McCain for corporations directly to donate to campaigns. As I understand it, under current law corporations wanting to buy influence had to do it through the instrumentality of "bundling" contributions from their employees, which I believe had a $2500 per person limit. Those millions contributed by the "health care industry" were not contributed by companies like Blue Cross but by many of their employees, just as Goldman-Sachs' credit with over a half million in Obama contributions was an aggregation of these individual contributions. That's bad enough, but it will be infinitely worse if the Court decides in Citizens United v. FEC that Feingold/McCain is a dead letter, and corporations as a matter of "free speech" can contribute any amount they damn well please to any candidate or party. If the decision comes out that way, as it is widely thought it likely will be, then corporate financing of elections will be escalated even further in the 10 congressional elections as well as the presidential and congressional ones of 12. A post-mortem on the 2012 elections may makes ones on 08 look like less "alarming" and more "quaint."
An excellent comment.
-TIA
but at the end of the day the result is still the same is it not?
and if no i have five bridges for sale for you. the company gives the employee
a "bonus" which said employee then donates to flim flam man er excuse me
i meant obomba!
tell the truth: Eliminating the employee as the "middle man" for corporate contributions would likely produce a very different "result" of even more corporate contributions. I think you'll see a very significant "surge" in campaign fund-raising if the Court decides for Citizens United. We're (unfortunately) very likely to find out.
You sold out cheap Mr. President. Why not twenty billion? What's a hundred billion to people who can take all they want anytime they want?
our "change we can belive in" sold for $20 million?
wow...
We knew that...and we knew that Senator Obama received some goodies from the same sources. The mob controlls government.
Although I agree with Norman Solomon's criticisms of Obama's health care policy, your headline is misleading. The largest single sector of this $20 million ($11.7m) is from individual "health care professionals," i.e. doctors, nurses and so on. The remaining $9million + is what can rightly be attributed to corporate donors.
That's what I noticed too. Doctors and nurses contributed to Obama because they thought he would really reform health care delivery. He had championed single-payer, and was opposed to mandatory insurance purchases from private companies.
Obama is now punking the doctors and nurses by selling out completely to the insurance companies.
It's not about the money he already got, it's about the money he will get. Presidents cash in after leaving office, just like Congressman Billy Tauzin.
This analysis is even more damning than the one offered in the article.
Which exactly why this article is misleading. A HUGE number of healthcare professionals are FOR single payer. The RAW STORY gives no indication as to hte politics of the donors.
Annals of Internal Medicine, Study of Physician Support of National Health Insurance, April 2008: 59% of [doctors] "support government legislation to establish national health insurance."
Well, this one went on my facebook for all my Obamafan friends to see.
And remember Obama was the one who "alluded" to a promise (leaving lots of wiggle room) of using public funds in the general election, then reneged when he saw how much corporate DOUGH he could rake in.
Nothing is going to change.
Mr. Clinton received his quid pro quo after his terms as president. How else could a guy with two nickles in the bank make 110 million in a few years after leaving office. Speaking tours?
The new bribes are promised and given after the president leaves office.
After the Mr. Obama leaves office he will become super wealthy from book deals, speaking tours, maybe some consulting contracts.
How much will that shill pull in? I would bet a billion. Change we can believe in. Ha, Ha, ha.
Again: "The best government money can buy."
And the sadder part is that in the end the money comes from your pocket.
Don't you find it ironic that a black man should enslave the mostly white population of the USA?
I do.
The slavery is economic; and the new master is the health care insurance corporations.
"Don't you find it ironic that a black man should enslave the mostly white population of the USA?"
Eh, I don't know if Obama himself is enslaving the rank and file or if he's just a puppet for powers larger than himself.
insured and inspected and verified by the corporations to be 100% grade a
bribe able after all they pick the prez. not us and its been along long time since we
have!!!!
absolutely. just as good as the indian brothers who bought jaguar and range rover.
now wasn't that giving the brits a kick in the teeth?
He's no puppet. He's the puppet master.
Hmmmm.no. He doesn't tell the corporations what to do. Rather, it them who pull his strings.
Obama calls them into the White House and tells them here's what I can do for you, and here's what I want from you. If it were the other way around, the doctors (who contributed much more than the insurance companies) would be the ones in the White House meetings.
I'm agreeing more with Naturally's sentiment. Obama is the master. As my brother said, when he's caught off the teleprompter he's snarky and nasty. We've been getting a look at the real Obama behind the veneer for several months now. One of the things I absolutely can't stand about Obama is the effort to keep the mask in place, even though we've all seen it slip.
he is just a Zelig, send him to china and he gonna be wall street communist
edweg
and just when you thought that nobody fucked more americans then madonna along comes obomba ans says is that so?
So, according to the Harvard Med School article, approximately 45,000 of our sisters and brothers will die each year of the O admin. due to inadequate access to care. So, 180,000 of us have been sentenced to a needless, premature death in exchange for $20 million.
OUR LIVES ARE ONLY WORTH $111.11 TO THESE PEOPLE??? OK, to be more than fair, they think we're worth $111.12.
Are my calculations accurate? Unlike Geitner, I'm not used to so many zeros.
So, they sold us out for that little....................