A smaller but annoying Orwellian problem

by David Atkins

With Orwell at the top of many minds lately and sales of 1984 on the rise due to the NSA spying revelations, a smaller but significant Orwellian issue is also being dealt with in the California legislature: disclosure of the real forces behind ads backed by groups with Orwellian names. Consider this, for instance:

As part of what advocates call the “next step” of the Affordable Care Act, California voters will consider an initiative next year that will empower regulators and consumer advocates to challenge health insurance premium rate hikes.

Though healthcare reform, better known these days as Obamacare, gives the government the ability to shine a spotlight onto insurance rates, it does not in itself enable regulators to block them. That power resides with the states. Currently, about thirty-four states have some laws on the books to give regulators the authority to block unjustified rate hikes; California is not one of them. And while advocates in California are optimistic about the prospects of reform, the health insurance lobby has wasted no time in preparing to defeat the measure.

Californians Against Higher Healthcare Costs, a political group created to defeat the rate review initiative, describes itself as a “coalition of doctors, hospitals, health insurers, and California employers.” Though the group bills itself as a diverse coalition, our review of disclosures with the California secretary of state’s office show that, since last year, the organization has received 99.27 percent of its funds from health insurance companies and health insurance political action committees. Health insurance interests such as UnitedHealth, Anthem Blue Cross, HealthNet and Kaiser Health Plans have raised $1,366,120 to fight the rate review. In addition, the California Hospital Committee on Issues has donated a mere $10,000.

The group has retained a number of consultants to help defeat rate review, including Thomas W. Hiltachk, a Sacramento attorney known for creating deceptive corporate campaigns for oil and tobacco companies. The media company retained by the insurers, Goddard Claussen (now known as Redwood Pacific Public Affairs), gained infamy for helping insurance companies block health insurance reforms in the past, including the advertising campaign known as “Harry and Louise” that many believe helped sink President Clinton’s attempt to overhaul the health care system.

There is no way that a group of health insurance companies should be able to lobby and put on ads while calling themselves “Californians Against Higher Healthcare Costs.” You can’t, of course, prevent people from giving themselves whatever names they want when they organize. It’s a free country, we have a first amendment, and creating some of sort of panel to decide if an organization has taken a valid name would be a cure worse than the disease.

But what we can do is make sure that when fradulent and Orwellian groups like this take out ads, the public can know exactly who and what is actually behind the sweet-sounding name. That’s what California’s Disclose Act, SB52, is designed to do:

SB 52, the California DISCLOSE Act, passed the full Senate yesterday in an overwhelming vote for increased disclosure in political ads as 27 Democrats, led by authors Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), were joined by Republican Senator Anthony Cannella (R-Merced) in voting Yes.

“In recent years there has been an unprecedented increase in election spending, which makes it more important than ever that we strengthen our disclosure laws to help raise voter confidence in the electoral process and shed light on who is funding political advertisements,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “With more information at their fingertips, voters will be more encouraged to vote and can make better informed decisions at the ballot box.”

Over $475 million was spent last year in California on ballot measures alone, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Most of it was spent by committees hiding their funders behind misleading names.

“This legislation is vital to protecting the integrity of our democratic process and ensuring fair elections in our state,” said Senator Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo. “After seeing billions of dollars flow into elections across our country after the Citizens United decision, we need the DISCLOSE Act now more than ever.”

SB 52, sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign, requires state and local political ads in California to clearly and prominently list their top three funders. Committees would be required to maintain a website voters can easily access that lists the largest funders.

SB 52 applies to ballot measure ads and ads by outside groups for and against candidates. SB 52 would also extend existing law to require disclosure on sham issue and issue advocacy advertisements that attempt to influence legislative or administrative action.

It was originally sponsored by former Assemblywoman and now my Congresswoman Julia Brownley, and passed the Assembly last year. It should pass again, and should get a signature from Jerry Brown. If it does, it will be at least one blow against an overly Orwellian future.

.