Today was not a good day for supporters of a government-sponsored health care plan.

Two senators, John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), offered two amendments that would add such an option to the the Senate Finance Committee‘s version of the massive health care legislation Congress has been considering for months — and the committee handily knocked each down today.

CEOs of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, who tend to oppose the public option, might sleep a little easier tonight. These industries have been implementing a variety of strategies to thwart amendments such as these, including spending big bucks on lobbying and campaign contributions. Lawmakers who sided with these industries have collected more money, on average, than those who voted for these amendments, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

Here are the details:

The Rockefeller Amendment



The 15 lawmakers to vote against Rockefeller’s version of the public option have collected $69,137 more, on average, from insurers (including HMOs and health services and health and accident insurers) through their candidate committees and leadership PACs since 1989 than the eight who voted for his amendment ($297,089 versus $227,952).

The lawmakers who voted against Rockefeller’s amendment have brought in $167,264 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health care product companies since 1989 than those who supported it ($467,427 versus $297,163).

The Democrats who voted against their colleague’s proposal have collected $97,472 more, on average, from insurance companies since 1989 than the Democrats who voted for it ($325,424 versus $227,952).

The Democrats who voted against Rockefeller’s amendment have brought in $163,876 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health product companies since 1989 than the Democrats who supported it ($461,038 versus $297,163).

The Schumer Amendement

The 13 lawmakers who voted against Schumer’s version of the public option have collected $93,177 more, on average, from insurers (including HMOs and health services and health and accident insurers) through their candidate committees and leadership PACs since 1989 than the 10 who voted for his amendment ($313,553 versus $220,376).

The senators who voted against Schumer’s amendment have brought in $210,470 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health product companies since 1989, than those who supported it ($497,757 versus $287,286).

The Democrats who voted against their colleague’s proposal have collected $195,284 more, on average, from insurance companies since 1989, than the Democrats who voted for it ($415,660 versus $220,376).

The Democrats who voted against Schumer’s amendment have brought in $315,923 more from pharmaceutical and health product companies since 1989, than the Democrats who supported it ($603,210 versus $287,286).

Senate Finance Committee

At $675,350, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the committee’s chairman, has since 1989 collected more from health insurance companies, including HMOs and health services and health and accident insurers, than all but one other member of the committee — Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). And Kerry only collected big funds as a presidential candidate in 2004. Meanwhile, only Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has raised more from pharmaceutical and health product companies in that time ($1.6 million versus $1.1 million). Baucus voted against both amendments.

Insurers have contributed $265,441, on average, to individual Democrats on the committee, while pharmaceutical and health product companies have donated $360,192, on average, to individual Democrats since 1989.

Insurers have given $282,921, on average, to individual Republicans on the committee, while pharmaceutical and health product companies have contributed $466,121 since 1989.

For a list of contributions from health-related industries to members of this committee, visit our health care tools committees database.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust. Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜

Read more OpenSecrets News & Analysis: