CNN Admits That On-Air Commentator Has Ties To Insurance Industry

I hate to sound like a Greg Sargent groupie, but the guy nails it consistently. Alex is such a nice guy, I'm sure it wasn't done on purpose or anything.

Looks like the insurance industry has another PR mess on its hands.

CNN has acknowledged in a statement to me that a high-profile Republican commentator who frequently discusses health care on the air is also the media buyer for one of the ad campaigns bankrolled by America’s Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group currently waging war against the White House and Dem reform proposals.

CNN tells me his ties to the industry will be disclosed in the future.

The CNN contributor, well-known GOP consultant Alex Castellanos, is best known for producing the racially-charged “Hands” ad, has repeatedly appeared on the network attacking Dem health care plans and the public option, which is strongly opposed by AHIP.

Castellanos’s consulting firm, National Media, also recently placed over $1 million of TV advertising for AHIP, according to info obtained by Media Matters. AHIP’s most recent $1 million ad buy attacks the health care plan as a threat to Medicare.

White House won't disclose executive visits

By GottaLaff

It's getting more and more difficult to see the White House through all that transparency:

Citing an argument used by the Bush administration, the Secret Service rejects a request from a watchdog group to list those who have visited the White House to discuss the healthcare overhaul. [...]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the "presidential communications privilege."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today. The group already has sued the administration over its failure to release details about visits from coal industry executives. [...]

As a candidate, President Obama vowed that in devising a healthcare bill he would invite in TV cameras -- specifically C-SPAN -- so that Americans could have a window into negotiations that normally play out behind closed doors. [...]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics asked about visits from Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans; William Weldon, chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson; and J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Assn., among others.

Sigh. Someone want to talk me down?

Obama’s Justice Department seeks embarrassment exception for Cheney, who is already an embarrassment

By GottaLaff

So the Nation of Dick lives up to his name, bashes the ObamAdministration, and is under investigation, but he gets rewarded? That is an embarrassment:

Arguing before Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey Smith said Tuesday that the court should not unseal Cheney’s interview with prosecutors during the Valerie Plame case because it could make future vice presidents hesitant to cooperate with investigations. He added that Cheney’s words could also be used for political embarrassment and must be kept under wraps until it can only be used in a “historical context.”

Smith has previously argued that the court should keep Cheney’s words secret because they may turn up on Comedy Central’s fake news program The Daily Show, embarrassing the former vice president.

We wouldn't want to inflict any more embarrassment on the Dick than he has to himself, now would we? So what if he committed a few felonies? Pffft.

Then again, there's nothing more unattractive than a red face in and orange uniform. Maybe this is all about fashion risks, Yeah, that must be it, because it makes about as much sense.

He asked the court to delay disclosure for 10 years from the day President George W. Bush left office.

“Sullivan sounded highly skeptical of the government’s arguments, but he said he had not decided how he would rule in the case [...]

The judge also complained that Obama’s Justice Department seemed to be asking him to create a vice presidential exception to the Freedom of Information Act — to legislate — “something courts can’t do,” he reportedly said.

“It sounds like Emmet Sullivan is not buying that argument–though he is also unwilling to just order the release of the interview without giving Obama’s DOJ an opportunity to waste more money protecting Cheney from embarrassment,” rattled blogger Marcy Wheeler.

Nothing worse than a "rattled blogger". I should know. I'm feeling a little rattled myself right about now.

Federal judge finds Bush administration engaged in illegal record-keeping practices

By GottaLaff

BushCo is always on the wrong side of the law. Busted again:

A federal judge on Friday rejected the Bush administration's latest attempt to keep secret the identities of White House visitors and declared that it engaged in illegal record-keeping practices.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth concluded that the practices in dispute took place before October 2004 when the Secret Service transferred large numbers of entry and exit logs to the White House and then deleted internal Secret Service copies of them.

The practices ended, the judge said, after various private organizations went to court in an effort to gain access to the logs.

Lamberth's ruling brushed aside the government's argument that revealing Secret Service logs would impede the president's ability to perform his constitutional duties.

The court said that the likelihood of harm is not great enough to justify curtailing the public disclosure goals of the Freedom of Information Act.

A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, asked for the records to determine whether nine conservative religious leaders visited the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's residence in October 2006.

Lamberth's decision means the government will have to find other legal grounds if it wants to block release of the Secret Service logs.

They'll run the clock out on this case as they have in all the others. But at least we won one.

Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret

By GottaLaff

1. Find pillow and/or wall. 2. Make fist. 3. Read this post. 4. Punch pillow and/or wall. 5. Scream loudly. 6. Nurse fist back to health:

Think you could borrow money from a bank without saying what you were going to do with it? Well, apparently when banks borrow from you they don't feel the same need to say how the money is spent.

After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending it. Some won't even talk about it.

"We're choosing not to disclose that," said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.

Oh really? I'm choosing to disclose that Kevin is a defective-minded little wretch. And thanks for the transparency.

Now on to JPMorgan Chase:

Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of the money was lent, some was not, and the bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used.

"We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to," Kelly said.

To be fair, that's only two measly banks. I can't imagine that all of them are so tight-lipped. That would be astoundingly, maddeningly unforgivable.

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

I'msorrywhat?

Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going.

That's not exactly the answer we were looking for.

The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion - about the size of the Netherlands' economy - to help rescue the financial industry.

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money - not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that's happening and there are no consequences for banks that don't comply.

Wow. That should bode well for our tanking economy. What could possibly go wrong from here?

Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

Good for you, Congress! Living right up to that big approval number, are ya?

Approval of Congress' job performance is down to single digits again for the first time since early September.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters found that only nine percent (9%) give Congress good or excellent ratings, while 54% give the legislature poor marks. Just one-out-of-50 voters (2%) think Congress is doing an excellent job.

One more time, now, because I'm having a tough time believing what I'm hearing:

[N]o bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

Most banks wouldn't say why they were keeping the details secret. [...]

One didn't even want to say they wouldn't say.

I am now a believer.

[Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout], said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they've spent the money.

"If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn't be in a position where you're trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents," she said.

Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

Your government dollars at work. Oh, and thanks for that whole "who needs oversight" policy, Republicans. It's really paid off.

Corporations to Disclose Political Contributions

By GottaLaff

This sounds like a good idea, and yet I'm skeptical. Gee, why would I feel that way about corporations making promises about anything transparency?

A total of 51 corporations, the most recent being the consumer products giant Procter & Gamble, have agreed to adopt a new political disclosure resolution that has been promoted by shareholder activist groups. [...]

The resolution, which has been brought before corporate boards since 2002, requires corporations to disclose publicly when corporate funds are used for political purposes, whether on the state or federal level. Under the law, corporations are not allowed to make donations to federal candidates directly from their corporate treasury. But there are many other ways they can pour money into politics, which is what the disclosure policy covers.

The agreement requires disclosure of payments from corporations to trade associations –- groups like the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers — that lobby and make political contributions. Disclosure would also be required for corporate donations to so-called 527 and other independent political advocacy groups, including both the Republican and Democratic Governor’s Associations, which are organized as 527s. And the resolution covers corporate donations to state house and judicial races in states where such contributions from corporations are allowed.

Those agreeing to the resolution include American Express, Avon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, eBay, E.I. DuPont, General Dynamics, General Electric, General Motors, Home Depot, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, McDonald’s, Merck, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Target, United Parcel Service, Verizon and Xerox. A total of the 35 of the 51 companies agreeing to the resolution are S&P 100 companies, which represent some of the nation’s largest publicly traded companies. [...]

One area not covered by the agreement is contributions by corporate executives and employees to political action committees, since this money does not come from the corporate treasury but from the individuals themselves.

I bet we can already guess which company donates to which candidate. Hmmm, I don't see ExxonMobil or Halliburton on that list.