Lee Fang | The Nation

Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan is barnstorming the country, promising to repeal every provision of the Affordable Care Act if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected. But a letter he wrote to the Obama administration may undermine this message.

On December 10, 2010, Ryan penned a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a grant application for the Kenosha Community Health Center, Inc to develop a new facility in Racine, Wisconsin, an area within Ryan’s district. “The proposed new facility, the Belle City Neighborhood Health Center, will serve both the preventative and comprehensive primary healthcare needs of thousands of new patients of all ages who are currently without healthcare,” Ryan wrote.

The grant Ryan requested was funded directly by the Affordable Care Act, better known simply as healthcare reform or Obamacare. 

The letter, among several obtained by The Nation and The Investigative Fund through a Freedom of Information Act request, is a stark reminder that even the most ardent opponents of Obamacare privately acknowledge many of the law’s benefits.

Federally funded health clinics have long provided a broad range of vital medical, dental and mental health services to underprivileged communities across the country, regardless of a persons’ ability to pay. To meet the goal of expanding coverage, the Affordable Care Act provides for a sweeping expansion of such clinics, including $9.5 billion for operating costs to existing community health centers and $1.5 billion for new construction.

In public, Ryan has cultivated a profile as one of health reform’s most outspoken critics. He savages the Affordable Care Act as an example of “Washington’s reckless spending spree,” as “irresponsible,” and has warned repeatedly that it would place the “federal government squarely in the middle of health-care decisions.”

Explaining his “philosophical difference” with Democrats, Ryan told ABC News this summer that he would seek to repeal the “entire law” because healthcare rights come from “nature and God,” not the government. He expressed dismay that the Supreme Court upheld the law during the interview.

Despite Ryan’s quiet support for an Affordable Care Act clinic grant in his district, the Wisconsin congressman’s promise to repeal Obamacare would undermine the law’s five-year plan to rapidly grow the health clinic system in America by withdrawing the necessary funds. The so-called Ryan Budget plan would also decimate other federal support for health clinics, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Before Republicans broadly agreed upon a strategy of opposing any health reform proposal embraced by President Obama, the party once supported access to healthcare using clinics. The Bush administration requested and received modest increases in federal health clinic funding over the years. Now, however, the GOP has made opposing the entire Affordable Care Act a central plank in its platform, and virtually no lawmakers have been willing to praise it while speaking to the media.

Ryan isn’t alone in shaking his fist at health reform with one hand while extending an open palm behind closed doors.

As I reported over a year ago, even Congressman Hal Rogers, a conservative Representative from Kentucky, and former Senator John Ensign, a rising star in the Republican Party before he resigned in disgrace, wrote letters asking for health reform grants while calling for absolute repeal. Rogers called health reform “socialistic” and a “monstrosity.” Nevertheless, he requested Obamacare funds for a nursing clinic in rural Clay County. The money, Rogers said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, would “provide critical care in an area in extreme need of access to adequate healthcare.” Ensign recommended an application for a physician training grant made possible through the Affordable Care Act.

Rogers and Ryan have voted to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act on multiple occasions in the last two years.

“I don’t know what’s the bigger sin,” says Tom Perriello, a former Democratic congressman who championed health clinics as a supporter of the Affordable Care Act. “The hypocrisy of asking for funding from a program while seeking to repeal it, or that the Republicans have been so much more committed to hurting the president than to helping people that something as uncontroversial as funding for community health centers must be requested in secret.”

Perriello is now counselor for policy at the Center for American Progress, where I previously worked as a political blogger.

An outline of the health reform “replacement” legislation advanced by Mitt Romney and Ryan, mostly centered on proposals to gut state and federal health insurance regulations by allowing insurance providers to sell coverage across state lines, makes no mention of health clinics.

In addition to undercutting his political message about health reform, the letter may also add to an emerging narrative that Ryan has a double standard when it comes to critiquing major Obama policy achievements. Shortly after Romney announced that Ryan would be joining him on the Republican ticket this year, the Boston Globe revisited a story showing how Ryan quietly lobbied the Obama administration for stimulus grants. Ryan voted against the proposal and denounced it to the press without disclosing his requests for stimulus cash.

Ryan first denied responsibility for the stimulus grant requests, but later confessed that his office had sent the letters.

Republicans have praised Ryan for his willingness to embrace unpopular cuts to government programs and for being a “consistent conservative.” The fact that Ryan has privately pleaded with the Obama administration for government grants from the president’s signature policy accomplishments, however, could unravel that conceit.

UPDATE: Brendan Buck, a spokesperson for the Mitt Romney campaign, responded to this story by claiming that this "grant program was created by President Bush, not Obamacare. This... type of misinformation is what you get from gotcha reporting on liberal blogs." Ryan's letter directly requests money from the HRSA-11-017 New Access Points program announced in August of 2010. This New Access Points grant program that Ryan requested money from is funded fully by the Affordable Care Act, a fact made clear on multiple government websites. The claim that Bush "created" this program is also unfounded. Federally-funded health centers were created through the Public Health Services Act, legislation signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944.  New Access Point grants have existed well before the Bush administration came to office. 

For more on fact-checking Paul Ryan, read Eric Alterman’s column this week.

Image courtesy Flickr user hectorir

Chick-Fil-A’s financial support to anti-gay causes has gone on for years with little commotion outside the LGBT activist community.

But that changed earlier this month when Dan Cathy, CEO of the fast food chain, told the Baptist Press that he is “guilty as charged” for pushing the company to take a stand in the national debate over marriage equality. Those comments set off a backlash—including boycotts, protests and politicians’ denouncing Chick-Fil-A. In Chicago and Boston, the mayors of each city fired off statements claiming the chicken sandwich joint is no longer welcome in town. The backlash, like any charged political debate, is now setting off its own backlash.

Liberal commentators Glenn Greenwald and Adam Serwer are leading the contrarian charge, claiming that mayors opposed to the construction of new Chick-Fil-A outlets are setting a “dangerous” precedent for violating the First Amendment:

• Mother Jones’s Adam Serwer (7/26/12): “Blocking construction of Chick-fil-a restaurants over Cathy’s views is a violation of Cathy’s First Amendment rights.”

• Salon’s Glenn Greenwald (7/26/12): “But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage.”

• Boston Globe editorial (7/25/12): “But which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license.”

If the activist-led uprising against Chick-Fil-A were simply about the CEO’s views, I would agree with these comments. The debate, however, centers around how Chick-Fil-A and its business affiliates spend direct direct corporate cash on supporting anti-gay causes.

Here’s the real issue. Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s family manages a charity called the WinShape Foundation, which dispenses millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations, including Focus on the Family. Where does that money come from? According to tax disclosures, the WinShape Foundation received $8,067,161 from Chick-Fil-A corporation and $11.5 million from CFA Properties, a corporate affiliate of Chick-Fil-A registered in Delaware in 2010. Here’s a screenshot:

If a corporation uses its general treasury funds to finance political advocacy, does that mean any politician that takes action against that corporation in response to that advocacy is violating the First Amendment? It’s a question that comes down to whether you believe corporations have rights akin to human beings.

“You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population,” said Boston Mayor Tom Menino in an interview with local press. He’s since walked back these comments after a storm of critics alleged that Menino was discriminating against a company based on the political beliefs of its CEO. But in this case, corporate profits derived from selling chicken sandwiches and waffle fries are being funneled to media and lobbying campaigns against gay Americans. Mayor Menino had a point.

Liberal defenders of Chick-Fil-A are quick to claim that an official ban would set a dangerous precedent that would amount to a chill on the First Amendment. But what about corporations that unload their corporate coffers bribing politicians, funding dark money political campaigns, busting unions, or other efforts to discriminate against minority populations—Latino immigrants, Muslim Americans, etc. Isn’t the decision to ignore how corporate money is spent setting a dangerous precedent?

UPDATE:

Earlier today, I wrote a post arguing that defenders of Chick-Fil-A are misrepresenting the recent controversy by claiming that the local governments threatening official action are violating the company’s First Amendment rights by acting solely on the views of Chick-Fil-A’s CEO. The defenders of Chick-Fil-A, and there are a good number across the ideological spectrum, claim government can’t take action against a corporation just for its CEO’s political beliefs—a position I certainly agree with, and made clear in my post. The corporation’s actions, not the CEO’s, are the problem.

What I should have pointed out in my first post is the relevant information that Chick-Fil-A reportedly “requires potential franchise operators to disclose their marital status, number of dependents, and involvement in social, church, and other organizations” and employees may be fired for “sinful” behavior. The company, which has been sued twelve times since 1988 for discrimination, is currently facing yet another lawsuit for alleged gender discrimination. Glenn Greenwald originally acknowledged that if Chick-Fil-A engages in discriminatory employment practices, then it would be perfectly legitimate to “take action against them.”

But my original point was that these Chick-Fil-A defenders missed the forest for the trees—the problem that LGBT activists have decried for years is that Chick-Fil-A uses its corporate profits to fund anti-gay media and lobbying campaigns, a fact well-documented by groups like Equality Matters. The CEO’s comments simply shed light on an issue that had been ignored by the mainstream press.

So first off, I’m glad Greenwald, who posted a response later in the afternoon, is now engaging in the substantive debate about how the company uses its general treasury to lobby, rather than the relative sideshow about what Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy believes.

How Chick-Fil-A uniquely uses its corporate coffers to fund discrimination advocacy is worth debate. As Jeremy Hooper reported, Chick-Fil-A’s corporate entity directly finances an anti-gay charity called the WinShape Foundation. As WinShape made clear in e-mails posted on Hooper’s blog, the foundation does “not accept homosexual couples because of the statement in our contract.” Franchise owners are often expected to attend WinShape gatherings. The foundation also funnels a great deal of money to other anti-gay advocacy groups using direct Chick-Fil-A company funds.

Does the corporation’s deeply embedded links to WinShape, which appears almost as an appendage of the company rather than simply a political endeavor, also constitute discrimination? That’s the question.

Also, let me make clear that I do believe that Mayors Menino and Emanuel acted out of haste and political expediency. Are they right to zone out a corporation by reflexively responding to news headlines? Absolutely not. I simply laid out part of the evidence that the Chick-Fil-A corporation acts directly to support discrimination, so when Menino said, “You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population,” he had a point.

Getting ready to see the new Batman movie, The Dark Night Rises? If you’re a Congressional staffer, especially one writing intellectual property legislation, you don’t have to wait in line or even buy tickets. And if you’re a sitting senator writing legislation important to the movie industry, you can even be in the movie.

The Nation has exclusively obtained an invitation provided to Congressional staffers, welcoming them to a VIP screening of the movie on Wednesday, July 18, at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History IMAX theater. Lobbyists from Warner Brothers Studios organized the event, which brought together staffers from both sides of the aisle—including, as we understand it, many staffers directly involved in copyright legislation.

The event was thinly guised as an “educational” get-together to avoid violating the gift-ban rule. “We also hope this discussion will deepen your understanding of the movie industry’s impact on job creation and the national economy,” reads the invitation. A source at the event told The Nation that an international trade spokesman from Time Warner/Warner Brothers gave a short speech before the movie began.

The movie has already attracted political controversy given the horrific tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, in which a gunman entered a theater on Thursday night and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-nine others.

As the country mourns the tragedy, few have given notice that Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) made his second appearance in the Batman series in The Dark Knight Rises.

As I’ve noted in the past, corruption comes in many forms, far beyond the campaign contributions the press likes to dwell upon. In some cases, it’s a discounted mortgage ;to members of Congress; sometimes it’s a free yacht or the promise of a future job. For Leahy, who chairs the powerful Judiciary Committee that controls intellectual property law vital to the movie industry and is known for his “lifelong” Batman obsession, it’s the fulfillment of a childhood fantasy.

The movie and music industry is dead-set on passing new intellectual property and piracy legislation. Their keystone goal, known as SOPA/PIPA, would grant both government and industry vast new powers to censor the Internet, a power grab widely criticized as an assault on the First Amendment.

Leahy and his Congressional staff were on board with the SOPA/PIPA push; he boldly promised in December to lead the coalition to pass this legislation. The bills were only stopped after one of the largest online advocacy drives in modern history.

The Batman giveaways for Congressional staff, which hasn’t been reported until now, is nothing new for the copyright industry. In December, the music lobby sponsored a party hosted by Wiz Khalifa and Snoop Dogg for Congressional staffers at the height of their advocacy effort over SOPA/PIPA.

Under the ethics rules, lobbyists cannot simply give away gifts to Congressional staff. So the Warner Brothers lobbyists allowed staffers to bring one guest—making the event a “widely attended event”—and provided a fifteen minute speech about new Time Warner–related products at the beginning of the movie, so that they could define the event as “educational.” Evidently, the ethics rules are riddled with loopholes.

The conflicts of interests are glaring. Leahy, who collects royalties from his previous Batman cameo, had his own special viewing of the movie last Sunday. Warner Brothers CEO Barry Meyer—the same Barry Meyer who has been called to testify as an expert witness before Leahy in the past—escorted Leahy to the event.

There’s nothing wrong with a senator being involved in entertainment. But it’s unlikely that Leahy was cast in the film because of his acting credentials or because viewers were anxious to see the senior senator from Vermont. Rather, this form of special treatment helps the movie industry gain a seat at the table when legislation is written.

Demand Progress, an advocacy group focused on Internet freedom and civil liberties, has a pretty entertaining petition to drive attention to the issue. It’s called “Holy Conflict of Interest, Batman!”

"I hope that the Senate will stand four square behind disclosure and sunlight and against the uncheck process of these [outside] electioneering ads that have certainly I think transformed the political landscape in ways that we could not possibly desire or embrace," thundered Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), in a speech imploring her colleagues to vote on an amendment to force campagin disclosure. But that was eleven years ago, during debate over McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation.

Last night, Senator Snowe, along with every single Republican US Senator, voted to filibuster the Disclose Act, a legislative item designed to add transparency in the post–Citizens United campaign finance landscape. The Disclose Act accomplishes essentially the exact same goal as Snowe's amendment over a decade ago. But her party has changed, and she along with it. I used C-SPAN’s archives to pull together a quick video showing half a dozen GOP senators giving impassioned speeches in support of full campaign transparency. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the leader of the opposition to any new campaign disclosure, as the Washington Post has noted, once supported providing transparency for outside money groups. Here are six senators who voted last night to kill the Disclos Act—Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Snowe, Thad Cochran (R-MS), McConnell, Pat Roberts (R-KS)—all speaking out on behalf of disclosure over a decade ago. Take a look:

“Campaign finance reform used to be an arena where Democrats and Republicans could find common ground,” said Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) on the floor this morning. Indeed, the GOP once supported unlimited spending and full campaign transparency. Now that Citizens United has allowed unrestrained corporate, individual and union donations in elections, the party has flipped, voting lock-step for secrecy.

The US Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity and other 501(c)s have concealed hundreds of millions in corporate and individual donations to run ads since the Supreme Court decision. The GOP, knowing full well that these groups boost Republican and big-business candidates, are now firmly against any effort to add disclosure. The Chamber’s lobbyists are so concerned about disclosure, that one even compared going to war with the Obama administration on the issue to killing Qaddafi. "We will fight it through all available means,” the Chamber’s Bruce Josten told the New York Times. Referencing the effort to depose Libya’s leader, Muammar Qaddafi, Josten said, “To quote what they say every day on Libya, all options are on the table.”

And McConnell knows full well about the benefits of secrecy. Though he has suggested to the press that he’s afraid of donors being “intimidated” through exposure, he’s probably more motivated by pure partisan advantage. His former chief of staff, Steven Law, is the head of Crossroads GPS, the well-funded 501(c)(4) group that is dedicated largely to electing more GOP members to the US Senate. Anonymously funded attack-ad organizations like Crossroads GPS would be directly affected by the Disclose Act. (Notably, Democratic backers of the Disclose Act watered down the legislation voted on last night, revising it to take effect starting next campaign cycle.)