The Washington Post‘s health-care blogger Ezra Klein blogs about the chart at right, and concludes “Las Vegas leads, because Harry Reid is considered vulnerable, and if Republicans can scare the majority leader, they can limit his range of action.”
This is an odd claim that assumes that “health-care reform advertising” is anti-“reform” advertising backed by Republicans. Klein’s assumption, though, is not borne out by the data further down the article that includes the chart:
Of the $52 million spent so far, CMAG calculates that the largest share — $23 million — has come from groups advertising broadly in favor of overhauling the health-care system, without necessarily positioning for or against the plans being advanced by Obama and congressional Democrats….
So far, spending in favor of Democratic reform plans ($17.4 million) has dwarfed spending on outright opposition ($8.1 million), according to CMAG, as some groups in the latter camp have been holding their fire until more details of the legislation begin to emerge.
So, maybe there’s a different explanation than Klein’s. For instance, maybe Big Health is running ads in Reid’s district to help him deal with the “mobs,” or because they know he’ll be responsive to their pressure, considering that he is the top recipient of health sector money, HMO money, and pharma money.
Given this fondness of the industry for Reid, and the tendency of the industry money to support the plan, why would Klein assume the $315,000 spent in Las Vegas is anti-reform?
I recommend everyone — including Klein — read the article, and I leave you with this additional noteworthy nugget:
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America organization has joined the nonprofit group Families USA to spend about $4 million airing an updated version of the iconic “Harry and Louise” ads, but this time the couple is calling for passage of reform. The drug industry group has more advertising planned for this month.
“Most of it will come in targeted congressional districts where our companies have a significant economic presence, or in districts where members [of Congress] can still be persuaded to support comprehensive health-care reform,” said Ken Johnson of PhRMA.
