From the 1990 election cycle to the 2008 election cycle the health sector contributed over $829 million to candidates for federal office and political parties. Over the course of those 19 years Congress debated comprehensive reform of the health sector, passed a Medicare drug benefit, made various changes to Medicare and Medicaid and established and expanded access to the Children's Health Insurance Plan. A review of campaign contributions made available by the Center for Responsive Politics indicates that control of Congress, and the power exerted by that control, has been a key determinative factor in the party distribution of contributions by the health sector over the years.

Beginning in the 1990 election cycle, Democrats received a slightly larger share of health sector contributions than Republicans, despite the Republican Party's pro-business positions. This spread stays the same through the 1992 election, which included the election of the Democratic President Bill Clinton. Clinton's push for comprehensive reform of the health sector in 1993-94 and the industry's opposition to such reforms began to push their campaign contributions towards the Republicans. In 1994, Republicans surpassed Democrats in health sector contributions and retook both chambers of Congress.

The health sector didn't look back after 1994 giving overwhelmingly to the Republicans in Congress and their presidential nominees. While the previous three election cycles (1990, 1992, 1994) were all very close in the health sector contribution distribution between the parties, the 1996 election saw a full 60% of health sector contributions go to Republicans seeking office. This wide divide only increased over the years.

(Click the play button on the graphic below to see a visualization of the change in health sector contributions to the parties from 1990-2008. I'd advise selecting unique colors under the Color tab.)

The elections of 2002, 2004 and 2006 provided for the biggest health sector contribution disparities between the parties. In each of these elections Republicans pulled in over 60% of the health sector contributions to federal candidates and parties. The highest percentage came in the 2002 election cycle as Congress began to debate the inclusion of a prescription drug benefit within Medicare. In this election Republicans received 65% of health sector contributions. The resulting legislation, passed in 2003, wound up very friendly to the pharmaceutical industry. So friendly, in fact, that the chief author of the legislation, Rep. Billy Tauzin, left Congress and quickly signed on as the President and CEO of the industry's Washington lobby shop, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Over the next two election cycles the industry faced a Republican Party that was largely supportive of their interests--and had recently enacted legislation that they widely supported--and a Democratic Party that sought to enact sweeping reforms of the industry and seek further cost savings from the pharmaceutical industry in the new Medicare prescription drug plan. Facing this decision, the industry stayed with the party that controlled both the Congress and the Executive Branch--the Republicans. The industry gave 62% of their campaign contributions to Republicans in the 2006 election cycle despite the overwhelming evidence of imminent Democratic victory. Majority control and the nature of the Democrats' campaign proposals kept the industry alongside the Republicans.

The 2006 election swung control of Congress to the Democrats for the first time in 12 years and with that came a major swing in campaign contributions from the health sector. Contributions shifted rapidly away from Republicans as Democrats stepped up to head the committees that would oversee and write legislation related to the health sector. The health sector had to also account for the unpopularity of the Republican Party and President George W. Bush. With almost every political prognosticator predicting another sweep for the Democrats, including the White House, the health sector had to prepare for the coming attempt to pass comprehensive health care reform, the holy grail of Democratic policy goals.

The health sector dramatically shifted their contributions from Republicans to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle. Democrats received 54% of all health sector contributions, the highest percentage they have received since the Center for Responsive Politics began tracking campaign contributions. Leading the way was presidential candidate Barack Obama. Obama, perhaps the largest recipient of health sector contributions in history, brought in over $19 million from the sector in the 2008 election cycle.

While the above graphics do not show 2010 health sector contributions the disparity between the parties has only grown. Democrats have received 58% of all health sector contributions. Republicans have fallen to their lowest percentage in recorded history. And the contributions did not come without benefits. The health sector was brought close into the discussion on comprehensive health care reform. The pharmaceutical industry, the hospital industry and doctors all signed onto legislation and helped to ultimately pass comprehensive reform. The final product included many concessions to these and other industries and cut out many long-standing Democratic policy priorities that the industries feared.

Over the weekend, Charles Savage at The New York Times had an important article on how President Obama's use of signing statements --  written pronouncements sometimes issued by presidents when they sign bills into law --has begun to mirror his predecessor's, creating similar criticism and controversy. (The last president was prolific in the use of signing statements.)

Here's a list along with links to of all of President Obama's signing statements so far. But I didn't find this list on WhiteHouse.gov where I thought it would be...And where it should be! If you go the White House you won't find an explicit listing of the statements. They might be there...they could be in the  97-page list of "Statements and Releases." And the site's search function was of no help. Not good. Not good at all.

We found them however at a site maintained by Joyce Green, a private attorney, who maintains a Web site that lists all the presidential signing statements since 2001. Green built the website for two reasons: (1) to provide free, convenient public access to the signing statements; and (2) to provide an objective, nonpartisan, and reliable research tool for reporters, scholars, lawyers, and anyone who is interested in signing statements. Green's site is mirrored by Pace University Law School, with her permission, and it will eventually take over the materials and Green's Web site soon disappear.

The practice of signing statements has created lots of controversy, such as when a statement proclaims some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and the administration intends to ignore it. President George W. Bush created controversy by issuing numerous signing statements that declared sections of bills unconstitutional.  In July 2006, the American Bar Administration declared that using signing statements to modify the meaning of passed legislation undermined "the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".

While running for president, now President Obama was critical of Bush's use of the statements and called them an “abuse,” promising to show greater restraint. As Savage wrote at The Times, the Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

That may be all well and good, but our concern is less about the constitutional law issues involved, but on the need for transparency in the process. If the president is refusing to enforce legislation passed by Congress then we have a right to know about it. And the administration should make it easy to find on its Web site. This is a problem easily solved.

Yesterday, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior released multiple reports revealing widespread corruption in the Mineral Management Services agency, which handles mineral extraction, leases, and royalties for the Department of the Interior. The allegations show employees receiving illegal gifts, graft, filing false statements on ethics forms, using illegal drugs, and having sex with both subordinates in the agency and with agents of oil and gas companies with business before the agency.

Here are some of the allegations:

Lucy Denett, former associate director of minerals revenue management: accused of steering a contract to one of her aides after he retired.

Gregory Smith, former director of the royalty-in-kind program: accused of doing outside consulting work that included using his position to help the company paying him gain access to clients doing work with the royalty-in-kind program; billing Mineral Management Services for trips made in conjunction with his outside consulting work; accepting over $1,000 in gifts from oil and gas companies; using cocaine with a subordinate; having sex with two subordinates, where one episode is clearly a sexual assault.

Eight other employees: Socialized with and received gifts from companies with business before the royalty-in-kind program. Two of these employees are also alleged to have used drugs and had sexual relations with various agents of oil and gas companies with business before the program.

Here's CNN reporting on the report:

The IG reports are available at ProPublica where Paul Kiel is providing running coverage.

Since 2001, when President Bush took office, the Department of the Interior was beset by problems arising from the appointment of officials who previously worked in or with the industries that the Department is intended to oversee.

Both the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, and the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Steven J. Griles, came from the extraction industries. Norton worked for a law firm that lobbied for a variety of companies, including oil, gas, and metal companies. Griles previously worked for a natural resources company and later provided public relations advice to a variety of extraction companies doing business with the government. Both Norton and Griles wound up caught in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Norton resigned her post as the scandal encroached into the Department of the Interior, while Griles wound up pleading guilty.

Ethical standards trickle from the top on down. Some of the officials involved in this current scandal expressed the opinion that they "didn't think ethics rules applied to them because of their 'unique' role in the agency and that they needed to socialize with industry representatives for 'market intelligence.'" The Mineral Management Services scandal has been brewing for a long time and highlights a lack of oversight that occurs when a Department is staffed with individuals who are used to making money from the business they are charged with regulating.