Collins, Brown and Planned Parenthood

It's hard to know where to begin with Campbell Brown's bizarre, drive-by attack on Planned Parenthood in today's New York Times--in which Sen. Collins plays a starring role.

The key questions it fails to tackle are obvious and numerous:

--What evidence is there to suggest that Planned Parenthood has a "shrinking number of defenders"?

--Why shouldn't the organization endorse the candidate that has a better record on the issues it cares about?

--Why does Planned Parenthood owe deference to incumbent pols who happen to be pro-choice?

--Why do Planned Parenthood endorsements automatically imply that the organization views opponents of candidates it endorses as "enemies of the cause"?

--What does it say about the strength of Brown's case that she cites only two races, three cycles apart, out of the hundreds (thousands?) of races Planned Parenthood has reviewed for endorsement over the last four years?

But set aside the giant conceptual hole at the center of Brown's critique and the moderate-glorifying, power-coddling mindset on which it depends. Just as important are the facts Brown and Collins get wrong, and the disturbing implications of the junior senator's words.

For starters, Brown writes:

Senator Collins once had close ties to the group. Planned Parenthood endorsed her in 2002 because of her strong record of votes supporting abortion rights. Yet in her 2008 campaign, Planned Parenthood turned on her. The issue was her vote to confirm Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

While it would have been perfectly sensible for Planned Parenthood to break with Collins over the nomination of Samuel Alito--a man who, prior to nomination, had declared his fervent support for the view that abortion isn't protected by the Constitution--the truth is more complicated. As I wrote during the 2008 race (by which time Alito had been on the court for more than two years):

Tellingly, she's never voiced misgivings about her Alito vote, or about his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart--a verdict which brings us a step closer to a Roe reversal.

(Collins also sided with pro-life forces on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a backdoor attempt to undermine Roe. And she refused to join supporters of reproductive freedom in speaking out against a new Bush administration rule that gives health care providers wide latitude to deny services to women on a case by case basis.)

These were three significant, prominent issues involving family planning; Collins sided with the pro-life camp all three times. To distill Planned Parenthood's objections to Collins down to the Alito vote is simply not accurate.

That said, Collins is certainly free to view Planned Parenthood's decision in her race as "infuriating" and to be "disappointed in the organization and how it cut ties to her." But--and this brings us to the piece's second major flaw--that's not what she said at the time:

Collins' spokesman Kevin Kelley said that the Collins campaign was not surprised by the endorsement [by Planned Parenthood of her opponent]...Collins did not seek an endorsement from the organization. (My emphasis.)

When you've been in the Senate as long as Collins has, I suppose you expect groups whose endorsements you don't seek to give you the nod anyway, and reserve the right to be infuriated when they don't comply. But I hope she'll forgive the rest of us for not acceding to that view.

Still, that's just a little old fashioned revisionism. It's the article's third misrepresentation--the junior senator's claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an "arm of the Democratic National Committee"--that's hardest to forgive.

Why? Because it's obviously false. And you don't need to leave the state of Maine to prove it: Planned Parenthood helped raise more than $10,000 for Sen. Snowe during the current election cycle.

I thought it was an awful move, and said so at the time. But clearly, if the group was as partisan as Collins suggests, it wouldn't have solicited big dollar donations from its supporters for a Republican, let alone done so preemptively before any Democrat joined the race.

Collins knows this, or ought to. Her false smear is an attempt to bully one of the few interest groups in America that hasn't been swayed by her moderate reputation--one of the only institutions with power in DC that has opted to judge her on the basis of her actions in office rather than her squishy rhetoric.

The junior senator's reaction to this kind of scrutiny, as we see from the piece, is to lash out. Her words:

“Why should I try to make their case in the Republican caucus?"

How about because Planned Parenthood does critical family planning work that otherwise would not be done? Or because it performs a wide range of vital health services for Maine women and men? Or because you've been telling Mainers for years that you believe in its mission?

Or is that not enough?

Quote of the Day

Sen. Collins on Planned Parenthood in today's paper:

"Why should I try to make their case in the Republican caucus? I can't answer my colleagues when they say to me that Planned Parenthood is just a political party, because it is true."

(Planned Parenthood raised more than ten thousand dollars for Sen. Snowe during the current campaign cycle. More on this later or tomorrow.)

Then and Then and Now

September 22, 2011

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and 20 of her colleagues introduced the Regulatory Time-Out Act, S. 1538. This bill would establish a one-year moratorium on regulations from the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies...

This moratorium would halt the implementation of rules to reduce mercury, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals from coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, and cement manufacturing. The American Lung Association noted that allowing these sources to continue unchecked will inflict real harm on Americans, particularly children, seniors, and the sick.

March 6, 2012

This week the Senate could vote on a deadly amendment to the transportation bill that will abolish clean air standards for the 2nd largest source of industrial toxic air pollution in America...

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has introduced an amendment...[that would] nullify existing protections against mercury and toxic air pollution from incinerators and industrial boilers.

Now:

“When it comes to the air we breathe, however, I reject the false choice of pitting the environment against the economy because we understand that for much of the state of Maine, the environment is the economy,” [Sen. Collins] said.

Bizarre, incoherent and utterly contradictory.

Looks like progress!

Two Selves

Sen. Collins has lectured the country about civility and cast herself as an unaligned pragmatist, uniquely situated to heal our national political culture.

Earlier this month, she played the role of partisan loyalist, telling the Maine Republican convention:

I stand with each and every one of you as a committed supporter of our outstanding Republican candidates at every level of government, and I will do what it takes to make sure our winning streak continues

And:

Obamacare has more negative side effects than those medications you see advertised on TV.

(She also managed to pass on two misleading claims about the Affordable Care Act, the second of which was clearly phrased to deceive her audience.)

It hasn't been since the junior senator's GOP weekly address in 2010 and before that her speech at the 2008 Maine GOP convention--during which Collins took some shots at Sens. Obama and Clinton (near the top)--that she's indulged in such red meat rhetoric.

And while there's no obvious way to reconcile Collins' fiery partisan speechifying with the non-ideological image she's cultivated in the (obliging) press, in a way, that's the point: Making sense of Collins' impact requires looking beyond her "Maine media" posture and her "GOP audience" posture to evaluate her actions on the merits.

Admittedly, it can be difficult, time consuming and often boring work. But it's a lot better way to figure out what she's up to than listening to her talk.

NRDC: Collins Amendment "Deadly"

A long, detailed piece from National Resources Defense Council on Sen. Collins' amendment to exempt incinerators and industrial boilers from clean air standards.

Some lowlights:

The amendment...allows indefinite compliance delays by prohibiting EPA from requiring compliance with new standards any "earlier than 5 years" after issuance, and then eliminating the Clean Air Act's firm compliance deadlines and allowing compliance to be delayed by 8 or 10 or 15 years more. This feature alone belies any claim that the Collins amendment simply delays things a few years.

For just the amendment's minimum 3.5 year delay beyond current law, this will result in up to 28,350 more premature deaths, over 17,000 heart attacks, and more than 180,000 cases of asthma attacks

[...]

Congress cannot believe that Americans deserve to go unprotected against neurotoxins and carcinogens by allowing the country's 2nd largest industrial source of mercury pollution and other toxins to be subject to periodic tune-ups and maintenance practices, with no pollution control equipment.

That approach would relegate clean air policy to not just the period pre-dating the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments but pre-1970, before that landmark law was adopted. And incinerators and industrial boilers would secure amnesty from health standards that over 100 other industrial sources, including power plants, must meet. (Emphasis added.)

Moderate No More

In a move that substantially undercuts her "social moderate" credentials, Sen. Collins voted earlier today to sustain an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would give employers the option of refusing to cover any health benefit that violates their professed religious beliefs.

I wrote about the amendment two weeks ago.

Asked for comment, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England's Megan Hannan wrote, via e-mail:

[Collins'] speech said her issue was needing more time, so voting to table it (which was the actual vote) would have given her the time she said she needed...

She should have voted "aye" to table it, she had the "out" to do so, and still she voted for it.

As much as they tried to say it was not, this is very clearly another assault against women and women’s health, and Senator Collins came down on the wrong side.

Collins May Back Blunt Bill

Yesterday, Sen. Collins refused to rule out supporting an amendment sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would allow bosses to inject themselves into the full range of worker health care choices.

For example, the amendment would allow employers to exclude maternity care for unmarried women if they believe premarital sex is immoral.

And given the sweeping nature of the amendment's "moral convictions" standard, it's hard to see what would prevent your boss from waking up one morning and deciding to drop coverage for end-of-life care, or vaccinations or anything else he'd developed a moral aversion to.

Indeed, it seems likely that companies would be able to whittle coverage down to a few basic services simply on the grounds that someone in charge finds the expense of a more comprehensive plan morally offensive.

One might think that a (nominally) pro-choice, pro-family planning senator would look at this sort of proposal and dismiss it out of hand.

But one would be wrong.

Carve Out

Given all the political developments in Maine in recent days, it's easy to lose track of an important wrinkle in last week's birth control debate, especially since the compromise solution offered by President Obama on Friday seems to have taken much of the air out of critics arguments.

But let's not forget: Nominally pro-choice and pro-family planning Sens. Snowe and Collins are now on record supporting the idea that the religious prerogatives of employers--all employers--extend into the sex lives of their employees. They agree, specifically, that all business owners should have the power to carve birth control coverage out of the health plans of their workers.

If passed, the bill would allow any institution or corporation to cut off birth control coverage simply by citing religious grounds...That means that if the middle-aged white guy who runs your company is religiously opposed to birth control, he can have it stripped out of your insurance plan—even if his Viagra is still covered.

Snowe and Collins supporters will likely point out that both pols are now saying nice things about the President's workaround plan.

But neither senator has withdrawn her support for the language--backed by the leading lights of the pro-life movement--that would inject bosses into the family planning choices of their employees and strip contraception coverage from millions of women.

Birth Control Control

Mike Tipping on Sens. Collins, Snowe and the administration's birth control compromise.

Euphemism Watch

As we congratulate Sen. Collins on her engagement, it'd be a mistake not to draw attention to a telling aspect of the announcement's coverage in the media.

Namely: prominent Maine outlets--uniformly, as far as I know--followed the junior senator's script, referring to fiance Tom Daffron as a "political consultant" and "longtime Senate senior staff member" and a few other things but never as a corporate lobbyist or K Street bigwig. (Yes, his lobbying and consulting shop is located on K Street.)

By contrast, ABC News called a spade a spade.

It's not the most glaring omission made by the Maine press in recent history. But since the Daffron-Collins relationship isn't likely to come in for much scrutiny in the coming months and years, it's an omission worth examining.

First, it's easy to figure out why MPBN chose to call Daffron a "public policy and political consultant" and why Bangor Daily News went with "Senate senior staff member and a consultant." Both outlets ran pieces that seem to lean heavily on a press release. And in the case of BDN, the reporter assigned wasn't someone on the political beat who's likely to be familiar with Daffron's history.

But Portland Press Herald is a different story. Because Washington-based reporter Jonathan Riskind is clearly aware that Daffron is most accurately described as chief operating office of a K Street lobbying and consulting firm with blue-chip clientele. And he knows--or ought to--that Daffron has done lobbying work for corporate clients including defense contractors going all the way back to 2000.

So what does Riskind do with this information? Here's how he introduces Daffron:

Collins, 59, got engaged Sunday to Thomas Daffron, a public policy and political consultant in Washington who was chief of staff to William Cohen when Cohen represented Maine in Congress. (Emphasis added.)

In short, willfully misleading. And in a way clearly designed to minimize the awkwardness of the fact that Collins--ranking member on the Governmental Affairs committee and a member of the Armed Services committee--is marrying a senior official at a firm that's lobbied for Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and other big defense contractors while also winning consulting contracts with the Department of Defense and other government agencies.

Then, as if to insulate himself from the charge that he's been abjectly deferential to Collins and her interest in obscuring the truth, Riskind tucks this pair of sentences in at the bottom of the article:

He is now chief operating officer for Jefferson Consulting Group. The firm does lobbying, but Daffron is not a registered lobbyist.

Got that? Having established at the top of the piece that Daffron--who's been working in lobbying for the last twelve years--is a "political consultant" Riskind owns up to the fact that his subject is "now" Jefferson's COO. And then, as if anticipating a question that hasn't been asked, our intrepid reporter makes sure readers know that Daffron is not himself a lobbyist.

Even though Daffron was lobbying--for Jefferson Consulting Group--just a few years ago.

Look, rewriting Daffron's biography to suit the political interests of his fiancee isn't going to bring down the republic. But make no mistake: This is shilling disguised as reporting. It's an errand run on behalf of powerful people under the guise of good faith "journalism."

When it comes to balancing the interests of his readers and his sources, it's abundantly clear which side Riskind comes down on.

Not pretty, but it is what it is.

Mazel Tov!

Sen. Collins to marry.

Mountains, Molehills, Etc.

It's great to see Sen. Collins advocating an evidence-driven approach to evaluating and mitigating health risks to Americans:

[Collins] has repeatedly questioned the use, in particular, of the backscatter X-ray machines, which emit low levels of ionizing radiation...

"As a frequent flyer, I just cannot believe that it is good for people who are traveling every week, or for TSA employees who are operating these machines, to be exposed to ionizing radiation," she told me recently. "I'm not asking for weaker security, but it's almost inevitable that some people are getting stronger doses. Just think about how many machines there are, how many screeners there are. Just think what would happen if the machines weren't properly calibrated."

The TSA has long claimed that the radiation absorbed by a passenger in a backscatter X-ray is equivalent to what he would receive in two minutes of high-altitude flying. In other words, inconsequential. Various TSA officials have also said the dose is roughly the same as the radiation absorbed from eating half a potassium-rich banana, though lately, perhaps fearing the wrath of the banana lobby, officials have dropped this particular comparison.

Collins, citing a recent ProPublica story discussing the small, but not entirely negligible, risk that the scans could cause some fliers to develop cancer, asked TSA Administrator John Pistole to conduct a comprehensive study of the potential hazards.

Still, how does Collins square her concern about the (potentially) small risk posed by the back-scatter machines with her total indifference to much more serious hazards?

In Sen. Collins's home state of Maine, her bill would continue the emission of at least 12,000 pounds of mercury and other toxics from Maine power plants and cement plants. At least 2.6 million pounds of airborne toxics are emitted into Maine's skies every year--or two pounds for every Maine resident.

Sen. Collins's most recent bill continues her yearlong assault on the health and safety of Mainers and other Americans. In February she targeted the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule, which would require facilities with large industrial boilers to reduce their emissions of mercury, lead, and other pollutants that harm our health. These chemicals have proven, damaging effects on the heart, lungs, and brain. By clearing the air of these toxics, the boiler MACT rule would save 2,600 to 6,600 lives per year.

I suspect the different reactions can be explained by the relative power and influence of the companies involved in each issue--the same piece reports, for example, that energy and natural resources companies have contributed over $400,000 to the junior senator since she was elected.

But I wouldn't discount the importance of Collins' introductory clause above:

"As a frequent flyer, I just cannot believe that it is good for people who are traveling every week..."

It's easy for a pol to prioritize concerns about dangers she faces regularly. Looking out for the greater good when there's not much electoral incentive is something else entirely.

Principles and Commitments

Yesterday an anonymous commenter drew attention to the text of the "Gang of 14" agreement to argue that Sen. Collins had committed to the "extraordinary circumstances" standard for judicial nominee filibusters only for a set period of time.

Indeed, the text of the agreement specifies that its provisions are "related to...judicial nominations in the 109th Congress." So it's certainly fair to say that Collins, by backing filibusters in less than extraordinary circumstances several years later, hasn't violated the letter of the agreement.

On the other hand, I don't remember anyone stressing the time-limited nature of the Gang of 14 compromise when it was put into effect. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there was a widely shared sense that the "extraordinary circumstances" standard in particular was being put forward as a "new normal"--one the Gang of 14 members didn't just settle for but actually believed in.

And the contemporaneous news accounts that show up near the top of a Google search do nothing to undercut that impression.

But of course, the best way to evaluate Collins' integrity on the issue is to look at her own statements. Here's her press release on the agreement:

This agreement is based on trust. And most important, it helps preserve the unique culture of this institution. It is a culture that is built upon a foundation of collegiality and cooperation that transcends partisanship. It is a culture in which legislative goals are reached with patience and perseverance, and through the art of negotiation and compromise. This agreement preserves that Senate culture and shows a respect for the important principles that make the Senate such a great institution.

And here she is in 2010, several years after the end of the 109th Congress:

In 2005, a group of senators came together to negotiate an agreement for considering judicial nominees. This "Gang of 14," of which I was part, sought to avoid what was known as the "nuclear option," a change in the Senate rules that would have brought about a legislative meltdown.

[...]

While leaders on both sides hardened their positions, the 14 of us--seven from each party--joined to forge a solution. We established a new standard, stating that we would support filibusters of judicial nominees only in "extraordinary circumstances."

[...]

Our deal restored trust and helped preserve the unique culture of the Senate.

If in 2010 Collins thought that her commitment to the culture-preserving, principle-respecting "extraordinary circumstances" standard had long lapsed...she sure had a funny way of expressing it.

Promise Breaking

Can anyone sincerely believe that Collins' bizarre interest in pruning the judiciary meets the "extraordinary circumstances" threshold that she committed to back in 2005?

Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joined all but one other Republican today in blocking the nomination of Caitlin Halligan for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

[...]

Collins told reporters on Capitol Hill that she voted against the former New York state solicitor general because the seat has been vacant for six years and is no longer needed because the D.C. Circuit’s case load is on the wane.

[...]

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was among those pointing out that there are three vacancies currently on the D.C. Circuit, so two seats would remain vacant if Halligan is confirmed.

[...]

Snowe and Collins are part of a group of senators who have promised not to use the filibuster to block judicial nominees from receiving final Senate votes except under extraordinary circumstances.

As with Collins' decision to block the nomination of Goodwin Liu and her vote against the confirmation of trailblazer Alison Nathan, what's involved here--other than hypocrisy--is naked partisan politics.

Stonewall

PPH:

President Obama hopes to persuade Maine's two senators and several other Republican lawmakers to break party ranks and help confirm his nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

A Senate vote is expected this week, but so far Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are apparently not budging.

Both have said they are concerned about oversight of the bureau.

[...]

Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray is Obama's nominee to head the bureau.

[...]

Collins has met with Cordray and found him to be "an intelligent, qualified individual," said Kevin Kelley, Collins' spokesman.

Remember in 2008 when Collins ran on a platform of blocking qualified nominees to extract political concessions? Me neither.

But then maybe there's another explanation for what's going on here?

Collins is disappointed "the White House is choosing to make this a partisan issue," Kelley said.

Got that? The Obama administration has the temerity to try to stand up a regulatory agency mandated by law--a law Collins voted for--and they're the ones engaged in partisan politics.

Standing Corrected

Sen. Collins surprises your humble narrator and does the right thing, coming out in favor of the payroll tax cut being offered up by Senate Democrats:

Collins said in a phone interview tonight that her goal is to make sure "working families aren't faced with a tax increase come January, frankly at a very bad time given the fragility of our economy."

And while Collins doesn't want to see small business owners hit with a surcharge on the income tax paid by people making more than $1 million, she said the Senate Democrats' proposal does help offset the impact of the surcharge by also applying the payroll tax cut to the first $5 million of an employer's payroll as well as to employees' wages.

Since the bill doesn't have enough support to make it to the floor, the vote is more or less symbolic.

But it's an important symbol.

And when a pol as typically obsequious to corporate interests as Susan Collins feels compelled to align herself with working people at the expense of the wealthiest among us, you know the political winds have shifted.

Quote of the Day

Sen. Collins:

"What we've been hearing over and over again is that the reason Republicans are opposed to the surtax [on the rich] is because of the concern on its impact on job creation," she said. "Well if you carve out employers you take away that argument."

Carve Out

Press Herald:

A number of Republicans say they are agreeable to extending the payroll tax cut, but don't want its cost -- about $250 billion -- added to the deficit. They also say that the surcharge on millionaires will hurt small businesses and hinder job creation. Other Republicans are ambivalent about the tax cut, saying they aren't sure it will do much in the long run to strengthen the economy.

Collins told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday that she might be willing to compromise on the issue if Senate Democrats agreed to exempt small business income from the surcharge on the income taxes paid by millionaires.

"I have advocated that we do a carve out for small business out of the so-called millionaires tax to make sure that it is not hitting subchapter S corporations, for example, and discouraging small employers from doing more hiring," Collins said.

Set aside the question of whether folks making more than $1 million per year in personal income should be seen as engaging in "small business."

Here we have Sen. Collins saying that she's got no problem raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires--she just want to tweak the plan currently on the table.

Has a bit of a familiar ring to it, no?

Any chance Collins is looking to associate herself with a popular proposal while giving herself an out--in the form of an unworkable amendment with no constituency--so that she can avoid actually having to vote for it?

No, of course not.

Deference

Unless you're a hard right Republican, isn't the whole point of electing someone like Sen. Collins that she doesn't defer to a fringe radical like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)?

Neither Maine Republican is a supporter of Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act...Collins...hopes negotiations going on over Lautenberg’s bill will lead to an agreement large numbers of senators can support.

[...]

Collins...noted that there are behind-the-scenes, talks reportedly going on between environmental and industry groups and staffers from the offices of Lautenberg and GOP Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the environment committee.

Revolving Door Watch

And so it goes:

Blank Rome has been hired by Tiburon Associates Inc., an Alexandria, Va.-based government contractor, to lobby for "congressional assistance regarding compliance with federal acquisition rules governing small-business set-asides," according to lobbying disclosure records. C.J. Zane, ex-chief of staff to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), and Katherine Scontras, once a legislative correspondent to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), are lobbying for the contractor.