Professional Societies, Political Action Committees, and Party Preferences

摘要

Societies representing physician specialties and other health care personnel commonly have political action committees (PACs). These PACs seek to advance their members’ interests through advocacy and campaign contributions. We examined contribution data for health care workers’ PACs from the 2010 to 2012 election cycles and found that higher annual income was strongly associated with greater giving to Republican candidates. Patterns of giving may offer insights into various medical workers’ party preferences, political leanings, and views of health care reform. Professional societies representing physician specialties and other health care personnel commonly have affiliated political action committees (PACs). These “connected” PACs, formally recognized in the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, 1 seek to advance their members’ interests by directing contributions to preferred candidates for public office. Most contributions are given to incumbents, regardless of political party, and tend to flow to candidates best positioned to address members’ interests on matters of health policy. PAC contributions come from taxable funds donated by the organization’s members. General treasury funds may not be used, although they can fund the PAC’s operations and fundraising activities. Although health care–related PACs are not affiliated with political parties, their patterns of giving may shed light on the political preferences and policy positions of their affiliated organizations and, by extension, the organizations’ members. Polling data have consistently shown, for example, that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to self-identify as liberal or moderate and that individuals with higher incomes are more likely than less wealthy respondents to self-identify as Republicans. 2 Discordance between an organization’s policy positions and its pattern of giving can occur as well. For example, 20 years ago, the PAC associated with the American Medical Association (AMA) donated substantial money to congressional incumbents who promoted tobacco exports, favored a gag rule prohibiting physicians in federally funded clinics from discussing abortion with patients, and opposed a mandatory waiting period on handgun purchases. 3 To discern modern patterns of giving, we examined contributions to House and Senate candidates by PACs representing health professionals in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, periods that overlapped with passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). 4 Our goal was to study the associations among specialty, annual income, and party preference and to use those data to infer society members’ views of health care reform.