In a clear sign of the White House's skepticism toward the Senate Finance Committee plan, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs took an unsubtle swipe at Max Baucus and company:
Gibbs said it is "not surprising" that K Street lobbyists have the proposal, which does not include the controversial public-option plan, before the president does.
Gibbs said yesteday that he had been informed that "K Street had a copy of the Baucus plan" given to committee members that day, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that he hadn't seen the draft yet.
In fairness, I suppose it would be very difficult to avoid giving a copy of this health plan to the lobbyists that almost certainly helped write it. Anyone who checks this site regularly is probably well-aware that Max Baucus is bought and paid for by the insurance industry - a good demonstration of what Nate Silver calls the "The Real Problem with The Senate's Small-State Bias" (that is, they're powerful but also quite affordable). Of course in American politics, letting corporations co-write a piece of legislation is considered a very "moderate" thing to do.
I take some encouragement from Gibbs' remarks, because I think there's a critical need to take politicians to task for their cozy relations with corporate interests. This applies to basically the entire Republican Party, but also a fair number of Democrats like Baucus. The information on PAC money is all there, but the media will only report on this subject if forced to. If the White House makes lobbyist influence a generally high-profile issue, it will be harder for creatures like Baucus to get away with their corrupt dealings.
Ultimately, what I'd like to see is a system where corporate PAC's aren't allowed to buy Senators. Especially during the 2008 election, when former reformer McCain was the enemy, there was an attitude among many here that we don't need campaign finance reform, because our donations will overwhelm corporate contributions and elect better Democrats. I think the health reform issue is a clear demonstration of why that attitude is more than a bit naive. To our credit, we did beat the odds and elect a promising President. But there is still a Congress largely full of people who got there by politics-as-usual. We can and should keep working to improve its membership, but it's a bit like pushing a boulder uphill.
The solutions are many, from a "public option" for campaign financing to stricter rules on lobbyists' interactions with Congress. But a focus on campaign finance reform and lobbying reform early in Obama's presidency (it's not too late) would pay dividends by boosting his popularity across the board and - within a few years, anyway - by giving rise to a Congress less compromised by corporate influence and more responsive to Obama's priorities.