Could Repeal Hurt Vulnerable Republicans in 2012?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


House Republicans passed their health care reform repeal bill 245 to 189 Wednesday evening. Only three Blue Dog Democrats crossed over to join the GOP, while ten Dems who had voted against health reform last year refused to support repeal. Less noticed, though, were the Republicans from moderate districts who voted for repeal, a move that some liberal groups are hoping could make them more politically vulnerable.

The Public Campaign Action Fund, a left-leaning watchdog group, is already planning to run ads in the districts of three Republicans who voted for repeal on Wednesday, the National Journal reports via its morning politics newsletter:

PCAF’s initial ads target Reps. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, Jon Runyan, R-N.J., and Tim Walberg, R-Mich. “New year, new Congress, same old Washington corruption,” the ads begin, going on to point out that each freshman took campaign contributions from health care and insurance interests so that “they can deny you coverage for preexisting conditions, kick your kids off your plan, and jack up premiums. Is this the change we voted for?”

Other Republicans could be singled out as well. The Washington Post flagged two freshmen House Republicans from moderate districts who could end up being hit on health care, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) and Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY). Neither pushed for full repeal of health reform during their campaigns, yet both fell in line and voted for the GOP’s repeal bill. “Unlike a lot of Republicans, [Duffy] has actually pointed to some of the good things contained in the law,” the Post writes, and he comes from a district that swung for Obama by 56 percent in 2008. Similarly, Hanna’s district also leans blue, and he’s similarly taken care to describe the parts of the law that he likes.

While neither freshman was expected to buck the party on repeal, their vote could end up making their re-election bids harder. Health reform is gradually growing more popular in the polls and could become a less toxic issue in the 2012 elections. If Democrats succeed in building the support for the legislation and the GOP overplays its hand, the Republican attempts to blast health reform could end up backfiring—at least in the districts that have traditionally swung for Democrats.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate