Was the Health Care Summit Worthwhile?

In the New York Times, Michael Kinsley says that viewers saw "a largely serious discussion" that reflected "honest disagreement" between Republicans and Democrats. By contrast, Ross Douthat writes that it was "six hours of hot air": "Not since Sarah Palin’s ill-starred interview with Katie Couric has a political event so perfectly anticipated a 'Saturday Night Live' satire."

The Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care

Writing in the New York Times, Reed Abelson says that if Congress fails to pass a health care overhaul, that doesn't mean that the status quo will continue -- instead, "[t]he unrelenting rise in medical costs is likely to wreak havoc within the system and beyond it, and pretty much everyone will be affected, directly or indirectly."

Obama Ready to Move Forward on Health-Care Reform

From the Washington Post:

Declaring that it is "time for us to act" on health-care reform, President Obama said Saturday that he is willing to compromise with Republicans to strike a deal -- but signaled again that he will support Democratic efforts to move forward on their own if necessary.

* * * * *

Obama's remarks were the latest sign that Democrats are preparing to move forward on their own using a maneuver known as reconciliation to pass health-care reform along party lines. Although winning support from even enough Democrats will be a challenge, party leaders have concluded that components of their 10-year, $1 trillion bill can be effectively sold to the public in time for the midterm election this fall.

Citizens United Decision Could Allow Anonymous Political Contributions by Businesses

From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court decision last month allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on behalf of political candidates left a loophole that campaign finance lawyers say could allow companies to pay for extensive political advertising while avoiding the disclosure requirements the court appeared to leave intact.

Experts say the ruling, along with a pair of earlier Supreme Court cases, makes it possible for corporations and unions to donate anonymously to nonprofit civic leagues and trade associations. The groups can then use the money to finance the types of political advertisements that were at the heart of last month’s ruling, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Pelosi's Difficult Challenge in the House

The New York Times explores the uphill struggle that Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces in rounding up enough votes to pass President Obama's health care reform bill -- especially votes from fiscal conservatives and abortion opponents -- at a time when Democrats are increasingly worried about reelection.

When Push Comes to Shove in the Senate

According to the New York Times, conflict in the U.S. Senate may get even messier, as Democrats begin to call out their opponents for obstructionism, as they did on Friday when Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky singlehandly blocked a bill to extend unemployment benefits.

Is It Ethical for Lawmakers to Steer Government Contracts to Large Campaign Contributors?

As the Washington Post reports, a House committee says yes:

The House ethics committee ruled Friday that seven lawmakers who steered hundreds of millions of dollars in largely no-bid contracts to clients of a lobbying firm had not violated any rules or laws by also collecting large campaign donations from those contractors.

In a 305-page report, the ethics committee declared that lawmakers are free to raise campaign money from the very companies they are benefiting so long as the deciding factors in granting those “earmarks” are "criteria independent" of the contributions. The report served as a blunt rejection of ethics watchdogs and a different group of congressional investigators, who have contended that in some instances the connection between donations and earmarks was so close that it had to be inappropriate.

However, the matter is also currently before a federal grand jury, which is investigating whether the donations violated federal law.