huh?? SCOTUS Decides: As Obamacare Goes, So Goes Dark Money

[trueblue2007]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/when-scotus-decides-as-ob_b_6138854.html

But, when the Court denies millions of people their health care subsidies, they will also be putting an end to hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money that is infecting our elections. And, likely much else in our regulatory and tax system.

At stake in King is whether a federal agency can interpret a statute in the context of the entire law, or whether it must strictly adhere to the specific words of one sentence. Section 1331 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka, "Obamacare&quot authorizes tax credits for insurance purchased on an exchange "established by the State under section 1311". Plaintiffs assert that that does not authorize tax credits for insurance purchased on an exchange established by the federal government.

..................... snip



But, when the Supreme Court rules, as they surely will, in King that "state exchanges" means only "state" exchanges, and the default federal exchange was established only to provide for those who could already afford health insurance, it follows as the night the day, that "exclusively" in the IRS code can mean just one thing: 100% social welfare promotion. Hence, gone is the tax-exempt status, gone is donor anonymity, gone is dark money for the entire organization if even $1 is spent on political activities.




.............snip


nce donor anonymity is gone, it is difficult to imagine how it will ever return. Sure, the right-wing will freak-out, the Koch Boys will demand Congress act (after all, they own it), but this is one where the President will surely veto it. It is hard to imagine Democrats, who were just beaten to a pulp by the scurrilous ads funded by this dark money, would help the Koch Boys override that veto.

By contrast, there will be a lot of incentives in states, even those controlled by the radical right wing, to provide at least a link to the federal exchanges, so its citizens do not lose their health care tax credits.

[elleng]

1. Maybe/Maybe not

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025804081

[Stallion]

2. Lawrence O'Donnell has Spotlited this Distinction in Campaign Funding for Years

nm

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. The thing is this isn't an issue of arguing over the word "state"

One of the people that wrote the law has publicly said that it was never intended for subsidies to be available on the federal exchanges. This wasn't a typo or an "oops"...it was intentional.

[Rstrstx]

5. Well, yes it is

If you're referring to Gruber, he's not a legislator and never wrote the law.

If you would take the time to look at the definition of an "Exchange" under section 1311, you'll see it's defined as "a government agency or entity established by the State". That's it, that's all it says, and that's what an "Exchange" is according to the ACA and applicable tax codes. It's also the same "Exchange" the Secretary is directed to establish for states that fail to do so.

The Secretary clearly has the authority to establish an exchange for a state, and there is no distinction made between one set up by the secretary and one set up by the legislature of a state. Technically they're both "established by the State".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. This is one of those agree to disagree things n/t

[world wide wally]

4. You obviously have more faith in the SC than i do

[Bandit]

7. Except Democrats are afraid to take this to court

Republicans will talk bad about them if they do...I think pretty much
EVERYONE knows the difference between Exclusively and Primarily, but so far no Democrat has filed to have the LAW as written enforced. I doubt they ever will.