News-Record.com

A few tidbits and thoughts to end last week and begin the new one:

• Monday will be slow even for a Monday around Cap City this week. The honorables gave everyone a good long time for Easter weekend.

• The Senate held a skeleton session Friday and won't even be pretending to work until Tuesday. When they do get back, Senate Commerce is going to take a look at the bill to make alcohol inhalers illegal.

• The House looks like it will have some sort of session on Monday, but it looks like a complete snoozer. On Tuesday, the House ABC Committee will be looking at a new type of liquor license for inns on purty roads...because really, the state's ABC system isn't quite Byzantine enough.

Pollsters at Public Policy Polling put out their latest release on Friday (click) that showed 67 percent of those polled supported the comprehensive smoking ban floated by Rep. Hugh Holliman. One wonders where those 67 percent were in recent weeks as a hodge-podge of tobacco groups, property rights types and other did their best to kill the thing, forcing it to be retooled into a much less stringent bill.

If you remember the transfer tax fuss that kicked up a week or two ago, Scott Mooneyhamprovides some political analysis.

Regarding Joe Sinsheimer's latest missive on anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists, two points of clean up:

• Bob Hall of Democracy NC sent along this chart (click) and a note:

  There's a fair amount of attention on the nurse anesthetists, Thomas Wright, etc. and it's important to put another side of the equation into the picture -- the money from the anesthesiologists. I know the nurses certainly would like to see a tad more balance in news coverage, and I certainly agree that the substantial sums of money anesthesiologists have poured into state legislative races is directly relevant.

  Indeed, the desire to offset the huge financial advantage of the anesthesiologists underlies my earlier statement to a reporter about the nurses, quoted in yesterday's letter to Speaker Hackney from Joe Sinsheimer: "This is a case where a group has been told, or has internalized a message, that they need to pay to play and pay a lot more if they expect to prevail."

  Below (and attached) is a chart that shows the dramatic rise in giving by PACs of the anesthesiologists and the nurse anesthetists. Of particularly interest is the proliferation of PACs sponsored by local practices of anesthesiologists. This tactic allows the profession to circumvent the normal $4,000-per-election limit imposed on a single PAC.

  My research of contributions to legislative campaigns (i.e., excluding donations to parties, statewide candidates, etc.) shows that the profession jumped from 4 PACs giving $204,250 in the 2002 election period to 15 PACs giving $504,827 in 2006 legislative elections -- a leap of $300,000 in four years. Meanwhile, the nurse anesthetists PAC soared from giving $3,500 in the 2002 legislative elections to $103,500 in 2006.

  As more attention is rightly given to what I call the "wannabe" players, including pay-day lenders, video-poker operators, chiropractors, nurses, and S & M brands, it's also important to note the money their "opponents" are putting into politics because that sets an important part of the context for "follow the money" stories.

• Meanwhile, Speaker Pro Tempore Wainwright sent out this note:

  Let me start by saying unequivocally I have done nothing legally or morally wrong.

  I took a position on anesthesia legislation based solely on my belief that the system we had in place was working and working well based on information in the administrative code that was agreed upon by the North Carolina Medical Board and the state Board of Nursing. In turn, nurse anesthetists chose to legally provide financial support for my campaign based on the belief that I am an effective legislator and would be a strong advocate for their cause. It was not the other way around – they did not pay me in an effort to win my support and I did not solicit any donations from them.

  I was only one member of the Health Care Committee and not in a leadership position on that committee. My opposition was not enough to stop the bill from being approved by that committee and I played no part in preventing the bill from reaching the Finance Committee or the full House.

  I in no way played any improper role in the handling of this legislation. I fully reported all of my donations from nurse anesthetists and from anesthesiologists with an interest in this matter.

  I reject the notion that I have somehow played a role in corrupting the process and I look forward to the time when everyone realizes that this claim is baseless.

As for me, I'll be spending a few days at my paper’s mother ship in Greensboro learning more about these new-fangled computin' machines, but I'll still be keeping tabs on the honorables from afar. E-mail me with items of interest: mbinker@news-record.com