Engineering Inc. - March/April 2010 - 7

Health Care Outcome Uncertain The recent election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to fill the seat vacated by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) has altered the landscape for enacting major health care reform legislation. Barring any bipartisan agreement, congressional Democrats have limited options. One potential scenario would have the House adopt the Senate-passed health care bill without changes, sending it to the president for his signature. The House and Senate then would approve separate legislation to make changes requested by House Democrats. The president endorsed this approach and outlined a modified version of the Senate health care package. His plan includes a requirement that individuals purchase health insurance, fines for some employers that do not provide health insurance, the creation of a health insurance exchange where individuals and small businesses can shop for coverage, and insurance reforms. An excise tax on high-cost health plans that would take effect in 2018 and a new Medicare tax on the investment income of high-income taxpayers would help pay for the measure. The proposal also includes a provision to create a federal regulatory board to review proposed health insurance premium increases. The president’s plan does not include key provisions endorsed by ACEC and others in the business community that seek to control cost growth for firms that provide health insurance to their employees. These proposals include medical malpractice reforms to hold down the costs of litigation and defensive medicine, as well as giving individuals and businesses the ability to purchase health insurance products across state lines. Lacking Republican support, congressional Democrats are evaluating next steps, including the use of parliamentary procedures normally reserved for budget issues, to pass a health care bill. ACEC will continue working with leaders from both parties to build support for key reforms backed by the Council as negotiations proceed in the coming weeks. ACEC Opposes Legislation That Would Open Door to Frivolous Lawsuits Two bills recently proposed in Congress could shatter vital safeguards against frivolous lawsuits. ACEC has initiated a grassroots campaign to oppose the bills and is working with industry allies to prevent such legislation from advancing. The two pieces of legislation—H.R. 4115 and S. 1504—would overturn two U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. In each, the Court ruled that plaintiffs should not be able to bring a lawsuit in federal court if there is no plausible basis for their claims. ACEC has raised concerns that eliminating the “plausibility” threshold would open the floodgates to baseless lawsuits, increase litigation costs for large and small businesses and divert resources from job creation and investment. “The success of our effort is critical to protecting engineering firms and others from frivolous lawsuits,” said ACEC President Dave Raymond. Raymond urged ACEC members to visit the ACEC website (www.acec.org) to download a sample letter they can send to House and Senate offices in opposition to this legislation. IssuEs oN thE MovE senate Jobs Bills health Care Reform Frivolous lawsuit legislation What’s NExt votes in late February and March possible action in March Grassroots campaign initiated to oppose legislation High Court Case Opens Door To Corporate Funding of Election Ads The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January that corporations have the same right to engage in independent political speech as individuals. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has a number of major ramifications on how corporations can spend money to influence federal elections. The decision permits corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures to advocate the election or defeat of specific federal candidates. The case also is noteworthy for the restrictions that it keeps intact. For example: • The ban on corporate and union contributions to candidates and political parties is still in effect. Corporate donations still cannot be made directly to a federal candidate or a federal political party committee. • Corporations still cannot coordinate their campaign spending with a candidate, political party committee, or their agents. • Federal law governing the operation of PACs remains unchanged. • State and local campaign finance laws in connection with contributions to state and local candidates must, at present, continue to be followed. while ACeC’s ability to engage in political races through its political action committee—ACeC/PAC—is unchanged by the court ruling, the decision does open the option for the Council to use corporate resources to engage in races at the national level in the future. For More News For weekly legislative news, visit ACeC’s Last word online at www.acec.org. MaRCh / apRIl 2010 ENGINEERING INC.

http://www.acec.org http://www.acec.org

Engineering Inc. - March/April 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Engineering Inc. - March/April 2010