Backers of Health Care Reform Turn Spotlight on Foes : Legislation: Special interests reportedly spent $100 million in two years lobbying Congress. Some favored, but most were opposed to the plan.

With the apparent demise of health care reform this year, consumer advocates Thursday focused attention on the unprecedented array of special interests that, in less than two years, spent more than $100 million on lobbying, advertising and direct contributions to members of Congress.

So enormous was the blitzkrieg over health care reform that $1 out of every $5 in contributions to Congress came from groups with a direct stake in the outcome, according to a new analysis. The bulk of that money was from organizations opposed to reform.

The sum of $100 million contrasts sharply, for example, to the $5 million spent annually by the vaunted National Rifle Assn. for similar political activities.

Moreover, with Congress all but certain to go home for the election campaign without acting on even modest reform measures, doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurance companies still have almost $20 million in reserve, according to a report issued Thursday by Citizen Action, a consumer research and advocacy group here.

It said that more than $46 million was spent on lobbying or contributions by interests that opposed the comprehensive reforms advocated by President Clinton and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill. The organization provided no figures for the amount spent by groups that favored the reforms, but that number is thought to be just a fraction of the amount spent by opponents.

“There can be little doubt that the health and insurance industries and other business special interests delivered the fatal blow to comprehensive health care reform,” said Michael Podhorzer, a Citizen Action spokesman.

“This is an unholy mix of money and politics, and it completely subverted the process,” Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) said in an interview.

“It really is auction block democracy at its worst,” Wellstone said.

As Citizen Action released its report, the Senate began floor debate on campaign finance reform, which would among other things limit special-interest contributions.

Also on Thursday, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania estimated that $60 million has been spent on health care advertising, largely to oppose reform. The amount equals that spent by the George Bush and Clinton presidential campaigns in 1992, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the university.

Among the foremost beneficiaries were members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, both of which have major jurisdiction over health care reform. They saw their contributions from health care interests increase by an average of $40,000 and $37,000, respectively, according to Podhorzer.

The leading Senate recipients were Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), $727,359; Connie Mack (R-Fla.), $402,221; Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), $390,970; Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), $377,478, and Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), $375,631.

The leading House recipients were Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), $667,282; Richard A. Gephardt, (D-Mo.) the majority leader, $303,001, and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), $292,866.

The top dispenser of contributions was the American Medical Assn., which gave $1,363,474, followed by the National Assn. of Life Underwriters ($821,390), the American Dental Assn. ($670,022) and the American Hospital Assn. ($635,315), according to Citizen Action. Business interests gave $9.7 million, it said.

Compared to the previous election cycle, the group said, doctors and other health professionals increased their contributions by 34%; pharmaceutical and medical equipment makers by 17% and the insurance industry by 19%.

“They simply overwhelmed Congress with their money,” said Alex Benes, managing director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit group that also has studied health care lobbying.

Among pro-reform groups, labor unions were the most generous single donor, contributing over $8 million to members of Congress, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Labor’s agenda in Congress, however, went far beyond health reform, including such legislation as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The lavish contributions also drew a rebuke Thursday from a coalition of consumer groups, which, like Wellstone, cited such spending in calling on Congress to enact campaign finance reform.

In a letter to Democratic congressional leaders, more than 50 organizations stated: “Special interests killed comprehensive health care reform. . . . The American public is fed up with death by special interests. Before Congress adjourns to face the voters in November, it must put an end to gridlock and pass political reform.”

Gail Shearer, legislative analyst for Consumer Union, one of the groups that signed the letter, said: “Consumers are going to get angry that special interests have peddled their influence by distorting issues, by contributing money to members, by mounting ad campaigns.”

Ellen Miller, head of the Center for Responsive Politics, added: “When the public really gets what it means not to have health care reform, there could well be an enormous backlash against all the spending that went in to defeating the legislation.”

Thursday also marked the anniversary of Clinton’s speech to a joint session of Congress in which he called for an overhaul of what is one-seventh of the U.S. economy.

Kerrey, one of several Democrats involved in a last-ditch bipartisan effort to produce a drastically scaled-back measure, described GOP filibuster threats as “forces of darkness.”

However, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said that the Clinton approach failed because the public recognized that it would mean “less choice, less quality, fewer jobs and greater cost.”

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) spent the day consulting with Democrats to determine whether it would be worthwhile to make one final push for a minimalist measure, possibly one that would expand coverage to needy pregnant women and children.

Times staff writer Karen Tumulty contributed to this story.