August 11, 2013 | Read Time: 3 minutes
Washington
Most Americans have only a vague understanding of what the Livestrong Foundation does for cancer patients, a new poll finds, but the charity is well known among lawmakers for its public-policy work.
Since 2001, Livestrong has spent $3.56-million on federal and state lobbying, records show. In 2012 alone, it spent $1.5-million to support an effort to pass a tobacco tax in California that eventually failed. And in 2007 the charity was instrumental in passage of a $3-billion Texas bond issue to create the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.
The charity’s work demonstrates how a nonprofit can successfully lobby for legislative issues that support its mission without crossing a political line. But its experience also shows how a charity’s good works can be jeopardized by its relations with a celebrity founder.
Views Are Respected
The charity faced criticism recently when The Wall Street Journal revealed last year that some of its lobbying veered into defending its founder, Lance Armstrong, against allegations of cheating leveled by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, a nonprofit that gets much of its money from the federal government.
A spokesman for Representative José E. Serrano, a New York Democrat who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, told The Chronicle that the doping investigation was the focus of a 2012 visit he had from Livestrong officials.
“Certainly that topic came up, but it wasn’t the primary focus of the public-policy efforts,” says David Lofye, Livestrong’s vice president for government affairs.
That’s no surprise, considering that Livestrong’s public-policy profile on Capitol Hill was built on Mr. Armstrong’s celebrity.
But some observers say the charity’s substantive work on numerous bills—including its support of the massive federal health-care overhaul—has helped it avoid any loss of trust in Congress because of Mr. Armstrong’s actions.
“They are a big player,” says Shelley Fuld Nasso, senior director of policy at the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. “Their views are respected because they have strong connections with patients.”
Still, she adds, “we’re all wondering what’s going to happen with their influence.”
Improving Lives
One of Livestrong’s key accomplishments, says Ms. Nasso, was to help members of Congress better understand that cancer patients need help with treatment and recovery, not just research on a cure for the disease. In the past, she says, lawmakers weren’t as interested in giving federal aid beyond research.
Mr. Armstrong made that Livestrong’s focus.
The charity’s grants for research on the best ways to improve the lives of survivors have been key to informing proposed legislation that would authorize Medicare to reimburse doctors for the time they spend developing written cancer treatment plans for patients.
Mr. Lofye said the charity is not afraid to support controversial legislation if it can improve the lives of cancer patients and survivors.
Livestrong supported President Obama’s health-care plan because it provides insurance coverage for many types of cancer screenings and for routine costs of cancer clinical trials.
“Not all of our constituents agreed with the decision,” Mr. Lofye says. “But it was the right one for the people we serve.”
Diana Aviv, chief executive of Independent Sector, says that because Livestrong’s public-policy staff cultivated long-term relationships with lawmakers, it was able to weather the controversy over Lance Armstrong with few problems. “They have not experienced a setback on their advocacy work as a result of the fallout with their founder,” said Ms. Aviv, whose organization counts Livestrong as a member.
