Dialysis Industry Political Contributions & Kidney Policy

Federal campaign contributions to members of congressional committees with jurisdiction over kidney policy and the End Kidney Deaths Act

How much have major dialysis-industry PACs contributed to members of the congressional committees responsible for kidney and transplant policy?

Then show the data for the relevant committees, with individual members and amounts. Every number should link directly to the FEC record wherever possible. The FEC itself provides searchable PAC contribution and disbursement records, so you can make this extremely well sourced.

Most importantly, put a conspicuous disclaimer immediately above or below the table:

Political contributions do not establish a legislator's position on the End Kidney Deaths Act, nor do they establish that a contribution was made in connection with the legislation. The information below is provided to document publicly reported political contributions and allow readers to evaluate the record for themselves.

That sentence protects the credibility of the entire project.

I would not write anything like “dialysis companies are paying the committees that control EKDA.” PAC contributions are legal and routine, and the contribution itself doesn't establish influence, motive, or a quid pro quo.

There's an even more interesting way to build it

Don't limit the page to DaVita and Fresenius. Have a table like:

Organization/PACWays & MeansEnergy & CommerceSenate FinanceTotal to committee membersDaVita PAC$___$___$___$___Fresenius PAC$___$___$___$___Kidney Care Partners PAC$___$___$___$___

Then underneath, provide the member-by-member transactions and FEC sources.

There's already an interesting relationship worth documenting separately: an FEC filing shows DaVita PAC contributing to Kidney Care Partners PAC in the current cycle. That's exactly the kind of thing a journalist may want to understand—but again, just document it rather than assigning a motive.

One strategic caution

I would not publish this before your Fresenius meeting.

You have accomplished something potentially more valuable than a campaign-finance webpage: Fresenius has agreed to sit down with you.

Go into that meeting trying to get them to support EKDA, remain neutral, identify changes that would produce support, or at minimum clearly explain their position.

If they support you, that changes the story dramatically.

If they oppose it, you can then ask what they've communicated to Congress. And if the public records show substantial contributions to members of the committees controlling EKDA, then those records become context for journalists to investigate.

So I would build the page now, verify every number, but hold off on publishing it until after the Fresenius meeting. That preserves your strongest strategic option while giving you a very useful research asset if the meeting goes differently.