I imagine Ernie was referring only to insurance company groups, as agents certainly wield plenty of influence in Washington. The Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, for one, is well-regarded as a force on the Hill, thanks in large part to the grass-roots political activism of its thousands of members.

Agents are the ultimate political animals. They live the adage that all politics are local. They are very involved in Congressional and state legislative campaigns, as well as in their local business and social organizations, where their connections get them access to all the power brokers.

The biggest problem for the industry in Washington, I believe, is not the amount of money they spend, but the fact that there is such disunity on controversies such as optional federal charters and a national catastrophe fund. Those issues on which the industry is united–extending TRIA or tort reform–tend to get done.

But Congress is never going to act on any insurance-related bill that clearly splits the industry. Why get in the middle of a family feud, especially when no votes are at stake? (I remember a long time ago, Sen. Al D'Amato, R.N.Y., told agents lobbying him about keeping banks out of insurance that both industries give him lots of money and no average voter cares, so why should he risk alienating either group by taking sides?)

What's your take on all of this???