ASHA & Political advocacy + operations — logistically how can we change or impact this?(revised post)
[long and maybe snoozers. Bureaucratic minutia ]
I posted earlier confidently wrong misinformation about how ASHA’s political operations work. Thanks to all who tore up the arguments, I removed the post to avoid spreading more confusion. Im sick in bed and did some digging.
SO!
From what I understand,
ASHA cannot contribute to political candidates.
ASHA PAC can and does.
The advocacy staff at ASHA (paid by dues, not the PAC) does all the work of identifying candidates, and the PAC just writes the checks. The PAC is a checkbook, not an operation (I was mistaken about this)
ASHA PAC is individual donor funded, barred from receiving corporate contributions, and 3.65% of ASHA members contribute toward it with average donation of $30.
Limited by law to $5,000 per candidate per cycle.
PAC expenditures go to 2/3 Dems and 1/3 Republicans generally speaking
ASHA PAC is a small PAC in the pond.
2025–2026 cycle (January 1, 2025 through April 30, 2026)
Raised: $277,759
Spent: $198,180 entirely in direct contributions to candidates, zero operating expenses, zero independent expenditures
Beginning cash on hand (Jan 1, 2025): $698,719
Current cash on hand 2026 : $778,298
The war chest actually grew this cycle. They started with ~$699K, raised $278K, spent $198K, and are now sitting on $778K
The actual disclosure forms are at lda.senate.gov, search American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
From the Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 filings, the lobbyists are: Jerry White, Eric Masten, Josh Krantz, Rebecca Bowen, Kevin Stutman, Sarah Warren, Neela Swanson, Caroline Bergner, Inoka Tennakoon, and Bill Knudsen.
The biggest chunk of their energy in Q4 in 2025 and Q1 of 2026 was Medicare and health care payment. They were fighting to get Medicare to directly cover audiology services without requiring a physician referral, pushing to expand telehealth coverage permanently , trying to protect against reimbursement cuts to SLP and audiology services, and opposing proposals to block-grant or cap Medicaid spending.
The second big area was health care access and workforce. They lobbied for funding to screen newborns for hearing loss and CMV, pushed for an interstate licensing compact so SLPs and audiologists can practice across state lines more easily, advocated for coverage of gender-affirming voice therapy, and backed a workplace violence prevention bill for health care workers.
On the military side they worked on making sure Tricare covers their services properly.
There were barely any recent school-based SLP issues. The education section in Q4 2025 was mostly about how graduate programs get defined under the Higher Education Act.
They had Capitol Hill Day in November ‘25, following that. nine new cosponsors joined ASHA-supported bills after meeting with members.
Medicare Audiology Access Improvement Act (H.R. 2757/S. 1996): Expands beneficiary access to audiology services.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)
IDEA Full Funding Act (H.R. 2598/S. 1277): Supports the long-promised federal commitment to special education funding.
Rep. McGovern (D-MA)
Ally’s Act (H.R. 4606): Ensures private insurance coverage of hearing devices for children.
Rep. Brian Jack (R-GA)
Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN)
Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY)
Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH)
Stop CMV Act (H.R. 5435/S. 2842): Secures federal funding for cytomegalovirus (CMV) screening programs in states.
Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO)
SHARE Act (H.R. 2332/S. 1101): Ensures states with interstate compacts have access to background check determinations.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Results — ASHA’s flagship priority bills have been recycled through multiple Congresses without crossing the finish line. The Medicare audiology bill has been introduced over and over. So when ASHA counts “nine new cosponsors within days” following Capitol Hill day as an advocacy win, they’re measuring inputs rather than what actually passed.
Seems like ways to push a change is to run for the Government Affairs and Public Policy Board (GAPPB) . That board writes the lobbying priorities. Nicole Raia was 2025 Chair, Louis Malerba is board liaison and around -12 volunteers.
For school folks theoretically one organized school SLP faction on Government Affairs and Public Policy Board changes what goes into the Public policy agenda , which changes what the lobbyists are told to push.
Apparently there’s a biennial advocacy survey for the policy agendaz. the PPA is member-survey driven. If school SLPs coordinate their responses around specific asks a caseload cap number, IDEA full funding, mandatory workload analysis that creates a paper trail the GAPPB has to acknowledge, in theory.
ASHA funds state associations and takes direction from them. Getting your state Speech language association to formally adopt a school SLP caseload position (or any other policy) creates pressure that flows upward into ASHA’s federal agenda.
Influencing the PAC targeting
The ASHA FAQ said members can email pac@asha.org to recommend candidates they think should be supported. A coordinated campaign from school SLPs identifying pro-IDEA, pro-caseload-cap legislators and emailing that recommendation with documented voting records is more effective than one person doing it.
Get this though ! ASHA said they won’t recommend a caseload number because the research doesn’t support one. Lmao.
Edit: oh yeah and ASHA’s total money dedicated to lobbying and advocacy is around less than 3% of total revenue