[Pharm-policy] Newark Star Ledger: Republican Spending Spree to Unseat Dems over
Drug Prices
James Love
love@cptech.org
Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:48:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:36:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: P. Davis <pdavis@CritPath.Org>
Reply-To: healthgap@CritPath.Org
To: Multiple recipients of list <healthgap@CritPath.Org>
Subject: Newark Star Ledger: Republican Spending Spree to Unseat Dems over Drug
Prices
> Date: 2000/09/10 Sunday Page: 001 Section: NEWS Edition:
> FINAL Size: 1438 words
>
> Drug makers' cash fills GOP war chests
>
> Democratic proposals helped sway firms
>
> By ROBERT COHEN AND EDWARD R. SILVERMAN
> Star-Ledger Staff
>
> Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore is not ingratiating
> himself to the nation's pharmaceutical companies with his repeated
> attacks against the industry and complaints about the high cost of
> prescription medicines.
>
> But long before Gore escalated his campaign rhetoric against the
> pharmaceutical industry, the big drug makers had cast their lot
> financially with Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush and
> the members of his party in Congress.
>
> The pharmaceutical industry has heavily favored Republicans since
> 1994, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive
> Politics, a nonpartisan public interest group.
>
> ''The Republicans really have adopted the pharmaceutical industry's
> line and they are receiving a lot of money because of that," said
> Holly Bailey of the center. "They don't want to hinder the
> industry's business practices, and that's a tune the industry
> likes." The study shows that of the more than $10 million
> individuals and political action committees associated with the
> industry have contributed for this year's elections, the Republicans
> received nearly three dollars for every one that went to the
> Democrats.
>
> The clear shift to the GOP, according to the center, began with
> President Clinton's 1994 push for universal health care. It raised
> the specter of prescription drug price controls - an anathema to the
> pharmaceutical industry.
>
> The alliance was enhanced by the Republican takeover of Congress in
> November that year, and has been magnified during the current
> election campaign. This is due in large part to the Democratic plan
> to offer seniors a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The industry
> fears the plan, which Gore embraced, will restrict prices they can
> charge consumers, reduce their profits and stifle research on new
> medicines.
>
> Bush, seeking to compete with Gore on the politically popular issue,
> last week proposed his own prescription drug benefit. But the Bush
> plan, like one introduced earlier by House Republicans, would offer
> the drug benefit through private sector insurance policies - an
> approach the pharmaceutical industry prefers to the Democratic plan
> that would have the government run the program.
>
> For the 2000 presidential race, the study said that so far Bush has
> received $237,765 from individuals and political action committees
> associated with the pharmaceutical industry compared with just
> $52,850 for Gore. These donations came mostly during the primary
> season - a time when the industry also gave $93,880 to former New
> Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley during his challenge for the Democratic
> presidential nomination.
>
> These sums to the presidential candidates, however, pale in
> comparison with the $10.2 million in total political contributions
> the industry has given through June for the 2000 election, including
> the money to individual House and Senate candidates and to the
> political party committees. The figures are the latest available.
> The next finance reports are not due until the end of this month,
> but they are not expected to show any change in the pattern.
>
> The center's study shows that 74 percent of the total, or
> $7,531,305, went to Republicans, while just 26 percent or
> $2,660,557, was contributed to Democrats.
>
> In 1992, the industry gave $4.8 million in contributions at the
> federal level, spreading it almost equally with 52 percent going to
> the GOP and 48 percent to the Democrats. By 1994, the companies were
> giving 60 percent of their contributions to the GOP and 40 percent
> to the Democrats.
>
> Gore spokesman Chris Lehane said the contribution disparities
> underscore that the approach of Gore and the Democrats have taken
> regarding a prescription drug benefit "represents the interests of
> America's families, while Bush represents the special interests."
>
> Bush spokesman Ray Sullivan said various groups contribute to
> candidates for their own reasons.
>
> ''Gov. Bush makes his decision on what he thinks is best for
> America, not on campaign finance support," said Sullivan. "He has
> put forth a realistic plan to get prescription drugs into hands of
> senior citizens who need them. The Gore campaign does a good job of
> demonizing sectors of the economy and trying to scare people."
>
> Political contributions fall into two major categories - those given
> to the candidates and those given to the parties. Individuals are
> allowed to give $1,000 to a candidate for each election while a
> political action committee can give up to $5,000. Corporations and
> unions cannot give money directly to a candidate. There are no
> limits, however, on the amount an individual, union or corporation
> can give to a political party or one of its campaign committees.
> Those unlimited contributions are called soft money.
>
> The largest pharmaceutical contributor so far in the 2000 election
> is Pfizer Inc., the New York company that recently purchased drug
> maker Warner-Lambert Co. of Morris Plains.
>
> Pfizer has donated $1.3 million through June 30, including $931,000
> in unregulated soft money contributions to political party
> committees. The center's report said that of the soft money
> donations, 83 percent - $771,821 - went to GOP groups like the
> Republican National Committee while $160,000 - 17 percent - was
> given to the Democratic groups.
>
> Pfizer spokesman Andy McCormick explained that his company "makes
> contributions to groups who are responsive to us as a pharmaceutical
> company and to fostering a favorable business environment."
>
> Denise Foy, a spokeswoman for Schering-Plough Corp. of Madison, said
> the same is true of her company.
>
> ''Schering-Plough Corp. supports candidates who support a free
> market system and who best support Schering-Plough's point of view
> on the issues," she said.
>
> Individuals and a political action committee connected to
> Schering-Plough have donated $691,114 to candidates and political
> party committees for the 2000 election. The study said $408,500 of
> that total came in the form of soft money donations to the party
> committees, with 76 percent going to the Republicans and 24 percent
> to the Democrats.
>
> Another New Jersey company, American Home Products, also based in
> Madison, has given $287,805 during the current campaign. That total
> includes $189,575 in contributions to the political party committees
> with 73 percent of that going to Republicans while Democrats got 27
> percent.
>
> Asked about the disparity, Lowell Weiner, a company spokesman, said,
> "American Home Products, as always, has tried to be bipartisan. We
> support the two-party system."
>
> Some Democrats, of course, have been supportive of the
> pharmaceutical industry and have been beneficiaries of their
> largesse, including Gore's running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of
> Connecticut.
>
> As a candidate for re-election to the Senate this year, Lieberman
> had collected $68,450 from individuals and political action
> committees connected to the drug industry. This was the highest
> total of any Democratic member of Congress.
>
> Despite the Gore campaign rhetoric that has lashed out at big oil,
> HMOs, insurers and pharmaceutical companies, Lieberman has often
> backed the agenda of many of these business interests, including the
> drug makers. He has frequently described himself as "pro-business,
> pro-trade and pro- economic growth."
>
> Lehane, Gore's spokesman, said Lieberman is fully supportive of the
> Medicare prescription drug benefit plan outlined by the Democratic
> nominee that is so vehemently opposed by the pharmaceutical
> industry. He also said "the positions of the Gore-Lieberman ticket
> are the views that Gore has articulated."
>
> The second leading Democratic recipient of money from the drug
> companies during this election cycle is Sen. Robert Torricelli
> (D-N.J.), who has received $55,800, and as chairman of the
> Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has collected thousands of
> dollars more for his party.
>
> Torricelli, who is not up for re-election, has been an unabashed
> supporter of the drug industry, a major employer in New Jersey. He
> is the sponsor of a bill on behalf of Schering-Plough aimed at
> extending the patent life of Claritin, the company's most profitable
> drug.
>
> In addition to the prescription drug benefit for the elderly and the
> issue of price controls, pharmaceutical companies have in recent
> years focused on legislation to extend patents for their products,
> lobbied for tax breaks for research and development and sought
> limitations on federal regulation of their business.
>
> GRAPHIC 1. CHART: Pharmaceutical manufacturing: Long-term
> contribution trends
>
> ELECTION TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRIBUTIONS
> CYCLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEMOCRATS TO REPUBLICANS
> 2000* $10,201,262 26% 74%
> 1998 $8,830,401 30% 70%
> 1996 $9,131,485 29% 71%
> 1994 $5,095,937 40% 60%
> 1992 $4,879,859 48% 52%
> 1990 $2,138,611 46% 54%
> TOTAL $40,277,555 33% 67%
>
> *So far
>
> METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions to
> federal candidates and political parties from PACs, soft money
> donors, and individuals giving $200 or more, as reported to the
> Federal Election Commission. The 2000 election cycle runs from Jan.
> 1, 1999, Dec. 31, 2000.
>
> NOTE: Soft money contributions were not publicly disclosed until the
> 1991-92 election cycle.
>
> 2. CHART: Top 20 contributors
>
> Pharmaceutical manufacturers
>
> For 2000 elections
> Total contributed: $10,201,262
>
> Contributions
> from individuals: $1,556,102
>
> Contributions
> from PACs: $2,775,599
>
> Soft money
> contributions: $5,869,561
>
>
>
> ORGANIZATION AMOUNT
> Pfizer Inc $1,391,685
> Bristol-Myers Squibb $1,370,417
> Glaxo Wellcome Inc $771,448
> Schering-Plough Corp $691,114
> Eli Lilly & Co $642,280
> Amgen Inc $439,047
> Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc $399,735
> Merck & Co $382,704
> Novartis Corp $372,324
> American Home Products $287,805
> Jones Pharma Inc $284,356
> Abbott Laboratories $266,050
> Bayer Corp $246,861
> SmithKline Beecham $221,290
> Rhone-Poulenc Inc $220,710
> TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA $220,250
> Genentech Inc $197,550
> Pharmaceutical Research $190,582
> & Manufacturers of America
> Allergan Inc $156,350
> Aventis Pasteur $144,430
>
>
>
> CREDIT: Center for Responsive Politics/THE STAR-LEDGER
>
===
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
HEALTHGAP Mailing List healthgap@critpath.org
To unsubscribe from HEALTHGAP, send a message with a BLANK SUBJECT LINE
to listproc@critpath.org
In the body of the message state the following:
unsubscribe healthgap
IMPORTANT: If the unsubscription request fails, send a message to
healthgap-owner@critpath.org and request to be removed manually.
DO NOT SEND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS TO THE LIST ITSELF.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+