OT big pharma political donations | Arthritis Information

Interesting!

http://trusted.md/feed/items/system/2008/05/23/show_me_the_money

"In a sharp reversal, drug and medical device companies are giving more money to Democrats than Republicans this election season, one more sign of the campaign difficulties the GOP could face this November.

Over the past six elections, such businesses typically spent twice as much on GOP candidates; in 2002, the ratio got as high as 3-to-1.

Democrats now are holding the edge with .4 million in campaign contributions compared with million for GOP candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending.

"Money follows the power," said Massie Ritsch, the center's communications director. "And it can predict power.""
Suzanne2008-05-23 09:54:48Hmmm. I wonder what the dems are offereing them.Lobbyists have a lot of money to throw around. They often hedge their bets, giving to one political candidate or party and also giving to the opposing candidate or party. In this upcoming year, the Democrats will be in the majority, they will be chairs of policy committees and there is a lot on the table that will impact pharmaceutical companies and health care related industries, so its no surprise where the money is flowing.

it just goes to show that while everyone seems to think that whoever is elected president controls the healthcare agenda the reality is that is the entrenched members of congress that do. pay attention to your representatives change will never happen if we keep elecing the same congress people who have done nothing so far

Democrats have never seen money they weren't willing to take or use as long as it wasn't theirs. And when they do the latter it shows how desperate they truly are for a short time in the political spotlight. All the more remarkable because they claim to represent the poor and downtrodden and have absolutely no experience in being in that predicament. [QUOTE=buckeye]

[/QUOTE]

It is true that the President will need the support of Congress to put forth health care reform, but one must also acknowledge the influence of powerful special interests groups, not only on representatives but on the citizenry.

An example, is the Coalition for Health Insurance Choices (CHIC), a front group for the Health Insurance Industry Association that led the insurance industry's campaign to defeat the Clinton health plan in 1993. CHIC sponsored a now-legendary TV spot called "Harry and Louise," which featured a middle-class married couple lamenting the complexity of Clinton's plan and the menace of a new "billion-dollar bureaucracy." The powerful advertising campaign, financed by the insurance industry, played on people's fears and helped derail Clinton's health plan.

For more info on the CHIC and its tactics to defeat the 1993 health care reform see:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coalition_for_Health_Insurance_Choices

Mike-

I'm thinking with gas over a gallon, you're description is more towards what happened to us re:healthcare under Bush and the Republicans - and we know they don't even PRETEND to say they represent the poor and downtrodden. Me thinks that new Bush/health care reform package is just a 'red herring' to obscure big goal; the total overthrow of the system we have now.

Politicians get bought - it's a sad fact of life and why we as people effected by their total lack of morals need to be informed, be ready, and start recalling some of the biggest offenders as a warning to the ones that follow.

Pip

Melody Peterson said there are TWO DRUG LOBBYISTS for every member of Congress. Drug companies also influence the FDA in what drugs get approved and they buy doctors.

Health care consumers need to protect themselves.

Joie what was the consumer protection group you mentioned?

Jan

I just found it www.consumersunion.org

Jan

I just want to warn people - when health reform is on the table after the election - please do not forget that the Media has a LOT to lose if we ban Direct to Consumer Advertising. I think it's about 7 billion a year in ad revenue.

Be prepared to think for yourselves - they're going to attempt to scare the bejesus out of you to keep a finger in that pie.

Pip

According to Tammi Schlotzhauer in Living With Rheumatoid Arthritis, Minocin has not been approved by the FDA because it costs the drug companies alot of money to run tests and since Minocin now has a generic the money isn't there. Not in the best interest of the public.

Jan

Amen, sister!

I blame the movie 'Greed'. Remember when it was wrong to be considered greedy?

Pip

[QUOTE=Pip!]Mike-

Pip

[/QUOTE]

I don't have to worry about recalling my Congressman. REPUBLICAN Congressman John Doolittle announced he would not seek reelection. A member of the House of Representative for 16 years, member of the powerful Appropriations Committee, and member of the Republican Leadership, he and his wife Julie, are under investigation by the FBI for their dealings with the convicted and imprisoned lobbyist, Jack Abramhoff.

Representing a predominantly Republican district, in the last election he barely beat out his democratic opponent by 3% of the vote, had there not been an Independent candidate, the democrat would probably have won. REPUBLICAN Congressman Doolittle announced he would not run again only after losing the support of other Republicans who would not contribute to his reelection campaign.

REPUBLICAN Congressman Doolittle repeatedly voted against funding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Good riddance REPUBLICAN Congressman DO-LITTLE, may the next congressman care more about children and not sell out to the corruptible influence of lobbyists and their bribes and paybacks for favors.

Personally, I find it despicable that the pharma companies basically coerce their employees to "donate" money to their PAC's. I'm sure other industries do this as well, but I've never worked outside of the pharma industry. Anyway, especially for people in upper management, you won't get promoted (it's an unofficial, unwritten rule) unless you donate thousands per year to the company's PAC. It's not so bad down in the trenches for the technical/non-management folks (like me). We just get tons of junk mail telling us how the company's PAC is saving our industry, our jobs, and everyone's life.
[QUOTE=JasmineRain]Personally, I find it despicable that the pharma companies basically coerce their employees to "donate" money to their PAC's. I'm sure other industries do this as well . . .
[/QUOTE]

Other industries do similar things, but drug companies outspend most other industries in lobbying. See excerpt from article at link below:

THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY

Drug and health products industries invest 2 million to influence legislation

By M. Asif Ismail
Data analysis by Helena Bengtsson

WASHINGTON, April 1, 2007 — Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and other health products spent nearly 2 million on federal lobbying from January 2005 through June 2006, a Center for Public Integrity study of disclosure records show.

Of that total, drug companies and their trade groups spent most of it, or 5 million, lobbying on a variety of issues ranging from protecting lucrative drug patents to keeping lower-priced Canadian drugs from being imported to the United States Drug interests employed about 1,100 lobbyists to do their bidding in each of the past two years.

Many of the bills targeted by lobbyists for drug interests last year were largely the result of public concerns over high drug prices and safety issues. Drug companies "have been facing an increasingly furious Congress and an increasingly disgruntled public," said Amy Allina, program director at the National Women's Health Network, a women's health advocacy group.

The drug industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent more than million on lobbying last year, more than any single drug company and the most the group spent in one year since 1998, the earliest year of this analysis. In all, PhRMA has spent 4 million since 1998.

For rest of article see:

http://www.publici.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=823

I was specifically talking about the arm-twisting to get the money. I don't think companies should be allowed to "advertise" their PACs to their captive-audience employees. Especially when they can prohibit solicitation for other things - everything from union literature to Girl Scout cookie sales are prohibited, yet they continually strong-arm employees to "donate" money to the company PAC. It ain't right.
Anyone remember Jeffery Fieger? He was Jack Kevorkian's lawyer. He is being tried right now for making his employees donate to the dem candidate he was supporting, and then paying them back. Just a way to try to make illegal donations seem legal. Yeah, I know not big pharma, but kinda like what Jas is talking about.Jas,

After I posted, I realized there's a difference between lobbying money, that pays lobbyist salaries and expenses, and PAC (political action committees) money, that are contributions to candidates and campaigns, and then there's soft money . . . . . oh, it gets too confusing, but geez, we're talking about a lot of money folks.