http://www.newsmax.com/politics/drug_company_politics/2008/05/22/98035.html
Drug Industry Contributing More to Democrats
Thursday, May 22, 2008
WA****NGTON -- 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 $7.4 million in campaign
contributions compared with $7 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."
The difference is more pronounced in the presidential race. Drug and
device makers have contributed $639,124 to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.,
$574,828 to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and $168,300 to Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz. The center calculated the totals based on data
released Feb. 28 by the Federal Election Commission.
All three candidates have taken positions that rankle the drug
industry. They include:
_Giving the Health and Human Services Department authority to
negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare drug plans.
_Allowing American-made drugs to be brought back into the U.S. from
other countries, particularly Canada. Drugs sold abroad typically cost
less because of government price controls. The idea behind this effort
is to give U.S. consumers access to those lower-priced medicines.
Billy Tauzin, chief executive officer for the Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers of America, gave two explanations for the spending
****ft. For one, there is more emphasis on nonpartisan****p at his trade
group since he took over three years ago, he said. Also, with more
Democrats in office now, it stands to reason they would get a greater
share of donations.
Tauzin, a Republican, was chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee until February 2004. He began working at the group in
January 2005.
"It's only natural, if we adopt a nonpartisan position like we did
three years ago, we'll find it easier to work with more and more
Democrats who want to work with us for the good of patients," Tauzin
said.
When Democrats gained control of Congress last year, they pushed
legislation giving the government the power to negotiate prescription
drug prices for the elderly and disabled. That job is done now by
private insurers. The effort, opposed by the industry, passed in the
House, but stalled in the Senate. During congressional debates,
Democratic lawmakers routinely referred to strong ties between the GOP
and drug makers.
"They stand on the floor every day demanding that we save the
taxpayers money, but when we try to do that with the companies that
fill their campaign coffers, they say we are hurting business," Rep.
Corrine Brown, D-Fla., said during the debate.
Such talk could ****tend a rough road for the drug industry next year
if Democrats actually follow through on legislation they pushed in
2007 but knew had little chance of passage, namely government
negotiations on drug prices. Tauzin said the rhetoric did not worry
him.
"The truth is they all fight to get political contributions from
anyone willing to finance their campaigns, which are too darn
expensive," he said.
One Democrat who is benefiting is Rep. Frank Pallone, chairman of the
House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health.
The New Jersey Democrat has received $87,124 in campaign contributions
from the drug and device industries, ranking him eighth among House
members.
"In the past, I got almost nothing and many of the Democrats got
almost nothing in terms of campaign contributions, so they are helping
us to some extent," Pallone said. "I don't think it means anything. I
don't think there is a link between what people contribute and our
agenda. And there shouldn't be."
Pallone said the election results rather than donations will determine
next year's legislative agenda. A Democratic president and majority
would mean that universal health care rises to the top of the list, he
said. He said he believes that finding ways to lower drug prices will
play a role in that debate.
Tommy Thompson, a former health secretary in the Bush administration,
said the contributions reflect an emphasis by the pharmaceutical
industry to be a bigger player in the health care debate.
These companies are "finally waking up to the fact they can't sit on
the sidelines and they have to be a major player in both political
parties," he said.
The potential troubles for the GOP were reinforced last week when
Republicans suffered their third straight defeat in special House
elections in once-friendly territory. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., called
the political atmosphere for Republicans "the worst since Watergate."
Among the drug companies, Pfizer Inc., is routinely No. 1 when it
comes to campaign donations. Its strategy this year illustrates the
change in giving.
In 2004, Pfizer donated $1.3 million to federal campaigns. About 69
percent went to Republicans and 31 percent went to Democrats. This
year, Pfizer has donated more than $862,000. About 52 percent has gone
to Democratic candidates and 48 percent to Republicans, according to
the Center for Responsive Politics.
Pfizer explained its spending through a statement sent by e-mail: "We
sup****t candidates and policymakers in both parties who share our
common goal of expanding access to medicines, improving health
outcomes through medical innovation and delivering value to patients."
Anthony Corrado, professor of government at Colby College in Maine,
said that explanation does not tell the whole story. He said the
industry is making defensive donations to gain access and perhaps
reduce the severity of legislation coming out of Congress next year.
"They're ****fting to the Democrats in large part because they
understand the Democrats are going to have the majority in the next
Congress and will be the party driving health policy and drug
reimbursement policy," Corrado said. "They want to position themselves
to be able to defend against any regulatory efforts they believe are
overly stringent."
|
