Posted on 05/22/2008 3:47:58 AM PDT by decimon
WASHINGTON - 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 shift. For one, there is more emphasis on nonpartisanship 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 portend 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 support 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 shifting 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."
___
On the Net:
Center for Responsive Politics: http://tinyurl.com/3swheq
Kinda goes together.
The mafia always rakes in more profit than the police.
The farmer always knows the best place to put the slop for the pigs...
LLS
Rebates?
Thanks, Dubya!
Wow. “Bush’s Fault”. Nice. Moron.
Hey...you're up to two syllables!! Congrats! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.