In the grand scheme of things you should research donations made to political action committees (PACs) and direct contributions that companies like Merck make to ALL politicians. That's what lobbyists do. They prowl the halls of government buildings across the country. (Where do you think Barack Obama's $1Billion is coming from, the poor?)
Lobbyists start out in government--where they build up their rolodex. Then they move on to represent businesses who know it is required that they come hat in hand to pay tribute to the legislators who will be passing or not passing legislation that will be levying taxes and regulations upon them.
It is the nature of the beast -- why we need to have elected officials spend less time on the job and go home to work a real job. The Texas legislature meets every 2 years for 140 days (additional days if special sessions are called).
Rick Perry's platform in brief:
1. Don't spend all the money.
2. Have fair and predictable tax and regulatory policy.
3. A legal system that doesn't allow for over suing (lawsuit abuse) and make loser pay (no more jackpot justice).
With that as Rick Perry's platform and political ideology, I conclude that Merck contributed to Rick Perry's PAC to have less government entanglement in their business, which would do considerably more for their bottom line than what you are suggesting.
No, she does not.
Nor does she care about putting dangerous materials
into children not at risk, as long as there were profits
for BigPharma and her RINO Perry and others who knew
a priori about the upcoming MANDATE by RINO Executive Order.
Merck’s political campaign contribution won’t be an issue nationally if Perry becomes the nominee. Hell the $6000 isn’t enough to get in the hello/handshake line at a fundraiser. Texas uses/allows these type donations for campaigns. This maybe bad or good but that is the way it’s done. If you don’t give a five figure contribution to the campaign you aren’t even in the who’s that line.