Skip to comments.Perry Underestimated Merck Donations in Debate
Posted on 09/13/2011 1:59:52 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
When Rick Perry joked last night that the $5,000 he had received from Merck wasnt enough to buy him off, the line failed to charm the audience as hed expected. Turns out, the line also significantly low-balled how much hed received from Merck. Merck PACthe companys D.C.-based political action committeehas given Perry $28,500 since 2001, according to Texas Ethics Commission filings. The bulk of that money came prior to 2007, the Los Angeles Times reports today. Even so, that doesnt make Merck one of Perrys top donors: the LA Times notes that hes received over the years donations totaling more than six figures from over 200 sources.
That $2850. per year. OMG...THE HORROR, THE HORROR.
Is there no end to his strategic fund raising abilities?
Surely he has been chosen by God for such times as these.
Ya know I appreciate the New York Tiomes, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and other liberal newspapers and Media for all of these fine investigative reports on Rick Perry
But where were they 2 1/2 years ago when Obama needed investigating? Where are they now when Obama needs investigating. We still don’t know Obma grades in college, his thesis, How he got toPakistan and we don’t know about his affairs with his room mate when he was in college.
They don’t mind digging for dirt against Republicans, but they are mute about our Muslim in Chief.
He raised over $39,000,000 for the 2010 campaign, and some are trying to smear him over $2850/year.
It’s ridiculous, and Sarah Palin is being dishonest accusing Perry of crony capitalism.
I am with you
How could anyone who values honest reporting write that
there are many things perry is guilty of. This is not one
Let's all support crony capitalism (as long as a "Republican" is doing it). Party before ideals!
I think Perry should get into the used car business or get in to the lucrative undertaker profession, either one would suit him fine...jmho
they over paid.
Once they've gotten everyone in the GOP to believe that Perry's "the guy to beat," then they drag out lots of facts, insinuations, and/or other stats (real or made up) about the guy, and he'll sink.
Then they will compare the "real Rick Perry" against the "unreal Barack Obama" and Perry will not overwhelm the public, let alone conservatives!
The MSM usually does the above one week or 24 hrs prior to the General Election, however the true Rick Perry will come out and hopefully, all of our "friends" here on FR will not become fighting mad when others just don't think of him as "their guy" (I don't have a "guy or gal" as a favorite, I just refuse to jump on the one that all of the newest "buzz" is about!)
For instance, I never would have thought of myself as thinking seriously about Rick Santorum but the more I hear the guy talk, the better I like him. Everyone will say, "but he can't get elected." I'm so tired of hearing this old saw that it's becoming the "lie told a thousand times becomes the truth!"
Sorry, at this point, the only two people on that stage who would fit that category (to me, however) would be Jon (John Kerry twin, with less charm) Huntsman and Ron Paul (I know Paul has lots of friends here but the guy's really a Libertarian and I'm not that.)
So, that goes all the way back to ‘01.. How much of that is for the Gardasil issue? Not that I care, but it is to make a point.
How many times are you hacks going to post this?
The Gardisil issue is an issue but not a deal killer.
I think it’s good that a politician doesn’t know how much any given corporation donates.
Don’t forget the campaign fund is the politician’s retirement benefit. They get to keep everything that has not been used during the campaign. If a politician gets LOTS of donations and has little competition, he does not have to use much from his campaign chest so he gets to pocket quite a bit of money when he is ready to leave public office. My US representative retired with $4 million. I’ll bet that someone in Perry’s position to help his donors will be retiring with a lot more than that.
Sarah Palin smeared Rick Perry and his integrity without any proof.
When the media did that to Palin, I was outraged. Now that Palin is a part of the media, apparently her supporters have selective outrage at baseless smears.
She just got the words wrong. Should be as Rush said, “quid pro quo”.
I myself accused Obama of the very same over the swine flu vaccine. I would wager most here would agree.
No, pandering to La Raza and open borders is the deal killer.
If Katrina Trinko was a good or fair journalist she would show the contributions year by year instead of making the reader wonder. This article creates HASH!
I have always admired Rick Santorum.
What is the evidence of this quid pro quo? Plus, since the vaccinations never happened, did Perry have to return his money to Merck?
Should medical and drug companies not support candidates who saved them from trial lawyers? You'd prefer they support the Democrats?
Use your brain if you have one.
As perry detractors have explained to me ad nauseum, it’s not just that you get a donation, it’s whether the donation comes right before the action. So Perry was correct to only take into account the donations that happened in close proximity of the action he took.
What’s worse about this whole argument is that Merck stopped lobbying for these vaccine mandates after the uproar. They went another route, one of advertising and getting federal programs to finance the drug. Those programs were implemented in a lot of states, including Alaska during Palin’s term. While they were paid for by taxpayer dollars, they were strictly voluntary, so you didn’t have to “opt-out” of them.
Perry's off by $23,500 and that's your response?
There was an “ex-chief of staff lobbying for Merck and a staffers mother-in-law serving as a state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil vaccine for preteen girls.”
Appearance of impropriety
Not even arguable and no evidence of wrong doing needed.
Plus I resent the hell out of people here who argue his Scouting and Military background somehow exempt him from this type scrutiny.
Expect more to come out.
She didn’t smear him. She told the truth.
Perry is for sale.
The “I can’t be bought for $5,000” line was terrible. You immediately thought-so you need more than $5,000 dollars?
What bothers me about this whole thing is that Perry said he did this to force the insurance companies to pay for the vaccine. He is willing to use govt to make companies do what he thinks they should do. THIS is big govt meddling. And this is what no one is talking about.
True conservative have no time for someone with his record, and the Left hates anyone to the right of Stalin.
Not enough milksops to make him viable.
More and more it becomes noted that Perrybots use exactly the same methodology as Mittbots, perhaps because their candidates are so much alike.
Both insist that if you are voting for a real conservative instead of their socialist drone you must want Obama to win.
Both have a contingent vociferously squawking ad hominems at their rivals. With Mitt, the clucking is that all of their opponents hate Mormons, with a very klu klux klan sort of hate. In a similar vein, we see the Perrybots attempting to insist that people supporting Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann are really all Ron Paulistas.
Really, they have no choice. The scandals regarding Perry are longstanding and the people who opposed him when they happened are not likely to overlook them now.
much like capitalism, Perry is the worst candidate... except for all the rest.
As Michelle Malkin writes, Perry had personal reasons that may have been more important than a Merck contribution.
There was an ex-chief of staff lobbying for Merck and a staffers mother-in-law serving as a state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil vaccine for preteen girls.
Yes this is what Palin was talking about on Greta.
I believe that he understated the amount, not underestimated. But regardless, assuming that the $30 million in campaign funds collected is correct, the Merck amount is less than one-tenth of one percent. I doubt that that makes them that influential of a contributor.
Except for one big thing. His Chief of Staff could have gone to work for 10,000 different companies or organizations. But he was at Merck. The one company that got the executive order exception.
To me, it isn't so much the money, it's the likely call from Merck, "Good morning Rick, hey I was wondering if you could do me a little favor, y'see there's a vaccine called Gardasil that got left out of the school vaccine protocols, it's really a great little potion, and it would be a shame if it got left out. Merck really wants to help with addressing this issue and....."
Perry will prevail here because he is the actual true outsider. Fox is using Sarah the useful idiot to trash the only candidate that can beat Romney.
After last night I will vote Romney for sure should Perry fade, unless Cain steps up. Bachman, done, Palin, fraud.
What benefit does Perry get when his Chief of Staff goes to work for Merck, and what benefit did Merck get when the so-called “mandate” was never put into effect?
It’s silliness. I expect gutterball shots from Bachmann, since she has about 3 months left as a candidate if she is luck, but to hear Palin’s smear of Perry was a disappointment to me.
Anyone else notice the facial expressions, demeanor, and behavior of Perry?
It scary similar to Bush and they were just discussing this on KFI Los Angeles and several others mentioned this last night, right here
You'll likely never know. That how corruption works...Behind closed doors, with payoffs, graft, influence, favors etc, etc.
You do realize that there are over 700 pages of documentation on Perry’s EO, right?
This is not meant as a slam against Alaska because after researching this a little more, I discovered numerous states were implementing the Gardiasil vaccine and more were close to starting to insert it into mandatory or at least recommended vaccines. The CDC and health organizations were putting on a great display of its greatness and need and pushing to have states get in on the bandwagon. 18 states including Alaska opted to use the federal tax-payer funds to provide free vaccines and Alaska specifically beginning in 2007 used the federal money to fund vaccines for 9 to 18 year old girls. (And yes, it does look like the federal regulations that came with the accepted federal oversight did not include the parental involvement required as did insurance companies if done without tax payer money.) My point being, Alaska was recommending it and giving it to the girls free-of-charge but did not have to present it as a necessary vaccine which the parent could then opt out of.)
However, I discovered that Alaska, in the midst of the federal and health care propaganda (or perhaps just 'misunderstanding of the vaccine at that time') that Alaska was not only recommending it to 8 - 18 year old girls but was also encouraging women 18 to 26 years old to get the vaccine. In fact, the State of Alaska had developed a financing plan in association with Merck & Co. Inc., the vaccines manufacturer, so that those older college aged girls and young women not covered for the vaccine free of charge (older age) could make loan payments to Merck.
Now I'm not saying there was anything there, but I am trying to indicate that this situation was ripe for bad decisions and even ripe for possible abuse in so many different places throughout our country at that time.
Now I started this post with my description of that time period, believing it would soften the Alaska role as well as all the other states' roles in this issue. I'm not trying to blame Alaska or give undue credit to Perry here.
I'm just saying our governors all over the country were being provided with health information that seemed very credible to all of them, at least for the most part, and they were either implementing programs or would have implemented them soon.
I think we need to remember this when this very same issue arises with many more of our governors at some point. There were 18 states alone that took the federal tax-payer money to fund the vaccines. Rick Perry had the exact same idea as the other states, that this was a miracle drug and just needed to get out there (just like so many more governors out there were thinking). He just funded the program differently.
The CDC recommends the vaccine for girls and women 9 through 26 years old, but the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services only has funding to cover the vaccine for those ages 9 through 18. Women ages 19 through 26 may be able to receive some coverage through Medicaid, their health insurance companies or a special financial aid program set up by Merck & Co. Inc., the vaccines manufacturer.
and I hear he even wears a cowboy hat and you know what that means. It is even rumored that he talks with a Texas accent, most likely a plant from south of the border.
Get real people! Of those running, most are not electable no matter how you try to smear the leaders. I think there was a great debate, however, it was not balanced, nor did the fringe candidates really get alot of input.
imho s/ and you know what they say about opinions...
It was a conflict of interest for Perry to take one penny from Merck while he was pushing their agenda.
Perry says his price is over $5000, knowing he received more than that amount, so this makes an honest skeptic wonder what his price is.
You know, normy, I can’t speak for Sarah Palin. Soooo, I will speak for myself.
Most folks around here know I have been really tough on Palin.
I don’t apologize for being tough on any of them.
But when they are right, I will agree with them. In this case, Palin and Bachmann are right.
Face it, Perry was going to get exposure on this sooner or later. He should be glad it happened now rather than later. Instead we have to hear that Mrs. Kremer is a cow, Michele is a cow, and I guess Palin is too. Shameful.
I don’t really think Bachmann could win the nomination. But I am glad she is a fighter.
Sad thing for conservatives. We would rather make excuses for what we know is not conservative than back a conservative.
Conservatives are called kooks. Fine, call me a kook.
If his price is a mere $2850/year, then what did that other $39,000,000 buy? Maybe nothing, but it is a legit question.
Gee Mr. Edd it sure is tough to see why the people of Texas elected him 3 times. He sure is an a-hole according to some.
Does that mean it would be a conflict of interest for Sarah Palin to take one penny from tea partiers while she pushes our agenda? Or is it only corrupt if it's the other guy?
Your understanding is at best only partially correct.
“While the F.E.C. clearly says campaign committee cash can’t be tapped for personal use, there are no such stipulations for certain political action committees, most controversially “leadership PACs” that elected officials can use to support various political causes other than their own.”
So the first question is whether the money is in an actual campaign account, or if it is in a PAC.
PAC money can be kept, although they keep talking about changing the rules.
Sarah Palin isn’t governor of Texas. In fact, she’s not a government official at all, therefore, no conflict of interest. Besides, none of the politician would be able to accept donations from members of the tea party, since they all claim to be pushing the agenda.
If Palin enacted legislation after receiving a bribe from the Tea Party, and if the Tea Party were a business entity instead of a movement, it would also be Crony Capitalism.
Of course, your analogy to Palin is ridiculous.
Why do you think it is rediculous? The charge wasn’t about Perry, it was about a conflict of interest that would arise simply because he got money from a donor while pushing the donor’s agenda.
But that is by definition what donors do. Donors give money to candidates who push their agenda. Drug companies want to sell drugs, and they give money to candidates who make it easier to sell drugs. Tea Partiers want small government, tax cuts, and spending cuts, and they give money to candidates who will vote for spending cuts, tax cuts, and small government.
By default, Sarah Palin will push legislation after receiving the “bribe” from the tea party “members”, i.e. all the people who say they are part of the tea party, and who will give her their donations to win the nomination and the presidency. When she wins, she will then send down a budget that cuts taxes and spending, she will push a bill to repeal obamacare, she’ll secure the border — all the things we told her to do when we sent her money.
There is NOTHING wrong with this. That is my point — it is absurd to complain about politicians doing what pleases their donors. When we see politicians do what we like, we send them money (Joe Wilson and “you lie” being a particular example). If politicians stop doing what we want, we threaten to stop sending them money, like the RNC “not one thin dime” campaign.
Essentially, we “bribe” candidates to remain faithful to our principles, by offering and witholding campaign contributions.
Here is the cheat sheet. Money given to a politician you don’t like = “pay-off”. Money given to a politician you like = “grass-roots activism”.