WASHINGTON -. Vilify pharmaceutical companies has been of Riguer among political candidates this year
But for the pharmaceutical industry critic today is chairman of tomorrow, or maybe even president. And in Washington, tradition holds that early generosity, or even a small pre-election test, will be remembered by the candidates once they are in office.
Thus, drug manufacturers and others in the industry of health care have responded in force during the 2016 elections -. Contributing greatly to both parties, including politicians themselves that they are criticizing
The article continues after the announcement
“Money is absolutely key for access, that is the harsh reality “said Wright H. Andrews Jr., a lobbyist lifelong and former head of the American League of lobbyists. “They are still going to make donations – direct, indirect -. Or they will hire people who have”
With that in mind, here are five things you may not have known about the care industry health is spending his political money this year:
drug manufacturers and others are giving largely to the CAP super favoring Hillary Clinton
overall, the pharmaceutical industry, biotechnology companies and medical device manufacturers have less money directly to the campaign of Hillary Clinton that President Obama had by this time four years ago.
In late June, the latest date for which complete figures are available, those industries had donated $ 594,000 to Clinton, compared with about $ 1 million to Obama in 2012.
But these figures do not include personal donations from industry executives to Super PACs that can accumulate unlimited amounts of money and spend it independently of the official campaign of a candidate amounts.
If those contributions are counted, Clinton has raised more money from the industry that Obama had in mid 2012.
Overall, Clinton and super independent PACs that support their already been collected $ 3.9 million in the health field, beating Obama, according to an analysis by STAT by the Center for Responsive Politics. Trump, in comparison, has only brought in $ 82,000.
Some of the contributions have been significant. US Priorities Action and Ready Pac, both pro-Clinton organizations, have secured $ 3 million in grants from DE Shaw Research, a computational biochemistry firm founded by David E. Shaw, one of the founders of hedge funds who serves as chief scientist. Shaw is also a researcher at the Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics at the University of Columbia.
Another big donor to Priorities USA Action J. Steve Mostyn is, who gave $ 1 million. The Texas attorney is well known for pursuing claims against prescription drugs and medical devices, including recent cases of great resonance Risperdal implants and vaginal mesh, Johnson & Johnson antipsychotic medication. And Laure L. Woods, a former clinical researcher in the San Francisco Bay Area working with various medical foundations, donated more than $ 5 million to the super PAC.
Priorities USA Action It is reported spending more than $ 32 million against Trump.
There are great action in the states
Drug companies are concerned about an avalanche of legislative proposals to seep in state houses across the country, including: changes in Medicaid programs to curb the high cost of prescription drugs IP issues, and fight [sobrebiosimilares.
Fortunately for the pharmaceutical industry, both the Republican Governors Association and its Democratic counterpart are able to collect unlimited donations.
Indeed, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the trade group for the pharmaceutical industry, was a superior governors’ associations and other groups working in state elections donor. Democratic governors scored $ 678,000, slightly more than Republicans $ 600,000.
The Democratic and Republican Governors Associations are known as 527, after the section of the tax code that governs them.
are not the only ones 527 to receive money from PhRMA. The group gave $ 445,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee; $ 430,000 to GOPAC, which promotes federal and state Republican candidates; and $ 65,000 to the Republican Association of Attorneys General.
Democratic state groups got far less than PhRMA :. $ 100,000 for the Legislative Democratic campaign and just $ 25,000 Committee by the General Association of Democratic
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals was also a top statewide donor, with a total of $ 1.9 million given to committees collection funds various state policy, including $ 695,000 and $ 765,000 to the Republican Governors Associations and Democrats, respectively.
Abigail Bozarth, a spokeswoman for AstraZeneca, said: “AstraZeneca believes it is important to engage with politicians, key partners and the public – in all states in the United States – about the very difficult problems face as we all work to strengthen the system of health care in our nation. “
in particular, Bozarth said, the pharmaceutical giant is concerned about a number of possible proposals that would weaken protection of intellectual property, impose price controls , or require manufacturers to disclose private information .
“Through corporate and PAC contributions, where possible, AstraZeneca supports candidates from both parties that share the company perspective in public policies affecting our business and the patients we serve,” she said.
Pfizer and Blue Cross / Blue Shield also were major donors to the 527 working groups should choose their party slate. Blue Cross / Blue Shield donated $ 2.3 million and $ 1.8 Pfizer gave. Both donors got a little more to Republicans than Democrats.
Health care providers can come together to support their own
Political money overwhelmingly favors headlines, but sometimes a challenging lucky. In the case of Dr. Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas who beat Representative Tim Huelskamp primary state, support medical profession colleagues helped him at the top.
Huelskamp, first elected in 2010, has been controversial as leader of the Tea Party Caucus.
Marshall, an obstetrician / gynecologist, collect the maximum donation of $ 5,000 from various PACs medical society, including the American Congress of obstetricians, gynecologists PAC, the American medical Association PAC, the American Academy of physicians Family PAC, the PAC American Academy of Ophthalmology, and the American College of Surgeons Professional Association PAC.
forget what you have read. Really no limits.
Although it has been maxed donations, device groups drug pressure and can serve as “balers” allowing them to raise money from friends, family and clients, and then they deliver it to a campaign.
The Clinton campaign has released the names of some balers who have agreed to link more than $ 100,000 so far this election cycle.
There are few executives of the pharmaceutical industry among them, but the list is full of lawyers and lobbyists working on behalf of Capital Hill.
, Tony Podesta, the group of Democratic pressure long term whose brother John is chairman of the Clinton campaign, runs the Podesta Group, which has pushed for Amgen, Merck, BIO and the American Foundation for Research AIDS.
Sally Susman, an executive who oversees the PAC Pfizer pharmaceutical company, also is in the group promising at least $ 100,000.
lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, representing the Federation of American Hospitals and DaVita Health Care Partners, and Brian Pomper, who advocates BIO and Pfizer, are also on the list of the bundler, like Elizabeth Gore, who advocates the Consumer Healthcare Products Association and Walgreens.
Podesta said he does not believe that the tough stance that Clinton has taken in the prices of pharmaceutical companies will have a lasting effect on industry support, adding that there are many other issues to consider, trade between they.
“I think it has been difficult to try to find a way to create incentives for more pharmaceutical invention and also express concern about the prices of health care, ” Podesta said.
in some cases, the industry health care is withholding support
the biggest setback in Congress for the pharmaceutical industry this year – except for the arrival of Martin Shkreli – has been fact that the Senate approve a bill innovative medical
a counterpart of the law of 21st Century Curas House, which overwhelmingly passed last summer, the proposal would I paved the way for drugs and devices that pass by the Food and drug Administration, boosted staffing in federal research centers, and otherwise made it easier for the industry to complete in the global market.
But Democrats, in particular, senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Patty Murray of Washington, have refused to support legislation until the mandatory funding is included for both the National Institutes Health and the FDA.
Despite the dozens of press optimistic news and announcements Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), and Champion House Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy Committee and Trade, the measure is stuck.
So they are the dollars. PACs industry and pharmaceutical and individual donors health in the field gave the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce just over $ 2.4 million at the end of June, so it is unlikely it will match the level of giving in the last election: $ 3.7 million.
The Senate has the opportunity to overcome his last election cycle: donations to the relief committee are now $ 4.5 million. In late 2014, the industry had given $ 5.1 million to help committee members.
Murray, who has been the most conciliatory of the two Democratic leaders in medical innovation bill, received $ 198,000 from PACs in the pharmaceutical industry so far this cycle. Senator Warren scored zero.