These are the figures as compiled by
OpenSecrets. Hillary Clinton received $269,436 from the pharma/healthcare sector, while Barak Obama garnered $261,784. Right behind was Mitt Romney, with $260,535 (please click on the chart to make it bigger). One caveat: this is as of Oct. 29.
As an aside, it's interesting to contrast the contributions with the rhetoric. Last week, Clinton said: “I’ve taken on the drug companies. I’ve taken on the health insurance companies. I’ve taken on the oil companies, and I intend to keep doing it." Perhaps, she meant take them on until they contribute still more.
John Edwards was also talking tough. "I don’t believe you can sit at a table and negotiate with drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies and hope that they will voluntarily give their power away,†he told an Iowa crowd. "We will get their power out of their hands when we take their power away from them.†Perhaps his efforts at negotiating larger contributions failed.
Then there was Romney. In the first of two televised debates between the Republican candidates in New Hampshire, he defended pharma after the industry was criticized by the other candidates. Romney urged them not to “turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys.†Well, they did contribute a lot. For his part, John McCain shot back: “Well, they are.†Let's see. He did receive a lot less...
23 Comments
Isn't it ironic how the pharmaceutical industry, formerly die-hard red state Republican in their support, has become more of a fair-weather friend to candidates in the Republican party based on their donations? As I speculated, much of it is merely reading of the political tea leaves, but one has to wonder whether American voters can expect any real change from either party to fix our dysfunctional sick-care system?
I watched the Repupublican Debate, and it was John McCain who attacked the Pharma Industry by citing the lawsuits the State's, A.G's filed against the Drug Companies over the Medicaid Fraud Issue. Romney fiercely defended the Pharma Industry.Looks like Romney wont get my vote on Feb. 5.
And as far as Hillary is concerned, She's a hipocrit. She says she care about kids,..Thats Crap. She treated NJ Parents whose children were harmed or killed by prescription drugs with rudeness, and as if the lives of NJ's Cildren were insignificant. She voted against improving the FDA and and against severing the of FDA' cozy ties to Industry, by voting against the Grassley/Dodd bill for an Independent office of Drug Safety.
I encourage NJ's Democratic/Unaffiliated Voters who really want change,.. Then "Vote" For John Edwards. Send Hillary Packing, along with her fake tears, her Hypocricy and her lack of compassion for NJ Families.
Open Letter to Hillary Clinton; You refused to Respond then, How about now! You say you have fought against the Pharmaceutical Industry, and you care about kids, Then You need to "PROVE IT". I am Posting a letter that I sent you on May 5 2003. Im curious as to whether or not you will address my Letter today. Unlike you, Senator Edwards demonstrated strength and courage and quickley responded, "Unlike You" he chose not to ignore children who were maimed and killed due to unsafe drugs and Pharmaceutical greed.
http://www.drugawareness.org/pdf/LisaLetter.pdf
To be honest, I'm surprised that Senator McCain received as much money as he did. He exhibited a shocking lack of knowledge about the pharma industry (and especially importation) in Saturday's debate, as I discuss on my blog this morning:
http://www.drugchannels.net/2008/01/crazy-talk-from-john-mccain.html
Adam
Ed,
In October 2006 I rcved an invitation to the white House Conference on School Safety after the rash of School Shootings See Here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-10-school-safety-x.htm
Letters I rcved from US. A.G. Alberto Gonzales http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Again Hillary could care less about the safet of the medicines we give our Children. Instead of Protectin the life of a chil, shed rather line her pockets with Industry Money and look the other way.
And for those who are curious as to my Political Affiliation:
I am declared as unaffiliated, and 99.9% of the time vote Republican. On one occasion I donated to a Democratic candidate here in NJ. I may vote for John Edwards, because Id like to Vote against Hillary.
Big Pharma would do well to back a Democrat for 2008, with a Republican now in office, the chances are much higher that the political winds will shift for the next election and a democrat will take office.
Politics is a corrupt game; not worth playing really.
I keep hearing John Edwards talk about how he's going to "take on the drug companies." Pray tell, how will he do that? I imagine he will try to declare open season on them for the tort lawyers, which would certainly play to his donors and special interests.
Should Edwards become President (shudder) don't be surprised to see even more companies leave the United States to operate in more business-friendly environs.
I used to be an Edwards fan until I found out (from this website) that he is in favor of replacing the patent system with a "prize" system. What an idiot...
James,
Maybe they should move to "CHINA". And tout Antidepressant safety and Efficacy in Children and Adolescents. I have always been a proponent for Jail Sentences. Civil Litigation has done nothing to curb their corruption.
Ed,
It should also be noted that Barak Obama wouldnt meet with Parents whose children suffered severe side effects of Medications. He has an automated system, thats one way to screen calls.
Nathan,
He may have backed away from that one, Good question to ask him dont you think?.
Lisa, you may be right. This is a statement taken right from the Edwards website. He still talks about it, but he doesn't directly say that he wants to replace the patent system altogether:
"The patent system sometimes encourages greater investment in profitable but minor innovation ("me-too drugs") than in the costly and speculative research that generates true breakthroughs."... "In addition, the patent system gives companies long-term monopolies that can make life-saving drugs prohibitively costly for patients. Edwards will convene an expert panel to explore whether there are certain key disorders where prizes for breakthroughs – as an alternative to patent monopolies—would offer new incentives to researchers, guaranteed gains to companies, and lower costs to patients. Prizes would supplement, but not replace, the current patent system."
Pharma contributions are a better predicter than any poll about which way the wind is blowing.
Darn Trial Lawyers support Dems overwhelmingly regardless. What good are they?
McCain won my vote the other night when he made his thoughts about the pharm industry known. Just so happens, one of my biggest concerns right now is what I'm going to do for epilepsy medication, now that the one I have been using for over a decade was changed by the pharm company that produces it. Very dangerous move by them and many people are getting sick. Romney does not come across as if he would hold anyone accountable. BIG mistake to imply that they can do no wrong.
Nathan, the "prize" reward system for innovation is one of the hot topics in the economic community as are the concepts of patent "buyouts" (Kremer) and social value (mine and Kristina Lybecker's work). The other major conceptual piece is from Lanjouw (deceased, unfortunately) that involves a complicated filing strategy. The practical limitations are how to make any of these systems work and how to coordinate with international trade agreements, etc. Edwards' problem is that none of these concepts can be summarized in an understandable way and they do not lend themselves to PR releases.
Nathan,
I have to admit that I dont know much about a Patent.. But what I do know is that decades ago my Grandfather invented a safety device for coal miners, and rcved some type of an award for it.
[...] January 11, 2008 in Blog roundup by Liz Borkowski Big Pharma is under scrutiny in the blogosphere this week. Ed Silverman at Pharmalot reports on a study (published in PLoS Medicine) that finds drugmakers spend almost twice as much on marketing and promotion as they do on R&D; he also tells us who Big Pharma’s backing for president. [...]
We should be profoundly alarmed and vigilant about the overwhelming influence of the pharmaceutical cabal, over our lives and freedoms. Just today I read that former Bush officials created a "think tank" in conjunction with Eli Lilly, called "Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI)." So it really pays to be aware of who is actually behind a lot of patient / disease groups and so many other concerns. For U.S. President, I believe the best choice is Dr. Ron Paul. He supports the Health Freedom Protection Act, so that patients choosing alternative treatments would have those options protected by law. He would also end these stupid wars which have destroyed so many lives and wasted so many taxpayer dollars. Not to mention all the depleted uranium which will continue to generate sickness and death for years to come. Let's end the big drug stranglehold on health; Save the Republic = Save the World -- Vote Ron Paul!
[...] [via Pharmalot] [...]
[...] http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/big-pharma-and-its-presidential-bets/ [...]
It would be interesting to go back to the last election and see what Kerry/Edwards got from the industry in comparison to Bush and Cheney.
Good work.
Kathleen
Lisa,
I am behind you 100%!! Edwards is the peoples choice, Yet Corporate America keeps pushing Hillary or Obama to the front lines.
1 out of 6 American children have some form of developmental disorder and the only thing the Bush's or the Clintons could think to do is push for more profits for the same companies that have been poisoning our children.
Americans deserve a peoples president and his name is Edwards.
Donna,
Yup,..looking forward to casting my vote.