Pharma Financing Front Groups: Political Lobby
Drug companies have been known to spend millions of dollars to influence Congress and government, but recently, a new twist has been added to the story. Public Citizen says that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has quietly given $ 41 million to "stealth PACs" in 2002 and failed to mention most of it to the IRS. The pharma-funded groups, which have innocent sounding names, such as 60 Plus Association, Seniors Coalition and United Seniors Association have used the money to lobby for pharma-friendly candidates.
The recent passage of the medicare bill is an example of the kind of pay off bought with such campaign funds, as is the FDA's blocking of cheaper drug imports, which keeps drug prices in the US artificially high.
AlterNet has a report on this.
Drug (Money) Traffic
By Kelly Hearn, AlterNetPosted on September 28, 2004,
The pharmaceutical industry's main trade association quietly gave $41 million to "stealth PACs" in 2002 and failed to mention most of it to the IRS, according to a report issued by a watchdog group.Public Citizen says four non-profit groups, so-called 501(c)(4)s for the IRS code under which they operate, were heavily financed by The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a gargantuan trade association representing more than 40 of the world's most recognized drug companies. The groups, which pitch themselves as advocacy groups for senior citizens, but are not obligated to disclose funding sources, apparently used the millions of dollars to broadcast TV ads and send out direct mail brochures supporting political candidates friendly to drug industry interests.
That, in itself, is not illegal. But not reporting the financing or not disclosing political activity may be illegal.
Public Citizen, basing its allegations on federal disclosure forms and tax filings, asked the IRS last week to investigate PhRMA for not disclosing a combined $31 million it gave two of the groups, United Seniors Association and 60 Plus.
It also accused all four non-profits - the other two being Seniors Coalition and America 21 - of lying to the tax authorities about the extent of their political efforts.
But even if the IRS takes PhRMA to task, observers say it won´t mean a hill of beans.
The association's wealth and political leverage are near impossible to overstate. The primary industry mouthpiece on Capital Hill, PhRMA counts among its members some of the world's biggest corporations, including Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer Corporation Pharmaceuticals Division and Merck & Co. From 1991 to 2002, members of PhRMA spent $558 million dollars on POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYING and ADVERTISING, according to Common Cause, a citizen advocacy group which tracks money in politics. And last year alone, in order to shape the Medicare prescription drug bill, PhRMA spent more than $16 million on lobbyists, according to Public Citizen.
If found to be in violation of tax law, however, the groups which PhRMA funded could lose their cherised non-profit status.
Court Rosen, a PhRMA spokesperson, says the association doesn't discuss advocacy tactics or make its contributions public. "But any contributions we make are always within the letter and spirit of the law," he says.
And contributions it will make.
PhRMA will spend what it can to keep friends in Congress. That´s because its members so heavily depend on government favors. Patents, tax credits and deductions, taxpayer-funded scientific research - these are the life-affirming taxpayer gifts to industry. Also helpful are laws that shut out lower cost foreign imports of drugs, keep cheaper generic drugs off the market, and push government regulators out of drug price negotiations' laws that Pharma-friendly lawmakers have handed up over the years.
Keeping warm ears in Congress means getting the right propaganda to voters, but in nuanced ways.
"Names like 60 Plus Association, Seniors Coalition and United Seniors Association have a far more pleasant connotation that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America," says Taylor Taylor Lincoln of Public Citizen. "The first list of names smacks of alliances of concerned citizens, presumably largely volunteers, while PhRMA sounds like what it is, a trade association for a for-profit industry."
And even though PhRMA and the non-profit groups did not disclose their financing, Public Citizen researchers, in making their case, connected what they say were obvious dots.
In 2002, for example, United Seniors got $20 million from a single undisclosed source, a sum constituting 79 percent of its total revenue that year. PhRMA acknowledged providing an "unrestricted educational grant" to United Seniors the same year. Similarly, about $11 million of the $12 million budget of 60 Plus flowed from one source in 2002. PhRMA said it also gave an "unrestricted educational grant" to 60 Plus that year.
United Seniors Association, which did not respond to an interview request by press time, is active in this year's election cycle. Public Citizen claims the group has sponsored TV ads in at least 17 House races, praising candidates who supported the PhRMA-backed Medicare drug law passed by Congress in 2003. That law is widely considered to be a gift horse for the pharmaceutical industry.
In a letter sent last week, Public Citizen asked IRS Commissioner Mark Everson to open a special investigation of PhRMA and the non-profit groups. The key allegation is that the groups undertook enough political activity to breach a prohibition against making political activity their primary purpose. The letter, signed by Public Citizen President Joan Claybook, also claimed PhRMA "failed to disclose its grants to USA and 60 Plus, perhaps as much as $20.1 million and $11 million, respectively, to whom it is known to have given money in 2002."
Another claim is that all the non-profit groups claimed zero political expenditures to the IRS, asserting instead that their 2002 communications were not intended to influence elections.
"These claims do not seem plausible given the content of the groups' television commercials and direct mailings, the timing of their messages, and the groups' decisions to direct the messages disproportionately to voters who lived in particularly competitive election districts," the letter stated.
© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View the original story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/20007/See also related articles:
Philadelphia Inquirer: Donations tie drug firms and nonprofits
The American Diabetes Association, a leading patient health group, privately enlisted an Eli Lilly & Co. executive to chart its growth strategy and write its slogan. The National Alliance on Mental Illness, an outspoken patient advocate, lobbies for treatment programs that also benefit its drug-company donors. The National Gaucher Foundation, a supporter of people suffering from a horrific rare disease, gets nearly all its revenue from one drugmaker, Genzyme Corp...Consumer organisations criticise influence of drug companies - British Medical Journal
THE INFESTATION IN WASHINGTON
By Deanna Spingola - March 18, 2006
There is a noxious parasite like affliction affecting many in the nation's capital and has been for some time. Lobbyism is the name of this foul infestation. The lobbyist uses bribery to appeal to the greed, pride and ego of the elected. A lobbyist is a paid agent whose profession is to influence governmental decisions. "The term originated in the United States of the 1830s, when representatives of interest groups tended to congregate in the lobbies of Congress and state legislatures."Corrupting the research process - NIH officials paid as industry consultants
Pharmaceuticals no longer good investment, says Forbes
US - Medicare to subsidize Pharma Business
Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US
California uncovers pharma fraud
Washington "under the Pharma Lilly"
Pharma profits do not equal health - Berkely Prof advocates alternative
Government advisers linked to pharma interests
Pharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide before ICC in The Hague
The FDA and the drug companies are getting awfully cozy...
Panorama: Taken on Trust - BBC One, Sunday, 3 October 2004
We take it on trust that the drugs our doctors prescribe are safe and effective. But this special investigation exposes huge failings in the system of medicines regulation that is supposed to monitor drug safety. It reveals how patients' lives have been put at risk as a result.Massive medical fraud exposed: pharmaceutical company paid doctors to prescribe drugs and run sham clinical trials - and other articles on pharma fraud...
Drugmakers go furthest to sway Congress
WASHINGTON - When Sen. Bill Frist needed help in November for a quick tour celebrating the victories of newly elected Republican senators, he didn't have to look far. A Gulfstream corporate jet owned by drugmaker Schering-Plough was ready to zip the Senate majority leader to stops in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas...Group: Drug Makers Top Lobbying Presence
By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer - Thursday, July 7 2005
The pharmaceutical industry's run of success on Capitol Hill has benefited from the more than $800 million spent since 1998 on lobbyists and political campaigns, a political watchdog group said Wednesday. "It is astonishing to learn that no other interest has spent more money to sway public policy in this time period," said Roberta Baskin, the executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.Drug Lobby Second to None
How the pharmaceutical industry gets its way in WashingtonIndustry Puts $44 Million into State Lobbying
WASHINGTON, April 6, 2006 — Fighting a flurry of legislative and public policy initiatives aimed at reducing prices and slicing drug budgets, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $44 million on lobbying state governments in 2003 and 2004, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of lobbying records has found. The industry also funneled more than $8 million to the campaigns of candidates for various state offices over the same period, according to a Center analysis of state campaign money.Patient Groups Accept Lots of Drug Company Money
(from mercola.com)
The flow of cash between drugmakers and patients is the theme behind this interesting and controversial report in today's New Scientist. Fact is, a growing number of medical professionals now share the very same concerns I do that there's a crisis going on among patient groups, some of which are far too close to becoming extensions of drug company marketing departments themselves...
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday September 30 2004
updated on Friday December 10 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/09/30/pharma_financing_front_groups_political_lobby.htm
Related ArticlesBush To Impose Psychiatric Drug Regime
Plans to screen whole US population for mental illness According to a recent article in the British Medical Journal, US president George Bush is to announce a major "mental health" initiative in this coming month of July. The proposal will extend screening and psychiatric medication to kids and grown-ups all over the US, following a pilot scheme of recommended medication practice developed in Texas and already exported to several other... [read more]
June 23, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerPaxil, Zoloft, Xantax - Drug Induced Violence
23 August 2004 - The New York Times reports on the Murder case of Christopher Pittman coming up for trial. The 12-year-old has shot his grandparents and put their house on fire, but he says it was the effect of the drug he was on at the time - the antidepressant Zoloft. The case comes amid widespread allegations that antidepressant drugs cause many to commit suicide, a charge hotly denied... [read more]
August 26, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerEli Lilly Knew Prozac Causes Suicides, Violence - FDA Closed Both Eyes
Prozac, called fluoxetine by generic name, is a psychiatric drug prescribed to over 50 million people including millions of children. The drug was linked to increased suicides and violence as early as 1988, in a recently emerged document. Apparently the evaluation was known to Prozac's maker Eli Lilly as early as the 'eighties, but was never even given to the FDA. This is the preoccupying picture that emerged just days... [read more]
January 01, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerVioxx, Celebrex, Prozac: Bush Medical Malpractice Bill To Shield Pharma
Tucked away "like a gleaming diamond in proposed legislation to curb malpractice lawsuits is a provision that would give an unconscionable degree of protection to firms responsible for drugs or medical devices that turn out to be harmful", says New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in his latest editorial, A Gift for Drug Makers. The provision is set to prohibit judges from awarding punitive damages if a drug has received... [read more]
January 16, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerLipitor - Vioxx: Discovering The Statin - Painkiller Chain Reaction
The recent withdrawal of Merck's blockbuster painkiller Vioxx may actually afford us a glimpse of a chain of events that is normally well hidden in research papers, at best selectively disclosed to the medical community. Vioxx and other new-generation painkillers such as Bextra and Celebrex have all come under fire for their tendency to cause an increase of heart attacks. Statin Drugs, such as Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lesocol and Mevacor... [read more]
December 06, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerUS Health System Needs Radical Overhaul: New York Times
25 October 2004 - In last Sunday's New York Times, editors Donald Barlett and James Steele called for a radical overhaul of the US health system. While the calamitous failure of pharmaceutical suppliers to come up with a sufficient quantity of flu vaccine provides the immediate backdrop for the article, the discussion goes much deeper. It is really about why the US health system has dismally failed to deliver on... [read more]
October 25, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
