Big Pharma Dumb ALECs: J&J, Pfizer, GSK, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, PhRMA

Big Pharma Dumb ALECs: J&J, Pfizer, GSK, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, PhRMA

On June 6, ColorOfChange -- the nation’s "largest Black online civil rights organization" whose stated goal is to "strengthen Black America's political voice" -- launched a radio campaign that drew the "connection" between pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), "the shadowy policy group that has worked to suppress the Black vote and push so-called 'stand your ground' laws nationwide" (see press release here).

Shortly afterward, JNJ pulled out of ALEC, saying it does not "condone legislative proposals that could serve, even inadvertently, to limit the rights or impact the safety of any individual" (see Star-Ledger editorial: "Johnson & Johnson right to pull out of ALEC"). The Star-Ledger pointed out that JNJ "has also had some ethical cleanup to do, and not just for being part of these ALEC initiatives."

The Star-Ledger describes these initiatives:

"The group [ALEC], which crafts model legislation to advance the interests of its corporate members, has promoted a flurry of bills that erode basic rights. Such as its measures to toughen voter identification requirements around the country, which disenfranchised the poor and the elderly without any real evidence that voter fraud is even a problem. And its dangerous "Stand Your Ground" laws, which basically allow anybody to use deadly force in purported self-defense, sometimes without even having to stand trial -- like the Florida law that initially prevented any prosecution in the Trayvon Martin case."

Don Bohn, Vice President of U.S. Government Affairs at JNJ, is still listed (as of 14 June 2012) as a member of ALEC's "Private Enterprise Board" (see here). I realize it takes some time to update a Web page, but deleting one name on a static Web page list is a no-brainer. Therefore, I hope JNJ truly distances itself from ALEC and cleanses its name from the list TODAY!

"Johnson & Johnson is the first business in New Jersey to wise up about ALEC, and it shouldn't be the last," said the Star-Ledger. Other ALEC big pharma members cited by the Star-Ledger include: Novartis, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi-Aventis (see a complete list here and here).

I was able to find some details about a few of ALEC's remaining Private Enterprise Board members:

Robert Jones
Director Government Relations & Public Affairs for Pfizer
LinkedIn page

John Del Giorno
VP Gov Relations at GSK
LinkedIn page
SourceWatch

Sandy Oliver
VP Public Policy & Government Affairs at Bayer HealthCare
LinkedIn page

Jeffrey Bond
Senior Vice President of State Government Affairs, PhRMA
PhRMA was a 2011 recipient of ALEC's Private Sector Member of the Year Award and a "Chairman" level sponsor of 2011 ALEC Annual Conference, which equated to $50,000 in 2010 (see here).

I wasn't able to find any of these executives on Twitter, but I have asked a few of them to connect with me via LinkedIn. I found out that Pfizer's Robert Jones has been a registered lobbyist in Texas since 1995. Here's a glimpse of his profile (found here) showing how he spent his money "lobbying" Texas lawmakers:

This is just a small peek into the life of pharma lobbyists. Obviously, they spend a lot of time wining and dining, which was something pharma sales reps used to do, but can't do any more!

Resurgence of Pharma Lobbying Spending

Resurgence of Pharma Lobbying Spending

According to Open Secrets, which tracks industry lobbying, "the pharmaceutical industry as a whole spent $69.6 million on lobbying in the first three months" of 2012 (see "Pharma, Utilities and Big Ag Lead Lobbying in 2012"). Included in that category are "Health products" other than Rx medicines. Looking at just "Pharmaceutical Manufacturers" (including PhRMA, the drug industry's U.S. trade association), the total lobbying spend in the first quarter of 2012 was $48.1 million.

Here's a chart of the biggest spenders in this category so far:

Annual pharmaceutical lobbying -- as measured in dollars -- increased more or less steadily since 1998, but peaked in 2009 at $186.1 million. If the spending in 2012 continues at the pace of the first three months, the pharmaceutical industry will spend approximately $192.4 million in lobbying for the year (see chart; the 2012 bar is projected as 4 X Q1).

Open Secrets contends that the pharmaceutical industry is "clearly focused on protecting the existing provisions of Medicare Part D, which subsidizes the cost of drugs. Critics in Congress have targeted the program for its huge cost, and some want it to be more transparent about how reimbursements are set. Also at issue," says Open Secrets, "is whether the government should be able to negotiate drug prices with the companies, something that is currently prohibited."

The pharmaceutical industry is keen on preventing changes to Medicare -- especially changes that would allow the government to negotiate prices. Back in October, 2011, the Campaign for Modern Medicines (@Modernmeds) and Eli Lilly & Company (@LillyPad) hosted at least one Tweetchat on Medicare Part D to "help raise awareness on the value of the current system, and to learn how to prevent potential changes to it" (see "More Pharma Twitter Chats: Medicare is Topic" and "Was Lilly's #mmeds Twitter Chat a Discussion or a Press Conference?").

Although it is difficult to link lobbying spending with specific bills in Congress, the drug industry -- especially through PhRMA -- is also lobbying hard to get a favorable PFUFA (FDA funding) bill passed (see, for example, "Angry PhRMA, Level 1: PDUFA").

Of course, 2012 is also a presidential election year and that will likely keep lobbying -- including donations to candidates and their political parties -- at a high level throughout the year. Here's some interesting data showing the trend in pharma donations by political party (see more such data here):

It seems that the drug industry was intent on getting Republicans elected in 2000 and 2002 and when that was accomplished, they cut back and reaped the benefits of the status quo, or as some would say the "do nothing" Congress.