Pharma Is Still Betting On Barack Obama
40 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // April 24th, 2008 // 3:45 pm
An industry that usually favors Republicans voted in favor of Barack Obama during a mock election held this week at the annual DTC National Conference. The Democratic hopeful won a “primary” vote against Hillary Clinton by a wide margin of 59 percent to 40 percent. And against John McCain, the Republican nominee, Obama garnered a 53 percent majority.
“Given the Republican leanings of the drug industry, it is somewhat surprising to see Barack Obama so handily defeat John McCain,” Bob
Ehrlich, ceo DTC Perspectives, which hosted the conference, says in a statement. “Of course, that could be an indication that McCain’s frequent anti-industry comments have made him unpopular with drug company marketers. Or, it could reflect that drug industry marketers do not vote with their employer interests as their primary concern.”
Obama is outdistancing everyone when it comes to contributions, which so far total $636,327, compared with $567,581 for Clinton and just $172,750 for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In general, 59 percent of the combined $2.4 million given to all of the various contenders, including those who have since dropped out, went to Democratic candidates. The totals include PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission through March 31.
In a separate vote by the attendees, 61 percent look for additional regulations on DTC to be approved by year’s end or by early 2009. The group also was pessimistic about the direction of ad spending, with 35 percent expecting a reduction in ad budgets and 36 percent saying that budgets wouldn’t change this year. Only 28 percent expect DTC budgets to increase in 2008.
Hat tip to Pharmagossip
Lisa Van S
This doesnt surprise me, Obama may be Harvard Educated, but he lacks common sense, and like Bush, he has no brains,… just air between the ears.
Bob Freeman
As you know, Lisa, it’s all about buying access to the candidate’s policy-makers and influencing appointees. I think McCain might be pharma’s worst nightmare. (That’s not an endorsement or a slap.)
Kucinich was my guy so I’m passing on comments about any of the three remaining contestants.
Justice in Michigan
Bob - I agree re: the PAC money piece, but if a significant part of this moolah is coming from individuals, it doesn’t sound primarily lobby-oriented.
As far as preemption, at least, McCain is a full supporter as far as I know. He promises more Scalias and conservative judge appmts in genera. From my perspective, not a promising thing.
Re: what is between Obama’s ears, I could not disagree with Lisa more. So be it.
Bob Freeman
I didn’t realize that was McCain’s position. Good to know.
Obviously, I want to see liberal, activist judges appointed so you know where I stand on the election.
Lisa Van S
Bob and Justice,
Please dont count your chickens before they’ve hatched,.. as far as McCain is concerned.
Not only does Obama have air between his ears,.. He uses an elctronic phone system in Washington. His Constintuants have to manuever an automated system just to leave a message.
John Edwards was the guy I was rooting for!!! Even though I am a registered Republican!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Justice in Michigan
Bob - Google “McCain conservative judges”….it’s all you’ll need to know on that score.
Recent statements may suggest he’s “playing to” conservatives in party. But, in truth, his record is very consistent. As one piece says, he has strongly supported every conservative appmt (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) and some that also ran (Bork, et. al.). Essentially “Federalist Society in philosophy.
That’s a long way from Kucinich! And from Edwards for that matter!
HorusCat
Well, as usual, I’m the odd man out. (Only a figure of speech, you who still think I’m male.) Obama is a socialist, pure and simple. I see no reason why I should have to send more to the government in taxes than the 40% I already send. I can walk into a homeless shelter and give them $500…if it goes to Washington first, the shelter gets what, $200?
As for judges, questions of “activism” should be left up to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. The busing debacle should be enough to remind us that judges don’t know squat about formulating good public policy.
Donna M
Thinking about not voting this time around……pickn’s are slim
Bob Freeman
That’s OK, HorusCat, after the revolution things will be better.
Donna M
What revolution Bob….just reading to understand
Bob Freeman
Donna, I was just trying to get a rise out of HorusCat.
(I paraphrased Lenin.)
Donna M
Ok I get it..
Donna M
Bob, I’m just a reader and have a friend who post’s here alway’s..learning as I go along…
Bob Freeman
So am I, Donna. Learning from a lot of bright people who post on Ed’s blog. Although it’s not my place to say because I’m just one of many, “Welcome”.
Justice in Michigan
Yikes. One of these days a _real_ socialist may run. We’ll see the difference!
Every judicial decision is policy. Preemption, for example, is radical (nearly socialist in its movement of sole power to the center!), changing decades of what had been the system. Of course, the judges who support it say they are interpreting the “will of Congress” (as they choose to interpret it). Or the FDA changes its own position, and now the cours are interpreting that (the key majority having been appointed by the same administration in both institutions).
Yes, there are limits and differences. But not as much as we learned in 7th grade.
It’s all policy, however.
Jack2
Perhaps individuals in pharma marketing see other issues aside from pharma as the most important issues facing America. I can tell you that just because I work in the pharm-industry, healthcare’s at most the 3rd most important issue to me (after the enviornment and the war, if you were interested).
And since we’re getting political, I don’t think there’s any way any of the 3 candidates could do a worse job than the last president, who for me is quite possibly the worst in history.
AA
Geez HC, if you think Obama is a socialist, you must think Ted Kennedy is Carl Marx .
Lisa S, I desperately wanted John Edwards. I voted for Obama in my state primary but now, I wish I had voted for Hillary. This article is a perfect example of why I feel I made a mistake.
Not that I think she is wonderful but I will still vote for either her or Obama over McCain. I am just tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Jack2, I agree with you about Bush being the worst president this country ever had. You might want to google Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan cabinet official, who has been calling for Bush’s impeachment for quite awhile.
AA
HorusCat
Bob,
I gave blood earlier this week and have found myself too tired to do anything, much less rise to any bait :+). I hate getting old.
The revolution we see may be from those of us tired of having the government forcibly confiscate our private property in order to fund social programs that have proven ineffective over the past 40 years. I have a friend in that world; I could tell you stories.
And for all you who think Bush is awful, try reading about Warren Harding.
Justice, judicial decisions may try to interpret policy, but they are not meant to make policy. That is the legislature’s job. Or don’t you think the people should decide how their local community (city, state) is going to handle policy issues like gun control and abortion? Well, this is probably not the site for this discussion, anyway, since it has nothing to do with pharma. I’m off the find something to eat; have a good day!
Bob Freeman
HC, Bush is the reincarnation of Warren G. Harding.
Ghost of Warren G. Harding
Bob - I’ve been insulted before, but this has to be the worst. Couldn’t you at least have picked on Coolidge? How about Polk?
BTW, hot down here, but it’s the humidity that’ll kill you.
Bob Freeman
Yes, Justice, er Ghost of WGH, I should have not spoken ill of the dead.
Could we agree that Bush is the Anti-Christ?
el diablo
I don’t think so, Bob. What was your address again? [loud cackles, fade to black]
Jack2
My negative opinions of Bush have little to do with his justice appointments and everything to do with the war in Iraq (which I was against from the get-go), the Kyoto protocol*, and an expansion in government.
Where’s an anti-war, anti-big government, pro-enviornment voter to go? No where. That’s me :(
*I recognize that this isn’t solely Bush’s fault, and some fault also lies with the Clinton administration.
a PFE rep
Jack2,
There is absolutely nowhere for an anti-big government voter to go, alas. Not when the non-income tax paying electorate has discovered they can vote themselves entitlements from the public treasury, while those of us ineligible for those entitlements surrender our paychecks to the Congress.
Check out the Al Gore blog on National Review Online before you go all weepy over Kyoto. ;+)
Ed is going to slap us silly! None of this has anything to do with pharma!
Lisa Van S
AA,
Hillary is a fox in sheep’s clothing. Wouldnt trust her as far as I can throw her. My nephew is a Marine, who is preparing for his second deployment to Iraq. Our men and woman in the Military are being medicated with antidepressants and antipsychotics and being sent back to the front lines without proper monitoring,… suicides have skyrocketed..
Justice in Michigan
So Lisa and Jack 2, where does that leave you?
The preemption stuff has to do with pharma, and I think most of the other issues are at least connected.
Other than reimportation (which almost certainly won’t happen because of supply lines), why do people think McCaim is “anti” pharma’s interests? Negotiating medicare rx benefit?
Atlex
Justice,
Besides the belief that McCain is a populist (dangerous in my eyes) with regards to health care, a quick political analysis will make it evident why some in Pharma fear McCain more than Obama and certainly Clinton. All are for repeal of the noninterference clause in Medicare (interesting that this was initially proposed in the Clinton healthcare bill in the 1990s). However, assuming the Senate ends up in a 55-45, 56-44, or 57-43 split, it is less likely that a democrat president could convince enough republicans to vote for repeal to reach the needed 60 votes to gain cloture. McCain, on the other hand, would likely beable to succeed in peeling off enough republicans to succeed in repeal.
Atlex
Justice in Michigan
Atlex - If you can do it safely, I would be curious to know what you think of some companies being, in effect, police states. This is on the Baycol whistleblower thread.
Corporations certainly aren’t democracies. But I am “impressed” by the uses of threat and reprisals, as is also described in the Baycol suit itself.
Atlex
Justice,
In many years working at major pharmas or with vendors serving major pharmas, I’ve never felt intimidated about speaking out. Of course, I’ve never worked in the field force and I suspect that there is less tolerance for dissenting speech in the field. I chalk it up to the military approach brought to the job by the former members of military who maintain leadership roles within the field forces.
As for the Baycol case. Is Bayer guilty or not? I truly don’t know. However, things are never as black and white as they seem. All of the statements that have surfaced on this blog and others look damning, but they are being released for a reason–to sway opinion one way or the other by the plaintiff’s attorney. In the right context, each statement could be read as perfectly innocent; of course, each could be as damning as they sound, as well.
As for pharma support of Obama, take that for what its worth. Pharma has many, many PhDs, who are at there core academics. In general, academics have been flocking to Obama in great numbers. One might ask why these folks don’t follow the company “position” and I’d suggest that people have many reasons for voting and that the impact on one’s job is but one.
Atlex
Justice in Michigan
Thanks, Atlex. I fully agree that any legal brief is aimed to make the best case for that side. That’s partly why I’m curious about the general experence. As I’ve relayed, in academia there is not as much tolerance for dissent when it comes to intra-university issues as some might imagine. Publicly criticize the President (Bush), no problem. Pubicly criticize the university President, not as simple.
In the brief linked on this thread, it is suggested that fairly senior people - certainly not only in the field - were kept on a tight leash and/or “transferred” if they made things less sympatico.
Again, I understand corporations (like universities) are not democratic institutions by design. But I assume there are degrees to which dissent is tolerated - let alone lisetened to - and that some of those differences depend on both different kinds of leaders and differences in what is riding on the issue.
Atlex
Justice,
There’s a time and a place for dissent. In many corporations, internal dissent when making decisions is fully acceptable. However, once a decision is made, everyone is expected to support it; for the dissenters, that may or may not mean publicly endorsing the decision, but it usually means not speaking out publicly against it. Of course, the dilemma is when unethical or potentially illegal decisions are made. For the most part, these are incredibly unusual and rarely “black and white.” I can think of few times when a major pharma intentionally and blatantly broke the law. Maybe this BMS case involving Apotex is one example. In most circumstances, even the most publicized cases were in their genesis unintentionally illegal.
We in the US pharmaceutical industry are probably the most regulated of any industry in the world. Operating in a highly regulated environment unfortunately involves educated guesses (called “legal opinions”) as to whether particular actions are illegal or not. When operating in a gray area where government regulation changes regularly, some actions that are initially viewed as acceptable end up on the wrong side of the line. In addition, well meaning individuals, in their desire to achieve, do, at times, go beyond the line. When that happens, punishments are well-deserved. Believe it or not, most major pharmaceutical companies have very strict guidelines regulating behavior and do punish violators through termination. This happens far more often than penalizing someone for blowing the whistle internally; I am well aware of employees being terminated for threats of reprisal against another colleague. I’m sure that there are cases of reprisal, but I haven’t seen one.
Overall, I know that critics on this site assume that most illegal actions have the blessing of management, but in reality, most of the time the perpetrators are operating on their own.
Atlex
Justice in Michigan
Atlex - Good to hear this. What you describe is clearly _not_ the case at Bayer as described in the brief linked by Ed. I would urge you to read it if you haven’t.
Colleagues of mine who have been much more privy to internal documents than I have tell me the Bayer case is quite typical. But I very ready to reserve judgment.
Personally it is less important to me what it typical, then the institutional processes involved when theings go profoundly wrong.
I will say this. My impression based on cases with which I have some familiarlity is that, in an official and potentially public context, companies play it very straight. Systems are put into place that diffuse responsibility and make it easy for senior managment to assert deniability if “problems arise.” Indeed, there may a good deal of what can quite accurately be called carefully managed theatre (which which I also have professional experience) involved in creating the appearance of propriety.
How often that is a deliberate strategy remains, for me, an open question.
L.A.
Frightening. Really frightening.
Skeptic
Justice and Atlex, good discussion on dissent. I’ve been tied up with work and am just catching up on a few threads.
The only point I would add, having worked for 4 different pharmas, is that there is some variation among companies on how dissent is expressed. Some have a high tolerance for spirited debate; others less so, but I would agree with Atlex that once a decision is made, all are supposed to be on board. This does not rule out subversion of the group consensus through somewhat passive-aggressive behaviors, which are usually covert.
Going back to a point I made another time, another thread, I remain concerned that the pharma blockbuster operating model with highly decentralized decision-making results in companies having conflicting positions at times on strategy because there is no central body willing to state enforceable company policies. This seems odd, but it’s a phenomenon I’ve witnessed many times.
Jack2
JIM: So Lisa and Jack 2, where does that leave you?
Originally I was pro-Obama. Now I think I’ll throw my vote away and vote for a 3rd party candidate.
Lisa Van S
Im with you Jack2,… Ralph Nader or Ron Paul?
Jack2
How is Ron Paul running? I thought he was a republican. Is he libertarian now or something else?
Justice in Michigan
On the dissent issue, fascinating to me that there is that range. A very senior Pfizer person once told me it’s “all in the way you do it.” He did not explain the particulars, but I assume he meant some version of choosing issues, contexts, language, etc. with great care - not out of fear, but to have maximum impact and to create win-wins when possible.
Skeptic - what you describe sounds like a lot in academia too.
Re: politics, I’m still Obamish, primarily because of the Supreme Court and other appointed judges (which appts and their impact long outlive the Prez), and because of the war and the need for a recreation of image of this country worldwide. Yes, race matters. Like JFK, who was also flawed in a variety of ways, O has the capacity to inspire people, especially young people, and that matters to me too.
Beyond that, I hope people don’t get so focused on the Prez that they forget the critical importance of Congress and their own reps and Senators. Most of these guys/gals have records and can be held accountable for them. I hope to do that at any good opportunity!
How to tie this back to pharma … It strikes me that “Obama” has potential as a drug name, perhaps something you take to recover from a hang-over.
Lisa Van S
Jack2,
With Ron Paul,.. anything is possible!!
James
Jack2, Ron Paul has always been a libertarian (small “l”, meaning libertarian in ideals, not of the Libertarian Party). For a time, he did run as a big “L” Libertarian presidential candidate many years ago (88, iirc).
For most of his career, however, he’s been associated with the Republican Party. There really is very little difference between the libertarian (even Libertarian) perspective today and the Republican Party of Goldwater et al. Even Reagan was very libertarian minded, except for the incursions into foreign conflicts of and the war on drugs.
The new GOP of Bush 43/McCain et al, however, is starkly different. That’s why Ron Paul looks so different than the current crop of Republican candidates.