Comments on: Congressman Warns DTC Tax Break May Get Axed

By: Paul Atkinson

Paul Atkinson — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:22:02 +0000

Unfortunately, precedent is on Rep Emanuel’s side.

The 1993 Clinton tax bill limited the deduction for client entertainment to 50% of the amount spent. This certainly hurt the restaurant industry, and impacted cost of sales, but was part of the “let’s stop the 3 martini lunch” rhetoric that went back to the Carter years.

Congress can write pretty much anything it wants into the tax code. It is not a consistent document. And the free speech argument holds no water.

By: bob ehrlich

bob ehrlich — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:36:12 +0000

The idea of treating pharma advertisers different from other lawful products’ advertising is likely unconstitutional. The government has the right to regulate drug promotion, but not ban it through the tax code. Do the Democrats plan to take away tax deductions for advertsing any products they find objectionable? High price real estate, luxury cars, diamonds? The idea that one industry is punished over others to suppress speech is dangerous.

By: atlex

atlex — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:20:19 +0000

I think the point Davidson is tries to make is that if the SOLE intent of altering the tax code is to suppress speach, then the effort would be unconstitutional. This effort is exactly that. Emanuel, who has already collaborated (unsuccessfully) with Pete Stark on legislation banning DTC, is simply trying to use the tax code to make DTC advertising significantly more expensive and, subsequently less viable and less frequent. The result is suppression of speach.

By the way, D Schroeder, the pharma industry doesn’t have any special priveleges here. All businesses are allowed to deduct advertising as business expenses. That’s all we’re talking about in this situation.

By: D. Schroeder

D. Schroeder — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:49:11 +0000

Yet another example of the “invisible hand” of free markets being subverted by the covert hand of government intervention through the tax code. How about a third choice: eliminate both deductions and completely re-structure our hopelessly complicated tax codes to get government out of the position of rewarding industries that do its bidding and punishiing those that do not.

This action makes one wonder if the Illinois congressman is using this weapon to generate more pharma donations to his re-election funds.

By: Scott Cooley

Scott Cooley — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:45:24 +0000

Pardon me, but it’s patently absurd to suggest that there is a constitutional right to tax deductions for DTC spending. If there is no attempt by the federal government to prohibit DTC by use of the tax code, but rather only to remove the deduction, then the argument that this is an infringement on 1st Amendment rights is misplaced. Using this argument, I suspect that Mr Davidson would argue in favor of abolishing the FDA’s right to regulate the content of DTC advertising as well, yes? One might argue that granting the deduction in the first place was contrary to public interest!