Glaxo To End Political Contributions
6 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 22nd, 2008 // 10:29 am
This is the latest move toward transparency in which drugmakers are disclosing more clinical trial data, payments to doctors, educational and charitable donations (Glaxo, for instance) and political contributions. Today, Glaxo says it is enacting a new global, voluntary policy to stop all of its corporate political contributions.
However, in the US, Glaxo will continue to support a voluntary and independent political action committee to make political contributions by eligible Glaxo employees. So some money will still flow. Last year, by the way, the drugmaker contributed $1.1 million, with more than $220,000 coming from individuals and another $901,000 donated by PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (look here).
“We continue to believe that it is important for Glaxo to be engaged in policy debates and the political process. However, we need to ensure that there is no implication whatsoever that corporate political contributions provide us with any special privileges. We do not believe they have, and in the few countries we have given contributions we have done so in full compliance of the law,” Glaxo ceo Andrew Witty says in a statement.
“As part of our overall drive to improve transparency in terms of our interactions with governments, political leaders and candidates for public office, we believe that stopping corporate political contributions is the right thing to do. Our focus is, as it always has been, on helping governments by providing them with evidence that our medicines and vaccines provide a strong value proposition.”
Previously, Glaxo announced plans to disclose educational and charitable grants, as did Pfizer; Glaxo will disclose payments to docs and professors; AstraZeneca agreed to disclose info about clinical trials, research grants and political contributions. Merck is disclosing grants to patient groups, professional medical societies and other organizations will be posted on its web site. And Lilly agreed to disclose payments to doctors, for instance.
Justice in Michigan
Since political contributions by corporations is already public information, easily accessible on the web, “transparency” in this context is meaningless, yes?
Of course, there are also various ways to “cover” such contributions, and they are a tiny part of the lobbying budget more generally.
Salmon
Perhaps they’ve already had the desired effect.
Justice in Michigan
It was never much of a “deal” for the industry. Until the Gingrich era, pharma usually split contributions down the middle between Reps and Dems. Then it went 75-25 or so until the 2006 cycle, when it was clear the Dems were coming back. So we’re back to 50-50, overall.
Even earlier, there were significant contributions to Congressfolk in leadership positions - Dingell, Pallone, Kennedy et. al. - not otherwise known for their loving relationship with the industry. But they were known for their Committee Chairs.
Along with all the remaining lobbying venues, there is also the world of 527s and relevant think thanks - Washington Legal Foundation, Heritage, Cato, Federalist Soc, et. al. - which probably bring considerably more ROI to companies than a few K sent to Rep. Pallone.
In short, it was probably always money badly spent from industry’s perspective - at least relative to other ways to influence politics - and one can predict other companies will follow suit.
In the meantime, this cosmetic move will look like reform if you don’t know the bigger picture. Good self-promotion by Glaxo!
Former rep
Today, Glaxo says it is enacting a new global, voluntary policy to stop all of its corporate political contributions.
However, in the US, Glaxo will continue to support a voluntary and independent political action committee to make political contributions by eligible Glaxo employees.
I’m confused: Either you stop political contributions or you don’t.
JimK
Former
There is no confusion; eligible employees will probably be graded on their “civic mindedness.” I doubt a truly independent and voluntary system can coexist where the potential for conficts of interest are readily apparent.
More to the point with the establishment of a PAC to support volunatry and independent contributions including those of their own employees they did not stop the practice of political contributions.
pharmavet
Jim K is correct. in my former company, about two months before the election, we were presented with a list of “suggested candidates” to vote for. Since they couldn’t control our actual voting, our companies “civic-minded” strongarming was in the area of “voluntary” contributions to the companies favorite charities. If you did not contribute a certain percentage of your salary to a particular charity, you were downgraded on your evaluation. This really flies under the radar in privately held companies. Later in my career I was essentially ordered to donate $1000 to the political campaign of an influential member of Congress who was a friend of management. I was told that I would later be reimbursed. It never happened.