Comments on: Glaxo To End Political Contributions

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:07:35 +0000

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.

By: JimK

JimK — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:24:39 +0000

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.

By: Former rep

Former rep — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:12:26 +0000

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.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:53:54 +0000

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!

By: Salmon

Salmon — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:34:04 +0000

Perhaps they’ve already had the desired effect.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:52:12 +0000

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.