Earlier this month, we noted that California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that removed parental consent for vaccinating children 12 and older against sexually transmitted diseases. Although state law already allowed children 12 and older to consent to treatment for sexually transmitted diseases without parental involvement, the new law expanded that right to immunizations.

The bill was controversial, because it was strongly opposed by several organizations that argued minors do not have adequate judgment to make a decision about vaccination (back story). The legislation also figured into the wider national debate over HPV vaccines, concern among social conservatives about teenage sex and the extent to which drugmakers have worked to influence introduction and passage of such bills (see here and here).

Now, The Sacramento Bee reports that, two days after signing the bill, AstraZeneca donated $8,000 to Brown’s election campaign. His office tells the paper the contribution was not solicited and a Brown spokesman adds the governor decides legislation “on the merits of each bill…To our knowledge, no one in our office has had any contact with this company.”

The drugmaker says the donation was unrelated to his decision. “AstraZeneca’s contributions to government officials in California are unrelated to the legislation,” a spokeswoman tells the paper. “We provided contributions to people on both sides of the issue and did not lobby the measure.” Through its purchase of MedImmune, AstraZeneca collects royalties on virus-like particle technology that was used to develop Merck’s Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix HPV vaccines.

However, the paper notes that Brown signed the bill just hours before an October 9 deadline to act on hundreds of bills that were sent to him by the Legislature this fall. And his campaign fund received the AstraZeneca contribution on Oct. 11. The paper adds that Brown, a Democrat, has done little fundraising since taking office in January, collecting about $45,000 in the first half of the year. He has not said if he will seek re-election in 2014.

Political contributions are perfectly legal and, in fact, are a way of life in the US. There is nothing to suggest AstraZeneca should not be allowed to make such a contribution. On the other hand, the timing of the AstraZeneca donation is interesting. As someone who has promoted greater transparency - in the budget process and among institutions of higher learning, for instance (see here and here) - the contribution appears questionable. The denials have been issued, but perhaps Brown may want to reconsider the donation and avoid the appearance of any quid pro quo. What do you think?

 Loading ...