Health Care
How Big Campaign Contributions Affect Our National Health Care Priorities

Consider the following example:

Ø      From 1991 through June 1997 the pharmaceutical industry gave big money contributions to lawmakers of both political parties.

Ø      With what results?  Congress passed legislation giving the pharmaceutical industry a few extra years of patent protection. Thus we pay higher prices for brand name drugs rather than cheaper generic substitutes – costing us as much as $550 million a year.

These big pharmaceutical industry contributions came from 3 sources: 

Ø      $8.4 million in “soft money” donations directly from corporate checkbooks.  Eliminating these donations is at the heart of the McCain/Feingold legislation in Congress.

Ø      $10.2 million in Political Action Committee (PAC) donations.  PAC donations remain legal under McCain/Feingold.

Ø      Additional individual contributions from checkbooks of pharmaceutical executives.  Industry executives have tremendous incentive to give the $1000 maximum to candidates to get access and attention in Congress. So they often give candidates the maximum: $1000 from themselves and another $1000 from their spouses in both the primary and general elections and often across party lines. This individual giving extends deep into the executive ranks within each company and is multiplied by the number of companies within the entire pharmaceutical industry. Now we have very serious money.  Lobbyists often receive and “bundle” these contributions together and give them to each Senator or Representative as the “individual” contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. These individual contributions remain legal under McCain/Feingold.

Incumbent candidates want and use this money to gain advantage over their challengers.  For this reason Congress has tremendous incentive to please these special interests, and this is where our political system goes wrong today.

The test for whether the McCain/Feingold legislation, or any proposed solution, will fully solve the problem should be this. Will these measures alone, if our political system remains the same in other ways, change the incentive Congress now has to please these big special interest contributors at the expense of our common interests as citizens? Will it change the system enough to stop Congress from passing legislation benefiting special interests (this example is only a small part) while costing citizens HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars?

Ask yourself, if $8.4 million in soft money is prohibited in the above example, but $10.2 million PLUS all of the large individual contributions from pharmaceutical executives remains, have we really eliminated the incentive Congress now has to please the pharmaceutical industry and pass the legislation that costs citizens $550 million annually at the pharmacy counter?

Return to Rick Hubbard on the Issues