My previous entry had to do with dirty political money. The Indy Star has a story entitled Lilly has ally, foe among Hoosiers in Congress. To be clear, there is no implication that any of the Lilly money is in any way tainted, except insofar as policies good for pharmaceutical companies may well prove to be bad for the rest of us.
The story focuses on Reps. Dan Burton and Steve Buyer. Buyer is a reliable vote for Lilly and the pharmaceutical industry. Burton is not. Buyer gets subtantial money from Big Pharma. Burton does not.
U.S. Reps. Steve Buyer and Dan Burton are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the pharmaceutical industry.
Buyer, Monticello, is a vigorous backer of issues important to the industry and recently helped Lilly protect mental health drugs from proposed Medicaid changes aimed at saving state and federal tax dollars.
Burton, Indianapolis, is one of the industry’s biggest critics in Washington and vigorously opposed granting liability protection for Lilly and other drug firms for a vaccine preservative that Burton thinks is tied to an increase in autism.
The industry’s campaign contributions reflect the lawmakers’ positions. Burton no longer is getting campaign checks from Lilly, while Buyer’s contributions from the company and the entire industry have risen, particularly after he got a seat on the House committee with jurisdiction over health issues.
Rep. Burton’s position obviously has a personal component.
Burton blames thimerosal, the mercury-based vaccine preservative Lilly created but no longer makes, for his grandson’s autism.
He was incensed when language was slipped into a 2002 homeland security bill that would have invalidated lawsuits against Lilly and other drug makers over thimerosal. The provision was repealed months later because of public pressure.
Burton also wants to allow prescription drugs to be imported from other countries, where they often sell for much less. He frequently mentions that he became aware of the disparity in drug prices when accompanying his wife to chemotherapy treatments before her death.
The story goes on to talk about the money received respectively by Rep. Buyer and Rep. Burton:
uyer was receiving campaign contributions from Lilly before he joined the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2001. But the company’s PAC started making the then-maximum $10,000 donation after that, and Sidney Taurel, Lilly’s chairman and chief executive officer, started writing personal checks.
In addition, Buyer’s political action committee collected $130,000 from the industry — including $15,000 from Lilly — in 2002, the last year lawmakers were allowed to collect unlimited contributions from corporations.
There is also a footnote to the article which may well explain a fair amount of Rep. Hostettler’s continued success despite being something of a, in my humble and totally unbiased opinion, political nutbag. He apparently doesn’t accept any PAC contributions. I’d be interested in knowing if that’s really true or just technically true, which is to ask whether he accepts money that doesn’t technically come from PACs but might just as well. If it’s “really” true, then my estimation of Rep. Hostettler just ticked up a notch or two.
Leave a Reply