John Ashcroft's Drug
Money
By Ray Hartmann
On Sept. 30, the Ashcroft Victory
Committee received a $50,000 campaign contribution from the
Schering-Plough Corp., a New Jersey-based pharmaceutical
giant.
What a coincidence.
It turns out that our own U.S. Sen. John Ashcroft is one of just
nine senators sponsoring a highly controversial piece of legislation,
SB 1172, which would extend patent rights on eight drugs,
including the allergy drug Claritin, which is manufactured by none
other than Schering-Plough. If the Claritin patents are allowed to
expire as scheduled, in 2002, generic-drug manufacturers could
provide competition that would sharply lower prices for
consumers.
Were it to become law, SB 1172 would cost consumers and
taxpayers roughly $11 billion in higher prescription costs over a
10-year period, according to a study by the University of
Minnesota College of Pharmacy. The study found that extending
Schering-Plough's monopoly on Claritin alone would mean an
additional $9.64 billion in revenues to the drug company.
A coincidence? Well, we can only assume it must be, given what
David James, Ashcroft 2000 communications director, told me
Tuesday about the relationship between the campaign donation
and his support of SB 1172.
"There is no relationship," James said. "We support the bill on the
merits. Our staff has studied it, and we believe it's good
legislation.
"All this bill does is extend the right of a company to apply for
additional time on its patents. It doesn't do anything for any one
company."
That, of course, would be news to the University of Minnesota
College of Pharmacy. But, assuming the academics are
misinformed and SB 1172 really "doesn't do anything" for
Schering-Plough, why would this New Jersey company be so
generous to a Missouri senator?
"You'd have to ask them," James said. "We support this bill on its
merits."
James added that "some of the proponents out there who are
lobbing these bricks ought to be careful about who they're lobbing
the bricks at." He pointed out that the bill's author is a Democrat,
Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who has himself received
"at least $10,000" from Schering-Plough.
Actually, James has understated a great point. Campaign records
show that Sen. Torricelli, considered a liberal, has received at
least $15,000 in direct donations and another $50,000 in soft
money from the company.
Now, I couldn't reach company officials for an explanation of
how they just happen to be dropping $50,000 campaign gifts on
senators who just happen to be supporting legislation worth $9.64
billion to them. But let's assume it's the usual stance: They just
admire the political philosophy of these fine public servants and
support them in their wonderful work.
Interesting. In terms of political philosophy, Torricelli --
pro-choice, anti-NRA and rated second to none in his liberal
voting record on social issues -- couldn't be further from
Ashcroft, who is proudly among the Senate's staunchest social
conservatives. Why, Torricelli was even in St. Louis just last
month to raise funds for Gov. Mel Carnahan, Ashcroft's
challenger in this year's Senate race.
If these monster campaign gifts aren't all about SB 1172,
Schering-Plough is one Slinky of a flexible donor when it comes
to political philosophy -- or shall we just call the company a
bipartisan purchaser of politicians?
Obviously SB 1172 is not your everyday bill, and $50,000 in soft
money is not your everyday campaign gift.
Although it has received scant coverage locally, the battle over
SB 1172 (and its House counterpart) has been furious.
Schering-Plough spent $4 million in 1998 alone in lobbying
Congress, according to Time, and an opposition coalition of
consumer and seniors' groups and generic-drug companies has
had the highly unusual success of persuading six members of
Congress, including U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Cape
Girardeau), to withdraw co-sponsorship of the bill in the past
year.
Schering-Plough has already received two patent extensions of
two years each but says the additional three-year extension
proposed by SB 1172 is needed for the company to recover
research-and-development costs lost for Claritin as a result of
previous delays in securing FDA approval for the drug. Claritin
has $1.8 billion in sales nationally and $3 billion worldwide.
Every day the company enjoys patent protection is a day that
generic-drug makers cannot offer consumers a cheaper
alternative, and at $1.8 billion annually, those days are worth $5
million apiece in the U.S. alone. Dr. Stephen W. Schondelmeyer
of the University of Minnesota did the math.
"Using Claritin as a case study, Dr. Schondelmeyer finds that a
3-year delay in generic competition for Claritin would cost
American consumers $5.31 billion from 2002-2007, and another
$2.05 billion from 2008-2012," the university reported. That's
about two-thirds of the consumer cost for the eight drugs whose
makers would be helped by SB 1172.
It's no surprise then, that Schering-Plough has donated $393,500
in soft money to politicians during the current election cycle,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Ashcroft
Victory Committee has received only one other gift as large as
theirs, a $50,000 donation from Anheuser-Busch.
Anheuser-Busch giving major bucks to a teetotaler? Well, at least
it shows that Ashcroft, who banned alcohol on moral grounds
from the Missouri governor's mansion for eight years, is pretty
flexible himself when selling his political soul.
Of course, Ashcroft is all about flexibility in this election year.
Why, just last week he announced he has discovered a new
election-year priority: spending federal dollars (like some
wild-eyed liberal) to the tune of $40 billion so that senior citizens
can have affordable prescription drugs.
"Prescription drug coverage is vitally important for millions of
American seniors," Ashcroft said in a press release. He said he
was responding to the concerns of seniors and other constituents.
Then again, there is the small detail that Ashcroft has voted
against such prescription-drug funding three times in the past year
and that this is the first time in his illustrious career that giving
away billions in domestic federal spending has so excited him.
This one's a pretty amazing stretch, even for Ashcroft.
Among the astonished is Larry Richardson, director for the
Campaign for Fair Pharmaceutical Competition, the coalition
fighting SB 1172.
"We sent lobbyists in to meet with Ashcroft, and they got
nowhere," Richardson said Tuesday. "It's extremely hypocritical
that he and other congressmen are now saying they're for
affordable medicine, yet they're backing a bill that will cost
consumers $11 billion in higher prescription-drug prices."
Hypocritical? Now, that's a little harsh.
Doesn't anyone believe in coincidences anymore?
Facebook
Twitter