Brand-Name Drug Industry Overwhelms Generic in Campaign
Contributions and Lobbying Spending
By: Unknown Author
Public Citizen, July 19, 2002
WASHINGTON,
D.C. As the U.S. Senate considers legislation opposed by the
brand-name drug industry to provide consumers with faster access to
cheaper generic drugs, a new Public Citizen study shows how the brand-name
prescription drug industry has outspent the much smaller generic drug
industry by a 40-to-1 margin on campaign contributions and lobbying.
Public Citizen's analysis of campaign contributions
and lobbying expenditures from the past three election cycles shows how
the brand-name drug industry is overpowering the generic drug industry
when it comes to currying favor with members of Congress. In its attempts
to influence Congress, the brand-name industry has spent more than $423
million on lobbying and campaign contributions during the past three
election cycles, while the generic drug industry has spent about $10
million, or 2 percent of what the brand-name industry spent.
Each side has much at stake as the Senate debates the
Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals (GAAP) Act, which closes
loopholes that allow brand-name drug companies to keep generic drugs off
the market. The Senate is debating this bill for two weeks and is also
considering amendments to the bill that would add prescription drug
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.
"The lopsided spending is staggering," said
Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch. "On
every front √ lobbying, campaign contributions, advertising √
the brand-name drug industry overwhelms the generic drug industry, as well
as consumers and seniors groups. With this firepower one is left to simply
hope that senators will have the courage to vote with their constituents
and not with the drug lobbyists."
Findings from the study include:
Generic
drug companies and their trade groups have been overwhelmed on the
lobbying front for the past five years and spent less than 2 percent of
what the brand-name companies shelled out during that time. From 1997 to
2001, brand-name companies and their trade groups spent $388.8 million on
lobbying compared to generic companies' $6.8 million.
In
2001 (the most recent year for which lobby disclosure reports are
available), brand-name companies and their trade associations accounted
for 97 percent of all pharmaceutical lobbying spending ($75.5 million out
of a $78 million total). Brand-name companies also employed nine lobbyists
for every one employed by generic companies.
The
brand-name companies' trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), spent more than $11.2 million on
lobbying in 2001 while the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) spent
less than half a million. In 2001, PhRMA spent more on lobbying and hired
more lobbyists (82) than any drug company or pharmaceutical trade group.
From
1997 to 2002, brand-name companies and their trade group contributed $34.5
million to federal candidates and parties while generic companies
contributed $3.4 million.
In
terms of "soft money" √ the unlimited corporate and
individual donations to the national political parties √ brand-name
companies and their trade group have given $23.2 million since 1997 while
generic drug companies and their trade group have contributed $3.1 million
in that time.
Drug
companies also contribute heavily to soft money "527 political
groups," which are incorporated to influence elections. Again,
brand-name companies dominate this type of giving. Since July 2000 (when
disclosure was first required), brand-name drug companies and their trade
group contributed $914,947 to the largest 527 groups controlled by
politicians and interest groups, while generic companies have given
$65,000.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This
page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Action on Aging
distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
