Media Release
| For Immediate Release | Contact | Phone |
| August 18, 2004 | Staci Berger, NJCA | 732-246-4772, x11 |
| Rick Bielke, Public Campaign | 202-293-0222, x12 |
Policy Paybacks for Health Care Contributors
New Report Shows Public Health Endangered by Campaign Contributions; Congressman Ferguson identified as leading recipient in U.S. House of Drug Industry Funds
HACKENSACK, NJ and WASHINGTON, DC — Health care related interests have poured more than $163 million into federal political campaigns and party coffers since 1999 and have reaped huge policy paybacks that are harmful to ordinary people's health, according to a new investigative report by Public Campaign, PAYBACKS: How the White House and Congress are Neglecting Our Health Care Because of Their Corporate Contributors. Summaries and the complete report are available on NJCA's website, www.njcitizenaction.org, as well as on Public Campaign's, www.publicampaign.org, or can be obtained from NJCA directly.
Using detailed analyses of campaign finance data, the report shows how health care interests have strategically directed contributions to the Bush Administration and the Members of Congress who have the most power over health care issues; as well as pushing for industry-friendly appointments in key agency positions.
According to NJCA Program Director Staci Berger, the report found that Merck, Medco and Novartis, three of New Jersey's largest drug companies, aired misleading ads about their pharmaceuticals at the same time that they made significant contributions to national campaigns.
The study also shows that New Jersey Congressman Michael Ferguson, a two-term Republican representing the 7th Congressional District, ranked first in lifetime contributions from the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in the period under study, 1989-2004. Congressman Ferguson has received $371,817 since his election in 2000. According to the report, he "worked to convince fellow representatives wavering on the industry-backed Medicare prescription drug benefit law that the proposal was good for America." Berger said the report noted several major drug companies are located near his district, in central New Jersey.
Miriam Dickman, a resident of the 7th District and the President of the Older Women's League (OWL) was angered by the findings. "The new Medicare prescription drug law is one example of why we need to change the current campaign financing system. The drug industry guaranteed themselves a victory by strong arming Congress to pass a law that explicitly prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prices for seniors and people with disabilities. It is time politicians are beholden to the voters who elect them not special interest who fund their campaigns," she said.
The report demonstrates how wealthy health care interests shifted their campaign contributions to Republicans ten years ago, after defeating health care reform proposed by President Bill Clinton. After the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, health care interests upped their investments in the GOP. For example, drug manufacturers increased their contributions to Republicans nearly 600% from 1992 to 2002, while contributions to Democrats increased just 79%. Late last year, Congress and President Bush approved a $534 billion Medicare law that offers inadequate benefits and is loaded with giveaways to campaign contributors.
Many Democrats responsive to the industry over public health also reaped ample campaign money. Rep. Charles W. Stenholm (D-TX), the lead House recipient of meat and food processing industry contributions, has opposed "country-of-origin" labeling legislation requiring labeling of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, and peanuts, and has criticized the USDA's new regulations banning "downer" cattle from the food supply as a way of protecting consumers from mad cow disease.
This clever investment strategy has yielded huge returns for industry in the form of policy giveaways granted by the Administration and by Congress. The report presents four case studies in how health-related campaign contributors are getting policy paybacks at great public cost Each case study includes several examples of how these industries get what they want out of Washington, from higher prices for prescription drugs to lax regulation of the meat processing industry in the face of mad cow disease. The report includes pullouts on the connections between Bush Administration fundraisers and personnel; charts showing contributions to Members of Congress and actions they have taken on behalf of industry; and charts showing the correlation of campaign contributions with votes in Congress.
"The bottom line is that, thanks to our pay-to-play political system, people are getting hurt. They're getting sick more often, paying higher prices for prescription drugs, eating unsafe food, and are dying earlier than they otherwise would," said Nancy Watzman, author of the report and Research and Investigative Projects Director for Public Campaign. "In contrast, in Maine and Arizona, where Clean Money/Clean Elections systems have given candidates the opportunity to win office without the largesse of private donors, we are seeing signs of health. Lawmakers in both states have approved reforms that are increasing the availability of low-cost prescription drugs."
"Health care costs are skyrocketing--and it's no wonder," said Jeff Blum, Executive Director of USAction. "Our health care policies favor profit over people. How can we achieve health care for all when our elected officials are indebted to giant HMOs, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies?"
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of special interest money in America's elections and the influence of big contributors in American politics. NJCA, a state affiliate of USAction, recently celebrated the adoption of the state's Clean Election Pilot Program, which will allow legislative candidates in two districts in 2005 and four in 2007 to use full, voluntary public financing to fund their races. The pilot is based on the successful Clean Election experiences in Maine and Arizona.
###