The committees a Congressperson is
placed on and the bills they author and the benefiting corporations from these
bills and votes usually intersect in one notable place, the congressperson’s
campaign donations. However, if these
corporations benefit society, does it really matter that a congressperson throws
all of their support behind them? For
Representative Leonard Lance of the New Jersey 7th Congressional
district this has become the case in his extremely close relationship with
pharmaceutical companies. Lance constantly votes in favor of policies benefiting
them as a member of the Congressional subcommittee that regulates them and his
introduction of a major bill that would give them millions of government dollars
in funding, which of course led to an uptick in campaign donations, but in fact
does any of this cozying up to pharmaceutical companies really deserve a
negative connotation.
It is
becoming increasingly harder to argue that since Lance has gotten in bed with
the pharmaceutical industry that his political career has suffered. Following his
appointment to the Congressional Subcommittee on Health in 2010, and the
introduction of the sole piece of legislation he has authored, the MODDERN
Cures Act of 2012, a bill that would give pharmaceutical companies millions for
disease research[1],
he saw his pharmaceutical campaign donations more than triple. It can be argued
that Lance being from a district that has many companies such as
GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer headquartered there would probably find it in their
best interest to be for their causes in Congress. However, using campaign
finance data from the Center for Responsive Politics, I found that pharmaceutical
companies overwhelmingly donate to Republicans due to their pro-corporate
stances, so Lance knew he was receiving their funding in his district[2].
The change in funding for Lance’s campaign did not come from companies inside
his own district, but other pharmaceutical companies that benefited from his
bill as well as supported his Congressional decisions. Several examples on the
Center for Responsive Politics website concur with this argument such as Merck
and Co. and Amgen Corp. who both were not even among his top twenty donors in
2010, were ranked third and ninth respectively in campaign donations in 2012, a
major similarity between these two companies besides their pharmaceutical ties,
they both would stand to gain millions of dollars from the MODDERN Cures Act. Thus,
Lance’s gain from the pharmaceutical industry extends far beyond favor in his
own district, but also insuring massive campaign donations from many other
pharmaceutical companies that would also see monetary gains if Lance’s bill is
passed.
The
previous paragraph may appear that Leonard Lance’s cozying up to the pharmaceutical
companies is illegitimate and shady, and that this paragraph should be how to
stop this gross misuse of power, but on the contrary Lance’s actions are on
sound political footing. First off, Lance obviously wants to be reelected, so
by appealing to the massive medical community in his district, he is able to
rally a lot of support by his pro-pharmacy agenda. Furthermore, his
introduction of the MODDERN Cures Act and the subsequent massive pharmaceutical
donations is not shady business, but instead as Stephen Wayne states in his
book, Is This Any Way to Run A Democratic Election?, a clear expression
of first amendment rights by the companies who are supporting a candidate who
can benefit them if he is elected, or an incumbent who can continue to help
them if he stays in office[3].
Finally, the goal of the MODDERN Cures Act and many of the bills produced by
the Congressional Subcommittee on Health warrant improvements in the life of
everyday Americans and advanced treatments for chronic diseases. A recent MedScape
poll states that more than sixty percent of Americans support advanced
techniques for finding cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s
Disease, and cancer among others[4].
In fact what Lance has done is introduce a bill that many American’s favor, has
put him on good standing with pharmaceutical companies who give him massive
campaign donations, which also promotes him in his constituencies
disproportionately populated with pharmaceutical companies, all in all, a
brilliant political move, which will all but insure his continued political
success.
Lance’s
relationship with the pharmaceutical companies demonstrates the power an
industry can have over a certain Congressperson. Right now, Lance finds himself
in a great position, all he has to do is continue to vote pro-pharmacy on all
of the legislation that comes to vote, and he can expect checks from these industries
every time his reelection comes around. However, Lance has gone a step further
and by introducing a bill that favors pharmaceutical research and voting for
them in the Subcommittee on Health, these corporations have become his highest
contributors by 300% according to Open Secrets. Thus, as long as Lance does not
stray from his current moniker as the congressman for the pharmacies, he will
continue to thrive in donations and voter support in the New Jersey Seventh.
[1] "MODDERN
Cures Act." National Health Council. January 1, 2012. Accessed October 2,
2014. http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/pages/page-content.php?pageid=163.
[2] "Rep.
Leonard Lance." Open Secrets. January 1, 2012. Accessed October 1, 2014.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000898&cycle=Career.
[3]Wayne,
Stephen J. "Has Money Corrupted Our Political Process?" In Is This
Any Way To Run A Democratic Election, 104. 5th ed. Los Angeles: CQ Press, 2014.
[4] Mulcahy,
Nick. "Poll: Big Pharma Prefers to Treat, Not Cure, Cancer."
MedScape. February 4, 2013. Accessed October 1, 2014.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/778709.
No comments:
Post a Comment