Senators Who Weakened Drug Bill Got Millions from Industry
WASHINGTON - Senators who raised millions of dollars in campaign donations from pharmaceutical interests secured industry-friendly changes to a landmark drug-safety bill, according to public records and interviews.
The bill, which passed 93-1, grants the Food and Drug Administration broad new authority to monitor the safety of drugs after they are approved. It addressed some shortcomings that allowed the painkiller Vioxx to stay on the market for years after initial signs that it could cause heart attacks.
However, the powers granted to the FDA in the bill’s original version were pared back during private meetings. And efforts to curb conflicts of interest among FDA advisers and allow consumers to buy cheaper drugs from other countries were defeated in close votes.
• A measure that blocked an effort to allow drug importation passed, 49-40. The 49 senators who voted against drug importation received about $5 million from industry executives and political action committees since 2001 - nearly three quarters of the industry donations to current members of the Senate, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data compiled by two non-partisan groups, Center for Responsive Politics and PoliticalMoneyLine.
• Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said he demanded removal of language that would have allowed the FDA to ban advertising of high-risk drugs for two years because it would restrict free speech. Roberts has raised $18,000 from drug interests so far this year, records show, and $66,000 since 2001. His spokeswoman, Sarah Little, said he “takes great pains to keep fundraising and official actions separate.”
• Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., claimed authorship of a change that reduced the FDA’s power to require post-market safety studies. He said he wanted to target drugs only if there was evidence of harm. Gregg has raised $168,500 from drug executives and PACs since 2001 and sided with them in four key votes.
• The bill’s chief sponsors - Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., - agreed after consultations with industry officials and others to modify a proposal that all clinical drug studies be made public, said Craig Orfield, Enzi’s spokesman. Under the change, only those studies submitted to the FDA would be available.
Enzi took in $174,000 from drug interests since 2001; Kennedy, $78,000. Their spokesmen said the money did not influence them.
Senators also voted down an amendment that would have made it harder for scientists who have accepted money from a drug company to advise the FDA on drug approval applications from that firm.
“It’s not that money buys votes,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the lone vote against the bill. “But you have a culture in which big money has significant influence. Big money gains you access, access gives you the time to influence people.”
Orfield, Enzi’s spokesman, said compromise is necessary in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome any single senator’s objection. “Our objective is to get something that can pass,” he said.
The pharmaceutical companies spend more money on lobbying than any other single industry - $855 million from 1998 to 2006, according to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity.
“I don’t think there is any lobbying group in town that has the clout of the drug industry,” said Ron Pollack, director of Families USA, a left-leaning consumer advocacy group.
The biggest drug trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, praised the bill after it passed. The group’s spokesman, Ken Johnson, said its critics “never point out that a great deal of this money is spent trying to defeat bills … that are designed to cripple this industry.”
The bill, which now goes to the House, was based in part on the recommendations of a report by the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences. The Institute was asked by the FDA to examine drug safety in the wake of the scandal over Vioxx, which Merck withdrew from the market in 2004 amid evidence that the drug put users at increased risk for heart attack and stroke.
The report offered two dozen recommendations for improvement. Chief among those was that Congress should grant FDA the power to require a system of post-market surveillance, which the Senate bill would do. But two other key recommendations were not followed in the measure: That FDA should have the power to ban consumer advertising for the first two years of a drug’s market life; and that FDA scientists who investigate post-market side effects should work in an office separate from those that approve drugs initially.
The bill “does not sufficiently address the underlying problems,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who in recent years held hearings featuring FDA whistle-blowers who said their concerns about drug safety were ignored.
Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Maybe these politicians should be used as guinea pigs for some of these dangerous drugs like Vioxx. It’d be a lot cheaper in the long run.
There is a simple legislative reform measure that would stop all this cavalier influence-peddling and reduce dependence of political whores on campaign contributions from such dominant industries. Simply pass new conflict of interest legislation declaring that all legislators who receive over $1,000 in any year from any member or agent associated with an interest group must recuse themselves from discussing or voting on legislative or regulatory measures affecting that industry or organization.
This may seem naive, but it could be the only direct way to nullify the unprecedented power of dominating financial interests to subvert the public welfare. These campaign constributions to legislators from organizations, or those on the payroll or members associated with organizations, need to be publicly disclosed as conflicts of interest — before legislators could speak or vote on matters affecting or benefiting such interests. Violation by failure to disclose such conflict of interest would subject legislators to fines 10 times greater than the amounts they received from such interest groups.
Okay progressives, here is where push comes to shove. Are we willing to work for the defeat the likes of Edward Kennedy as well as Pat Roberts,Mike Enzi, and Judd Gregg? Or will we rationalize and triangulate excuses to forgive one set of whores while condemning the other? Good for Bernie Sanders!
Just like the bought and pd for government by bribary, of course “this money didn’t influence my vote”…yeah right,,,as I always say if you give your “public servant” a hundred dollars and another corpo-rat briber gives 10 thousand, and you happen to call at the same time, who’s call do you think he/she will take? Not to mention the rest of the propaganda for the MIlitary/petroleum complex, create a war, bushco, spend the country into bankrupcy, you fiscal conservative liars, free-market capitalism, yeah right! announce you are going to spend 2 1/2 trillion dollars, on the military in less than 4 years, borrow most of it, and claim we the tax payer owes it, and see the Carlyle groups and the Halliburton crooks run to claim they are the only ones who can fill the contract, at the gov-pig trough,,,free trade? or to rob???
Money buys votes.
Let’s line these votes up with the ones last week that voted against LOWER DRUG COSTS too.
I recall both MA senators, Kennedy AND Kerry voted against that along with 12 other Democrats…Salazar, both Nelsons, Lieberman…the usual bought-out corporate Democrats who work against the interests of the working people MOST OF THE TIME. Yes, it’s time to challenge them at the primary level as in CT and CA last primary season. GRASSROOTS ARISE!!!
Someone go to the thomas website and pull up both lists of how they voted and post them side by side.///
This may be unrealistic, but the only solution to the corporate ownership of senators and reps is federally financed elections. Until that happens, those with the bucks will control congress no matter who we elect.
Remember, when senators and reps talk about their constituents, they are refering to their contributors, not the voters.
Bookworm I agree with you almost. We ought to require federal financing of campaigns and limit the amount of timwe the campaign can distract potential office seekers and the people in the country.
But ultimately, we already have what we need to solve this problem. We have access to the information in the form of funding disclosures and the record of votes on the part of office holders or seekers. What we need is the will to act on what we already know and have the goods to do. Protests, office occupations, all good but the ultimate power is to vote the bums out!
Contributions, and all S.I. money need to be posted on the polititions web page.
Zero tolerance for these politicians.
(And warn your kids about the dangers of legal drugs.)
“A measure that blocked an effort to allow drug importation passed, 49-40. The 49 senators who voted against drug importation received about $5 million from industry executives and political action committees since 2001.”
If this is shocking to anyone who thinks “most” Democrats are any different than Republicans, check out this site:
http://realnews.org/rn/content/25demconsultants.html
Here’s a preview:
■ Big PHARMA. “With the prescription drug bill, the key provision is that the government does not have the right to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical industry,” says Robert Weissman, co-director of the corporate accountability group Essential Action and editor of Multinational Monitor. “That position is not sustainable in the long run, but the industry wants that to last as long as possible.”
And it appears that many Democrats are willing to extend that position, just as most Republicans always will.
The sad reality is that there really isn’t much difference between Democrats and Repubilcans! So don’t change the position you’re in and be sure to stock up on KY-jelly.
Certainly Ted Kennedy would not allow himself to be influenced by BIG drugs! He is a Democrat!
By the way there is an abundant supply of KY-Jelly and there is a tube with your name written all over it coming your way.
Why is freedom to advertise a new and possibly dangerous drug a “constitutional right”? It is spin. Sen. Roberts is slick. It almost seems like he cares about the constitution. I wonder why he isn’t so adamant about free trade drug negotiations for medicare with Canada? He thinks he has Kansas figured out. Let’s prove him wrong.
I almost hate to state the facts, but Ross Perot was right we NEED to take our Country Back. This is not, nor has it been for many years, our Fathers Democracy. Freaking Sad that his is now a Government of the “Special Interests”, by the Special Interests, and for the Special Interests.
I never gets better if ‘n ya ain’t got the money, it just gets worse….
Most Politicians are crooks.
They may start out as well intentioned but slowly they start selling out. The few honest ones cannot out-vote the many.
Matter of fact “People get funny when they get a little money”
Ah, yes. The best politicians money can buy.
And these are the same drug companies who, according to John LeCarre, experiment on African children with new drugs, that is, they use them as guinea pigs.
America - you have not fallen among thieves with your politicians. They have always been thieves - bleating for citizen’s votes at election time and then, when elected, going on to look after the rich oil/drug/arms companies and forgetting about the citizens until next election.
They are helped by people like O’Reilly who prostitutes himself to support the large corporation ruled politicians. Either that or he and his ilk are so incredibly stupid that they cannot see the harm they are doing by convincing little old ladies or idiots that all is well and that to criticize is unpatriotic.
America - despite all your self praise and ostensible material wealth (held by a very few) you are a sad and sick place.
I thought they wanted less government involved in business? Another lie!
The new “Pharmaceutical benefit” is putting a lot of the small pharmacies out of business. Some used to make 90% of their profits from social security. I guess if you are not a corporation it does not matter to the politicians. The irs also wants to crack down on small businesses and it is not to look for illegals working for them. Unless you are a monopoly-CVS or Walgreens you cannot make any money.
More useless gov. regulations and stay away from my vitamins and supplements!
you americans are in bad need of a third party. name one politician who hasn’t sold out. their all dirty.
I heard there is a bill regarding supplements. They want to make us get a script for them.
Terryb - We have a third party, the Green Party! Get rid of the Corporate Cronies. Let’s give them all a heart attack and elect their worst nightmare, NADER!!!
Nader has been standing up to them for a long time and has won, time after time, after time. He has forced them to do things like seatbelts and airbags in cars when they didn’t want to spend the money.
Nader has money and still lives a frugal life. He may feel a little out of place in the White House, but I think he could handle it.
NADER FOR PREZ, 2008.
Regarding comment by: Nader4prez May 15th, 2007 9:07 am
Nader for President? You’ve got to be kidding. If he was a viable candidate I might have voted for him, but now he is one of the people I blame for getting us in this Bu$hCo mess. By being as hard headed as Bush, and in some ways just as delusional, he refused to accept the danger he was placing America in by splitting the Democratic vote and allowing these criminal deviants to secure control of our government.
Sorry to say this truth about a person I like & respect, but the blood of thousands of Americans & hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq & Afghanistan are directly on your hands, Ralph. You may have saved many lives through points made in “Unsafe At Any Speed”, but by being obstinate cost many others.
Why aren’t you mad at Gore? He could have “stepped down”. He could of actually ran a CAMPAIGN! He sat there like a toad not wanting to go too far one way or the other. If he had the balls in 2000 that he has shown lately, this would have all been different. I can’t tell you how many people were shocked that the man had a sense of humor AFTER the elections. He should of just been HIMSELF.
Nader had nothing to do with the Supreme Court butting into STATE Business. He had nothing to do with Gore whimping out and GIVING the election to Shrub.
Anyone who is 35 and born in the US can run and he was just exercising his rights.
Instead of writing useless comments on blogs about obvious corruption, ‘money doesn’t influence who?,’ that is rampant in this sold-out congress maybe you should spend more time writing and calling these representatives and then backing up your words with action such as voting them out of office, stop using drugs when ever possible, learn about good nutrition, and promote and support natural alternatives to health care. However, money and convenience apparently does the talking on the consumer end, also.
The tragedy is if people where to learn how to take proper care of their body then drugs sales would most likely drop dramatically and we would have more influence. Drugs can only serve as a temporary quick-fix, although sometimes a neccesary quick-fix, and always carry detrimental effects.
Because of the tremendous confusion and controlled media support of main-stream medical ‘health care’ most of the public becomes brain-washed into believing pharmaceuticals are the gospel truth to achieving better health. It isn’t difficult to take advantage of an ignorant public.
right on bandido
Viva La Revolucion
impeach and hang in public all of them and give to me for fish bait
Michael Moore’s film Sicko opens in Cannes tomorrow-that should shed some much needed light on this black hole we call our government. But corruption won’t stop in our government by itself-they entire system has been exposed, and exposed and exposed again but it’s laughed at. We can sit and debate these bastards all day but what happens-nothing! But let’s also remember, healthy people do not make money-drugs to cure people is not what they’re after-it’s money. They’re feeding us bio engineered foods without our consent, making us the biggest lot of guinea pigs ever and likely with a hidden agenda that includes plans for new medications to combat the illnesses to come from the experiments with the food supply.