Delator
17-10-2005, 14:35
Just interested in hearing opinions on the article below. Personally I think the kind of fundraising being practiced by the pharmaceutical industry is an insult to democracy...but I'd like to hear thoughts on the issue. :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1592255,00.html
Turn on the TV in southern California and as likely as not (unless you have TiVo or some other devilish device) you will see an advert. And, as likely as not, that advert will concern Governor Schwarzenegger and his latest exercise in "blowing up the boxes" of government, kicking out the special interests and bypassing the legislators to go straight to the people of California.
Next month, Californians will be urged to go the polls to choose between an array of confusing ballot propositions. Call it what you will - Swiss democracy California style, direct government or an attempt to bypass a sometimes uncooperative legislature - the people of California don't seem too enthusiastic about having to go to the polls again: 2005 was supposed to be a rest year before Arnold's likely re-election bid in 2006, the year when the politicians might do their job instead of asking the voters to sort out their differences for them.
But regardless of what the voters think, the special election it happening and supporters of the various measures have been out flexing their muscles. And in some cases, their muscles are preternaturally large, even by the standards prevalent in Californian politics.
Take the differing fortunes of the extremely similar yet critically different propositions 78 and 79.
Proposition 78 establishes a discount plan for prescription drugs. Under the measure, drug companies could choose whether to offer their pharmaceuticals at reduced prices to patients below a certain income threshold.
Proposition 79 is also a prescription drug discount programme. But under prop 79, the participation is obligatory, not voluntary. Should a company refuse to offer its drugs at a discount, its product might be struck off the state's list of approved drug supplies.
Here's the fun bit. Up to the end of last month, supporters of the two propositions had raised $82m to argue their cases. The backers of prop 79 had raised $1.8m, and spent the same amount, mainly getting the measure on to the ballot. (In fact, supporters of prop 79 had spent $36,000 more than they had raised.) Supporters of the measure include public service unions and consumer groups.
Opponents of prop 79, meanwhile, had spent $24m putting forward their arguments. These prodigious fundraisers, battling to keep the drug companies' participation in discount prescription plans voluntary, go under the rather nifty name of Californians Against the Wrong Prescription - Sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (that's Phrma for short).
Over at proposition 78, it is a similar story. There, two groups run by Phrma have raised $55.8m and spent $46.3m. Their opponents have raised and spent, well, nothing.
A list of the top 10 contributors for proposition 78 makes for illuminating reading. In equal first place, with matching donations of $9,840,600, are GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer.
It's good to see these community-minded corporations taking such a healthy interest in local democracy. Beyond the top four come other stalwarts of the democratic process bearing names such as Astrazeneca, Amgen, Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Laboratories. And that's just the A's. Each of those companies has donated $4.5m to the cause.
While all of the donors to the measure backed by the consumer groups and unions are based in California, only 6% of those behind proposition 78 are based in the state.
And the place they are spending their money is television, buying TV adverts in the most expensive advertisement market in the country. California, the experts say, is too large, too diffuse, for the more traditional methods of electioneering: mail drops, poster campaigns, door-to-door canvassing. Only the bright lights of television can bring in the voters.
That theory was born out last year, when Governor Schwarzenegger lent his muscle to the campaign against a proposition to repeal the state's three strikes law. Arnold's TV appearances, with the tough guy striding purposefully through a gallery of hoodlums who might very possibly be released to murder your children should the measure be passed, succeeded in turning the vote round and preserving the existing three strikes law.
This year, Arnold has again entered the fray. His California Recovery Team is spending $2.4m per week on television adverts to promote some of the measures on the ballot. Although he has declared his support for the industry-sponsored proposition 78, he has yet to stump on TV for the measure.
Which may be just as well. Although Arnold has a seemingly unrivalled ability to raise cash, translating that into voter support has become more difficult as Arnold's reign has endured.
With Arnold's poll rating now at Bush levels, it appears that the people of California may be tiring of the anti-politics-as-usual rhetoric that got Arnold elected, and would prefer their representatives to get on with the job they were mandated to do, namely sorting out the state's problems and kicking out the special interests.
Imagine what a difference the pharmaceutical companies could make if they put their $80m of campaign money to some constructive use.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1592255,00.html
Turn on the TV in southern California and as likely as not (unless you have TiVo or some other devilish device) you will see an advert. And, as likely as not, that advert will concern Governor Schwarzenegger and his latest exercise in "blowing up the boxes" of government, kicking out the special interests and bypassing the legislators to go straight to the people of California.
Next month, Californians will be urged to go the polls to choose between an array of confusing ballot propositions. Call it what you will - Swiss democracy California style, direct government or an attempt to bypass a sometimes uncooperative legislature - the people of California don't seem too enthusiastic about having to go to the polls again: 2005 was supposed to be a rest year before Arnold's likely re-election bid in 2006, the year when the politicians might do their job instead of asking the voters to sort out their differences for them.
But regardless of what the voters think, the special election it happening and supporters of the various measures have been out flexing their muscles. And in some cases, their muscles are preternaturally large, even by the standards prevalent in Californian politics.
Take the differing fortunes of the extremely similar yet critically different propositions 78 and 79.
Proposition 78 establishes a discount plan for prescription drugs. Under the measure, drug companies could choose whether to offer their pharmaceuticals at reduced prices to patients below a certain income threshold.
Proposition 79 is also a prescription drug discount programme. But under prop 79, the participation is obligatory, not voluntary. Should a company refuse to offer its drugs at a discount, its product might be struck off the state's list of approved drug supplies.
Here's the fun bit. Up to the end of last month, supporters of the two propositions had raised $82m to argue their cases. The backers of prop 79 had raised $1.8m, and spent the same amount, mainly getting the measure on to the ballot. (In fact, supporters of prop 79 had spent $36,000 more than they had raised.) Supporters of the measure include public service unions and consumer groups.
Opponents of prop 79, meanwhile, had spent $24m putting forward their arguments. These prodigious fundraisers, battling to keep the drug companies' participation in discount prescription plans voluntary, go under the rather nifty name of Californians Against the Wrong Prescription - Sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (that's Phrma for short).
Over at proposition 78, it is a similar story. There, two groups run by Phrma have raised $55.8m and spent $46.3m. Their opponents have raised and spent, well, nothing.
A list of the top 10 contributors for proposition 78 makes for illuminating reading. In equal first place, with matching donations of $9,840,600, are GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer.
It's good to see these community-minded corporations taking such a healthy interest in local democracy. Beyond the top four come other stalwarts of the democratic process bearing names such as Astrazeneca, Amgen, Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Laboratories. And that's just the A's. Each of those companies has donated $4.5m to the cause.
While all of the donors to the measure backed by the consumer groups and unions are based in California, only 6% of those behind proposition 78 are based in the state.
And the place they are spending their money is television, buying TV adverts in the most expensive advertisement market in the country. California, the experts say, is too large, too diffuse, for the more traditional methods of electioneering: mail drops, poster campaigns, door-to-door canvassing. Only the bright lights of television can bring in the voters.
That theory was born out last year, when Governor Schwarzenegger lent his muscle to the campaign against a proposition to repeal the state's three strikes law. Arnold's TV appearances, with the tough guy striding purposefully through a gallery of hoodlums who might very possibly be released to murder your children should the measure be passed, succeeded in turning the vote round and preserving the existing three strikes law.
This year, Arnold has again entered the fray. His California Recovery Team is spending $2.4m per week on television adverts to promote some of the measures on the ballot. Although he has declared his support for the industry-sponsored proposition 78, he has yet to stump on TV for the measure.
Which may be just as well. Although Arnold has a seemingly unrivalled ability to raise cash, translating that into voter support has become more difficult as Arnold's reign has endured.
With Arnold's poll rating now at Bush levels, it appears that the people of California may be tiring of the anti-politics-as-usual rhetoric that got Arnold elected, and would prefer their representatives to get on with the job they were mandated to do, namely sorting out the state's problems and kicking out the special interests.
Imagine what a difference the pharmaceutical companies could make if they put their $80m of campaign money to some constructive use.