[EL] “Pharma contributions to politicians who support restricting abortions could reverberate”

[Sean Parnell]

…For this reason, it would seem the companies acted against their own financial interests, according to Bruce Freed, who heads the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit group that studies corporate donations. 

I’m sorry, but this is one of the more profoundly unsupportable statements I’ve seen in a long, long time regarding corporations supposedly donating “against their own financial interests.” Cherry-picking a single issue – a hot-button issue no less – and using it to define the totality (or at least a substantial portion of) its interests, really? I mean, we all understand that these corporations and others have many, many interests that intersect with a wide variety of public-policy areas, right? Maybe, say, these companies pay taxes in states and therefore have some interest as well in how they are taxed, and perhaps they also have employees and have an interest in a state’s labor laws, and they might even have litigation concerns that cause them to care about the tort laws of states?

 

And, perhaps, they even sell more than one product?

 

Let’s just look at Johnson & Johnson. Among the other things they market is: baby products! Infant formula, baby powder, bubble bath, etc. You can check out the full product line here: https://www.johnsonsbaby.com

 

You know what is in J&J’s interest? More babies. You know what reduces the number of babies who need infant formula, baby powder, bubble bath, etc.? Contraception and abortion.

 

You know what else is in J&J’s interest? Gunshot wounds (at least those that leave the victim alive long enough to make it to the ER and OR where J&J’s products are used). I assume Freed would similarly express concerns about J&J contributions to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (the Democrats’ counterpart to the RSLC), since it works to elect candidates who vow to restrict access to guns? (let’s set aside the discussion on just how effective such laws are)

 

Of course not (and I’m not at all saying J&J is pro-gun violence – that should be obvious but in this day and age the obvious isn’t quite so obvious to some).

 

There is a certain mindset that believes it knows far better than any individual or company what their interests are, or should be, and how they should prioritize and evaluate those interests. And that’s all fine and well – it’s a free country, and people are free to opine on how J&J should and should not be allocating its resources to support or oppose certain policies and candidates.

 

But let’s try not to take that pontificating at face value, and uncritically assume that the pontificator has any clue what they are talking about. Because, as hopefully demonstrated here, there’s very little reason to assume that is the case.

 

 

Sean Parnell

Independent Public Policy Consultant

(views are my own and not those of any of my clients)

 

 


 <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106601> “Pharma contributions to politicians who support restricting abortions could reverberate”


Posted on  <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106601> July 24, 2019 8:45 am by  <https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2019/07/24/merck-pfizer-jnj-abortion-republicans/> STAT:

Take the case of Pfizer ( <https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&biw=1536&bih=706&tbm=fin&ei=gK40XaKzOfCc_QbtzJjoBw&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecRoyi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uLj0c_UNzKuyq0yLeQCy18LdOgAAAA&q=NYSE%3A+PFE&oq=NYSE%3A+pfe&gs_l=finance-immersive.1.0.81i8k1l2.13190.13910.0.15177.6.6.0.0.0.0.120.470.3j2.5.0....0...1.1.64.finance-immersive..1.5.465...81i5k1.0.QlJhOabehbI> PFE), Merck ( <https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&biw=1536&bih=754&tbm=fin&ei=kXMwXceYHYq5tQa39Ii4Bw&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecRoyi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uLj0c_UNzKuyq8oNeADakoh1OgAAAA&q=NYSE%3A+MRK&oq=mrk&gs_l=finance-immersive.1.0.81l3.56265.58499.0.59634.18.11.1.0.0.0.254.864.6j1j1.8.0....0...1.1.64.finance-immersive..11.7.697.0..81i8k1.0.U7r_-jWkzRI> MRK), and Johnson & Johnson ( <https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&biw=1536&bih=706&tbm=fin&ei=ka40XdiCDtCa_Qa1w4P4BQ&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecRoyi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uLj0c_UNzKtyzE0KeAC2snMsOgAAAA&q=NYSE%3A+JNJ&oq=NYSE%3A+jnj&gs_l=finance-immersive.1.0.81i8k1l2.11050.12097.0.13409.6.6.0.0.0.0.95.472.6.6.0....0...1.1.64.finance-immersive..0.6.470...81i5k1.0.HT4xBveyWTk> JNJ). Each company sells contraceptive products. Pfizer markets Depo-Provera, Merck sells Nexplanon, and J&J markets Ortho-Novum.
But last year, all three drug makers donated large sums to the Republican State Leadership Committee, a political group that helps conservatives gain control of state legislatures. Those contributions ranged from around $24,000 by Merck to $325,000 by Pfizer, with J&J giving roughly $52,000, according to Political MoneyLine data.
 <https://www.statnews.com/most-popular/> T
Eventually, the RSLC helped elect, directly and indirectly, numerous candidates in Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri. In each state, the legislatures have passed bills that greatly restrict abortion. And many lawmakers who oppose abortion also object to contraception.
“There’s really no daylight between being anti-abortion and being anti-birth control, because an attack on abortion is really an attack on women’s health writ large,” said Michelle Kuppersmith, director of Equity Forward, an advocacy group that champions women’s reproductive rights….


For this reason, it would seem the companies acted against their own financial interests, according to Bruce Freed, who heads the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit group that studies corporate donations. What he calls “under-the-radar” donations are often not known to shareholders, consumers, and employees, but can quickly go viral in a “polarized and hyper-charged” political environment.


“Companies give to third-party groups and don’t always pay attention to how their money is used,” Freed explained. “However, they can be associated with consequences that are controversial or conflict with their core values, positions, product lines, and business strategies.”

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106601&title=%E2%80%9CPharma%20contributions%20to%20politicians%20who%20support%20restricting%20abortions%20could%20reverberate%E2%80%9D> 

Posted in  <https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190725/deb0f542/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190725/deb0f542/attachment.png>