Drug companies: ‘We now have fewer allies in the Senate’

Under Republican rule, lobbyists for corporate and industry interests had it relatively easy. Sure, the “K Street Project” forced them to hire an exclusively Republican staff, but the lobbyists and their firms knew that they could get the job done for their clients. Indeed, thanks to the GOP rule, they could simply buy access — and then write the legislation themselves.

Now, these same lobbyists aren’t at all happy. Not only are they scrambling to hire Democrats, they’re facing the reality that new Dem lawmakers aren’t willing to “play ball” with their agenda. Take, for example, the pharmaceutical industry.

Drug companies are particularly hungry for Democratic help, including the industry’s trade association. “We woke up the day after the election to a new world,” said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “We’re going to have tough days ahead of us.”

A post-election e-mail to executives at the drug company GlaxoSmithKline details just how tough. “We now have fewer allies in the Senate,” says the internal memo, obtained by The Washington Post. “Thus, there is greater risk over the next two years that bad amendments will be offered to pending legislation.” The company’s primary concerns are bills that would allow more imported drugs and would force price competition for drugs bought under Medicare.

The defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) “creates a big hole we will need to fill,” the e-mail says. Sen.-elect Jon Tester (D-Mont.) “is expected to be a problem,” it says, and the elevation to the Senate of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) “will strengthen his ability to challenge us.”

Poor pharmaceutical industry, all their friends have gone home. Now, after years of writing their own bills, pharm lobbyists will have to appeal to new senators who put consumers’ interests above the industry’s breathtaking profits.

It’s a real “tale of woe,” isn’t it?

“We now have fewer allies in the Senate,” says the internal memo, obtained by The Washington Post. “Thus, there is greater risk over the next two years that bad amendments will be offered to pending legislation.”

Bad amendments for the pinstriped pimps of the drug industry means good amendments for the rest of us – starting with legislation to fix that awful Medicare prescription drug giveaway,so prices can be negotiated the way the VA does.

Boo-hoo, they might not get their million-dollar bonuses. My heart is breaking for these scum.

  • Don’t get cocky. These SOB’s have money to burn and no ethical problems with using any tactics they can think of. Plus too many Democrats think the turnover in congressional power simply means they get to take the Republicans’ place at the trough.

  • “It’s a real “tale of woe,” isn’t it?” – CB

    When you can get sued for everything you own if you do not turn in ever greater profits and thus ever rising stock prices for your company, yah, it’s a tale of woe.

    The Pharmaceutical companies has to get some lobbying directors who can fashion a “progressive” campaign for their industry. That would involve protections of their companies from stockholder lawsuits in exchange for some reasonable drug laws and prices. And of course caving on Medicare Prescription drug price negotiating. Pharmaceutical companies suffer from the fact that they need to constantly find the next big drug to ensure their future. If they don’t they crash and burn and take all their current drugs with them. It’s this aspect of the “free market” that makes Milton Friedman seem like a ravening idiot.

  • Wait, let me get my magnifying glass and tweezers…
    Ah, here it is! Now I can play a song of sympathy for the Pharm companies on the world’s tiniest violin.

    This says it all:

    “Thus, there is greater risk over the next two years that bad amendments will be offered to pending legislation.”

    [emphasis mine.]

    Is it too much to hope despair will drive the CEOs to overdose on some of their own products?

  • I’ll wait shedding any tears till BigPharma develops a pill that can generate sympathy and sad feelings for those who don’t deserve it. And the bastards probably will.

    Big Pharma Co presents WoSmaVio (comes in pink or purple violin shapes) for dealing with those uncomfortable feelings of schadenfreude. Ask your doctor (er pusher)*

    *side effects include loss of sanity, constipation, diarhea, priapism, sexual dysfunction, permanent blindness, tooth decay, bad breath, hair loss, hair growth on the back and eyebrows, flatulence and brain damage.

  • Lance – Have there been any lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that haven’t posted high profits? While it is a possiblity, if there is no example of it happening I feel that pharma companies have a lot of other “bad” reasons for doing what they do without giving them an “out”.

  • “Have there been any lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that haven’t posted high profits?” – Rambuncle

    There is something to that. I haven’t researched this, but threat of lawsuits by stockholders is (claimed to be) an issue for these companies and is given as a reason for their grotesque profits. I’m just suggesting that they come to the Democrats with progressive or populist solutions, rather than try to convert Democrats into Republican’ts.

  • Money is the drug of choice of congress and there are many congressmen of both parties ready to get their fix. Without meaningful election reform, more allies can easily will be found. Fix the system, then the doughnut hole will stay closed.

  • Lance,

    When you can get sued for everything you own if you do not turn in ever greater profits and thus ever rising stock prices for your company, yah, it’s a tale of woe.

    this is some pretty strong hyperbole. to my knowledge no executive officer of a public company has lost “everything” due to poor stock performance. Yes, there have been successful shareholder class action lawsuits but nearly everyone, if not all, relate to illegal behaviour by the executive suite (booking revenue before shipping product, depreciating “assets” made up of travel expenses ala enron, etc.).

    Now, I may be wrong. If so, please provide a citation where purely poor performance led to an executive going personally bankrupt after a shareholder lawsuit.

  • Lance,

    I’m just suggesting that they come to the Democrats with progressive or populist solutions,

    I agree. that is a much better move by big Pharma than trying to continue what they were doing with the Dems instead of the Republican’ts.

  • …threat of lawsuits by stockholders is (claimed to be) an issue for these companies and is given as a reason for their grotesque profits.

    This is a riff on “Doctors should support tort reform to keep their malpractice premiums down.” In other words, based on zero fact.

    There must be some specific bad faith action(s) on the part of the company that directly results in huge loses before anyone will even think of suing. So while you might see shareholders getting angry when a company rushes a product to market and patients start to drop like flies and stock prices drop as a result, no judge in the land will listen to: “Wah, we’re unhappy because the quarterly report isn’t what we think it should be.” The company’s lawyers probably have a pre-printed motion to dismiss just for such occasions. Or look at it this way: How many CEOs of American automakers have lost their shirts due to shareholder lawsuits in the past decade?

    If they don’t they crash and burn and take all their current drugs with them.

    No. They fire the CEO and get a new one. At the very, very worst (and I’ve never heard of this happening to a pharm co), they reorganize under bancruptcy law, downsize considerably and keep on going. In addition, what most drug companies rely on selling is a name brand. Two or three of their competitors may have the same thing or create the same thing a few days or weeks later, they just didn’t win the patent/naming rights race. However, the patients will still get their medicine.

    This is why I worry the companies will try to maintain SOP. They really don’t have much to lose over the next two or even ten years and might prefer to demonize the Democrats rather than adjust and (shock, horror) play fair.

    tAiO

    p.s. Geek alert for jp: C.S. Lewis died on that day too.

  • I hope Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown feel naught but swelling pride and increased commitment after reading that email. Nothing quite like having your sleazy enemies quaking at your honesty.

  • My heart bleeds for them ( and I couldn’t afford a refill on my bleeding-heart pills).

    Add Webb to the Tester/Brown duo; he also has some dandy ideas about what the big pharma needs (an enema).

    Don’t get cocky. These SOB’s have money to burn and no ethical problems with using any tactics they can think of. Plus too many Democrats think the turnover in congressional power simply means they get to take the Republicans’ place at the trough. — jimBOB, @2

    Yeah, I do worry about that, because the Dems in Congress, on the whole, are often not *much* better than the ‘pubs. It’s certain that Big Pharma (and Big Oil, and others) will try to turn their “tale of woe” into a “tail of woo” and quite possible that someone will be seduced.

  • “… to my knowledge no executive officer of a public company has lost “everything” due to poor stock performance.” – Edo

    Well, Ken Lay would say that the criminal charges against him are just made up and he’s being punished for “poor stock performance”. And before his death he was going to lose everything he owned.

    People can get terribly vindictive when you lose them money.

    And yes I believe he was guilty of fraud and stock manipulation.

  • Well, Ken Lay would say that the criminal charges against him are just made up and he’s being punished for “poor stock performance”. And before his death he was going to lose everything he owned.

    Come on Lance, give us a smiley wink emoticon or something. Enron is as far as you can get from a civil suit based on poor market performance.

    Lay’s defense was he was “just” the CEO and didn’t know what those scamps in accounting were up to. And Bush don’t know nothin’ ’bout black prisons in Romania.

    Yes, Lay was set to lose everything (or at least his assets that could be located) but that’s what happens when you force your employees to sink their retirement savings into a stock you know is crap in an attempt to stay in the game a bit longer, and then bar them from selling the stock when they begin to suspect it might be crap and as a result they lose everything.

    He thought he was going to skip off laughing after the crash he knew was coming, which puts him above Cheney on my list of evil bastards I’d like to hit with a brick.

    I hope where ever he is now widows, orphans and paupers are throwing bottles at his noggin.

  • Investors watch Eli Lilly shares drop $2.80 post election.

    My issue is Zyprexa which is only FDA approved for schizophrenia (.5-1% of pop) and some bipolar (2% pop) and then an even smaller percentage of theses two groups.

    So how does Zyprexa get to be the 7th largest drug sale in the world?

    Eli Lilly is in deep trouble for using their drug reps to ‘encourage’ doctors to write zyprexa for non-FDA approved ‘off label’ uses.

    The drug causes increased diabetes risk,and medicare picks up all the expensive fallout.There are now 7 states (and counting) going after Lilly for fraud and restitution.—

    Daniel Haszard

  • Comments are closed.