Healthcare and Fair Elections
Public Financing Overview:
Public Financing of Elections is a voluntary system that seeks to remove the influence of money in politics. It is based on the idea that any qualified person should be able to run for poltical office and represent their community. Public financing reinforces the direct communication between voters and representatives by allowing candidates to concentrate on issues rather than fundraising.
Under the system, candidates who chose to participate collect a certain number of qualifying contributions. Qualified candidates receive state funds for running both primary and general election campaings, and publicly financed candidates running against privately financed candidates receive additional funds for every dollar that their opponent raises above their initial allotment.
“If I had not run clean, I would surely have been paid visits by numerous
campaign contributors representing pharmaceutical interests and
the like, urging me either to shelve that idea or to create it in their image.
All the while, they would be wielding the implied threat to yank
their support and shop for an opponent in four years. [Instead,] I was
able to create this program based on one and only one variable: the
best interests of Arizona’s senior citizens.”
—Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
Current Healthcare Problems
Special interest groups, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, donate astronomical amounts of money to legislators. From 1989 to 2006, the pharmaceutical industry donated over $92 million to federal campaigns. These donations may make legislators beholden to the pharmaceutical companies and therefore more likely to pass legislation favorable to those special interests. This did indeed turn out to be the case in 2003, when the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act was passed. This law prevents the government from negotiating prices with drug companies providing prescriptions covered by Medicare. Aside from campaign contributions, the pharmaceutical industry spent $141 million on lobbying for this legislation and hired 952 individual lobbyists.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act is not unique in its heavy lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry. From 1998 to 2004, the twenty largest pharmaceutical companies lobbied on over 1,600 pieces of legislation. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the pharmaceutical industry spent more on lobbying than any other industry during that time period. Clearly, the current system allows wealthy pharmaceutical companies to influence legislation at the expense of American citizens.
Largest Drug Companies
| Pfizer Inc. | ||
| 2007 | Revenues | $48.6 Billion |
| 2007 | Lobbying expenditures | $7,220,000 |
| 2008 | Election cycle political contributions by Pfizer Inc. PAC | $518,918 |
| GlaxoSmithKline Plc | ||
| 2007 | Revenues | $45.7 Billion |
| 2007 | Lobbying expenditures | $3,620,000 |
| 2008 | Election cycle political contributions by GlaxoSmithKline PAC | $383,370 |
| Sanofi-Aventis (and Subsidiary Sanofi Pasteur) | ||
| 2007 | Revenues | $41.5 Billion |
| 2007 | Lobbying expenditures | $4,210,000 |
| 2008 | Election cycle political contributions by Sanofi-Aventis PAC | $14,000 |
How Fair Elections Can Help
By taking the private money out of politics, Fair Elections will allow legislators vote in the best interest of their constituents. Special interests in the pharmaceutical industry will not dominate healthcare legislation through their exorbitant donations. Arizona and Maine have already enjoyed these benefits since adopting publicly financed elections in 1998 and 2000, respectively. In 2003, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano introduced the CoppeRx Card to make prescription drugs more affordable to seniors and the disabled, and she said that Clean Elections helped her do it. In 2006, more than 54,000 people in Arizona carried the CoppeRx card, and almost $15 million had been saved on prescription drugs. Maine also implemented an improved prescription drug program in 2004. Maine Rx Plus provides discounts to those without prescription drug coverage and allows the state to negotiate drug prices with the manufacturers. Senate Majority Leader Sharon Treat attributed the passage of the law to Clean Elections. Since legislators had to spend less time fundraising, there were more opportunities for them to hear directly from their constituents, the people who would be affected by this new law.
“[Due to] campaign finance reform, we’re spending
more time door to door, rather than fundraising.
That means you’re out there hearing from
people about what they care about-health care
and prescription drugs, especially the prices....
in Maine, campaigns for state office are largely
publicly funded, so you don’t see the same level
of direct contributions from the pharmaceutical
industry to state legislators.”
—Maine Senator Sharon Treat
Sources
publiccampaign.org
opensecrets.org
crp.org
corporationsandhealth.org
washclean.org
To print out information on this and other benefits of Fair Elections, check out our Resources.