KaiserHealthNews

Terrific question. Industry in general and pharma in particular have LOTS of ways to influence the political process. Our database is a start, but it doesn't include money given directly by pharma executives to campaign committees. Individuals are allowed to give up to $2,700 per candidate per election. Lots of pharma execs are expected to chip in that way and do. Nor does our data include political money spent independently of the candidates. Many of the political ads you are seeing are paid for by "dark money" groups that don't have to reveal their backers. PhRMA -- the industry trade group -- gives millions to dark money groups that aren't captured in our data. Those donations are eventually disclosed in IRS filings, but not until long after elections are over. Of course pharma and other industries also spend huge amounts of money on lobbyists and funding patient-advocacy groups. For a look at the latter, check out our other DB project, Prescription for Power, showing how much pharma money is behind patient advocacy groups such as the American Diabetes Association and the Arthritis Foundation.

Yes that pattern generally holds for Congress. Committee chairs are powerful chokepoints for legislation -- one member can make the difference in whether a particular measure gets to the floor or not. So pharma companies -- and industry political donors in general -- focus their fire on those folks. Utah's Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee these days, has gotten $854k in pharma political money over the last decade. Party leaders tend to get more money too, such as Paul Ryan. Some companies donate more widely. If you check the site you'll see that Amgen spread its contributions around the most. The maker of blockbuster biologic Enbrel contributed to 57 senators and 158 representatives this cycle, spending $945,750.

Emmarie here -- great question! Though the many drugmakers may have many different expectations (hoping to push a particular piece of legislation, for instance), they can generally expect that their donations will open the door to a relationship with that lawmaker.

What does that relationship look like? Often it’s a lobbyist (or three) asking for a phone call or meeting with a lawmaker or his/her staff. That lawmaker may be in a position of power -- say, the chairman of a key committee -- and so a few minutes of their time can prove very useful to help shape legislation.

Our (brand new!) analysis of 10 years’ of drugmaker political action committee contributions to members of Congress shows much of the money flows to those key lawmakers. For instance, Greg Walden, a Republican congressman from Oregon, saw the biggest increase in pharma contributions between the 2016 election cycle and this one. Why? It probably has something to do with the fact that he became the (powerful) head of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce after the last election.

It’s tempting to think of donations in terms of votes bought, but campaign finance experts say it’s really access that drugmakers (and other industries who give to Congress) earn.

Our database shows contributions "TO" members. Collections by party vary by who is in power. Generally the party controlling Congress and the members chairing powerful committees get the most love. So now money is largely going to Republicans. Right now Democrats -- as Cory Booker did last year -- are also most likely to reject pharma money and back legislation that pharma hates, such as something that pharma would call price controls. If Democrats take control of the House in November, pharma donations (and all industry/biz contributions for that matter) would go up. Our DB shows that when Dems were last in control of both houses -- 2010 -- they received slightly more pharma money than Republicans.

Thanks! Unfortunately the interactive is only searchable by member or company. However, we made a breakdown by party for the story: https://kaiserhealthnews.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/2-money-2018-by-party_corrected.png?w=1024&h=1043