Scott Brown received the maximum personal contribution allowed by law from Greg Conigliaro, $2,500, co-owner of the Framingham compounding pharmacy that’s linked to more than a dozen deaths from fungal meningitis. The wife of co-owner Barry Cadden also donated $2,500.
Not on the written Web version of the story but in tonight’s news broadcast: Brown was also the beneficiary of $37,000 from a fundraiser at Conigliaro’s home.
And, Brown signed a letter asking the DEA to change a specific regulation of how compound pharmacies handle controlled substances.
Actually, the letter looks fairly reasonable, seeking to allow the pharmacies to send medications directly to physicians instead of having to go to patients first; but Channel 5 rightly calls for the release of any other letters he wrote on behalf of the industry. I’d certainly like to know if he’s done any other work behind the scenes for his hosts and contributors. And we all know what Scott Brown would be doing if it was Elizabeth Warren’s name on that letter, given the way he’s completely distorted what she did for asbestos victims and others.
“Letters like this one that Sen. Brown signed are frequently used by their lobbyists to stop any further regulation of this industry,” Kevin Outterson, a Boston University law professor who also serves as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, told WCVB.
What other letters – or meetings – might be out there?
he called his grandmother a whore.
&nspb;
The Brown campaign now says that the senator’s letter to the DEA on behalf of the compounding industry is immaterial to the issue of drug safety, according to this AP story:
But earlier this year, he told the CEO Biotechnology Conference that federal regulators are “crushing innovation” and “throwing a wet blanket” over drug development efforts, according to a Boston Globe report in June. “In a brief interview after his remarks, Brown said he met with FDA commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg two months ago to discuss his concerns,” the Globe said.
If this was not like the kings and queens meetings but actually took place, what was Scott Brown telling the FDA commissioner about too much government regulation? Was there was any mention of the compounding pharmacy industry which has donated or raised tens of thousands of dollars for his campaign, or other drug safety issues?
After the recent horrific outbreak of meningitis, I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that the compounding pharmacy industry is a gurgling spring of evil. Nor would I demand candidates to be free of its “taint”. Compounding pharmacies, no doubt, can perform a useful function, and, in a well-run society, they would prosper by doing good.
In the current era of regulatory capture, our society has tremendous difficulty regulating stuff that needs regulating. Think food safety. Think financial institutions selling instruments to customers that they shorted. Think fracking. Think occupational safety. Think mercury. Think oil rig safety in the middle of oceans.
Where Senator Scott Brown is culpable is his eagerness to make our regulatory framework less competent and less effective. Certainly one might be able to sell more drugs short term if they don’t have to be safe or effective, but that’s no way to grow a society — but it’s how Republicans fantasize they can grow the economy.
Because lots of people spontaneously think protecting public safety is a bad idea? No, it’s is in large part because, as Elizabeth Warren says, these industries can hire an “army of lobbyists” and there is no similar “army” lobbying on behalf of the public interest to the same degree.
But part of the “lobbying” problem is political contributions from major industries. I saw an activist from a non-profit who deals with campaign finance issues awhile back, and it was enough to make you despair for our democracy.
Whether a legislator votes a certain way because of contributions beforehand or is “rewarded” after the fact, the effect is depressingly similar: It is easier to run for office and stay in office if you vote in a way that keeps that big money flowing in. It is much more difficult to run for office when that money is aligned against you, and you’ve got to make up the difference with $25 contributions. Elizabeth Warren is a rarity in being able to do that. It’s time consuming and it’s very hard.
The issue is not “taint.” The issue is that Scott Brown works in secret to weaken financial industry regulations and also just happens to be a top recipient of financial industry money. And now we see he’s on record as working to weaken regulation of the drug industry, and it also just happens that he is receiving tens of thousands of dollars from people connected with another industry that would benefit from lessening regulations.
However, in that case, the (small) compounding pharmacy industry is not alone. Achieving a standard that prevent regulatory capture has become a stiff order. The Wikipedia article to which I linked gives thirteen American examples.
I would much prefer Senator Brown to vow to support better, more effective oversight — and keep the donations.
Realistically, are you going to be more or less sympathetic to the idea of effective oversight of an industry, when someone in that industry not only wrote you a check for a few thousand dollars but hosted an event in their home that raised tens of thousands of dollars for you (excuse me, your campaign)? Sure it would be great if he kept the money but favored proper regulations, but do you expect that to happen? I don’t.
It is telling that Senator Kennedy tried to better regulate the compounding pharmacy industry but was stymied by the industry’s well-financed lobbying. And that’s according to the Boston Herald.
Lobbying money matters. It shapes policy.
Remember that Brown’s FEC data is spotty.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2012/09/scott-brown-uncategorized-wall-street-donations-not-his-problem/