By Donald Zuhn --
Earlier this month, we reported on the lobbying efforts of nine biotech/pharma companies and organizations in the third quarter of 2008 (see "Biotech/Pharma Lobbying Scoreboard - Third Quarter Update; BIO Lobbies for Biotech 'Bailout'"). Recent news reports have allowed us to add thirteen biotech/pharma companies and a trade group to the list:
• The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which has more than 30 members including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Novartis Corp., Pfizer Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis SA, spent more than $5.4 million on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to organization's October 20 filing with the House clerk's office, the trade group's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform and follow-on biologics legislation. The group's filing also indicates that current PhRMA president and chief executive, and former Louisiana Representative, Billy Tauzin; Mimi Kneuer, former chief of staff to Rep. Tauzin; Amy Efantis, former legislative director for Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL); Valerie Jewett, former legislative director for Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ); and Matt Sulkala, former senior legislative assistant to Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL), lobbied on behalf of the PhRMA.
• Eli Lilly and Co. spent more than $3.3 million on third quarter lobbying (see Yahoo! Finance report). According to Lilly's October 14 filing with the House clerk's office, the drugmaker's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform legislation and international patent enforcement.
• Pfizer Inc. spent almost $3.1 million on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to Pfizer's October 27 filing with the House clerk's office, the drugmaker's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform legislation, free trade issues, and tax credits for companies investing in drug research and development.
• GlaxoSmithKline spent nearly $2 million on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to GSK's October 20 filing with the House clerk's office, the drugmaker's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform and follow-on biologics legislation as well as patent provisions of free-trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. The company's filing also indicates that Jeffrey Ringer, former legislative aide for Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK), Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and former Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), lobbied on behalf of GSK.
• Abbott Laboratories spent almost $1.8 million on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to Abbott's October 20 filing with the House clerk's office, the drug and medical device maker's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform legislation. The company's filing also indicates that Karen Hauda, former senior director with the U.S. Trade Representative's office, lobbied on behalf of Abbott.
• Johnson & Johnson spent $1.5 million on third quarter lobbying (see Motley Fool report). According to Johnson & Johnson's October 17 filing with the House clerk's office, the health care company's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform and follow-on biologics legislation.
• Novartis AG spent nearly $1.4 million on third quarter lobbying (see Netscape Money & Business report). According to Novartis' October 17 filing with the House clerk's office, the pharmaceutical company's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform and follow-on biologics legislation as well as patent provisions of free-trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, and South Korea.
• Merck & Co. Inc. spent $1.11 million on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to Merck's October 17 filing with the House clerk's office, the drugmaker's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform legislation and international protection of drug patents.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. spent $840,000 on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to BMS' October 16 filing with the House clerk's office, the pharmaceutical company's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform and follow-on biologics legislation.
• Wyeth spent $756,650 on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to Wyeth's October 20 filing with the House clerk's office, the drug and medical pharmaceutical company's lobbying efforts were directed in part at follow-on biologics legislation.
• Emergent BioSolutions Inc. spent $575,000 on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to Emergent's October 17 filing with the House clerk's office, the biopharmaceutical company's lobbying efforts were directed in part at government stockpiling of biodefense vaccines.
• Allergan Inc. spent $460,000 on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to Allergan's October 19 filing with the House clerk's office, the biotech company's lobbying efforts were directed in part at follow-on biologics legislation.
• Covidien Ltd. spent $450,000 on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to Covidien's October 20 filing with the House clerk's office, the health care products company's lobbying efforts were directed in part at patent reform legislation.
• Gilead Sciences Inc. spent $240,000 on third quarter lobbying (see MSN Money report). According to Gilead's October 27 filing with the House clerk's office, the biotech drug maker's lobbying efforts were directed in part at global health and international trade issues.
In addition, a report indicates that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than three million businesses in a wide array of industries, spent $20.6 million on third quarter lobbying (see Forbes.com report). According to organization's October 20 filing with the House clerk's office, the group's lobbying efforts were directed in part at health care and labor issues. The Chamber of Commerce filing also indicates that Kai Hirabayashi, a former special assistant in the Labor Department; Jennifer Osika, former senior legislative assistant to Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL); and Becky Fraser, former senior legislative assistant to Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC), lobbied on behalf of the group.
In response to our most recent report on biotech/pharma lobbying, a Patent Docs reader inquired about the lobbying costs of IT companies and organizations, which unlike their biotech/pharma counterparts, have favored more "radical" patent reform. An online search revealed that a number of IT companies and organizations disclosed significant third quarter lobbying expenditures, including:
• Comcast Corp. -- $3.2 million (see Forbes.com report)
• Microsoft Corp. -- $2 million (see Forbes.com report)
• SAP AG -- $880,000 (see Yahoo! Finance report)
• Google Inc. -- $720,000 (see Yahoo! Finance report)
• Yahoo Inc. -- $570,000 (see International Business Times report)
• Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), a trade group that includes Dell Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Best Buy Co. -- $440,000 (see Yahoo! Finance report)
• Digital Media Association, a trade group that includes Apple Inc., Viacom Inc., and Microsoft Corp. -- $251,413 (see Forbes.com report)
Among the IT entities specifically disclosing that their third quarter lobbying expenses were directed in part at patent reform legislation were Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo.
For additional information regarding this topic, please see:
• "Biotech/Pharma Lobbying Scoreboard - Third Quarter Update; BIO Lobbies for Biotech 'Bailout'," December 19, 2008
• "Biotech/Pharma Lobbying Scorecard - Second Quarter Update - Part II," September 12, 2008
• "Biotech/Pharma Lobbying Scoreboard - Second Quarter Update," August 21, 2008
• "Biotech/Pharma Lobbying Scoreboard - Part II," June 30, 2008
• "Biotech/Pharma Lobbying Scoreboard" June 6, 2008
• "Lobbying Spending Spree Continues," May 20, 2008
• "Abbott's First Quarter Lobbying Tab Hits $880,000," May 2, 2008
Why is this lobbying allowed to continue? Is it really in the interest of the American People? It seems to me that it is the main reason why there is a biosimilar pathway in Europe and still none in the USA.
Posted by: malcolm ross | January 01, 2009 at 02:31 AM
Malcolm, I think it would be difficult to stop lobbying. There's this thing called the 1st amendment. Should we ban all lobbying, or just lobbying by groups you disagree with?
Posted by: Pacific Reporter | January 02, 2009 at 02:05 PM