Who owns the political ads on TV?
As yet another ballot looms, Californians are
beginning to wish their politicians would get off the TV and start doing their
job, writes Dan Glaister
Next month, Californians will be urged to go the polls to choose between an array of confusing ballot propositions. Call it what you will - Swiss democracy California style, direct government or an attempt to bypass a sometimes uncooperative legislature - the people of California don't seem too enthusiastic about having to go to the polls again: 2005 was supposed to be a rest year before Arnold's likely re-election bid in 2006, the year when the politicians might do their job instead of asking the voters to sort out their differences for them.
But regardless of what the voters think, the special election is happening and supporters of the various measures have been out flexing their muscles. And in some cases, their muscles are preternaturally large, even by the standards prevalent in Californian politics.
We get to pay for drug company profit margins that include an amazing amount of “marketing” built in! Even if that marketing includes influencing special elections.
Take the differing fortunes of the extremely similar yet critically different propositions 78 and 79.
Proposition 78 establishes a discount plan for prescription drugs. Under the measure, drug companies could choose whether to offer their pharmaceuticals at reduced prices to patients below a certain income threshold.
Proposition 79 is also a prescription drug discount programme. But under prop 79, the participation is obligatory, not voluntary. Should a company refuse to offer its drugs at a discount, its product might be struck off the state's list of approved drug supplies.
--------
Here's the fun bit. Up to the end of last month, supporters of the two propositions had raised $82m to argue their cases. The backers of prop 79 had raised $1.8m, and spent the same amount, mainly getting the measure on to the ballot. (In fact, supporters of prop 79 had spent $36,000 more than they had raised.) Supporters of the measure include public service unions and consumer groups.
Opponents of prop 79, meanwhile, had spent $24m putting forward their arguments. These prodigious fundraisers, battling to keep the drug companies' participation in discount prescription plans voluntary, go under the rather nifty name of Californians Against the Wrong Prescription - Sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (that's Phrma for short).
Over at proposition 78, it is a similar story. There, two groups run by Phrma have raised $55.8m and spent $46.3m. Their opponents have raised and spent, well, nothing.
------------
While all of the donors to the measure backed by the consumer groups and unions are based in California, only 6% of those behind proposition 78 are based in the state.
------------
Imagine what a difference the pharmaceutical companies could make if they put their $80m of campaign money to some constructive use.
Posted: Fri - October 14, 2005 at 07:02 AM