In an indication of just how expensive the special election could get this year, two drug companies wrote checks totalling more than $12 million last week to a ballot initiative campaign fund.

GlaxoSmithKline gave $8.5 million and Amgen Inc. contributed $3.9 million to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America California Initiative Fund.

Experts weren't immediately certain whether a single $8.5 million contribution was the largest ever from a corporation to a California campaign.

But the sum is "kind of unheard of," said Steve Levin, political reform manager at the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonpartisan Los Angeles watchdog organization.

To put the size of the contributions in perspective, the entire drug industry spent about $9.8 million in 2004 on all federal elections, including the presidential race and all congressional campaigns, said Larry Noble, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Unlike California ballot initiative campaigns, which have no contribution limits, giving in federal races is limited to $2,000 from individuals and $5,000 from political action committees.

"We're talking about serious money there," said Noble, whose organization is a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group. "It shows what these ballot initiatives mean to the industry. They view this as an investment. (GlaxoSmithKline) is giving $8.5 million. They've got to look at it as being worth a lot more than that to them."

California voters will choose between two competing prescription drug discount initiatives in the Nov. 8 special election. An industry-backed initiative would allow drug companies to give price breaks to consumers voluntarily. But a second measure backed by consumer-advocacy and labor groups would punish drug companies if they don't give discounts by dropping their products from the preferred list for the state's Medi-Cal program.

If both measures pass, the one that gets more votes will prevail.

"The purpose (of the money) is about educating voters on what our initiative does and what the other initiative does not do," said Denise Davis, a spokeswoman for Californians for Affordable Prescriptions, the drug industry campaign.

"As we move closer to the election date, voters will not be confused at all. They will see that our measure will provide real discounts," she said, predicting that court challenges will block the alternative measure.

Supporters of the other initiative say the drug companies fear they will lose profits if the competing measure is implemented.

"We expected that the world's most profitable industry would stop at nothing to prevent Californians from getting needed discounts for prescription drugs, but the amount they're willing to spend is still breathtaking," said Anthony Wright, director of Health Access, a consumer advocacy group that is backing the measure the drug companies oppose.

The companies' recent contributions are on top of about $10 million that various pharmaceutical companies contributed this spring for signature-gathering to qualify their measure for the ballot.

Proponents of the consumer-backed measure have not created their own fundraising committee yet. Funds to qualify the measure for the ballot came from the Alliance for a Better California, a multiple-issue committee that has raised about $9 million, largely from public employee unions.

© 2005 Sacramento Bee

More on Corporate Influence Over Ballot Initiatives

Go to Home Page