US drug firms hedge their bets on election

The US presidential election may involve three candidates who are considered to be "pharma-unfriendly" (Marketletters passim), but that has not stopped drugmakers from funding their least bad options, or perhaps attempting to ingratiate themselves with the eventual winner. Most of the money is going to the two Democratic party candidates, which may seem surprising for a number reasons.

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) won her party's primary in one state where the drug industry is a significant economic power, New Jersey, and she is projected by the opinion polls to win the next primary, in neighboring Pennsylvania, which is also home to major drug firms, on April 22, by a large margin. Sen Clinton is a long-term supporter of universal health care, which could have the advantage for the pharmaceutical sector of creating a large guaranteed market versus the almost inevitable price controls inherent in such a scheme. To date, she is the runner-up in the list of drug industry recipients of political donations with $177,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Pfizer's chief executive, Jeff Kindler, is reported to have donated the maximum amount permitted to an individual in one reporting period, $2,300, on two occasions to Sen Clinton.

The Democratic front-runner for the nomination, based on primaries held before the second half of April, Sen Barack Obama (Illinois), has received slightly more, $185,000, than his rival. However, his health care policies are perceived as almost identical to those of the New York Senator, although one observer considered him less likely to regulate or ban direct-to-consumer drug advertising.