Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Merck: Doing Business the American Way

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The uproar caused by Texas Governor Rick Perry’s Executive Order mandating the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) for 6th grade girls caused the drug manufacturer Merck to announce it will no longer lobby states to make the vaccine mandatory for school attendance.

In Virginia, the bill to order the mandatory vaccination of young girls passed the State Senate unanimously. One must wonder whether the members of the General assembly who voted for the HPV Vaccine legislation should be willing to have their wives and daughters take this untested drug, first.

Merck has made modest donations to Virginia politicians over the years. In 2006, Merck directly donated only about $13,150. Their donations were split 2:1 in favor of Republicans; for an itemized list of Merck’s 2006 donations, click here. In the last 10 years Merck has made 323 donations totaling $196,859 (click here).

What’s more interesting, however, are the registered lobbyists that represent Merck in Virginia. Merck lists the following registered lobbyists:

Nolen, Christopher R
Finnegan, Kevin M
Pratt, Mark C
Jones, Reginald N
Lombard, Joy M
Bowen, Sandra D

Each one of these individuals, with the exception of Kevin M Finnegan who shows a Bethesda, MD address and may be a direct Merck employee as his email address is given as kevin_finnegan@merck.com, is affiliated with Williams Mullen Strategies, PO Box 1320, Richmond VA 23218.

And this is where it gets interesting, because Williams Mullen is listed in VPAP.org as representing numerous clients before the General Assembly. He is shown having donated $95,186 in 2006 and $781,412 over the last ten years. Unfortunately, there is no itemization of the donations by client, but presumably a significant amount came from Merck. (The individual lobbyists registered as representing Merck have made minor contributions over the years, by comparison.)

In a nutshell one could surmise that Merck created a demand for an unproven–and in all likelihood unneeded–vaccine, lobbied the legislators, and after making some significant contributions to the war-chests of several state politicians, got a bill that pretty much guarantees a market for their drug. Now that’s doing business the American way!

One must also wonder how pro-life legislators will explain this vote to their constituents back home.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

16 responses to “Merck: Doing Business the American Way”

  1. Too Hot To Handle Avatar
    Too Hot To Handle

    The Governor, the Virginia Legislature, and today’s Washington Post editorial page writers must all be a bunch of sexist, misogynist homophobes. How else can you account for not mandating that nine-year-old boys get this vaccine too? This legislation is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

    Does the Governor think that only women are promiscuous and that they spread the disease among themselves? Make every Legislator who voted for this get themselves and their minor sons vaccinated. Vaccinate Clinton and Gingrich while you are at it!

    You can see where this is headed. Merck didn’t have the guts to start with young boys, but they are working on it!

    This whole thing is rope a dope and here is the other half of the story:

    “Vaccinating Men for HPV: New Strategy for Preventing Cervical Cancer In Women?”

    “…Eliav Barr, M.D., of Merck Research Laboratories in West Point, Pa., is leading a study that is testing the efficacy of an HPV vaccine for HPV types 16, 18, 6, and 11 in young men. In addition to their role in cervical cancer, HPV-16 and HPV-18 also cause at least 70% of anal cancers and 70% of precancerous lesions on the penis. Even though penile cancer and anal cancer are rare, the incidence of anal cancer has more than doubled among gay men in the last 30 years…”

    http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/630

    Or

    “Science Daily — A vaccine designed to protect against the most common causes of genital warts and cervical and penile cancer is now being evaluated in young men.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123162300.htm

    Or

    “Homosexual men are requesting a controversial “sex disease” vaccine designed to prevent a female cancer.
    Gardasil protects against the most common of sexually transmitted infections, human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer.
    But HPV also causes genital warts and anal and penile cancer, and men argue the jab would guard against these.
    Many private clinics are offering it to men….”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6342105.stm

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is posts like these that just show how Phil is more interested in spreading innuendo and flaming those who are taken seriously as players in the process than he is in actually getting the facts straight. This time he shows that he simply does not know how the process works.

    When a company wants to make a donation to a candidate, it is done directly from the company. Funneling money from one entity through another to a candidate in order to hide the true donor is a violation of Virginia law. Lobbyists routinely bring checks drawn on their client’s accounts rather than their own business account when the client wants to make a donation to a candidate. And a major company like Merck and a major lawfirm like Williams Mullen are not going to knowingly violate the law to bury a $1,000 check to some candidate.

    Accordingly there is no itemization of donations by client because that would imply a violation of the law. The fact is that the donations are from Williams Mullen itself.

    It is VERY common for lobbying firms to give money to nearly every member of the Assembly. Why? Because, right or wrong, legislators seem to be willing to take a moment to talk to a person who comes check in hand. If you look further in VPAP, you will see that every major law firm with a lobbying arm and every independent lobbying firm gives scads of money out. It is the cost of doing business for them as a lobbying operation and does not represent their client’s donations, especially since many firms have a client list that changes year to year.

    Here is the donation pattern of the firm to General Assembly members overall for the last three years:

    2006: $37,813
    2005: $41,682
    2004: $41,473

    So in the year running up to the big push, Williams Mullen gave LESS to GA members than they did the previous two years. Merck must have pumped in big dollars to make that happen. And I am sure that these lawmakers were influenced by the gifts of $250 and $500 they got from the firm in most cases. That made a splash in the campaign account when compared to the four and five figure checks companies like Verizon and Dominion hand out like candy to the lawemakers. Even Merck made no direct donation of less than $500 directly so I doubt they are worried enough to hide a $250 check that the would somehow illegally funnel through they lobbyist,

    What donations Merck made, it made directly. The record is pretty compelling in that regard. And once again, Phil proves he knows nothing about nothing–except promoting innuendo and dissension. Ken Hutcheson had him pegged. And this is why no one takes Phil seriously who actually has influence in VA politics.

    Oh, and before you ask. No, I am not a lawyer. I am not a lobbyist. I do not work for Williams Mullen or Merck. I am not a member or employee of the General Assembly. I have also never been one of the above although I know a ton of people who fall into each of those groups. I am just a policy junkie who likes to surf the blogs.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/02/28/on-the-hpv-vaccination/

    http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/676-More-on-Mercks-Virginian-money-grab.html

    http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/664-An-Assembly-of-Errors.html

  4. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anon 3:00: It’s nice to know that members of the “Ken Hutcheson Fan Club” are still around…

    I’m not sure where you’re getting your figures, but if you look up the hyperlinks I provided in my post you’ll see that Williams Mullens gave $95,186 in 2006 (not $37,813 as you state). The figures you have for 2005 and 2004 are also wrong; they’re $106,359 for 2005 and $74,067 for 2004. Like I said, over the last ten years, he’s donated $781,412, which I believe you will agree should open a lot of doors.

    If you look at VPAP’s list of top donnors for 2006, you’ll see that it lists some 50 donors having donated anywhere from $96,000 to $564,601. There are only ten donors exceeding $200,000, a number of which are committtees like “Kaine Inaugural 2006” or “McDonnell Inaugural Committee 2006.”

    In other words, when making donations around the $75,000 to $105,000 mark each year, Willims Mullen and/or his firm are considered Top Donors.

    I find it interesting that you have nothing to say for or against the legislation. But then again, why bother contributing to the dialogue when I personally make more of a tempting target?

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You did not read what I wrote.

    The figures I mentioned were direct contributions to the General Assembly…you know, gifts to the people who had a say in the process. But since you bring it up, let’s look at the rest of the money.

    Hmmm. $17,500 of it went to inaugural committees over a year ago. I think there was an inauguration then or something.

    $31,000 went to caucuses. That seems higher than usual, but many lobbyists subscribe to a caucus events package annually and it appears that Williams Mullen may have paid their $10,000 to the Commonwealth Victory Fund right before the end of the year. I assume that is their ’07 package donation but if there is another gift in early ’07 to the CVF, then I will stand corrected. If you take that out, the amount donated to caucus is about the same as every other year.

    They gave $4,500 to leadership committees, which is about half of what they gave in ’05. $1,500 to McDonnell and Bolling’s PAC. $1,000 to the Speaker’s PAC, same as ’05. $500 to a PAC that was formed to help elect Chris Peace. Oops. He voted against the proposal. Must have been money wasted.

    They gave $4,373 to other PACs. $3,000 of it went to the Hospital Association. They might have an interest in the bill. I doubt a lot of these vaccines will be given in a hospital setting although I could be wrong on that. I doubt the gifts to the Engineers PAC and the General Contractors did much to help the pro-vaccine cause.

    That’s your whole $95,186. Not a lot of smoking gun there for all the innuendo you tossed around.

    Now I agree with you that the firm (and it is a THEY, not a he), gives a lot of money each year. But that is a lot different than the implication you made that Merck was funneling money through them to influence lawmakers. That is implying a crime and there is NO evidence that it happened based on the VPAP records or anything else. If anything they ramped down their giving in ’06.

    So being wrong, you decide to change your argument mid-stream and go with the old chestnut that they must be evil because they just donate a lot of money. OK, if that is what you want to believe. But if that is the new standard, is Jerry Parker evil for donating $160K to influence the process in 2006?

    Or let’s look at their law firm/lobbysit competition since that is more relevent. Is McGuireWoods evil for throwing $145K around? Or Reed Smith for spending $112K? Or Troutman Sanders for $132K? Or Hunton and Williams for $99K? In fact, of the six major law firms that have lobbying arms working the GA, Williams Mullen was #5 on the list. Hard to make a splash that way.

    Do they give a lot of money? Sure they do. Does it open doors? I am sure it does. Does it mean that Merck sent money laundered through the firm as you implied when you wrote “Unfortunately, there is no itemization of the donations by client, but presumably a significant amount came from Merck.” No. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Why, because like I said before, there would be no wat to itemize donations on a client-by-client basis for them or from any lobbying firm, because they cannot give money on behalf of a client or wash money through for a client. The system does not permit that sort of behavior and I doubt that one of the largest law firms in Virginia or one of the largest drug companies in the world is going to break the law to funnel some small checks.

    So, since this is a long post, lets recap for anyone still reading. You put up a post basically accusing a drug company and a law firm of skirting the law to influence legislation when it is clear that it did not happen. That gets blown away, but instead of rectifying the errors, you try and change the argument to being a big donor is wrong that I malign you instead of addressing the issue of the vaccine.

    I did not post to address the issue. I personally have no real feelings on this one either way. Just not something I am all that fascinated by. Much more interested in the transportation issue. I did posted only because you blatently slimed decent people in order to make your point. And that is MY issue in all this. It seems like that is your style

    Finally, let’s take your logic to the next level about pro-life legislators having to answer for receiving a donation from Williams Mullen. If lawmakers were to adhere to your standard, should pro-life lawmakers turn down contributions from the lobbyists who represent the trade association for the phatmaceutical industry because one of the members manufactures RU-486? Should anti-tax lawmakers stop taking donations from McGuire Woods because one of the many clients they represent is a group that advocated for the ’04 and ’06 tax increases? Should observant Baptist legislators not accept a dime from Troutman Sanders because one of their long list of clients is Anheuser Busch? Its an absurd position to take.

    Phil, the bottom line is this. You put up a post that used innuendo to smear a law firm in order to have something interesting to say. If you want to debates the merits of the vaccine, that is certainly a valid topic. But when you use it to engage in innuendo and conspiracy theories instead of sticking to the facts, you contribute to everything that is wrong in the blogosphere. And that is the issue I am interested in.

  6. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anon: So let me get this straight.

    A bad, and in all likelihood totally unnecessary, bill gets through with wide majorities and little scrutiny. It later comes out that there is very little justification for implementing these untested and possibly dangerous vaccines. They’re expensive and they’re going to cost us–the taxpayers–big money. And it’s probably all for nothing since they do very little good in protecting young girls.

    Merck generates a demand for their vaccine, by convincing state legislators across the country to vote for this bill. They basically create a market for their product out of thin air. I point out the connection between Merck, the lobbyists that represent them and the big bucks they’ve dumped into the coffers of Virginia politicians that voted for this bill.

    And somehow all this is innuendo and conspiracy theories? I don’t get it.

    But you obviously don’t care about this issue. As you stated, you’re on a mission to fight everything that’s wrong in the blogoshpere. Well my friend, that’s not the topic of this post.

    If you want to fight what you perceive is wrong, let me give you a hint: Start posting under your real name and stop hiding under a pseudonym.

  7. Too Hot to Handle Avatar
    Too Hot to Handle

    It is not just bad legislation, it is sexist!

  8. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    to hot to handle said: “It is not just bad legislation, it is sexist!”

    You’re right, but I didn’t want to bring that up, lest I’d be accused of more innuendo and conspiracy theories… 🙂

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Phil: This really shows what a moron you are. In your originial post, as well as in a follow up, you refer to Williams Mullen as a “he,” as in “he’s donated …” Williams Mullen is a major law firm, with about 400 lawyers. It’s not a particular person. What a goofball you are.

  10. GATC Avatar
    GATC

    This is bullshit. Gardasil is an “approved” vaccine. GSK will be following on soon with their version. Since this is a VA blog, perhaps you might want to talk to the folks over in Elkton. The last I heard, the bulk manufacture was to be done there. Hey, but then Elkton is not in NoVA or Richmond now is it?

  11. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anon 8:56: I was wondering how long it would take you to degenerate to name calling…

    FYI, the VPAP listing only shows the name “Williams Mullen” it doesn’t make reference to the company.

  12. analog man Avatar
    analog man

    Wow. Anon, you are my new hero.

    Phil, your rant ranks right down there with the lefties on RK and elsewhere who are wailing that the electric regulation bill must be bad because Dominion (the state’s largest investor) makes a lot of political contributions. Actually, correct that. Your rant is a new low. The lefties are not tossing around defamatory words like beads on Bourbon Street. You plainly are, at least in my opinion.

    I expect better of Bacon’s Rebellion.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    While I am underwhelmed by a lot of what you have to say Phil, I would never call you a moron. I am the author of the two long posting as Anon but not 8:56.

  14. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    GATC, Your comments and observations are welcome. Your profanity isn’t.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “FYI, the VPAP listing only shows the name “Williams Mullen” it doesn’t make reference to the company.”
    –Phil Rodokanakis

    Umm, Phil? There was NEVER a person with that name. It is the last name of two of the founders, both of whom formed the firm in 1909. Doubt they are practicing law today.

    Now this is a small point, but it goes to the heart of the fact that you have a nasty habit of “ready, shoot, aim” when it comes to putting sensationalism ahead of the facts. You could have looked up the firm’s website to see what it was about, but you didn’t bother. After all, why be let the facts get in the way of a wild accusation?

    The fact that you did not know “Williams Mullen” was not a person shows you knew NOTHING about that firm when you wrote your post. You made no attempt to check any fact beyond the absurd, smear conclusions you drew about the people who work there.

    It is things like this that leave you open to the larger accusations that you are a fringe guy who is more interested in pontificating than you are in bringing any sort of intellectual rigor to the table.

    And you know what is saddest of all? Your point about the vaccine itself may have some validity. And many of your points on the need to reduce the size and scope of government ring true to me. But it is guys like you who choose to shoot from the hip that causes many Virginians to think that all thinking conservatives are wild-eyed kooks.

    You are not doing the conservative movement any favors, Phil. You really aren’t.

  16. tobias jodter Avatar
    tobias jodter

    Here’s the bottom line: Is the amount of money that Merck is lobbying the feds and state govts to spend on their vaccine justified. Is there truly an epidemic out there that requires govt intervention without any public debate?

Leave a Reply

Read More