Introduction: Health Care Corporations’ Political Contributions: From Bipartisan to Trumpian
At one time, leadership of large health corporations were circumspect
in their financial support for US politicians and political causes.
They provided some funds directly to politicians and political
organizations, but often amounts given to different parties and
organizations with different ideologies were balanced. Presumably, the
goal was to promote access to whomever was in power at any given time.
With
the rise of Donald Trump, things changed. Many leaders apparently went
all in for Trump and his Republican supporters. In June, 2018
we discussed how CVS channeled money to a “dark money group,” that
promoted Trump administration policies, including repeal of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). In October, 2018,
we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate
contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again
right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates. In
November, 2018,
we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark
money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing,
Democratic politicians. In March, 2019,
we discussed how in the 21st century, health care corporate CEOs’ personal political contributions were
increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or
exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican
party.
Some corporations paused some of their political giving after a mob
whipped up by Trump at a January 6, 2021, rally violently stormed the US
Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 election.
However, within two months they started giving again in support of
Republicans in Congress who voted not to certify the election (see this April, 2021, post, and this July 7, 2021, post).
Now yet another report shows continuing support by large health care corporations for Republican
legislators who supported the nullification of the election.
Health Care Corporate Funding of Politicians Who Would Overturn an Election
On August 17, 2021, Popular Information published The January 6 Corporate Accountability Index. It promised to be results of a comprehensive monitoring efforts of corporate pledges to make changes in their political giving to the “147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election, setting the stage for the riot.” It included several categories of pledge violations. Its results included some of the companies who went back on their pledges as described in our April and July posts. It also included many more companies that did not make it to previous reports. The relevant results by category were as follows
Corporations that pledged to suspend donations to the 147 Republican objectors but directly donated to those Republicans
Not included in previous reports: none
Included in previous reports: Cigna, Eli Lilly
Corporations that pledged to suspend donations to all 147 Republican objectors but violated the spirit of the pledge
Not included in previous reports:
“After January 6, Genentech [part of the “Roche group’] said it would suspend contributions to Republican objectors. Genentech donated $15,000 to the NRCC and $15,000 to the NRSC on June 30.”
“After January 6, Sanofi said it would suspend contributions to Republican objectors. Sanofi donated $15,000 to the NRSC on 3/17.”
Corporations that pledged to suspend all PAC donations and then directly donates to the 147 Republican objectors
Not included in previous reports:
DaVita
Included in previous reports: Abbott Laboratories, Gilead, Novo Nordisk
Corporations that pledged to suspend all PAC donations and then indirectly donated to the 147 Republican objectors
Not included in previous reports:
Baxter International
Included in previous reports: United Healthcare
Corporations that pledged to reevaluate their donation criteria after January 6 and directly donated to GOP objectors
Not included in previous reports:
Amgen, Laboratory Company of America
Corporations that pledged to reevaluate their donation criteria after January 6 and then indirectly donated to the 147 Republican objectors
Not included in previous reports: none
Included in previous reports: CVS
Discussion
As we said before, most health care corporations publish high-minded aspirational statements that promise pluralism, support of the community, and of our representative democratic society. For example, Sanofi Pasteur claims:
Sanofi’s social impact strategy aims to build a healthier, more resilient world by ensuring access to healthcare for the world’s poorest people
However, the new data revealed above, and data discussed in our two previous posts showed that leaders of more and more large health care corporations saw fit to
direct contributions to politicians who promoted anti-democratic
policies. Funding political leaders who would challenge
election outcomes in the absence of very clear evidence of election irregularities seem s
to violate high-minded corporate pledges of inclusiveness like those
above.
Is it that health care corporate leadership just are more interested
in making money than in bettering society, despite their aspirational
mission statements? As we previously discussed, that is a plausible formulation. For example, per the Washington Post in January, 2021,
‘Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for
the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian
bargain,’ said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways
& Means Committee.
On the other hand, maybe it is not just about money. Again, as we said before, by virtue
of being top managers corporations, particular
individuals can control political funds far beyond what they would be able
to control as private persons, and to do so quietly and sometimes anonymously. Corporate leaders may thus be able to promote their own interests through their corporations’ political giving. Those interests may go beyond just personal enrichment. Some may also be interested in personal political power, or have
other ways they might benefit from anti-democratic, authoritarian, even openly
fascist national political leadership. Big industrialists have backed
authoritarian and openly fascist regimes in other countries before, some
to make more money, but in retrospect, some for darker reasons. (See,
for example, this article on how German industrialists financially bailed out the Nazi party in 1932.)
Leaders of large corporations now appear willing to wield large amounts of political power leveraged by the organizations they control. Yet until recently they may have been able to do so without disclosure to society at large. That society may be greatly affected by this power, but when it can be wielded quietly, have had little say in who has it and its uses.
We as health care professionals, policy makers, patients and members of the public at
large deserve to know how health care corporate leadership is directing
money to political causes, and how they benefit from doing so. If they are not doing this in our interests, our we need to make sure things change.