Cory Booker Will "Pause" Fundraising From Big Pharma Becaue It "Arouses So Much Criticism"

[HarmonyRockets]

See, this is why we need to put pressure on our Democrats. Now let's just hope this lasts through to his 2020 bid...

During an interview on NPR’s Morning Edition on Friday, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker announced that he will be pausing fundraising from pharmaceutical companies, a move that comes after months of activist criticism for his vote against allowing drug reimportation to the United States.

NPR’s Rachel Martin prompted the news by asking about his funding from the industry. “You’re in politics so you know that optics matter. You yourself have faced some criticism for taking donations from drug companies. Last month, you suggested you might give some of those back. Have you done that?”

“We’ve put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies, because it arouses so much criticism, and just stop taking it,” he replied, adding that he would prefer to focus on pulling in small donations from regular people.

As Booker noted, he received “much criticism” specifically for his January vote against drug reimportation and his heavy fundraising from the industry alongside it. Both support for, and opposition to, drug reimportation has long been bipartisan — and the divide is more about financial backing from the industry than party. And that financial backing is largely correlated with whether Big Pharma has a sizable concentration of jobs and industry in a particular state. Booker’s New Jersey has a heavy concentration of the pharmaceutical industry. “I come from a Big Pharma state,” said Booker, “and I understand that pharmaceutical companies are making innovations that are life-saving, but something has become terribly twisted if you can go to other countries who can buy drugs that are made and innovated on in the United States and find them for dramatically less costs.”

...

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/30/cory-booker-will-pause-fundraising-from-big-pharma-because-it-arouses-so-much-criticism/

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. That's a positive move, glad to see him make it n/t

[Sneederbunk]

3. Pause? How about a full stop!

[customerserviceguy]

77. Big Pharma

owns every politician in NJ. It's the leading industry in that state.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. I'm sitting here with my neighbor

Having a glass of wine.

She works for "big pharma", is a Democratic, and has given "she thinks" $600 to Booker over two elections.

How is he going to do it? Refund anyone who gives him $100 that works for J & J?

Look - I love the guy! He's awesome. But he's going to have to put a notice on his donation sites that reads: Hunterdon and Somerset County residents! Do you or someone you know work in Big Pharma? Are you a resident of NJ working as an Admin for $30K a year at Merck? Fuck you! I don't want $10 and I don't want your vote! Move along!


********
That would be stupid.

What's next? No Telecom, Banking or Import/Export employees?


He's fooling you and The Intercept op. I'm sorry but this isn't Nebraska, we don't pick corn for a living, and he needs our votes. And - our donations.

Game over square states.

[pirateshipdude]

7. Exactly. Corporatist? No money from anyone who works at a corporation. Eom

[BainsBane]

51. Gun corporations are fine

as well as defense. I've heard all about how they deserve special treatment.

[pirateshipdude]

53. We cannot just pick and chose what manufactured outrage we want to rain on our Democrats. Eom

[BainsBane]

55. Oh, but exceptions are good

But I'm going to hazard a guess that those exceptions only apply to the one politician they were created for.

[pirateshipdude]

56. Ya, well, I bet it is not a Democrat. No way, no how. Eom

[JustAnotherGen]

66. Amen! N/T

[kerry-is-my-prez]

82. I'm a social worker and we give money and even have a lobbyist. We work with the poor, mentally

ill, substance abusers, etc., so let's not get too carried away. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

[pirateshipdude]

83. I do not get what you are saying. I work Health Insurance. Do I get to donate to our Democarts? Eom

[sheshe2]

8. Brava, Bella!

[JHan]

9. Trump recently said the Constitution is archaic, if the GOP gain any ground....

they just might be able to successfully petition for a Constitutional Convention. It's critical the Democrats take the house in 2018...

But ... naw...the outrage is aggregate donations from pharma employees, and no thought how this will impact the Dem war chest. I swear some people DON'T want us to win elections.

I can't with the left anymore.

[grantcart]

14. +1

[tammywammy]

19. I work in an industry many on this board disagree with.

I'm sure there are some that think I shouldn't be donating.

[pirateshipdude]

23. I work Health Insurance. I agree. Eom

[JHan]

30. clearly you are not pure enough to donate to the democratic party..

or something something. /sarcasm

There must be a meme out there with a head desk/facepalm combo.

[JustAnotherGen]

67. Telecom

A Booker donor and voter here.

You (not you Tammy) want me to give to Ryan's opponent or not?

They have a choice - accept that they have people earning high salaries that are their allies - or not. They have a choice.

I hope they choose well.

[George II]

20. On the other hand he can push for small donations of less than $50 and not have to itemize....

....or report ANY details of where they came from or from whom. That way he can look squeaky clean to those demanding "purity".

[pirateshipdude]

24. What about a ten million donation? That, too? Eom

[ismnotwasm]

39. Well said! Makes me wonder who my donations are affiliated with

Considering the hospital I work at and the type of nursing I do.

[dembotoz]

6. Not right or wrong but cause it looks bad

Every day and every way I am less impressed

[George II]

12. "Pricey Whore"? Unbelievable!

[George II]

11. The Intercept? Isn't that a blatantly anti-Democratic site that lambasted Obama....

....relentlessly since it's inception?

Since Booker appeared on NPR, and the article above gave a link to NPR and the complete and full transcript, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to post that instead of the interview filtered through the eyes of The Intercept? It was an in-depth interview that covered a number of issues, and the source of contributions was only 5 sentences (including the question and the answer) Why are those sentences the only ones that The Intercept decided to "report" on?

Here's a link to the NPR transcript without the biased interpretation of The Intercept. Hopefully everyone here will read it and see all the different issues and ideas put forth by Senator Booker:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/30/534969921/sen-cory-booker-on-health-care-and-the-democrats-future

[pirateshipdude]

13. How will we demonize our Democrats, otherwise? Eom

[Gothmog]

18. You have to cite something to attack good Democrats

Senator Booker is a good democrat which irks people who post on JPR

[JNelson6563]

17. Ah, a Booker fan. Got it.

Painful days for you, eh? Sorry 'bout that! That's why I don't throw my lot in with any particular person, they always end up disappointing in one way or another. Or, worse, one can refuse to see any of the bad and consider any and all critics to be "the enemy". Which are you?

[BainsBane]

49. Yeah, but at least he didn't vote

for the Minutemen and civil immunity for the corporate gun industry, or against waiting periods for background checks, or four times against closing Gitmo.

I'm not big on hero worship and Booker seems like most other Dems to me, but I do find blatant double standards annoying.

Edit: Hold on. I just realized that your post was in response to his posting the original interview from NPR. How odd you should find that objectionable. Perhaps you've thrown your lot in with Glen Greenwald? I don't read him much, but that article is deliberately misleading on campaign finance. I find it interesting how many are invested in keeping the public misinformed.

[JustAnotherGen]

68. A Booker voter

Would you rather we have stayed home and let that knuckle dragging mouth breathing Jeff Bell win?

Are you with Blue Jersey or not?

People always give Manchin and Heitkamp voters a free pass. Why are we not afforded the same room to vote for people who are "like" us.


Just be happy he's a Democratic who represents the people in HIS STATE well.

Again - we don't pick corn or mine coal - he's fucking himself over with people who vote for him if those cherry picked sentences in the OP are true. What exactly is the Intercept trying to do? Get some Russian pretending to be an American in his seat?

[JHan]

69. "people who are like us"...

we're just latte drinking coastal elites don't you know...

don't understand the plight of the common man and woman.. we don't care about healthcare either apparently

Blahblahblahblahblahblahblbhalbahbaihbeioahfahofjdajfd

[JustAnotherGen]

87. Yep - people who during

Sandy got out and got homeless folks off the street in Newark. He wasn't playing then - and he isn't now.

That's a strong black man - and he's very much like my dad, my uncles, my brother . . .

[JHan]

89. Same here, men like that in my family as well.

Let them keep hating.

[sheshe2]

21. Thank you for NPRs link George.

[Trial_By_Fire]

25. I believe DUers here can produce their posts the way they want...

[Gothmog]

16. Who cares about Greenwald?

The intercept is Greenwald's rag that is not very accurate or trustworthy. Greenwald has proven to be a hack

[cwydro]

22. Pfft.

This guy is too obvious.

[Trial_By_Fire]

26. Glad to read that...

We need our politicians to first and foremost think of the people's needs...

[ananda]

27. Well, he was really compromised in that respect.

I hope he will now vote against big pharma's interests
in favor of lower drug prices.

[George II]

28. I happened to be in Canada two weeks ago visiting family. All over the news were reports of....

....and increase in drugs from questionable sources, maybe even counterfeit drugs.

The Democrats who voted against importing drugs to the US did so because there weren't enough safeguards in place to make certain they meed FDA requirements.

I'm glad that bill was defeated.

[JustAnotherGen]

71. He would be voting against

Single women making $30 K a year as Administrative Assistants at Merck and J and J.

That would be really stupid of him. I'll be against him if he turns against the average Indivisible member in Central NJ.

Face it - the Democratic Senator from NJ has to accept small donations that add up to Big Pharma Money.

You do realize that when you make a donation to a political campaign you have to ID your line of business - don't you?

[furtheradu]

29. When Booker sat down with John Lewis 💖

on the Capital steps the other night ("something kinda magical happened&quot , he regained my trust & respect.
I liked Booker for many years, & was upset by the Rx co's $..
but I saw the REAL Booker the other night, the one I respected for years ..& again, he is goood with me.

PS ..Y'all think I'm fickle? ! don't judge me!

[Hoyt]

31. Good idea. One reason drugs are so expensive is the entire HC system is expensive.

Arguably one of the aspects that determine what a new drug can fetch is how much it saves. Take the new Hepatitis C drugs that can virtually cure the disease. It costs $80 - $90K here, $55K up in Britain. Yet saving just 2 hospitalizations might save well over $100K, much more with a liver transplant. And it significantly improves the quality of life.

I'm not advocating for high drug prices. In fact I support some kind of cost analysis, profit limits taking into account lost research costs on important drugs, etc., in setting rates. But drug prices are not our biggest problem. At worse, they make up 10% of our total health care costs.

[tirebiter]

32. Anyone offering to make up the deficit?

My first thought when I heard about him being out there with John Lewis was can people give him more than just a little bit of credit for that?

[politicat]

33. My donations are pharma money. Or academic money.

And after January 1, will be "retired" or "unemployed" or "self-employed" money.

Wanna know what I do? I build treatment protocols and I hunt and kill bad drugs. I can claim part of three black box warnings. I was planning to retire if I ever got a drug pulled from the market - that's my goal. I'm unemploying instead because new fed grants are not getting funded and my university is getting pressure from the woo crowd to not engage in pharma research anymore because chemicals bad.

I have directly benefited over 40,000 people in the studies I conducted to find better drug-treatment protocols for PTSD. I have directly benefited hundreds of thousands with those warnings.

After January, I'll be private practice. A reasonable caseload is 35 clients a week, seeing them every week or two weeks. With luck, I can join a large practice as a triage therapist, which is my best skill set when I'm clinical. (I really am research.) With luck, that means I might top out at 300 clients a year. More likely, 35 to 100 a year. I've got maybe 30 years left in my career, at best, if I can stay in research or get back there in a couple years. If I can't get back to research, I'll burn out much, much faster, and then my contribution to society drops. (I have burnt out before. It's a form of hell and I'm useless to clients.)

Those who think they're too good for my Pharma money and that Pharma is evil and only after profit at the expense of some fictional purity that never, ever existed? Please go jump in a lake.

[Trial_By_Fire]

34. Remember that government first and foremost is 'of, by, for The People'...

Government's main job is NOT to make people rich or always side with the corporations. All we have in the Constitution regarding 'business' is the interstate commerce clause. Important absolutely, no doubt.

Given that, pharmaceuticals save People's lives. For a drug company to price their drugs (which usually are invented or funded by the US Gov) such that it is gouging the people, this is *contrary* to the Constitution.

Critical human infrastructure, such as pharmaceuticals, must be extremely regulated.

[mvd]

35. Agreed. Health care is one of the things I am most to the left on

While I understand health care won't be completely free, it should be affordable to all who need it. And if the rich need to chip in to make that happen, make them do it.

[Trial_By_Fire]

48. One of my points is that...

...We need to regulate human infrastructure like pharmaceuticals.

When American drug companies gouge Americans, compared to the exact same drug
made by the same American company, in other countries, then Americans are getting
screwed royally. This is so wrong on so many levels.

And, as I said, much of the research is funded by American taxpayers.

But you see, we have politicians that are 'influenced' by these companies to
vote such that gouging Americans is the norm. And that's why we need to regulate
these companies.

Note that there is no problems with, for example, car manufactures. Cars aren't life or death.
Pharmaceuticals are.

[BainsBane]

63. That's what the FDA was for

Only when people decided not to vote for Clinton, they chose deregulation of not just prescription drugs but banking and everything else. That's what they voted for and that's what they are getting. All the Trump, Stein and write-in voters all chose to further corporate interests at the expense of the people. They also voted against the fed government negotiating group rates for pharmaceuticals, a modification to the ACA that was part of Clinton's healthcare policy.

Booker's campaign contributions by donors employed by pharmaceutical companies are less than he receives from retirees. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00035267&type=I

Booker voted for an amendment providing for importation of prescription drugs, sponsored by Wyden, on the same day he voted against the Klobuchar amendment that Sanders co-sponsored. People ignored that of course because the concern was Bernie, not the policy, which obviously wasn't going to become law anyway.
You see, what legislators do when they want people to vote for their bills is to discuss it with them before bringing it to the floor and make necessary modifications, in this particular case for public safety. But then the goal that day wasn't to gather support for a policy, quite the opposite.

You laughed when George posted the original interview, as though you were put out that someone provided a first-hand source rather than one that deliberately seeks to deceive readers. From the responses in this thread, it looks like a lot of people know nothing about campaign finance law, and I suspect that is because right-wing sites like the Intercept have a vested interest in pushing disinformation to weaken Democrats so that the fascists they favor can gain control. Some benefit from ensuring the public remains misinformed and uninformed. And of course they are succeeding, given how many Americans have no interest in learning anything that doesn't reaffirm their beliefs and, more importantly, validate their emotions.

[NurseJackie]

70. CLARITY. TRUTH. FACTS. (Thank you.)

[Trial_By_Fire]

72. The FDA does not regulate drug pricies...

The situation with drug prices and healthcare have been an issue long before tRump was put into office. Republicans of course will make it worse. Not sure why you begin by writing about Clinton and 'choosing deregulation'. I live in California that went for clinton.

Not even sure why you lump Sanders into this conversation either. According to the article that quoted NPR, it is Booker who will pause from fundraising from drug companies...

I get my news from newspapers, gov sites, and other reliable sources that quote reliable sources. I don't read the Intercept - do I pass your purity clause? All I cared about was the original source that I can verify.

Yes, people are definitively influence by propaganda...

[BainsBane]

73. Why do you think I mentioned group rates

For medicine? The NPR interview is the original source. That is what you ridiculed. You mocked George's linking to the original source.

No candidate fundraises from corporations. It is illegal. That was precisely the disinformation I referenced. The money in question is from employees of those companies.

It's not a question of "purity" but accuracy and truthfulness. Dont repeat propaganda to me and mock original sources and then pretend you care about either.

The fact is any possibility for prescription drug reform has been replaced by a policy of allowing people to die en masses because too many decided those lives didn't compare to their egos. They chose fascism and mass murder, and that is what hey are getting. That disregard for anyone but themselves is something the right and their allies who claim to be on the left have in common.

[pirateshipdude]

74. ACA. My prescriptions are beyond affordable.

That is not here or there, just saying. Thank-you for your efforts to educate.

[Trial_By_Fire]

75. First I did not ridicule NPR. Reading comprehension...

2nd, people do not have to follow your or anybody's else rules for sources. I personally verify all 'news' with multiple sources. That is a good thing.

3rd, I am quite aware of campaign finance laws. One does put in their employment
and occupation info when donating...

4th, as I wrote, I get my news from newspapers, gov sites, and reliable news sources. "Pretend" - really?

5th, "policy of allowing people to die en masses because too many decided those lives didn't compare to their egos. " - what does that supposed to mean? The majority of the people did not vote for tRump. Am I am not responsible for how others voted. I am not sure why you continue to bring these kind of replies - we have to deal with or situation in the present and the future.

[pirateshipdude]

78. I like bottom line. 5. Then lets deal with the issue and not Booker getting donation from people he

represents. Present and future. That is all we are saying.

[Trial_By_Fire]

80. Money in politics influnces how politicians vote.

You do remember the Princeton study showing that most of the legislation that is passed
benefits the 1% and normal people's desires are ignored?

[pirateshipdude]

81. Money in Politics is another issue, another conversation. Booker receiving money from

constituents is the conversation we are having. We want to know just who is allowed to receive our donations per your demands.

[mvd]

64. Good points

Single payer would help to achieve these goals. But since it looks like we need patience, we can at least modify the ACA to include a public option and tougher regulations of pharmaceutical companies. Drug prices are just out of control.

[George II]

85. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most regulated industries of all in the US...

There is an entire government agency, the Food and Drug Administration, that oversees and regulates the pharmaceutical industry.

Sure, drugs manufactured in other countries may have the same composition (not necessarily though), but they're not manufactured under the same conditions or inspected under the same controls as those manufactured in the US. In fact, that was one of the major factors behind Booker and other Senators voting against the recent drug import bill - it didn't contain the safeguards and controls over the imported drugs that those manufactured within the US.

I don't know if I posted it in this thread or elsewhere, but when I was in Canada a few weeks ago there were news stories on the radio and television concerning the safety of drugs manufactured in Canada vs. the US. Apparently even Canada, where drugs are "cheaper", has a problem with drugs manufactured in their own country!

As for "much of the research is funded by American taxpayers", that simply is not true.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193

"The pharmaceutical industry is the largest contributor towards funding research, funding over 60 percent. The government contributes to about a third of the costs, with foundations, advocacy organizations and individual donors responsible for the remaining investments."

Finally, if you think cars aren't "life or death", millions of tires were recalled by Firestone several years ago, and car manufacturers have recalled more than FORTY million of cars containing faulty Takata airbags. These are just two examples of safety initiatives that have saved a number of lives thanks to government regulations and inspection.

[Trial_By_Fire]

86. Here is more information for you....

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-big-pharma-prices-20151027-story.html

"Since the 1930s, the National Institutes of Health has invested close to $900 billion in the basic and applied research that formed both the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, with private companies only getting seriously into the biotech game in the 1980s.

Big Pharma, while of course contributing to innovation, has increasingly decommitted itself from the high-risk side of research and development, often letting small biotech companies and the NIH do most of the hard work. Indeed, roughly 75% of so-called new molecular entities with priority rating (the most innovative drugs) trace their existence to NIH funding, while companies spend more on "me too" drugs (slight variations of existing ones.)"

<more at link above>

---------------------
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50
"For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and ’70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.

The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends—a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012. The first is a familiar story to most academic scientists, who face stiffening competition for federal grants.

But the second trend will probably surprise them. It certainly flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which paints U.S. companies as so focused on short-term profits that they have all but abandoned the pursuit of fundamental knowledge, an endeavor that may take decades to pay off. (This month, for example, Duke University’s Center for Innovation Policy will hold a conference entitled “The Decline in Corporate Research: Should We Worry?”)"


<more at link above>

[phleshdef]

36. He is thinking about 2020.

He has great charisma and intellect, but I am leery of him

[BainsBane]

37. Perhaps you could provide a list of the industries Democrats are allowed to work in?

Because unless you're wholly uninformed about campaign finance, you must know that politicians are only allowed to accept money from individuals, not corporations. That means Booker will no longer accept funds from anyone who works in a pharmacy related company because of public disinformation campaigns.

So which industries make your list of acceptable employers? Should those who work in unapproved industry quit their jobs to please you and Glen Greenwald? Or do they simply need to accept that they have no right to participate in the political process by donating to campaigns?

I gather defense and guns are okay, since support for those corporations have been declared "progressive" due to a certain politician's voting record. I've heard all about how guaranteeing civil immunity for gun corporations is crucial. That industry is treated unfairly. They have every right to profit from genocide. And defense, especially Lockheed Martin, that's necessary because they make some of their multi-billion dollar clunker F-35s in Vermont.

Dare take a job in a company developing medicine to treat illness and you're declared unfit to contribute to candidates. But industries that profit from the deaths of 32,000 people in the US every year and more abroad, that's acceptable. If you're a biochemist, or even a cafeteria employee working for Merc or Eli Lily, you're unfit to participate in the political process, but if your company profits from war and mass murder, no problem.

I do not share the view that mass murder is more acceptable than healthcare. In fact, I think the opposite, and I find the priorities disturbing. I also find it repulsive that right-wingers like Glenwald peddle in disinformation to generate profits for themselves and spread false claims about Democrats and other liberal parties globally in order to promote the rise of White Nationalism.

So what precisely do you propose? That everyone working for drug companies quit their jobs and find work in industries that profit form killing? No more HIV medicine, diabetes medicines, heart medicine--that stuff is evil. What we need are more assault rifles and war machinery.

[JHan]

40. +++ I want to know which Industries are acceptable and which are not as well.

we should get a list.

[bigtree]

41. ask Booker

...he appears to acknowledge the problem with accepting the money.

It's not an indictment of the industry, it's an acknowledgement of the conflict-of-interest, exacerbated and highlighted by his vote against importation. It's fair to point to the connection and question whether he's more loyal to the industry than he's committed to cheaper drugs. He addressed that here, as well.

[pirateshipdude]

44. Didn't he say it is the "perception"? So no, he really isn't saying there is an issue with accepting

the money. Simply that people have been convinced there is a problem. That does not make it true or he is owning anything. They also smeared Clinton as "crooked" though she was one of the most honest in politics.

Once the lynch mob is coming, it is better to step back and let it go, regardless if it makes any kind of sense.

[BainsBane]

46. I don't think so

I think it's perception. I just checked his donations, and like most Democrats the lionshare comes from lawyers. Pharma is relatively far down on the list, after retired. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00035267&type=I

This is from Open Secrets, not my favorite source, but it's what I could find.

[pirateshipdude]

42. What is it? A matter of being uninformed, simply do not know?

Or purposely creating a smear for chaos and destruction?

Btw, excellent post.

[Blue_true]

43. Except for the piling on defense, great righteous rant.

I am no fan of defense spending, we spend a lot of money on the wrong stuff. Iraq showed us that tanks in an assymetrical war just become tombs for our soldiers when hit with an IED that is large enough to blow it literally sky high. But war is a sometimes reality, although we should use all means to avoid it.

I totally agree with you on contributions. Do we want to silence strong Democrats that work for Pharma, Oil and Gas, Petrochemicals, ect? If we do, where do we stop? What is an acceptable industry to work in? Do we want our people working only in renewable energy, electronic technology and organic farms? The preconditions bullshit has to stop.

[BainsBane]

45. Well, I think we spend far too much on defense

and the F-35 in particular is a notorious boondoggle that even John McCain--who never met a war he didn't like--opposes.

That said, my point was about the outrage toward certain sectors of the economy and justification of others that I happen to consider more nefarious. But that's just my personal bias against killing.

[George II]

47. The operative term is "WORK FOR..." The guy that empties the waste baskets at Merck....

...."works for" Pharma. The guy that cleans the rest rooms at Roche "works for" Pharma, the clerk that files paperwork at Johnson & Johnson "works for" J&J.

That's the way it is, and none of those three people are "Big Pharma"!

Better that people contribute as much as they can (within the law) to good, progressive, capable candidates. Sure beats telling one's contributors to keep all your contributions below $50 so that we don't have to itemize them or report who made the contribution.

[Blue_true]

57. Dark money.

During the election, I contributed to one of the Clinton supporting groups during the General. In theory, I was a dark money contributor, but in actuality, I had no fucking desire to influence Hillary if she had become President and would have ignored correspondence for groups affiliated with her had they emailed me for money after she won. I just wanted her to win because the alternative was and has turned out to be unimaginable.

If some big executive of a Pharma company makes the max contribution to Booker and contribute to a Booker related group, but the executive has a history of being a very strong Democrat, do we discard that person's money? If so, then who speaks for our principles in boardrooms when decisions are being made?

I get the sense that people like Greenwald and Assange would be perfectly happy if Democrats disarmed and all allowed themselves to be slaughtered in the streets (a hypothetical, pardon the imagery).

[BainsBane]

62. Of course they would

They are working to promote fascist/nationalist parties taking control all over. Trump was a major victory for them.

[EllieBC]

52. Let the purity tests begin!

And then let the crying and rending of clothing because no one is pure enough start a few weeks after.

[pirateshipdude]

54. That whole purity thing will be the death of us all. One side or the other. Eom

[Blue_true]

38. I am of mixed feelings on this.

His state is a big state for pharmaceuticals. The people that work in the industry live in his state, he represents their interests. Part of their interests is keeping their jobs.

[George II]

50. Precisely! Similar situations in New York and Connecticut....

There are bank branches on every corner in midtown and lower Manhattan, filled with tellers, clerical, housekeeping, and maintenance people. They're not "banksters", they're hard working honest people working hard for a living. But put them all together and you see "big contributions from the banking industry".

Connecticut is still the center of the insurance industry (not what it used to be), where clerks, etc. work. In aggregate they represent a large amount of contributionS (that's PLURAL) from the "insurance industry".

Unfortunately people don't get down into the weeds of contributions but like to jump to conclusions about overall nature of the contributions, always assuming the worst.

Reminder to everyone - NO individual can give more than $2700 to any candidate per year, and NO CORPORATIONS or businesses can contribute even a single penny to candidates.

[Blue_true]

59. Good post. But one correction.

A person can give $2700 to a candidate during the primary and $2700 during the General. So, $5400 per election cycle. I don't contribute during the primary unless I feel super strong that a candidate is the best choice or if we have only one candidate in a jungle primary that has a chance to win. I try to stay out of Democrat versus Democrat races until the primary has selected our candidate (unless I feel strongly about one of the choices).

[Blue_true]

60. For future reference.

If you have a Democrat running unopposed, you should consider contributing the max to that candidate early in the primary if you can. The money can be used to soften up the likeliest republican opponents, if done right, by the time that republican gets to the General, he or she has valid baggage. I used this in 2012 when President Obama ran unopposed. The primary money was used for ads against Romney when it became clear he would be the nominee. Some of those ads were devastating to Romney.

[George II]

61. Thanks. I live in Connecticut where we have publicly funded campaigns.....

....all a candidate needs is a certain number of contributors and a certain dollar value (not sure what either is, maybe 500 contributors and $1500 for a state representative?). Then they get a specified amount of money from the state for their campaign. As it turns out, our candidates just ask for $5 from each of us, it's the number of contributors that is key.

[treestar]

84. Yep

Same with Joe Biden and his credit company support.

[Hieronymus]

58. I trust Senator Booker.

[Expecting Rain]

65. Too bad

Senator Booker will need all the money he can raise to run against Trump (should he last that long) as our party's nominee in 2020.

[pirateshipdude]

79. Sanders, too? Eom

[alarimer]

88. Corporate donations to campaigns need to be banned, period.

The first thing we need to is get rid of Citizen's United.

Secondly, it's disingenuous to claim that he is talking about money he receives from people who happen to work to drug companies or any other. That's way different than companies essentially forcing their employees to donate in their names and then bundling it.

And, Sen. Booker, it's not the criticism that's the problem, IT'S TAKING THE DIRTY MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Because then you do their bidding, if they pay you enough. It's a perfectly legal, though disgusting, way of buying politicians. And Booker, we know whose bidding you do. We are not fooled.

Finally, drug prices are too fucking high. Period. These companies do virtually none of the work themselves. Almost all of the basic science is done on the taxpayer dime and as such needs to be priced according. Fucking vultures, that's all drug companies are.