Clinton Outpaces Rivals In Drug Company Donations

[Purveyor]

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has taken more money from employees of America's 15 biggest pharmaceuticals companies than all of the Republicans who attempted a run for the White House this year combined, according to campaign finance disclosures.

The donations, which were nearly double those accepted by Democratic rival Bernie Sanders, came even as the former senator and secretary of state vowed to curb price gouging in the industry if elected.

Clinton's campaign took nearly $240,000 from employees of the industry between its launch and the end of April, compared with just under $168,000 for all of the Republicans together, including around $1,700 for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to the filings.

The money, a drop in the bucket of Clinton's nearly $190 million in overall individual contributions, has tended to come from people in top jobs: 54 percent of the donors list their position as executive, director, manager or lawyer. Donors and company officials contacted by Reuters declined to comment on the contributions.

Industry insiders say the sector may be drawn to Clinton for a few reasons: She has a good chance of winning against Trump in November, her policies are relatively transparent and predictable, and she's more supportive of international trade than rivals.

MORE...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-pharmaceuticals-idUSKCN0Z22F1

[bobthedrummer]

1. Dillon, Read and Co Inc and the Aristocracy of Prison Profits: Part II (Catherine Austin Fitts 2006)

http://www.narconews.com/Issue40/article1650.html

There are several ways of looking at drugs and drug companies, just to be fair.

[Stallion]

2. It Doesn't Make Much Sense to Invest in Losing Candidates

nm

[TheBlackAdder]

8. Why is there a need to "invest" in a candidate, when both will serve the industry well? Influence!

.


There is no need for them to spend any mney, since Trump and Clinton would benefit their companies.


It has noting to do with ensuring the best candidate gets elected... it's about influencing their decisions afterwards.


So, yes. I guess that influence is an investment.


.

[geek tragedy]

3. nobody donated to the Republican candidates because they're ALL losers nt

[tonyt53]

4. "The donations, which were nearly double those accepted by Democratic rival Bernie Sanders"

So, Bernie accepted at least $120K from the same drug companies. And "nearly double could mean $160K to those that want to push things to an extreme. so the story could have said "Bernie Sanders accepted almost as much in donations from the drug companies than did all of the GOP candidates together". Bernie isn't as lily white as he seems then if he accepted those donations and then condemns Hillary for doing it too.

[NurseJackie]

5. I wouldn't contribute to the losing side either.

[uponit7771]

6. +1, IIRC the Bloomberg poll has tRump with 68% unfavorable among ReThugs !!!

[azurnoir]

7. who said NO to single payer again?

[BobbyDrake]

9. Since you like taking away people's right to participate in the political process based on their job

can we get a full list of industries in which the employees are banned from supporting political candidates? I mean, we went through this same shit with "fossil fuel companies" and now "drug companies."

Just make it clear which Americans you don't want voting, so everyone can see how truly "progressive" you are.