The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: robert menendez
Opponents Of Drug Pricing Reform Among Top Recipients Of Pharma Funds

Opponents Of Drug Pricing Reform Among Top Recipients Of Pharma Funds

By Ahmed Aboulenein and Carl O'Donnell

(Reuters) - Democratic Party lawmakers holding up proposed drug pricing reforms are among the largest beneficiaries of the pharmaceutical industry's push to stave off price cuts, a Reuters analysis of public lobbying and campaign data shows.

The industry, which traditionally gives more to Republicans, channeled around 60% of donated campaign funds to Democrats this year. It has spent over $177 million on lobbying and campaign donations in 2021.

Political action committees (PACs) run by Pfizer Inc and Amgen Inc and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) were among the biggest donors, according to political spending data from OpenSecrets, formerly the Center for Responsive Politics.

Drugmakers are seeking to block laws that would give the U.S. government authority to negotiate prices for prescription medicines. Current U.S. law bars the government's Medicare health insurance program from negotiating drug prices directly.

Many of the Democrats opposing an ambitious drug reduction bill proposed in the House of Representatives are among some of the biggest recipients of drug manufacturer lobbying funds.

They include Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Representative Scott Peters of California, OpenSecrets data covering industry donations through September of 2021 shows. In all, they have received around $1 million in pharmaceutical and health product industry donations this year.

A spokesperson for Sinema did not respond to a request for comment on the funds she has received but said the Senator supports making drugs as cheap as possible for patients.

Menendez and Peters said the donations did not influence their views. All three said they are opposed to The Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which is sponsored by Democrats in the House of Representatives and also known as H.R.3.

Menendez and Peters have advocated for alternative scaled-back drug pricing reforms that would still allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices but would lead to significantly smaller savings.

Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, who is also one of the top recipients of drugmaker donations, voted in favor of H.R.3.

Sinema, who campaigned in 2018 on cutting drug prices, told the White House she opposes allowing Medicare to negotiate them. She received about $466,000 from the industry in 2021, according to OpenSecrets data.

Peters was the top recipient of pharmaceutical industry funds in the House this year at nearly $99,550, according to OpenSecrets data. A spokesperson said Peters was not influenced by lobbying money and opposed the proposed law to protect pharmaceutical industry jobs and innovation.

Drugmakers say the Democrats' proposed drug price overhaul would undermine their ability to develop new medicines, an argument they have used whenever price cuts are discussed by politicians regardless of political party.

"Patients face a future with less hope under Congress' current drug pricing plan," PhRMA Chief Executive Steve Ubl said in an August statement in reference to the proposed law. PhRMA declined to comment on donating to key Democratic opponents of the bill.

The United States is an outlier as most other developed nations do negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.

Amgen did not immediately respond to requests for comment on its donations and Pfizer declined to comment.

Prospects For Reform

President Joe Biden has vowed to cut medicine costs, in part by allowing the federal government to negotiate drug payments by Medicare, which covers Americans aged 65 and older.

But prospects for major drug pricing reforms have stalled in recent weeks amid opposition from centrist Democrats including Sinema and Peters. Negotiations are ongoing, eight Democratic staffers said.

The lawmakers' resistance comes as 83% of Americans support allowing Medicare to negotiate medicine costs, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. The United States spends more than twice as much per person on drugs as other wealthy economies, about $1,500, for a total of around $350 billion in 2019.

"Members of Congress don't always mirror the views of the public and the pharmaceutical industry is a powerful lobbying force," said Larry Levitt, a health economist at Kaiser.

The healthcare industry is the second largest industry lobbying group in the United States behind the finance sector. It donated more than $600 million to politicians ahead of the 2020 elections.

The pharmaceutical industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars per year to sway federal and state policy. But current Democratic leadership has the industry concerned major reforms could actually be enacted and is working harder to offer alternatives such as reducing insurance co-pays, one industry source said. "It's been sort of a mad scramble."

Corporations in the United States are not permitted to make direct contributions to candidates but can give money through PACs. Most corporate PACs, including Pfizer's and Amgen's, are run by company managers and employees.

Democrats and some drug price experts say the Lower Drug Costs Now Act could save U.S. taxpayers and consumers billions annually with relatively minor impact on innovation.

A House Oversight and Reform Committee report showed that top drugmakers have spent around $50 billion more on share buybacks and dividends than research and development between 2016 and 2020.

Lovisa Gustafsson, a healthcare policy analyst at the Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit healthcare advocacy group, said, "There are other ways that we can incentivize innovation, aside from just paying huge margins for pharmaceutical companies."

(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein in Washington and Carl O'Donnell in New York; Editing by Caroline Humer and Bill Berkrot)

Justice Dept Hits Back At Senator Menendez In Court Filings

Justice Dept Hits Back At Senator Menendez In Court Filings

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department on Monday filed a stinging rebuke to U.S. Senator Robert Menendez’s bid to have political corruption charges against him dismissed.

Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was indicted in April for bribery, accused of accepting up to $1 million worth of lavish gifts from Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist, in exchange for political favors.

The two men, who are close friends, pleaded not guilty in April to the charges. Menendez was released without bail and Melgen was released on $1.5 million bond.

In pretrial motions both men sought to have the case against them dismissed and alleged misconduct in the investigation by U.S. prosecutors.

This was given short shrift by U.S. prosecutors in their own 65-page filing.

“The defendants’ motions are replete with so many factual inaccuracies and material misrepresentations that it is difficult to dismiss them as simply inadvertent,” lawyers for the U.S. government wrote.

They added: “Perhaps most troubling, the defendants accuse the government of concealing evidence from the grand jury, while themselves concealing from the court evidence material to their allegations.”

Abbe David Lowell, a lawyer for Menendez, declined to comment on the government’s court filing. Lawyers for Melgen did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

(Reporting by Lindsay Dunsmuir; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, makes remarks during hearings on “Corruption, Global Magnitsky and Modern Slavery – A Review of Human Rights Around the World”, on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 16, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Theiler

Menendez Joins Debate On Iran, Cuba From Newly Weakened Position

Menendez Joins Debate On Iran, Cuba From Newly Weakened Position

By Jonathan Tamari, The Philadelphia Inquirer (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Tuesday was seemingly made for Sen. Robert Menendez.

Two of the top priorities of his congressional career — U.S. relations with Iran and Cuba — were pushed to the forefront, each reaching a critical decision point.

But after years of leading on both fronts, Menendez, D-N.J., joined the debate Tuesday from a newly weakened position, having given up his seat as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee as he faces federal corruption charges.

“He’s still there, but his wings are clipped,” said Peter Feaver, who served in national security posts in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Menendez has been one of Congress’ most influential hawks on Iran and Cuba, bucking the Obama administration on both as he rose to the top of the committee.

“This would have been Menendez’s moment,” Feaver said. “Those two issues have never before been as prominent at the same time … with the opportunity for policy decisions that would have tremendous consequences and set the agenda for a decade or more to come.”

Ironically, key moves involving both countries arrived Tuesday during Menendez’s first Foreign Relations hearing since returning to rank-and-file status.

On Iran, the committee voted unanimously to advance a bill with his name on it that would give Congress oversight on any final deal between the United States, international powers, and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.

While Menendez drafted the measure with the chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the final version was negotiated by Corker and Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., Menendez’s replacement.

As the committee voted on that compromise, the Obama administration announced plans to remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, a move Menendez has ferociously opposed.

Menendez still had a say in each debate — and was lavishly praised by his colleagues for his work — but he no longer has the formal clout that comes with a ranking post.
Before, “he had arguably one of the most important Democratic perches outside of the executive branch” on foreign policy, said Feaver, who teaches at Duke University.

Now that perch belongs to Cardin, who is more closely aligned with the White House on Iran and Cuba.

When the committee filed into the room for its meeting, it was Cardin, not Menendez, who sat immediately to Corker’s left. Then came Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and then Menendez.

The seemingly minor shift visualized the change in a chamber steeped in hierarchy and protocol.
Menendez gave up his post as top Democrat after being charged with accepting lavish gifts in exchange for using his influence to help a campaign donor.

He has said he followed the law and has vowed to be vindicated, but temporarily stepped down so as not to cause a distraction for his party, spokeswoman Patricia Enright wrote in an email.
Menendez, his aides, and other senators said he remains influential.

“I’m playing just about every role I would (have), for all intents and purposes,” Menendez said as reporters mobbed him to ask his take on the Iran bill’s final compromise.

Menendez spoke with both Corker and Cardin as the compromise was made, Enright said, making his input known. And the staff Menendez hired remains on the committee under Cardin, leaving his team with hands-on influence.

Menendez praised the bill that cleared the committee, and had enough fight to jab, “I’ve got to believe that the administration, if they were smart, would embrace this bill.”

Corker, Cardin and others went out of their way to praise Menendez.

Corker opened Tuesday’s meeting by saying, “I can’t imagine a member being more constructive,” and adding that Menendez’s leadership helped make significant legislation possible. (He chaired the Foreign Relations Committee until Republicans took control early this year.)

Cardin said that Menendez deserves “strong thanks” and that he “did not want to become the ranking member under these circumstances.”

He added, “I hope that Senator Menendez’s issues will be resolved very quickly.”
Menendez praised Cardin as a replacement.

Later, the son of Cuban immigrants blasted Obama’s decision to remove Cuba from the list of sponsors of terrorism, saying it “sends the wrong message.”

Cardin, though, called it “an important step” toward “a more constructive relationship with Cuba.”

Earlier, there was a more subtle sign of the shift in standing.

Asked if he would support the compromise Iran bill, Menendez said, “I have to see the final version, but if it’s as it was explained to me by Senator Cardin, the answer is yes.”

A few weeks ago, the Democrat working out the final version and explaining it to colleagues would have been Menendez.

(c)2015 The Philadelphia Inquirer, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Photo: www.glynnlowe.com via Flickr

Menendez Same-Day Service Seen Upending His Just Friends Defense

Menendez Same-Day Service Seen Upending His Just Friends Defense

By David Voreacos and Susannah Nesmith, Bloomberg News (TNS)

NEWARK, N.J. — For federal prosecutors, the timing of favors by Sen. Robert Menendez will be the key to their bribery case against him.

No mentions of videotapes or explicit e-mails showing a quid pro quo between Menendez and Salomon Melgen, a Florida eye surgeon, appear in their indictment. Instead, the government will likely rely on witnesses and circumstantial evidence to prove a corrupt link between Menendez’s actions and Melgen’s gifts to him, said former prosecutors who reviewed the 68-page indictment.

Some of Menendez’s favors came the same day, or within days, of those gifts. In all, the New Jersey Democrat is accused of taking almost $1 million in campaign donations, luxury travel, opulent vacations and other gifts to further Melgen’s interests.

The senator intervened to help Melgen in a Medicare overbilling case, a contract dispute with the Dominican Republic and visa applications for three girlfriends, according to the Justice Department.

“The same-day service is perhaps the most damaging evidence against Menendez and Melgen,” said Scott Coffina, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice. “The closer in time, the stronger the inference that it’s a quid pro quo.”

The events of the spring and summer of 2012, as charged in the indictment, illuminate Coffina’s point.

On May 16, 2012, Melgen gave $20,000 to a Menendez legal defense fund and $40,000 to a New Jersey Democratic committee backing his re-election, according to the indictment. That same day, Menendez also met with a State Department official to discuss Melgen’s contract dispute.

On June 1, Melgen gave $300,000 to a super PAC backing Menendez, prosecutors said. Six days later, the senator met a top administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which had ruled Melgen overbilled Medicare by $8.9 million, according to the government.

On Aug. 2, Menendez met with Kathleen Sebelius, then Health and Human Services secretary, the U.S. said. The senator focused “on Melgen’s specific case” and argued that “Melgen was being treated unfairly.”

Sebelius told him that “because Melgen’s case was in the administrative appeals process, she had no power to influence it,” according to the government.

Menendez, 61, and Melgen, 60, were charged April 1 with conspiracy, bribery, honest services fraud and violating the Travel Act. Menendez also is accused of making false statements. Both men pleaded not guilty and face a July 13 trial in federal court in Newark.

After his indictment, Menendez temporarily stepped down as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The senator rejected the Justice Department case as an attempt to prosecute a friendship that has lasted 20 years. Any favors between the two men stemmed from that relationship, he said, not corruption.

His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said earlier that the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section has brought bad cases before, and has done so again.

“Because there was a real friendship and not a corrupt relationship, and because Senator Menendez’s actions were proper, this case too will become another of those mistaken cases,” Lowell said last week. He declined to comment on the case Monday.

The government sought to connect dots in its indictment that point toward a more transactional relationship.

Prosecutors alleged that Melgen’s $300,000 donation to Majority PAC was “in return for Menendez’s advocacy at the highest levels of CMS and HHS on behalf of Melgen in his Medicare billing dispute.”

In October 2012, Menendez gave another $300,000 to Majority PAC and $75,000 to Democratic county committees in New Jersey.

Prosecutors also detailed how Melgen paid for golf and a steak dinner for Menendez on Jan. 10, 2013. A day later, a Menendez staffer emailed an employee at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, seeking to stop the agency from donating equipment to the Dominican Republic to screen cargo in ports.

Melgen owns a company that claims to have a contract to provide X-ray inspection services of containers at those ports. Giving away such equipment “would hurt Melgen’s financial interests,” according to the indictment.

Peter Zeidenberg, another former federal prosecutor, said Menendez may counter that gifts from Melgen that were followed by action by the senator’s office are a coincidence, not sinister. The timing of events, however, may
undermine such an argument as far as a jury is concerned, said Zeidenberg.

“The closer in time these events are, the harder it is for Menendez to say these are completely unrelated,” he said.

“Prosecutors have to demonstrate that, irrespective of any friendship that may have existed, the acts taken by Senator Menendez grew more out of a business relationship than a real friendship,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor.

Bruce Udolf, another ex-federal prosecutor, said vacations the two men took together are more easily defended as the activities of friends.

Menendez may have a harder time defending Melgen’s gift of a suite at a luxury Paris hotel. Prosecutors said Melgen paid with his American Express rewards points, and Menendez stayed with a woman.

Melgen wasn’t on that trip.

The Paris trip and a 2010 weekend at the Dominican resort Punta Cana were among the gifts prosecutors cited in charging Menendez with honest services fraud. The U.S. said the senator filed annual financial disclosure forms that omitted Melgen’s gifts, including those trips.

Menendez sought to exercise his influence for corrupt purposes on specific matters and “as opportunities arose,” the government alleged in several of the bribery counts.

The Menendez case bears similarities to the federal prosecution of former New Jersey state Sen. Wayne Bryant, who was convicted in 2008 of honest services fraud.

An appeals court upheld that conviction, ruling prosecutors can show a “stream of benefits” and need not tie each official action to a corrupt payment.

Prosecutors can show “a course of conduct of favors and gifts flowing to a public official in exchange for a pattern of official actions favorable to the donor,” the appeals court ruled in 2011. Payments may be intended “to retain the official’s services on an ‘as needed’ basis, so that whenever the opportunity presents itself, the official will take specific action on the payor’s behalf.”

For gifts, that evidence may be implicit, said former federal prosecutor Lee Vartan. For political contributions, prosecutors must meet the higher burden of showing an explicit quid pro quo agreement.

“For a big piece of the indictment, the government is going to face a high legal burden to show an explicit agreement between Menendez and Melgen,” said Vartan.

Former Miami U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey agreed.

“It would be very difficult to bring charges simply because a public official receives campaign contributions and undertakes actions on behalf of the contributor,” he said. “That happens every day in the halls of Congress.”

Even if the defense succeeds in sowing doubt on the bribery counts, Menendez may face a harder road fighting charges that he failed to report the gifts.

Udolf said that while proving guilt on bribery may be tough, proving Menendez lied about gifts may not be.

“You could debate all day long whether or not someone did something in exchange for some sort of benefit,” said Udolf. “But it’s pretty black and white where he doesn’t declare the benefit he got.”

Prosecutors would still be successful if Menendez is convicted only of failing to disclose gifts, said Udolf, a former chief of the Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office Public Integrity Unit.

“It’s one of those cases where it really doesn’t matter if he gets one year in jail or five years,” he said.

(David Voreacos reported from Newark, N.J. Susannah Nesmith reported from Miami.)

(c)2015 Bloomberg News, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Photo: Latino Leaders Network via Flickr