1. corpuscallosum
  2. GlaxoSmithKline Stops Campaign Contributions

GlaxoSmithKline Stops Campaign Contributions

By j7uy5 on December 23, 2008.

GlaxoSmithKline, also known -- to old-timers -- as 
GlaxoWellcomeSmithKlineBeecham, has elected to halt all political
contributions.  Almost.  The corporation itself will not make
any contributions, after having made a total of $585,425 to candidates
in the USA in 2008.  It will facilitate PAC activity by its employees.


GlaxoSmithKline to halt political contributions



LONDON (AP) -- The London-based international drug firm GlaxoSmithKline
announced Monday a global ban on corporate political contributions.



The primary impact will be in the United States and Canada, where the
company has been making contributions to political candidates. The new
policy will also prevent contributions in the more than 100 other
countries where the firm does business.



"We need to ensure that there is no implication whatsoever that
corporate political contributions provide us with any special
privileges," said Chief Executive Officer Andrew Witty, who said all
political contributions had been properly reported.



He said the new policy is part of a companywide effort to be more
transparent in dealings with governments, politicians and candidates...



...Despite the change, the company will still support a voluntary
political action committee in the United States that will allow
eligible employees to make political contributions.


I am not sure how much it reflects a new-found sense of ethics, or
merely cost-cutting.  Either way, it is welcome news. 
However, I doubt that the campaign contributions ever made much
difference.  It is the lobbying that really matters, and that is
where the big bucks go, as reported in the Triangle Business Journal:


GSK's announcement Monday also will not affect the
company's lobbying practices. According to GSK's most recent corporate
responsibility report, the company spent $8.24 million on federal
lobbying activities in the U.S. in 2007.


I wonder what the lobbyists had to say, that was worth over eight million dollars?


Tags
medicine
Politics
Social Commentary

More like this

Obama, Lobbyists - A "More Complicated Truth"
On Father's Day, I received an email from the First Lady celebrating an exemplary father giving back to his community. One line at the end of the message struck me, referring to the "Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee authorized by Obama for America and the Democratic National…
Is the ACA bad for business? Not so, say researchers and business owners
by Kim Krisberg At Palm Beach Groves in Lantana, Fla., a small, seasonal business that ships fresh citrus nationwide, employees have regularly voted between getting a raise or keeping their employer-based health insurance. Health coverage always wins, as many employees' ages and pre-existing…
Weekend Diversion: Don't miss your chance to have a voice
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." -Thomas Jefferson We all have our own unique story in this world, of where we came from, who we are now, and how we've grown to become the person we are. We've all had some…
Stretching stockpiled H5N1
A few weeks ago an FDA advisory committee recommended approval of Sanofi-Aventis's prepandemic H5N1 vaccine, despite data that it required very large amounts of viral antigen (90 mcg) in two doses. At the time it seemed there were far better vaccines available or about to be available. What set…

OMG. It's not "what the lobbyists had to say", M. Corpus. It's "to whom they were able to say it". There's not that much left to say on the subject of American Democracy. That subject had been closed. GlaxoSmithKline is emblematic of the reasons for this.