Blogs home Staff blogs Congressional Briefing
Roberts helped preserve drug company advertising
Here are today's headlines from the Kansas congressional delegation:Sen. Pat Roberts (R)![][1][(Wall Street Journal) Media Industry Helped Drug Firms Fight Ad Restraints:][2] When the Democratic-led Congress started debating a big Food and Drug Administration bill earlier this year, pharmaceutical companies worried that it would sharply restrict one of their most powerful sales-boosting tools -- drug ads. But in the final bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly on Wednesday and the Senate last night, such marketing is largely spared. One major reason: the drug industry found powerful allies among media and advertising firms who were determined to protect one of their biggest and fastest-growing advertising categories. ... The lobby solicited letters from legal scholars and groups across the political spectrum testifying that the moratorium would violate the First Amendment and would likely be struck down by courts. In the Senate, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts fought against the moratorium and won when his amendment was added to the bill. In the House, a subcommittee voted to kill the moratorium by adopting an amendment co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York.Rep. Dennis Moore (D) ![][3][(Government Technology) County Lobbying Effort Stalls 'HAVA II':][4] H.R. 811, the so-called "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act," would make sweeping amendments to the Help America Vote Act. Jurisdictions in 12 states: Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia -- and statewide in five states: Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina -- would need to eliminate all use of electronic voting equipment that does not print out a paper record of every vote before the presidential election in 2008. ... Reps. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) and Tom Petri (R-Wis.) are rallying members of Congress around an amendment to bar the bill's requirements from taking effect until Congress pays the full tab and certifies that new voting equipment will meet the requirements of the bill. They presented House leaders with a letter on Sept. 4 signed by 21 members of Congress -- most of whom are members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition and cosponsors of H.R. 811 -- citing "deep concerns" about the cost and feasibility of H.R. 811 in its current form and seeking the opportunity to offer amendments to address its "unfunded mandates and unreasonable deadlines." [1]: http://roberts.senate.gov/Roberts-020405-18060-080-CFFflipped.jpg [2]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119033330771134605.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [3]: http://ljworld.com/specials/election04/primary/moore.jpg [4]: http://www.govtech.com/gt/146143?topic=117671
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Your Favorite Patriotic Song - Songs That Make You Salute! July 2, 2009 · 117 comments
- Shooting in Douglas County sends Eudora man to hospital, suspect turns gun on himself July 5, 2009 · 19 comments
- Increased government control poses threat to America July 4, 2009 · 53 comments
- Palin links her resignation to ‘higher calling’ July 5, 2009 · 45 comments
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009 · 37 comments
- Three detained after Sunday nightclub shooting July 5, 2009 · 43 comments
- Blog: Sarah Palin: With Interest July 4, 2009 · 131 comments
- Tiller murder suspect advocates ‘justifiable killing’ via mail from jail July 5, 2009 · 21 comments
- Lifetime battle: From FDR to Obama, a fight for health care July 5, 2009 · 6 comments
- Poll: What do you do when you have a bad experience at a restaurant? July 5, 2009 · 13 comments
- A new reign: Lawrence landmark the Castle Tea Room open again after extensive renovations July 5, 2009
- U.S. must restore faith in monetary system July 5, 2009
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009
- Lawrence booms with festivities July 5, 2009
- 1999 murder case won’t settle July 5, 2009
- School district needs to cut $500K more July 3, 2009
- Free State Brewing Co. and WheatFields among 8 Wonders of Kansas Cuisine June 19, 2009
- Restaurant inspector stresses education July 5, 2009
- Castle Tea Room offered good first job for former Lawrence resident July 5, 2009
- Having the money talk: Financial communication essential for couples June 29, 2009
21 September 2007
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jasonc_22 (Anonymous) says…
thanks so much, senator- you actually fought to ensure all of your constituents will continue paying more than they should for prescription drugs. Who's senator are you, sir, mine or big pharma's?
21 September 2007
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
jason
So let me get this right ….. you believe the government should put restrictions on pharmaceutical companies ability to advertise? If so why?
21 September 2007
at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhaitch (Anonymous) says…
The question is, “Why did they REMOVE the existing restrictions in the first place?”
Your DOCTOR should be the one to tell you what drugs to take. If the ads are ok, why don't they just let us write our own prescriptions?
I actually wrote to Pat Roberts and asked him to vote the other way. Thanks, Pat. Next time I'll vote the other way when your name is on the ballot.
21 September 2007
at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
No pharmaceutical does not mean drug ….. it relates to medical treatment ……. tobacco and alcohol do not. Alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated but are not pharmaceutical.
pharmaceutical
adjective
1. of or relating to pharmacy or pharmacists; “the pharmaceutical industry”
2. of or relating to drugs used in medical treatment
noun
1. drug or medicine that is prepared or dispensed in pharmacies and used in medical treatment
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
21 September 2007
at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jasonc_22 (Anonymous) says…
Direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals has been largely responsible for the huge spike in costs felt at the drug store- that, and, of course, R&D. So, yes, I believe there should be a blanket ban on such advertising. My doctor needs advertised to…i certainly don't.
21 September 2007
at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
Why don't we ban advertising for automobiles? Hasn't that contributed to an extraordinary rise in the cost of new cars in this country? Why not Cheetos or Bud Light too while we are at it?
Perhaps we should place restrictions on all commercial advertising … wait a minute, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. That is why Senator Roberts opposed these restrictions, unlike many people who frequent this site, he supports the Constitution.
21 September 2007
at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
“jasonc_22 (Anonymous) says:
Direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals has been largely responsible for the huge spike in costs felt at the drug store- that, and, of course, R&D. So, yes, I believe there should be a blanket ban on such advertising. My doctor needs advertised to:i certainly don't.”
Actually, the reason drugs cost so much and pharmaceutical companies make designer drugs and advertise them like crazy is because of stupid “level the playing field” laws created by a socialist Congress. Thanks to Congress, pharmas have only three years after bringing a new drug to market before the formula for the drug is made available, for free, to their competitors to manufacture and sell as a generic drug.
If pharmaceutical companies had the same patent or copyright protection as every other industry, they would be able to spread the cost of research and development of the new drug over 26 years, and would not need to advertise in order to sell as much volume as possible to make a profit in the first three years. They would also be able to afford to research and manufacture drugs for diseases and disorders that affect fewer people, and that might be used only a few times.
Congress has already done as much as possible to screw up the supply of pharmaceuticals; if they deprive them of their freedom to advertise their product, my guess is the pharmas will just move to another country.
21 September 2007
at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Senator Roberts would do all of us a favor if he would sponsor a bill to give pharmaceuticals the same protection over their inventions and intellectual property as other industries have.
21 September 2007
at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
And Rep. Moore can claim credit for stalling the bill to bring accountability to electronic voting until after the 2008 elections. Good democrat, good boy, blue dog.
23 September 2007
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pug (Anonymous) says…
do people not find it odd that Pat fought for this and that his chief of staff is a former PhRMA executive?
23 September 2007
at 3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mick (Anonymous) says…
Big Pharma owns Pat Roberts. He is the one who, last year, killed the proposal to have big Pharma negotiate better prices.
23 September 2007
at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
I do not understand the thinking of those who support scientific Big Research in Big Education while simultaneously seeking to destroy Big Pharma. Is it that academia sees Big Pharma as a threat because private business is conducting research, as well?