As we reported back in February, the over-the-counter drug association known as the Consumer Health Products Association (CHPA) spent $194,000 in January alone to battle legislation that would require a prescription for certain cold medicines so as to combat the spread of ingredients commonly used to make methmethamphetamines.

The bill was eventually watered down after protests by legislators close to the drug industry, but it was signed into law by the governor late last month.

Now, lobbying figures have been released and it’s been revealed that CHPA broke the record in the state for special interest lobbying, spending almost half a million dollars on lobbying within the first three months of the year.

When asked about this lobbying, Sen. Tom Buford (R), who opposed the anti-meth bill, defended CHPA:

I would not want to restrict anyone’s ability to voice their opinion because I think you move into a dictatorship when you do that,” he says. “It really sounds an exorbitant of money when you look at it, but if you go to Washington D.C. they’re spending hundreds of millions.”

Of course, when the Average American looks at a special interest group having much more an ability to “voice” its “opinion” thanks to having half a million dollars to spend on the issue, they probably feel like a bigger problem is the “tyranny of the Big Check,” as former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer (R) likes to say.
It’s also worth noting the small detail that drug companies like Merck were one of the top donors to Buford’s campaign.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Filed under: Lobbying

April 14, 2012
Add a comment
  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/AKX5K4VTF7CQGOKDJSMSAODLYE DonN

    I’m sorry but I’m with big pharma on this. Treatment is the only real answer for meth. Many people can not run to their doctor when they need cold medicine.

  • Tillotson

    Kentuckyians on meth. What could be more fitting and poetic than that?

  • CatKinNY

    I don’t understand what these legislators were hoping to accomplish, other than to look tough on meth labs to the tiny percentage of voters who haven’t purchased sudaphed in the last six years and who pay no attention to the news (hint to lawmakers – these folks are unaware of your valiant attempt to make it hard on them to deal with nasal congestion and probably don’t vote). Doesn’t everyone know that you have to sign for sudaphed and can only purchase limited amounts? I despise big pharma, but they are right on this.

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: Love Letters For Him

Related
Email
Print