ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 TAG: 9702110086
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: RICHMOND
SOURCE: DAVID M. POOLE STAFF WRITER
Merck & Co. took a sudden interest in Virginia politics last fall, bestowing General Assembly members with campaign contributions totaling more than $11,000.
The infusion of money from the pharmaceutical giant came a few months before the General Assembly was preparing to consider legislation affecting Merck's interests.
A spokesman said the timing was a coincidence; that the increased contributions came after the New Jersey-based company changed its policy to permit corporate contributions in states that allow them.
"The same is true in other states as well," said Merck spokesman John Bloomfield.
Some Virginia lawmakers say they weren't surprised that Merck upped the ante, given the importance of two pending bills to its affiliated companies.
"If they want to be a new political player, that's a time-honored way to get their name known," said Del. Jay DeBoer, D-Petersburg, who received $1,000.
Merck, which employs 800 people at a manufacturing plant near Elkton in the Shenandoah Valley, was a bit player in the pivotal 1995 General Assembly elections. A database of campaign contributions shows that of a record $22 million raised by candidates, Merck and an affiliated political action committee pitched in $1,400.
Bloomfield said that Merck's change in philosophy about campaign donations came in the fall of 1995, too late for the Virginia elections.
Merck's big play came in the past six months, during an off-year in Virginia legislative elections. All 100 seats in the House of Delegates will be on the ballot this fall; state Senate elections are not until 1999.
In the months before the legislature convened in January, Merck and an affiliated PAC wrote campaign checks totaling $11,300, vaulting the company into the Top 20 of corporate contributors.
Public interest groups say the entrance of a new player like Merck provides a rare opportunity to observe the role of money in politics.
"That's when you really see a correlation between the legislative process and campaign contributions," said Sheila Krumholz with the Center for Public Policy, a Washington-based group that tracks congressional campaign money.
Merck is involved in two legislative fights in the General Assembly this year.
Merck is aligned with pharmaceutical companies trying to kill a bill backed by independent pharmacies that would ban discounts or payments to pharmacists who persuade doctors to switch drug brands.
A Merck joint partnership - DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. - is pushing a bill that some say would dampen low-cost generic competition to its blood-thinning pill, Coumadin.
A spokesman for DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical said there is no connection between contributions by the parent company and the joint venture's lobbying efforts on the Coumadin bill.
"These corporate contributions are 100percent separated from DuPont Merck," spokesman Dick Trabert said. "We don't consult them and they don't consult us."
Merck pinpointed most of the money to legislative leaders and members of the two committees that review measures affecting the pharmaceutical industry.
House Speaker Thomas Moss, D-Norfolk, got $1,500. So did Del. David Brickley, D-Prince William County, chairman of the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee. DeBoer, who sponsored the Coumadin bill, got $1,000. Merck sprinkled the most of the remainder to members of the House and Senate committees.
In an interview, DeBoer said he was not aware that Merck recently gave his campaign $1,000 when he agreed to sponsor the bill.
"I didn't do this for DuPont," he said. "I did it because I agreed with the principle."
The bill would require pharmacists to check with physicians before filling a prescription that changes brands for Coumadin and a handful of other drugs. These drugs require such precise dosages that too little has no effect and too much can prove toxic.
"These are the granddaddy of those that can be dangerous," DeBoer said.
Opponents say the bill is naked protectionism cloaked in the robes of patient safety. They note that patients who could suffer adverse effects from brand switching already are protected by their physicians, who can direct pharmacists to fill a specific brand.
Opponents say DuPont Merck's true intent is to discourage competition from Barr Laboratories, which is on the verge of getting federal approval of a cheaper, generic version of Coumadin. Barr Laboratories is planning to manufacture the drug at a new plant in Bedford County.
Del. Lacey Putney, I-Bedford, said that DuPont Merck has introduced a similar anti-competition bill in other state legislatures.
"They have launched a D-Day-type invasion all across the nation," Putney said.
The bill passed the House Health, Welfare and Institution Committee, 17-5. Five of the six committee members who got money from Merck voted for the bill.
Brickley said the main thing in Merck's favor was not campaign cash, but what he described as a condescending presentation by Barr Laboratories.
"They would have been better off not showing up," Brickley said. "It was the worst and most arrogant presentation I have ever seen in my life.
"They offended every member of the committee, even those who favored it."
The bill cleared the House of Delegates last week and is expected to be heard by the Senate Education and Health Committee on Thursday.
Its future is uncertain because Gov. George Allen is concerned about its impact on Barr Laboratories, which Allen recruited to Virginia with subsidies totaling $1 million.
LENGTH: Long : 108 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1997by CNB