Life Sciences Companies Spent Record Amount on Lobbying Efforts in 2007
The Baltimore Business Journal is reporting that life sciences companies spent a record amount on lobbying efforts in 2007–some 32 percent more in 2007 than in 2006.
The Baltimore Business Journal reported:
The industry unleashed a $168 million lobbying effort last year, the largest among all sectors and 90 percent of which was dominated by three biotech and pharmaceutical trade groups and 40 global companies. . . . Among top company spenders were British-based AstraZeneca PLC, which owns Gaithersburg-based MedImmune and tallied $4.1 million in lobbying efforts, and Israel-based Teva Pharmaceuticals, which owns Rockville-based CoGenesys and tallied $2.3 million. Amgen Inc., based in Thousand Oaks, Calif., topped the company list with a $16.3 million total contribution last year.
As the California Biotech Law Blog previously reported, BIO spent $6.6 million in lobbying efforts in 2007.
According to The Baltimore Business Journal, the industry’s investment seems to “have paid off.”
Was the investment really dollars well spent? Well, clearly the industry has had some success with respect to delaying the passage of patent reform legislation, which was largely viewed as being more favorable to high tech companies than biotech companies. Likewise, the lobbying efforts seem to have had some success in the SBIR area, as we previously reported in a recent blog posting. So, the industry has definitely seen some success in Washington this past year, although that success has not been felt uniformly across the board.
There is no doubt that having a voice in Washington is taking on increasing importance for the life sciences industry, particularly in light of the lobbying efforts of the technology world. It seems likely that the industry’s investment in lobbying will continue to grow in the near future, as the topic of health care reform continues to be a key political issue and the interests of technology and life sciences companies continue to diverge. As I’ve suggested before, however, it is rather stunning to consider how much money that has to be invested these days in order to maintain a presence in Washington politics: $168 million is certainly not pocket change.