Pretty sickening. I don't think Obama really has a clue about the the issues in health care -- disease mongering and the corruption in academic research. Neither do the other two. It's sad because these are big factors in the escalating cost of health care.

I am soooo disappointed. I knew Hillary had Big Pharma.

Our country is going down the drain when the guy who says he is for change is in the back pocket of these guys.

I had my suspicions that Obama was giving too much hope and would not be able to accomplish them because of all the "conflict of interests".
But this is too much!
I lost the last tiny little drop of faith I had on any change.
Skeptical. I'm totally skeptical.

Oh, please spare me...

Does anyone actually think Obama, Hillary, or McCain are anything other than politicians...? I'm fond of saying the diff between a rep and and a demo is 20%.

Both parties support the exact same things. They just differ over how the non-negotiable 20% of budget should be spent.

Obama is for change? That's all you'll have in your pocket if you believe that. I can't see how these three are the best America has to offer - they're all PATHETIC - imho.

this stat is always misrepresented in the press, explained here:

1) companies CANNOT donate to political campaigns, BY LAW. they try to influence via other means, including PACs, lobbyists, but NOT direct donations. the cited stat refers to donations from INDIVIDUALS who must report their occupation (as you well know if you have ever contributed to a political campaign). so this means anyone working for the company, such as scientists, techs, people who draw logos, whatever. this includes your college friend who works at merck because he doesn't know what to do with his biochem phd who couldnt give a shit about selling anything. this does NOT mean corporate leadership/boards.

2) barack obama, as has been widely reported, has raised far more money than both hillary clinton and john mccain. if you believe in academic/statistical honesty, and CORRECT for the large OVERALL fundraising advantage for his campaign, you will see his percent contribution from pharma is far less than BOTH clinton and mccain. (this also accounts for the large disparity in numbers between clinton and mccain. do you really think the pharma really wants obama+clinton to win 10x more than john mccain? or is it just that mccain is having trouble raising money and hasn't had to do so because he has sealed up his primary already. AND doesn't that contradict the earlier statistic in the same article that "In 2006, pharma gave 28 percent to Democrats, 70 percent to Republicans.")

3) it is also well reported that obama has disproportionate high support among "college educated or higher academics-types." if you further correct for this confounding factor, you can easily see how statistically, just looking at a cross-section of professions, you would EXPECT obama to have a higher total sum from pharma (or any academic profession) than clinton. this is sort of obvious, and i'm surprised it is never addressed.

so, to spell it out, these are individual people, not companies, obama has more total donors (1.5 million), more types of donors demographically who would work at pharma/academia, and has just done better overall in fundraising in ALL demographics and professions.

ultimately, the current system is flawed and impossible to change overnight, and you see none of the candidates banning contributions for individuals of a certain employer. it is unwise and honestly pretty useless to try to determine "honesty" or "changeness" from this. however, obama IS the only candidate who takes $0 from lobbyists, while the other 2 candidates have refused to do this. follow the money, yes--it's important to follow the money trail, but it's even more important to know which one is the REAL trail.

nothing intelligent to add to this discussion, except to say that when i heard him speak a year ago he had the most canned speech ever : "if i'm president the war will be OVER"; "health care for all americans" and the ever famous "teachers will get more pay". all the 20somethings applauded like he was "a rock star" and I rolled my eyes, hell Nixon coulda said that, er, Gore, or, Carter, or wait, Clinton, and Clinton....

I agree with the above poster analyzing why Obama has pulled in the most Pharma money. But it is also apparent that he is naive about the industry and its lethal impact on our families. For example, both Obama and Clinton are among the ten co-sponsors of S. 1375, the "Mothers Act", which will push SSRIs on pregnant women through birth and a year after birth. It is well known that this class of drugs cause birth defects, problems with mothers' milk, and ups the probability of homicide/suicide among these women being treated for "post partum depression". Obama needs to change his stance, though I believe he thinks he is doing the right thing.

1) companies CANNOT donate to political campaigns, BY LAW. they try to influence via other means, including PACs, lobbyists, but NOT direct donations. the cited stat refers to donations from INDIVIDUALS who must report their occupation (as you well know if you have ever contributed to a political campaign). so this means anyone working for the company, such as scientists, techs, people who draw logos, whatever. this includes your college friend who works at merck because he doesn't know what to do with his biochem phd who couldnt give a shit about selling anything. this does NOT mean corporate leadership/boards.

2) barack obama, as has been widely reported, has raised far more money than both hillary clinton and john mccain. if you believe in academic/statistical honesty, and CORRECT for the large OVERALL fundraising advantage for his campaign, you will see his percent contribution from pharma is far less than BOTH clinton and mccain. (this also accounts for the large disparity in numbers between clinton and mccain. do you really think the pharma really wants obama+clinton to win 10x more than john mccain? or is it just that mccain is having trouble raising money and hasn't had to do so because he has sealed up his primary already. AND doesn't that contradict the earlier statistic in the same article that "In 2006, pharma gave 28 percent to Democrats, 70 percent to Republicans.")

Posttruth,
You're right. No candidate is allowed to take money directly from companies. However, when Obama says that he doesn't take money from special interests, he's telling the literal truth. On the whole, it's a technicality. He pulls in more money from individuals who are part of these companies than either Clinton or McCain (perhaps both of them combined). While Obama hasn't taken money directly from the pharma/health care industry per se, he's taken the most money from people who work in and are well connected to (see CEOS, Presidents, and the link) the industry.

As for the statistic, "In 2006, pharma gave 28 percent to Democrats, 70 percent to Republicans.",that's since changed. As of February '08, pharma backed the Dems 51 to 49, Clinton at the time getting the most donations.

Don't forget Jack Kennedy got support from the mob then nailed 'em when they got into power.

Who funds whom doesn't necessarily mean the pharmaceuticals will get their own way in the long term.