So far, nothing huge on the Bernstein conference-call with Chairman/CEO Frazier and Luciano Rossetti (except for a reaffirmance that Frazier is not inclined to split the company back up -- but that is scarcely news, at all), so I'll take a moment to note this Bloomberg story. Do go read it all.
Over the long weekend, I pointed out that the supposed conservative think tank that came to the Merck stockholders' meeting, and complained about Merck's support of the Affordable Care Act was taking a simply silly position. After all, Merck should support political measures that advance its shareholders' pecuniary interests, first.
This morning, Bloomberg is asking a related, but broader question: Why does PhRMA (the pharmaceutical manufacturers' trade association) heavily support Republicans candidates who are opposed to federal coverage for pharma's birth control products? While we may quibble about which party provides a more favorable climate for businesses, generally -- it is almost beyond debate that fewer Democrats try to block legitimate support for family-planning programs. In fact, Democrats see the benefit -- to society -- of allowing women to control their own bodies and reproductive choices. That, in turn, reduces endemic, generational poverty.
But I digress. What do you think? Should PhRMA skew toward Democrats, in its donations -- given the importance of reproductive franchises to Merck, and Pfizer?
Here's a bit -- do go read it all:
. . . .Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck & Co. gave $7 million to Phrma in 2010, according to the company’s voluntary disclosures. The company’s contraceptive product NuvaRing brought in $486 million in revenue last year, according to IMS Health. A spokeswoman, Kelley Dougherty, didn’t respond to requests for comment. . . .
Interesting. And a very good thesis.