Three Entitled Multi-Billionaires Think They Can Buy The Presidency

Trump may or may not be a billionaire. He claims he is and he certainly will be after he leaves office. But no one knows for sure because he hides his assets and transactions, most of which are unethical-- at best-- and criminal for the most part. But we’ll count him as a billionaire for the sake of this post. He certainly loudly and insistently claims he is. The other two are a Democrat, Tom Steyer, and a whatever serves his shifting interests, Michael Bloomberg, currently pretending-- laughably-- to be a Democrat. All three seem to believe they can buy elections. Bloomberg, and to a lesser extent Trump, have done so in the past.

On Christmas Day, Politico’s Maya King, looked at Bloomberg’s and Steyer’s obscene spending so far. They’ve poured around $200 million into broadcast and digital advertising so far-- and Bloomberg’s camp say he hasn’t even begun yet. The two of them have spent more than all the other candidates for 2019-- combined. Bloomberg’s and Steyer’s name recognition isn’t as high as the front-runners but Bloomberg is getting his name out there in. big way. He isn’t well-liked though. As Democrats get to know him better, they don’t like him at all. Only Tulsi has lower favorability ratings among Democratic primary voters at this point.

“We’ve never seen spending like this in a presidential race,” said Jim McLaughlin, a Republican political strategist who worked as a consultant for Bloomberg’s mayoral bids in New York. “He has a limitless budget.”

The question isn’t whether anyone else will come close to matching Bloomberg or Steyer’s ad spending. Rather, it’s whether all that spending is making any difference.

At present, the two remain mired in single digits in the polls. Steyer isn’t spending at the same stratospheric levels as Bloomberg, yet with $83 million in ad buys so far, he’s still far outpacing everyone other than his fellow billionaire. The next highest spender on ads is Pete Buttigieg at $19 million.

Unlike Bloomberg, who is attempting to jumpstart his campaign on Super Tuesday March 3, Steyer is largely focused on the four early voting states. He has spent nearly $37 million in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire-- much of it on digital ads. Since joining the race in July, he’s more than doubled the combined ad spending of Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the early states.

In South Carolina, Steyer has plowed extensive resources into television spots and a flurry of mail while building up a sizable ground game. His 60-person team in South Carolina is the largest of his four state operations. He’s beginning to see some results: according to the most recent Quinnipiac poll, Steyer is now in 5th place there with 5%, one percentage point behind Buttigieg.

Just as important, he’s polling at 4% with black voters, who make up more than half the Democratic electorate in South Carolina. That places him slightly ahead of Sen. Cory Booker, who‘s made the state a focus, and Buttigieg.

“For someone who’s come in as late as he did in the game, he’s doing impressively well in that regard,” said Kate Franch, chair of the Greenville Democratic Party in South Carolina. “And that’s relative to everyone who’s not Joe Biden.”

Bloomberg is spending in all 50 states but is targeting the big, delegate-rich Super Tuesday states that can make or break his campaign. He’s spent more than $13 million on advertising in California, which offers 416 delegates, the single biggest haul in the primary. He’s also spent more than $13 million each in Texas, another Super Tuesday mainstay, and Florida, which votes one week after Super Tuesday and offers 219 delegates.

Bloomberg is also swamping smaller markets like Wilmington, N.C., where his ads have run up to 36 times each day, according to data from Advertising Analytics.

Bloomberg has also shelled out an additional $13 million in Florida, which votes one week after Super Tuesday and offers 219 delegates.

“We’re running out of ways to describe [the ad expenditures] at this point,” said Nick Stapleton, vice president of analytics at Ad Analytics, a television ad tracking firm. “It’s pretty difficult to make a comparison...You’re looking at one-third of Obama’s 2012 total [ad] spend through the general [election] in one month.”

Bloomberg is beginning to see incremental growth in national polls after his saturation-level spending. Since entering the race in mid-November, Bloomberg’s polling numbers have slowly climbed: in Monday’s Quinnipiac University national poll, he had his best showing yet, polling in fifth place at 7%.

Doug Wilson, a North Carolina-based political strategist, said he sees the former New York mayor’s advertisements “at least three times a day.”

“You still have to get a sizable portion of the African-American vote to be able to be competitive but with him running ads as he has it has increased his numbers nationally,” Wilson said, referencing his growing standing in the polls.

Christian Heiens, a political marketer with Saber Communications, a right-leaning media buying agency, said he isn’t convinced Bloomberg and Steyer can continue to rise through their spending. He compared their bids to Jeb Bush, the former Florida GOP governor who in 2016 spent close to $55 million on advertisements in early primary states but underperformed before finishing fourth in South Carolina and quitting the race altogether.

“After you see the same TV ad 10 times, it’s not going to have as big an impact,” Heiens continued. “And that’s not just in politics, that’s in anything in marketing.”

The rest of the Democratic field has also been critical of the billionaires’ spending, though for different reasons. Warren has accused Bloomberg and Steyer of trying to buy their paths to the nomination, while Biden and Andrew Yang have argued that the ad blitzes are more a waste of money than smart politics.

They’re not the only skeptics of how much Bloomberg and Steyer can accomplish with their saturation-level spending.

“I don’t sell anybody short, but rich white billionaires don’t have any real appeal to black voters in the South,” said Brad Coker, a pollster with Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy. “Billionaires have never really done well with Southern voters.”

Except Trump, who won every single southern state against Hillary in 2016-- although almost entirely with white southerners.

In 2016, Hillary spent $563,756,928 and outside allies spent another $206,122,160 on her campaign. Trump spent $333,127,164 and allies spent another $118,217,367 for him. (The value of assistance for Trump from illegal foreign sources, primarily Russia, the Saudis and Israel, is not included in these figures.) Bloomberg, whose net worth is around $65 billion, is the wealthiest presidential candidate in history. He’s 33 times richer than Steyer and at least 14 times richer than Trump, maybe a great deal more than that.

There is no official FEC filing for Bloomberg yet, but the latest filings showed that Steyer had raised $49,645,130.22, of which $47,597,697.36 was self-funded. Of the non-billionaires, Bernie has raised the most-- $74,399,588.43-- although some of the other candidates are also financial contenders:

• Elizabeth- $60,339,946.81
• Mayo Pete- $51,549,046.28
• Status Quo Joe- $37,785,293.38

Biden and Mayo are being largely funded by billionaires and SuperPACs. If you'd like to contribute to Bernie's 100% grassroots campaign with no billionaires, no special interests looking for favors, and no SuperPACs, you can do so by clicking on the DownWithTyranny ActBlue thermometer above. Elections shouldn't be for sale to the wealthiest crooks, not in this country. Trump has certainly proven without doubt that the old line about not being able to buy very rich self-funders is absurd and utterly false. Trump may be the wealthiest person to ever occupy the White House and he also the most self-serving and dishonest.

Two Democratic Billionaires Are Making A Mockery Of Democracy

Here in California, we don't usually get inundated with campaign ads, at least not the way Iowa and New Hampshire-- and more recently, Nevada and South Carolina, do. California has always been too late in the campaign season. And California is, by far, the country's most expensive media market. But that all changed. California is a SuperTuesday state now and early voting will already be in full swing by the time tiny Iowa caucuses. So... this past weekend Bloomberg blanketed the airwaves of the state with millions of dollars in ads. One politically-unsophisticated but fired-up anti-Trump friend was sold. She's voting for Bloomberg... if she remembers to vote. Everyone else who mentioned having seen the ads was disgusted and turned off. "The billionaire is trying to buy the election" is what I heard most. Bloomberg's strategy is to crush Status Quo Joe and Mayo Pete and then present himself as the alternative to either of the two actual Democrats in the race, Bernie and Elizabeth. His greed-driven, ravenous consultants say he has enough money to achieve just that and force America into a general election pitting two billionaires against each other and making everyone pick between two evils.

Yesterday Politico published a piece by Trent Spiner, New Hampshire voters to Steyer: Make it stop!, along the same lines. In New Hampshire, he sat through 17 Steyer ads in an hour of watching Pentatonix music on YouTube. "Some Granite staters," he wrote, "said they’re seeing Steyer’s ads dozens of times a day-- and it’s become more grating than ingratiating... Even some of Steyer’s local staff privately acknowledge the volume of ads has gone overboard."

Steyer has massively outspent other Democratic candidates on social media in an effort to gain traction in polls and ensure he makes the debate stage. But the recoiling of some New Hampshire voters suggests there are limits to the strategy-- Michael Bloomberg beware. Indeed, some residents feel like they can't touch a piece of technology without seeing his face.

“There is a point of no return in terms of visibility," said Scott Spradling, a New Hampshire media analyst. "At some point, you become the uninvited guest. He uniquely is becoming dangerously close."

Steyer has spent $55.6 million in advertising nationally so far this election, with a heavy focus on digital, according to Advertising Analytics. In New Hampshire, he has purchased several multitudes more Facebook advertising than the campaigns of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders combined. His Facebook ads over the last three months represented more than a third of all political spending-- from both parties-- on the platform, according to a review of Facebook’s database.

At the national level, Steyer has spent $6.5 million on Facebook in the last three months, $2.8 million more than the next biggest spender, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He also outspent Warren by $4.2 million; Sanders by $4.7 million; and Biden by $5.7 million, according to tracking provided by the social media platform.

He outspent President Donald Trump’s reelection effort by $700,000 in the same period.

Steyer has also spent millions on Google advertising, especially YouTube video ads. His campaign declined to discuss their strategy beyond stating he is committed “to communicating with voters about the importance of this election across a multitude of digital platforms.”

Without much of a national profile before the election, Steyer has tried to target the four early-nominating states in an effort to introduce himself to voters. In one way, it has worked just enough to get him a podium on nationally-televised debates. But on the ground, the ads don’t appear to be moving the needle much with voters. Steyer has steadily polled at about 2 percent in New Hampshire since the summer.

In contrast, Bloomberg is using his estimated ad buy to blanket the country. The former three-term New York mayor’s first ad focuses on his leadership after 9/11. He has ad buys scheduled in the lower 48 states, including one that will air in the media market of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

Joe Trippi, a veteran Democratic strategist who has worked on several high profile presidential campaigns, said of Steyer: “Spending this kind of money in the early states and being still in the single digits, that tells you he is having trouble connecting. You could spend $100 million like that and it may not work.”

Steyer was asked directly in a recent radio interview whether he’s passed the point of saturation to annoyance.

“I hear a lot of complaints about your social media ads blocking their YouTube videos,” the host told the candidate, referring to her teenagers. “You apparently got the high-end ones that you have to watch.”

“If people actually hear my message, they do respond,” Steyer replied. “I’m ... someone who people don’t know anything about and trying to make a very specific point and introduce myself.”

The two billionaires, one-- Bloomberg-- a moderate Republican pretending to be a Democrat and the other-- Steyer-- a moderate Democrat, are competing to spend the most personal money. The view from the right is that Elizabeth and Bernie are the ones trying to buy the election because they are offering to help the working class with their popular policies. Listen to the GOP slob in the red vest on CNBC's right-wing propaganda show, Squawk Box:

Yes, "OUR" Billionaires Are Bums Too-- Democratic Candidates Should Do What Kara Eastman Is Doing

"The fight happening now for the Democratic presidential nomination," wrote Norman Solomon, "largely amounts to class warfare. And the forces that have triumphed in the past are outraged that they currently have to deal with progressive opposition from not one but two candidates... The billionaire class is worried. For the first time in memory, there’s a real chance that the next president could threaten the very existence of billionaires-- or at least significantly reduce their unconscionable rate of wealth accumulation-- in a country and on a planet with so much human misery due to extreme economic disparities." Even before anti-progressive radical Mike Bloomberg jumped into the presidential race Friday, Tom Steyer's campaign was exposed for trying to bribe office holders-- so far only former office holders have been exposed for accepting-- into endorsing his failing campaign. Steyer, who made his billions as a hedge fund manager, has written himself a series of checks to the tune of $47,597,697. He's spent more than any other candidate so far, including Trump. But it hasn't done him that much good. His RealClearPolitics polling average is 0.9%, tucked between Tulsi (1.6%) and Michael Bennet (0.5%). The most recent poll-- from YouGov for The Economist shows he's the first choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters and also the second choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters.

The Morning Consult poll for Politico that came out this morning, shows Bloomberg entering the presidential primary sweepstakes with 4% support, behind Status Quo Joe (31%), Bernie (20%), Elizabeth (18%), Mayo Pete (8%) and Kamala (6%). He's already leading Andrew Yang (3%), Cory Booker (2%), Amy Klobuchar (2%) and everyone else, each of whom is polling at between 0 and 1%. Meanwhile, 31% of Democratic primary voters have a positive impression of Bloomberg and 25%, the highest of any Democrat running, have an unfavorable impression. In a hypothetical matchup against Trump, he's right up there with the real candidates (Steyer, the billionaire version of mere multimillionaire John Delaney, is nowhere to be seen):

On Friday, just as Bloomberg, was announcing his campaign against Bernie and Elizabeth in, of all places, Alabama, Kara Eastman announced she is giving away a max campaign donation she received last year from Steyer. In a statement, Kara said that after reading the news about Steyer's endorsement buying shenanigans in Iowa, "I immediately saw this as an example of the problem of money in politics, an issue that I have campaigned on since the beginning."

Kara isn't exactly rolling in the dough. She's working class candidate from a working class candidate and Steyer's $2,700 contribution is financially meaningful. "While this was well in advance of his declared presidential campaign and was not given to us in exchange for any endorsement, my campaign-- like all campaigns should be-- is founded on transparency and integrity. I am therefore announcing that I will contribute this money to a nonprofit in this district that provides services for Latinx immigrant workers... Last month, when the Omaha World Herald discovered from an anonymous tipster that my opponent, Rep. Don Bacon, had taken several thousand dollars by indicted Giuliani associate Igor Furman, it was only after that these corrupt dollars were exposed that Bacon promised to donate the money to charity. Although, to be honest, he never specified a charity, only that the money would go to the cause of human trafficking. Anyway, I have felt that my campaign needs to be different, to be pro-active."

Please consider helping Kara making up the hole by contributing to her campaign. Click on the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer on the right and do what you can. Kara's opponent is Nebraska Trump enabler, Donald J. Bacon, a toxic conservative Republican. Kara is running on a platform that includes Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, racial and social justice, gun safety, comprehensive immigration reform, debt-free college and other policies that help working families, all issues on which Bacon stands in opposition. She noted in her platform that "The World Bank puts our income inequality on par with some of the poorest and unequal nations in the world. This is dangerous for our economy and damaging to our collective sense of morality. The GOP Tax Plan was a clear hand-out to the very wealthy and large corporations that simply do not need welfare. It was shown to have raised taxes on the middle class and exempted those who can afford to pay their fair share-- this is not fiscal responsibility. We need to ensure that all Americans have a livable wage, are not drowning in student loans and healthcare costs, have healthy, affordable housing, and have a way to care for their children while they go to work. We also need to regulate banks and Wall Street and tax financial transactions to help pay down our debt."

Nate McMurray, like Kara, is running for a second time this cycle. The Republicans are fighting among themselves to see who will run against Nate now that Trumpist Rep. Chris Collins has plead guilty to fraud and resigned from Congress. Raising money for working class candidates like Nate is never easy, compared to business-backed conservatives. "It’s a challenge," he told us today. "The number one way you are evaluated as a candidate is your ability to raise money. We can have 300 people at an event and raise $5,000. The scary thing is that others can have 3 people at an event and raise $5 million. Nonetheless, we have chosen the path of most resistance. We have done everything in our power to resist dark money and money from those who want something in return... No billionaire money in our campaign."

Tom Steyer Should End His Candidacy Immediately-- And Bloomberg Shouldn't Run At All

There are always exceptions to blanket statements in politics, but, at least, to my mind, that billionaires should not be supported in presidential runs is not one of them. Steyer may be a better candidate, issue-wise than, say, the far more conservative and venal Michael Bloomberg, but he's still a billionaire who thinks he's entitled to buy whatever his money can buy. AP reporter Alexandra Jaffe exposed the latest ugliness. Steyer is attempting to blame it on an aide but it's likely to lead to the end of his candidacy... and just as Bloomberg is trying out his new presidential candidate outfits.

With apologies to David Bowie (RIP)

A little background: Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, has written himself a series of checks to the tune of $47,597,697, 95.87% of the $49,633,653 his campaign has collected. He's spent more than any other candidate so far, including Trump. But it hasn't done him that much good. His RealClearPolitics polling average is 0.9%, tucked between Tulsi (1.6%) and Michael Bennet (0.5%). The most recent poll-- from YouGov for The Economist shows him with a 34% favorable rating among Democrats but also shows that a plurality of Democrats (47%) and a majority of registered voters (53%) either don't know who he is or don't know enough about him to have an opinion. He's the first choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters and also the second choice of 1% of Democratic primary voters.

After spending tens of millions of dollars in ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, he fares better in those two states, a polling average of 2.8% in Iowa and 2.7% in New Hampshire. But the new scandal-- offering public officials bribes to endorse him-- should kill whatever momentum his advertising budget has bought him. Jaffe wrote that Pat Murphy, a former state House speaker who is Steyer’s top advisor in Iowa has been offering campaign contributions to local politicians in exchange for endorsements. Although the bribery isn't technically illegal, "payments for endorsements would violate campaign finance laws if not disclosed. There’s no evidence that any Iowans accepted the offer or received contributions from Steyer’s campaign as compensation for their backing." So far the only crooks who have taken up Steyer's offer are former Iowa state Rep Roger Thomas and former South Carolina state Rep. Harold Mitchell. Neither ex-legislator could probably persuade anyone outside of their immediate families to vote for Steyer.

But the proposals could revive criticism that the billionaire Steyer is trying to buy his way into the White House. Several state lawmakers and political candidates said they were surprised Steyer’s campaign would think he could buy their support.

Tom Courtney, a former Democratic state senator from southeastern Iowa who’s running for reelection to his old seat, told The Associated Press the financial offer “left a bad taste in my mouth.”

Murphy didn’t respond to a request for comment. Alberto Lammers, Steyer’s campaign press secretary, said Murphy was not authorized to make the offers and that the campaign leadership outside of Iowa was unaware that he was doing so until the issue was raised by The Associated Press.

Courtney declined to name Murphy as the Steyer aide who made the offer, but several other local politicians said they received similar propositions, and all confirmed the proposal came from Murphy himself. Most requested anonymity to speak freely about the issue. Another, Iowa state Rep. Karin Derry, said Murphy didn’t explicitly offer a specific dollar amount, but made it clear Derry would receive financial support if she backed Steyer.

“It was presented more as, he has provided financial support to other downballot candidates who’ve endorsed him, and could do the same for you,” she said.

Courtney described a similar interaction with Steyer’s campaign.

“Tom, I know you’re running for Senate. I’m working for Tom Steyer,” Courtney recalled hearing from the aide. “Now you know how this works. ...He said, ‘you help them, and they’ll help you.’”

“I said, ‘it wouldn’t matter if you’re talking monetary, there’s no amount,’” Courtney continued. “I don’t do that kind of thing.”

Lammers, Steyer’s campaign press secretary, said the candidate hasn’t made any individual contributions to local officials in Iowa and won’t be making any this year. In an email, Lammers said Steyer’s endorsements “are earned because of Tom’s campaign message,” and distanced the candidate from Murphy.

“Our campaign policy is clear that we will not engage in this kind of activity, and anyone who does is not speaking for the campaign or does not know our policy,” Lammers said.

The overtures do not appear to have made much of a difference for Steyer. Aside from Murphy’s support, Steyer has received the endorsement of just one Iowan since entering the race in July-- former state Rep. Roger Thomas.

Thomas did not respond to phone calls, but in a statement provided by the campaign, he said that he endorsed Steyer “because he’s the outsider who can deliver for Iowans on the issues that matter most: getting corporate corruption out of our politics and putting forth a rural agenda that revitalizes communities across Iowa.”

Thomas’ endorsement was issued in October after the close of the most recent campaign finance reporting period, which ended Sept. 30. The disclosure Steyer filed offers no indication that he directly gave Thomas any money.

Experts say a campaign could violate campaign finance laws if they don’t disclose payments for endorsements.

“It’s legal if you disclose a payment for an endorsement on your campaign finance report,” said Adav Noti, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who now works for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington. But, he added, “It would be unlawful if you don’t disclose it, or you disclose it but try to hide who the recipient is, or try to hide what that purpose was.”

A trio of former Ron Paul aides faced legal trouble in 2016 over similar issues during the 2012 Iowa Republican caucus campaign. Campaign chairman Jesse Benton, campaign manager John Tate and deputy campaign manager Dimitri Kesari were convicted in 2016 of charges related to arranging and concealing payments for then-Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, who switched his support from then-Rep. Michele Bachmann to Paul just six days before the Iowa caucuses. Sorenson served 15 months in jail for his role in the scheme.

It’s unclear whether Murphy could face a similar legal complaint, but the issue could revive scrutiny of how Steyer is deploying his financial resources. The billionaire businessman built his fortune in banking and investment management before turning to politics, and though he’s never held public office he invested tens of millions of dollars in political activism and electoral politics before launching his presidential bid this year. Prior to his presidential run, Steyer’s most recent focus was a multi-million-dollar, pro-impeachment campaign, and as the U.S. House takes up the issue, he’s argued he’s put it on the national agenda.

Steyer has largely self-funded his presidential campaign, spending $47.6 million of his own money in the first three months since launching his bid, much of that on online fundraising and advertising. Steyer has qualified for the November debate, but he remains at the back of the pack in early-state and national polls.

And then there's the even worse billionaire than Steyer-- far worse-- who's jumping into the race with the express purpose of smearing Elizabeth and Bernie and their/our progressive agenda. Let's remember, whether it's a relatively benign billionaire like Steyer or a full-on plutocratic villain like Bloomberg or Trump, a billionaire is a billionaire and any and all of them are absolutely terrible for democracy. They do not mean you and I or our families or way of life anything but ill. They must, must, must be stopped at all costs. Wasn't Trump enough as a lesson?

Trump Is Pretending He Wants To Finally Help With Out-Of-Control Drug Prices

After my successful cancer treatment-- which included a full stem cell replacement operation-- I quickly realized I would be taking a lot of drugs for the rest of my life, including some very expensive ones. I was looking at-- even with insurance (Medicare Part D, the one part of Medicare-- written and passed strictly by Republicans-- that sucks) thousands of dollars a month. Prices have gone up since Trump entered the White House, despite his oft-repeated promises to lower them. I turned to Canada for one of the most expensive of the drugs, VIMPAT (lacosamide, around $1,093.78 a month). No Canadian pharmacy online will sell it to Americans through the mail. It's something like $90 in Thailand-- where I've been getting it-- and I'm hearing just as inexpensive in Mexico. Yesterday, Trumpanzee was bragging how he's waving his magic wand and making drug prices "for our great seniors" less expensive. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar: "Today's announcement outlines the pathways the Administration intends to explore to allow safe importation of certain prescription drugs to lower prices and reduce out of pocket costs for American patients. This is the next important step in the Administration's work to end foreign freeloading and put American patients first."

The Washington Post seemed skeptical: "The Trump administration on Wednesday," wrote Yaseem Abutaleb and Laurie McGinley, "said it was taking steps that might eventually lead to the importation of some lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada, an idea supported by President Trump but long opposed by many Republicans, including some of his own aides."

This was from Azar's live presentation yesterday:

For too long, there’s been a lot of talk on drug prices and no action. Drug companies have insisted we can have new cures or affordable prices, but not both.

I’ve been a drug company executive-- I know the tired talking points: the idea that if one penny disappears from pharma profit margins, American innovation will grind to a halt.

I’m not interested in hearing those talking points anymore, and neither is the President.

High prescription drug prices... are a serious threat to the health and well-being of too many Americans. President Trump has told us at HHS to fix this problem, and we will.

The problem has multiple parts: high list prices, overpaying in government programs, high out-of-pocket costs, foreign-government freeloading. They are connected in a way that attempting to squeeze one end of the balloon won’t lead to lasting change.

But the complexity of the problem is no excuse for inaction or incrementalism. There are plenty of actions we can and will take administratively to shake up this system.

We do want to hear from industry, patients, and other stakeholders about what they think of the full range of changes we put out in our blueprint

. That’s because we’ve proposed a set of changes that are more sweeping than any drug-pricing initiative ever, more bold than any set of proposals set forth before.

I’m sure that pharmaceutical manufacturers took note on Friday when the President pointed out that they are one of the most aggressive industries when it comes to lobbying. Pharma spends more than $175 million a year trying to understand what the President and I are thinking.

So I’m going to save pharma some money and tell you what the President and I have planned. Pay attention, as there’s a lot on the way.

There are four strategies for reform set out in the administration’s drug-pricing blueprint: improved competition, lowering out-of-pocket costs, enhanced negotiation, and incentives for lower list prices. On each of them, we’re going to start taking action today.

I want to start with negotiation, because it’s so important-- and there’s been some confusion on it, for a while now.

You heard President Trump make it clear on Friday how important tougher negotiation is.

That is exactly what our plan brings to Medicare, in an effective and targeted fashion. We are going to make negotiation more effective than it is today in our retail drug program, Part D, and bring negotiation to where it doesn’t exist, in physician administered drugs, Part B.

In Part D, we’ll be giving Medicare plans the same negotiating power that private sector plans already have-- we know this approach works.

Let me briefly lay out how this will happen. We know right now that Medicare Part D is not getting the deals it should on some expensive, important drugs.

For instance, there are six types of drugs that are automatically put into Part D categories that are called “protected classes,” because they’re vital to treating some serious conditions.

Part D spends about $30 billion a year on these drugs. That’s almost 10 percent of what our entire country spends on drugs each year.

Yet Part D plans are hamstrung by current rules from really negotiating over drugs in these protected classes-- allowing Pharma to run up huge profits on patients who desperately need these often-expensive drugs.

For example, the company that makes one of the 10 most common drugs in these categories raised that drug’s price 20 percent in the last 12 months. That particular drug, in 2015, cost $11,500 per month. Under Medicare Part D, that means seniors using the drug will typically owe an extra $115 every month. They just went from paying $575 per month to $690 per month, at a time when the average Social Security check is $1,400.

Typical private-market discounts for these drugs are in the 20 to 30 percent range. The average discount across all of these protected drugs in Medicare Part D is just 6 percent, and for some of them it’s 0.

A 6 percent discount-- I’m sorry, that is not negotiating.

This administration has it within our authority to provide Part D plans with new tools to negotiate for these drugs.

For one-third of Medicare Part D spending, we can go from where plans effectively aren’t negotiating, to plans having real power to negotiate.

These are important drugs for patients with potentially debilitating conditions, so we will go about these reforms transparently. This process will not restrict patient access, but expand it through lower costs.

It’s important to understand that, because it isn’t true of the alternatives. You’ve probably heard before that Medicare could save tons of money by negotiating directly for drugs.

This just isn’t true, and you don’t have to take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office, when it was run by Peter Orszag, who went on to work for President Obama, found that the idea of direct negotiation would generate almost no savings. The same conclusion was reached by President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget when it assessed the proposal in his budget.

The only way that direct negotiation saves money is by doing something this administration does not believe in: denying access to certain medicines for all Medicare beneficiaries, or setting prices for drugs by government fiat.

We don’t believe either of these proposals would put American patients first. They would move us toward the kind of socialized medicine systems that have such a notorious reputation for poor quality and access. This stacks right up there with the false promises of Obamacare: that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and if you like your doctor, you can keep seeing him.

But I don’t expect these ideas to go away, no matter how unlikely they are to work. If the pharmaceutical industry wants this idea off the table entirely, the only way is to come to the table with us, to engage in meaningful negotiation with Medicare Part D plans, and to stop the price hikes.

The President is also going to bring smart negotiation to billions of dollars’ worth of drugs in a part of Medicare where there is currently no negotiation at all. That’s Medicare Part B drugs, those administered in a physician’s office.

Right now in Part B, essentially as soon as a drug is approved by the FDA, it’s covered. Medicare gets a bill for the drug, composed of the standard price plus a 6 percent markup, and we pay it.

Compare that with the negotiation in Part D: Plans determine whether a drug should be covered or whether an alternative is superior. Plans negotiate discounts, rather than just paying full price.

You can imagine what happens when you’re developing a drug: It’s often much more appealing for the drug to go into Part B than D. Perversely, some of these drug development decisions are being driven by government reimbursement systems, rather than what’s best for the patient.




In short order, we will be issuing a request for proposal to make new use of an alternative system for buying Part B drugs, a Competitive Acquisition Program. We believe there are more private sector entities equipped to negotiate these better deals in Part B, and we want to let them do it.

More broadly, the President has called on us to merge Medicare Part B into Part D, where negotiation has been so successful on so many drugs. This is how we follow through on his promise to do smart bidding and tough negotiating for our seniors.

Before closing on negotiation, I want to be clear: This is a topic the President and I have discussed at great length, and the idea of direct negotiation in Medicare has come up. He is tired of the government getting bad deals on the drugs seniors need, and I couldn’t agree more.

We formulated this plan with fixing that problem as the No. 1 priority, and the President is following through on his promise. What we came up with is the smart, effective approach to tougher negotiation, and a more aggressive approach than has ever been tried before in our programs.

Another key way to bring down costs using our market-based system is through more competition. Thanks to thriving generic drug competition, Americans get better prices on generics than most European countries, but we can go further.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is here today, has made it a top priority to stop drug manufacturers from gaming our patent system to block generic competitors.

In one of the most notorious examples, pharma companies use FDA safety rules or commercial distribution restrictions to block generic drug manufacturers from having access to samples of the branded drug.  Those samples are needed to perform the testing that gets generic drugs approved, giving consumers safe and effective lower-cost medications.

We know that certain brand name manufacturers are abusing the system by blocking access to samples, and hiding behind FDA’s rules when they do it. FDA is going to begin publicly identifying drug companies suspected of engaging in these abusive practices. The agency has already received more than 150 inquiries from generic manufacturers about challenges with access-to-product samples from brand manufacturers.

It’s time to shed light on these practices and call out the manufacturers who may be abusing the rules that built our free market for drugs. They’re using laws intended to promote the public health to pad their profits instead.

I want to raise a final point in the context of competition: Many people may be familiar with proposals to give our seniors access to cheaper drugs by importing drugs from other countries, such as Canada. This, too, is a gimmick. It has been assessed multiple times by the Congressional Budget Office, and CBO has said it would have no meaningful effect.

One of the main reasons is that Canada’s drug market is simply too small to bring down prices here. They are a lovely neighbor to the north, but they’re a small one. Canada simply doesn’t have enough drugs to sell them to us for less money, and drug companies won’t sell Canada or Europe more just to have them imported here.

On top of that, the last four FDA commissioners have said there is no effective way to ensure drugs coming from Canada really are coming from Canada, rather than being routed from, say, a counterfeit factory in China. The United States has the safest regulatory system in the world. The last thing we need is open borders for unsafe drugs in search of savings that cannot be safely achieved.

You can’t improve competition and choice in our drug markets with gimmicks like these-- you have to boost competition and price transparency. That informs our third strategy, to reduce Americans’ out-of-pocket drug costs.

Today, some pharmacy benefit managers set contracts with pharmacies that prevent your neighborhood pharmacist from telling you when you could get a better deal on a drug by paying cash than by using insurance.

That’s because, when you use your insurance, the pharmacy benefit manager gets a cut of the deal-- when you pay cash, they don’t.

You ought to know how you can get the best deal possible, and your pharmacist should be able to tell you how. So this week, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] will be sending a letter to all Medicare Part D plan sponsors saying that we consider such behavior unacceptable.

If pharmacy benefit managers really believe in doing right by the patients they work for, there’s no reason they can’t end this practice and release pharmacists from these gag clauses, right now.

Ending gag clauses is part of a much broader effort CMS will be undertaking to bring more transparency to our drug markets. You ought to know how much a drug costs and how much it’s going to cost you, long before you get to the pharmacy counter or get the bill in the mail.

We want to consult with industry on how to get to that point, but [CMS] Administrator [Seema] Verma, whom we’re glad to have here today, is going to make it happen.

The final strategy we’re getting to work on, immediately, is a new set of incentives on list prices. Right now, our entire system-- both industry practices and government rules-- encourages higher and higher list prices. It’s time for drug prices to go down, not up.

One particular example is a deal that the Affordable Care Act contained for the pharmaceutical industry: Congress put a cap on the penalty that drug companies had been paying when they raised prices faster than inflation.

Yes, you heard that right: Congress put a limit on how much companies would have to pay when they jacked their prices up beyond inflation.

That means drug companies can keep raising their prices rapidly, soaking up new profits from private insurance without paying any penalty in the Medicaid program. And this isn’t just a few medications: There are now more than 2,500 drugs that have hit this cap.

President Trump and I are working with Congress to look at overturning this cap and restoring the brake on runaway price increases.

But we can take more action to create incentives for lower list prices, too.

Right now, Medicaid pays for drugs based on something called the Average Manufacturer Price, or AMP.

In calculating what Medicaid pays, we ignore that the private sector isn’t paying anything like the AMP-- they are actually paying the AMP minus a significant rebate.

If Medicaid is supposed to be getting a better deal than the private sector because it serves our most vulnerable, why not incorporate the private sector rebate into the AMP, lowering it significantly?

Just this change could drop what manufacturers get paid on many Medicaid drugs by 30 to 40 percent or more.

As big as such a change would be, believe it or not, it’s a relatively incremental step in our plan. We can go a lot bigger.

We believe that the entire system of pharmacy benefit managers negotiating rebates needs to be re-examined. Right now, we’re asking a pretty straightforward question: What if, instead of the current system where drug companies get paid rebates and middlemen take a cut, we just had fixed-price discounts?

This would fix the situation where even the pharmacy benefit manager, who is hired to help keep prices low, makes money from higher list prices.

Pharmacy benefit managers are also getting paid by both sides of a transaction: the insurance companies, who pay a fee as their customers, and the drug companies they’re supposed to be negotiating against, who give them a cut of the rebates they receive and other fees.

It is easily within our power to forbid remuneration from pharmaceutical companies-- to eliminate rebates, align interests, and end the corrupt bargain that keeps driving list prices skyward.

We’re also going to be looking at how pharmaceutical companies interact with the American public.

As of today, we have FDA and CMS working to examine how to require drug companies to post their list prices in direct-to-consumer advertising. When patients hear about a wonderful new drug, they should know whether it costs $100 or $50,000. A patient might even pay for a doctor’s appointment to discuss a drug, not knowing that the price puts it totally out of reach, and that’s unfair.

Drug companies don’t have to wait on us. Today, I am calling on America’s pharmaceutical manufacturers to level with the American public-- be honest about what you’re trying to charge us, put your list price in your ads.

We believe Americans should know which drug companies are gouging consumers and which ones are being good actors for our communities.

So we’ll go beyond direct-to-consumer advertising: This week, CMS will be unveiling updates to its drug-pricing dashboard, which will offer much more detail than ever before about which companies are raising prices.

On top of that, I will be having regular meetings with CMS Administrator Verma and others to examine where prices are rising, and why.

That, of course, complements every conversation I have with the President-- where, as I mentioned Friday, drug pricing tends to be the first thing we talk about, and the last.

He’s now laid down a marker about the need for reform. I can imagine he is going to be very interested in the next company that takes a price increase not justified by inflation or change in clinical benefit. I can tell you I wouldn’t have wanted to be the one to do that.

On the other hand, I expect the President will be interested in hearing which companies lowered their prices and took other actions to support the changes we want to make.

I should say that, because I have been in business-- in this business-- I understand that companies have systems that work and market positions that help them succeed.

But markets only work when they’re open to forces for change.

The American system works incredibly well in so many ways because we have a free market.

But right now, we have a drug pricing system that is protected from market forces-- that is set up to benefit the manufacturers and the middlemen, not the patients.

We are open to all potential solutions for fixing this problem-- assuming they are effective, safe for patients, and respect our seniors’ choice and access.

Industry leaders have an opportunity to get started on changing our system, today.

These have mostly been Democratic Party proposals and ideas but it's good that Trump is backing them a bit. Vermont, Colorado and Florida already have drug importation statutes on the books. Writing about Trump's plan's for the Washington Post yesterday, Yasmeen Abutaleb and Josh Dawsey had a different narrative: White House Races To Come Up With Health-Care Wins. "White House advisers," they wrote, "scrambling to create a health-care agenda for President Trump to promote on the campaign trail, are meeting at least daily with the aim of rolling out a measure every two to three weeks until the 2020 election. One of the initiatives would allow states to import lower-priced drugs from Canada and other countries and another would bar Medicare from paying more than any other country for prescription drugs, according to two senior administration officials and lobbyists-- controversial ideas in line with Democratic proposals. Yet it remains unclear the administration has the legal authority to execute some of these policies without Congress. The White House is already facing fierce pushback on some proposals from Republicans on Capitol Hill and the pharmaceutical industry, which will likely go to court to challenge any measure it opposes.

The furious push reflects the administration’s sense of vulnerability on an issue that Democrats successfully used in 2018 to win control of the House of Representatives. White House officials are eager to inoculate the president against a repeat of that strategy in 2020-- and reduce the GOP disadvantage on an issue that pollsters say plays to Democratic strengths. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates have made health-care proposals, including Medicare-for-all plans, key to their campaigns. Health care is already playing a starring role in the debates and Democrats are sure to assail Trump for his attempts to eliminate coverage for millions of people by challenging the Affordable Care Act in court.

“President Trump has said we will protect people with preexisting conditions, lower drug prices, end surprise medical bills, and make sure Americans get the highest quality of care they deserve,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere. “While the radical left has sweeping proposals for a total government takeover of the health system that will hurt seniors and eliminate private insurance for 180 million Americans, the Trump administration is working on real solutions.”

Some, however, are doubtful a flurry of executive orders and new regulations would have an immediate effect on consumers’ pocketbooks. What is clear is that the approach, which includes White House support for a bipartisan Senate bill to cap Medicare drug price increases to the rate of inflation, is putting congressional Republicans in a tough spot: Embrace Trump’s agenda and abandon conservative precepts about interference in the marketplace, or buck the president on one of his top priorities.

While Republicans have largely fallen in line with Trump on free trade and immigration even when he has blown up GOP orthodoxy, many rely heavily on donations from the pharmaceutical industry and are reluctant to sour those relationships.

One lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, described being stunned at a recent White House meeting when Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan said the administration would not let Democrats run to the president’s left on lowering the prices of prescription medicines.

In another tense meeting, top pharmaceutical executives were told bluntly “it wasn’t in the industry’s best interests” to block the bipartisan Senate bill backed by Trump. If it failed, they were told, they’d see “the president of the United States negotiating with Nancy Pelosi [on allowing the government to negotiate drug prices in Medicare],” said a person familiar with the meeting.

That looks pretty evenly corrupt doesn't it? That was just last cycle. Let's look at who-- currently in the House-- has been taking the biggest bribes from the drug companies since 1990. And, yes, the implication is that all of these men and women should be expelled from the House and tried and imprisoned. All share responsibility for high drug prices.

• Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $1,664,131
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $1,548,456
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $1,491,350
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $1,399,417
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $1,147,395
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $1,092,215
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $1,079,072
• Michael Burgess (R-TX)- $949,074
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)-$891,333
• Ron Kind (D-WI)- $872,129
• Jim Clyburn (D-SC)- $823,843
• Brett Guthrie (R-KY)- $802,513

What about the Senate? Sure these are the dozen worst crooks-- currently in the Senate-- in terms of taking bribes from drug makers. They should all also be in prison. The prices we pay for medicine would probably be far less than half. Keep that in mind when you go to the polls this cycle. MoscowMitch bears the greatest responsibility and he is up for reelection.

• Mitt Romney (R-UT)- $2,739,142
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $1,570,212
• MoscowMitch (R-KY)- $1,340,771
• Bob Casey (D-PA)- $1,225,195
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $1,081,856
• Patty Murray (D-WA)- $1,046,938
• Robert Menendez (D-NJ)- $976,534
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $939,789
• Rob Portman (R-OH)- $936,580
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)- $915,381
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)- $876,460
• John Cornyn (R-TX)- $827,415

Who's In? Who's Out? And What About Kansas?

Potential game-changers Kris Kobach and Tom Steyer

For context, in case you already forgot what Justin Amash told Jake Tapper Sunday: the political system is completely broken and dysfunctional. That said, Eric Swalwell decided to keep his House seat rather than keep pursuing a pointless run for the presidency. I bet Rob Bonta is glad he didn't give up his own seat in the state Assembly! Everyone thought Frackenlooper would be the first to bow out, but he probably didn't want to be the first to cut and run. Now he can be second-- not counting Richard Ojeda and Sherrod Brown, who few remember dropped out long ago. (Frackenlooper said he's ready to be a better candidate now; couldn't be a worse one.)

But Swalwell leaving the field doesn't even mean the number of contestants will go down. Billionaire Tom Steyer had an announcement he decided to make today. He's been telling staffers at his two political organizations, Need to Impeach and Next Gen that he's launching today. And, indeed he did. Or maybe he'll back out again. The NY Times reported this morning that Steyer plans to spend $100 million of his own money on his primary bid. Take a look at the announcement video he just released:





Democratic insiders, according to Chris Cadelago, are ready for The Winnowing. South Carolina strategist Mike McCauley: "if anybody is hanging on through Iowa outside the top six, we’re talking about a cabinet tryout or vanity.” By the Wednesday after Super Tuesday, it's not likely that anyone beyond Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala, and, if he hasn't self-destructed yet, Biden will be left standing.

Interviews with more than a half-dozen campaigns-- none of which would go on record-- and with dozens of other operatives, party officials and activists reveal an expectation that the upcoming debate in July will set in motion the initial culling of the 23-candidate field. Candidates who fall flat on the stage a second time, or fail to get traction, will see their finances dry up and be forced to exit. Those who fail to make the September debate-- when the criteria for entry will be even higher than the first two debates-- will be the next to go as their campaigns are denied the necessary oxygen to survive.

Others are expected to retreat and prepare for reelection to their current elected positions after failing to gain traction by summer’s end.

...The pressure on low-performing candidates to bow out is already bubbling up from the grassroots. Democratic voters have repeatedly signaled they’re tiring of the dizzyingly large field: Nearly three quarters of Democratic and independent left-leaning voters told a recent Hill-HarrisX poll that “too many” candidates are running for president.

The Iowa Poll, conducted last month for the Des Moines Register, CNN and Mediacom, found 47 percent saying they wished several candidates would drop out and another 27 percent saying they hoped that most of the candidates would relinquish their slim hopes.

OK, now let's move to a crucial Senate race-- in Kansas, where Pat Roberts (R), 83, is retiring. Kansas is a very safe red state. The PVI is an unassailable R+13. Trump beat Hillary 671,018 (56.16%) to 427,005 (35.74%). She won just two of the state's 105 counties! There are a dozen Republicans being talked about as potential successors to Roberts and two solid candidates, state Treasurer Jake LaTurner, and former Kansas City Chiefs player and current chairman of the Kansas Turnpike Authority Dave Lindstrom, are already running. But there's a problem: Trumpist neo-Nazi Kris Kobach. Once it was leaked that he would be meeting with staffers to discuss the campaign, he rushed out an announcement that he is indeed running. McConnell, though, made sure the NRSC was ready for him. A spokesperson said, on the record, that "Just last year Kris Kobach ran and lost to a Democrat. Now, he wants to do the same and simultaneously put Pressure Trump's presidency and [the GOP] Senate majority at risk." Harsh welcome!

In 2018 Kobach ran for governor and barely won the primary, edging out mainstream favorite Jeff Colyer by just 343 votes-- 128,832 (40,6%) to 128,489 (40.5%). Although Kobach completely dominated the fascist-oriented rural western part of the state, independents and mainstream Republicans just couldn't go all the way for a Nazi and he lost to Democrat Laura Kelly-- 506,509 (48%) to 453,030 (43%), getting wiped out in population-heavy Wyandotte, Johnson, Douglas and Shawnee counties and losing the biggest county of all, Sedgwick.

McConnell doesn't want Kobach to run again but yesterday Kobach was scheduled to meet with his top supporters in Leavenworth, not to begin a prison term, but to plot a strategy that may work out best for the Democrats. Like the far-right psychopath in Alabama, Roy Moore, Kobach is a better bet to win a Republican primary than a general election. Yesterday, the Kansas City Star reported that "Kobach spoke at the Leavenworth County Republican Party’s annual picnic on Saturday. It was one of his first appearances at a major political event in Kansas since his defeat. His comments focused on his role in an effort to build a border wall with private dollars. Kobach serves as general counsel and as a board member for We Build the Wall, Inc., which has raised more than $24 million for barriers at the U.S.-Mexico border."

Kobach didn’t mention a potential Senate candidacy at the event. But this weekend he and former staffers invited a small group of Kansas Republicans to a Monday afternoon gathering at the Leavenworth Riverfront Community Center.

State Rep. David French, a Lansing Republican, said Sunday he caught wind of the second event during the picnic but was unaware of what Kobach would discuss.

“I don’t think he told anybody what he was coming for. He did talk yesterday at the picnic about his building the wall project. So I don’t know if it’s some kind of a fundraiser for that or what,” French said. “People are speculating that he may be announcing tomorrow. That’s pure speculation as far as I know. I have nothing to verify that.”

Rett Rogers, chair of the Leavenworth County Republican Party, confirmed Kobach plans to have an event in the city on Monday, but he didn’t offer any other details.

“I know he’s having something here tomorrow. I just don’t know what it’s about,” Rogers said.

Two other Kansas Republican sources with direct knowledge of the event, who asked for anonymity to speak about it, confirmed that Kobach has instructed supporters to gather in Leavenworth. The northeast Kansas town has been a stronghold for Kobach in past campaigns.


Kobach did not respond to phone calls Sunday.

A former state GOP chair, he remains popular with a sizable segment of the Kansas Republican primary electorate because of his outspoken advocacy against illegal immigration and his frequent cable news appearances.

But some former Republican allies are skeptical of his ability to avoid the missteps he made as a gubernatorial candidate.

Kobach struggled to raise money and failed to reach out to moderate voters during the general election. GOP strategists have repeatedly blasted his campaign for its disorganization and poor voter turnout strategy.

“With all that Kansas Republicans are facing next cycle, the last thing we need is another Kobach debacle which distracts and divides us. If he cares about the conservative movement the right decision is not to run,” said Jared Suhn, a Republican consultant who oversaw Kobach’s early campaign for governor but quit in the spring of 2018 after disagreements with the candidate.

His entry into the Senate race could also cause national Democrats to steer money into Kansas to flip the open seat, which has been in Republican hands for eight decades but appears more competitive in light of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s victory in 2018.

The Kansas Republican failed to land a position in Trump’s administration after his demands for access to a private plane and a walk-in privileges to the Oval Office were leaked to the New York Times.

A Kobach candidacy could reignite efforts to recruit Secretary of State Mike Pompeo into the race. Pompeo has repeatedly downplayed his interest in a run, but he remains the first choice for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Groups with ties to McConnell have indicated that they could spend money against Kobach in a primary.

“Kansas Republicans deserve a nominee who can win. Given the result in last year’s gubernatorial race, we’re watching this race closely and will make a decision on our potential involvement when the time comes,” said Jack Pandol, spokesman for the Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC with ties to McConnell.