Two apparently unrelated news stories unfolded recently, but they have more in common than might be obvious.

The first story, printed in papers throughout the country, focused on the influence the pharmaceutical industry wielded in the recent elections.

Companies and their lobbyists donated $19 million to major parties and politicians leading up to the November elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks such things. Nearly $3 of every $4 went to Republicans.

The drug industry's foes argue that pharmaceutical companies use the contributions to buy access, and use the access to shape legislation that protects their rights to charge whatever they want for prescriptions. (And those costs, the thinking goes, are outrageously unfair.)

The solution offered by many activists is for the government to set prices for pharmaceuticals. The reason that won't happen, they say, is that the industry buys elections. (They usually don't mention the money labor unions and liberal interest groups spend.)

Story two appeared on the front pages of papers across the country Thursday. The gist: A new vaccine appears to block the virus that causes a significant percentage of cervical cancer cases.

Where did that drug come from?

Many stories noted it was produced at Merck Research Laboratories.

What the stories didn't state was that the lab is an arm of one of those big, bad drug companies that bought the election so it could thwart democracy and, gasp, make profits.

We're not aware of any interest group's issuing a press release Thursday condemning the drug industry for charging enough to spend billions on research each year.

No one, of course, likes high drug prices. Reasonable steps could make prescriptions more affordable, especially for people covered by the government's Medicaid and Medicare programs. And the influence of big money in politics is, indeed, worth being concerned about.