Democrats See a Stealthy Drive by Drug Industry to Help Republicans

By ROBIN TONER

ASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — In important Congressional races around the country, a fierce battle is being waged over what Democrats assert is a stealth campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to help House Republicans.

At issue are advertisements being run in 20 Congressional districts by the United Seniors Association, a conservative group that acknowledges it receives some financing from the drug industry's major trade group. The advertisements, tailored for each district, praise lawmakers for supporting legislation to provide prescription drug benefits to the elderly.

Starring a chipper Art Linkletter, who proclaims that "America's seniors deserve the best of health," a recent version of the advertisement declares that the Congress member in question "is fighting for real prescription drug coverage" and tells viewers "to urge him to keep standing up for America's seniors."

Charles W. Jarvis, chairman of the United Seniors Association, says his group is simply trying to spur "a civil debate in the public square" on an important issue. He rejects the idea that his group has any campaign considerations in mind; given its tax status as a 501(c)4, it is allowed to engage in lobbying activities like issue advertising, but not to advocate the election or defeat of individual candidates.

Claiming a "network" at the grass roots of more than 1.5 million supporters, Mr. Jarvis says the notion that his group is being used as "a front group" by the drug industry, as argued by Democrats, is "ludicrous." The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade group, gives money to his group because it shares its market-oriented views on health care, he said.

Mr. Jarvis declined to discuss how much money the drug companies were providing, or the total cost of the campaign, other than to say that it would be "a large sum." Because of its status, the seniors group does not have to disclose the sources of its income.

A national analysis by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin said a "conservative" estimate of spending on this campaign, which began last spring when the legislation was moving through the House, would total more than $9 million so far this year.

Democratic consultants who are tracking television buys put the estimate even higher, at just under $13 million so far. While the group has broadcast advertisements praising a few Democratic incumbents, most of the campaign is focused on Republican members, many in competitive races.

Democrats and liberal consumer advocates assert that the commercials are clearly misleading, an effort to provide political cover to Republicans who would otherwise be vulnerable on the issue. The commercials do not mention that the group receives drug industry money, these advocates note, nor that the legislation it praises is a Republican bill that closely tracks the industry's position on how drug benefits should be provided.

"The pharmaceutical lobby has taken deceptive advertising to new heights," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group.

Public Citizen, the liberal consumer group, asserts in a new report, "These sham issue ads are really designed to help industry allies who face tough re-election campaigns."

Congressional Democrats are even angrier. "It's outrageous," said Representative Tim Holden, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is in a tight race with another incumbent, Representative George W. Gekas, a Republican, because of redistricting.

"We've tried to expose it," Mr. Holden said. "We've had news conferences and the reporting's been fair. But when you have a half-million or a million dollar buy running every night, it's hard to penetrate."

In other parts of the country, Democrats are broadcasting rebuttal advertisements to the United Seniors campaign.

"Seen this ad for Clay Shaw?" one advertisement demanded in the South Florida district held by Representative Clay E. Shaw Jr., a veteran Republican. "A drug industry front group is spending millions claiming Shaw lowered the cost of prescription drugs. Who do they think they're fooling?" His Democratic opponent, Carol Roberts, is running hard on the prescription drug issue.

Jackie Cottrell, a spokeswoman for the pharmaceutical trade organization, declined to discuss the United Seniors campaign, referring all questions to the group itself.

Republicans say the Democrats are simply flailing. "The fact is, House Republicans passed a bill creating prescription drug benefits two times," said Steve Schmidt, director of communications for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "The Democrats' hopes that prescription drugs would be an issue favorable to them is an illusion, a fantasy."

The battle over advertisements is the latest in a rough political struggle over prescription drugs — what to do about soaring costs, and whether to add a drug benefit to Medicare.

Democrats have campaigned on the issue for the last four years, asserting that Republicans have no real interest in easing the plight of elderly Americans facing soaring drug bills. Republicans, for their part, hail their passage of a bill in the House as an example of their commitment, even though it died quickly in the Senate.

There is a deep philosophical issue behind the struggle. Most Democrats have wanted to add a benefit to the traditional Medicare program; Republicans prefer to use subsidies to encourage private insurers to offer those benefits.

For its part, the pharmaceutical industry prefers the private-market approach and has fought the idea of adding drug benefits to the traditional Medicare program, on the ground that it will lead inexorably to price controls. Industry officials say that will crimp money available for research; critics assert that the companies are simply concerned with profits.

The ferocity of this struggle has made the industry a major political player. "They're the big players in terms of industry groups," said Ken Goldstein, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin. "They were in 2000; they will be this time."