How Pharmaceutical Industry Money Blocks Congressional Drug Price Reform

November 20, 2025

The pharmaceutical industry’s investment in American politics delivers extraordinary returns. After a secret $4 million dark-money donation from PhRMA to the Republican-aligned American Action Network, drugmakers recently secured $8.8 billion in savings over the next decade through GOP-led rollbacks of drug price negotiation provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act.¹ This represents approximately a 29-to-1 return on investment when measured against industry lobbying expenditures—pharmaceutical companies spent roughly $150 million on federal lobbying in 2025 alone.¹

The recent Republican rollbacks exempted entire categories of high-cost drugs from Medicare price negotiation, including eliminating the “pill penalty” rule for oral medications, exempting orphan drugs despite those drugs receiving significant tax credits and market exclusivities, and increasing exemptions for blockbuster cancer and rare disease drugs.¹ Each exemption was fought for by pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and protects billions in future profits. Each exemption means Americans will continue rationing insulin, skipping chemotherapy, and dying from inability to afford medications that could save their lives.

This is not corruption in the abstract. These are specific transactions where pharmaceutical executives write checks to political candidates, those candidates echo industry talking points opposing price negotiation, and Congress then delivers billions in savings to those same corporations. The money flows in one direction, the legislative favors flow back. The only losers are American patients who continue paying two to four times more for prescription drugs than patients in other wealthy countries.

Jake Auchincloss: A Case Study in Corporate Capture

Representative Jake Auchincloss, who represents Massachusetts District 4, exemplifies how pharmaceutical industry money translates into congressional opposition to drug price reform. During his 2020 campaign for the open seat previously held by Representative Joe Kennedy III, Auchincloss received substantial support from major pharmaceutical executives and lobbyists who recognized a friendly face for their industry.²

The Donor List Reads Like a Who’s Who of Big Pharma:

The CEOs of America’s largest pharmaceutical corporations personally donated to Auchincloss’s campaign, each contributing the maximum $2,800 allowed by federal law:²

• Albert Bourla, chairman and CEO of Pfizer
• Giovanni Caforio, chairman of Bristol Myers Squibb
• Keith Gottesdiener, CEO of Rhythm Pharmaceuticals
• Robert Bradway, chairman and CEO of Amgen

Beyond pharmaceutical CEOs, venture capital investors with major pharmaceutical industry stakes also contributed. RA Capital Management—a Boston-based venture capital firm managing $4.6 billion in pharmaceutical and biotechnology investments—supported Auchincloss through managing partner Peter Kolchinsky, who personally donated $3,300.²

These are not small biotech startups or research-focused companies. These are the pharmaceutical giants that Americans blame for unaffordable medication costs. Pfizer generated $58.5 billion in revenue in 2020. Bristol Myers Squibb reported $42.5 billion. Amgen pulled in $25.4 billion. RA Capital Management invests $4.6 billion across pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies whose profitability depends on maintaining high drug prices. These corporations and investors possess enormous resources to influence legislation, and they deploy those resources strategically to candidates who will protect their interests.

Beyond CEO donations, pharmaceutical lobbyists also contributed to Auchincloss’s campaign:²

• Nicholas Shipley, vice president of PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), donated $1,000
• Senior members of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) contributed over $1,000 combined
• Robert Coughlin, CEO of MassBio, donated $1,000

In total, Auchincloss raised more than $80,000 from health industry interests during his 2020 campaign.²

The Dana-Farber Connection: Family Networks and Industry Access

The pharmaceutical industry’s support for Auchincloss extended through family connections that provided unique access to medical establishment donors. Auchincloss’s mother, Laurie Glimcher, serves as president and CEO of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of the nation’s most prestigious cancer research and treatment centers.² Glimcher leveraged her position and network to help fundraise for her son’s campaign, connecting Auchincloss to Dana-Farber board members and physicians who contributed more than $15,000.²

This family connection illustrates how pharmaceutical and medical establishment interests intertwine to support political candidates who will protect industry profits. Dana-Farber maintains close relationships with pharmaceutical companies through research partnerships, clinical trials, and funding agreements. Board members often have pharmaceutical industry ties. This network creates a ecosystem where medical institutions, pharmaceutical corporations, and political candidates reinforce each other’s interests—often at patients’ expense.

The revolving door between medical institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and politics ensures that industry-friendly perspectives dominate policy discussions. Glimcher herself moved from academia (Harvard Medical School) to leading a major cancer center that depends on pharmaceutical industry relationships. Glimcher also sits on the board of directors of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, directly linking her to drug company governance while her son serves in Congress voting on legislation affecting that same industry. Her son now serves in Congress where he votes on legislation affecting pharmaceutical companies, including those where his mother holds board positions. The appearance of conflicts of interest is unmistakable, even if technically legal under current campaign finance law.

Super PAC Support: Pharmaceutical Money Floods In

Beyond direct campaign contributions, pharmaceutical industry insiders poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a super PAC supporting Auchincloss’s 2020 campaign—an unusual level of outside support for a first-time congressional candidate. The pro-Auchincloss super PAC “Experienced Leadership Matters” raised $575,000 total, funded largely by pharmaceutical-linked money.

The single biggest donor to this super PAC was Auchincloss’s mother, Laurie Glimcher, who contributed $105,000—over 18% of the PAC’s total funds. Other pharmaceutical-connected donors included Patrick Ronan, a consultant whose firm advises pharmaceutical clients and whose company employs Auchincloss’s sister, who gave $5,000. Healthcare investors like the Kraft family also contributed. In short, pharmaceutical insiders quietly poured hundreds of thousands into a super PAC to get Auchincloss elected, signaling their confidence in whose side he would take in drug pricing battles.

The super PAC expenditures complemented Auchincloss’s already substantial direct fundraising from pharmaceutical interests. When combined with his campaign’s $80,000+ from health industry donors, the total pharmaceutical investment in electing Auchincloss exceeded $650,000—extraordinary for a Democratic primary in a safe blue district. This level of pharmaceutical industry mobilization demonstrated that drugmakers and biotech investors viewed Auchincloss as a critical ally worth significant financial investment.

Congressional Votes and Industry Talking Points

After winning election, Auchincloss continued serving pharmaceutical industry interests through his congressional votes and public statements. In 2021, as Democrats pushed the Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R.3) to finally empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices, Auchincloss emerged—to many observers’ surprise—as a voice of caution. A freshman from a liberal district broke with the party’s progressive stance on drug pricing.

Auchincloss co-authored a letter with Representative Scott Peters (D-CA), another pharmaceutical-funded Democrat, warning Speaker Pelosi against H.R.3’s most aggressive pricing provisions. Specifically, Auchincloss objected to H.R.3’s proposal to cap drug prices at 120% of an international average—a form of external reference pricing that would immediately reduce American drug costs by linking them to prices in other wealthy countries. He argued such “price controls” would “discourage research and development” and undermine the “innovation ecosystem”—language lifted almost verbatim from pharmaceutical lobbyists.

In interviews, Auchincloss insisted that reducing drug company revenues would deter the “risk capital” needed for new cures and cost Massachusetts biotech jobs. These claims precisely matched pharmaceutical industry talking points that companies have deployed for decades to block price negotiation. HuffPost reported in July 2021 that Auchincloss, “flush with pharma cash,” was repeating industry arguments claiming that price negotiation would “stifle innovation” and reduce drug development.³

Health policy experts immediately recognized that Auchincloss was parroting the pharmaceutical industry’s narrative. Boston University professor Rena Conti observed there was “very limited daylight, if any, between [Auchincloss’s] position and Pharma’s positions.” Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Aaron Kesselheim flatly labeled the “innovation” argument a “scare tactic” promoted by drug companies to stave off reform.

The innovation argument collapses under scrutiny. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing, stock buybacks, and executive compensation than on research and development.⁴ The National Institutes of Health funds much of the basic research underlying new drugs through taxpayer dollars, meaning the public already subsidizes pharmaceutical innovation.⁴ Drug companies then privatize profits from publicly funded research while claiming that any price regulation would eliminate their incentive to develop new medications.

Moreover, countries with aggressive drug price controls—Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France—continue to benefit from pharmaceutical innovation at the same rate as the United States. Companies develop drugs for the global market, not solely for American patients. They will not abandon blockbuster drugs with worldwide sales potential because the United States negotiates prices closer to international norms. The innovation argument serves as a protection racket: pay our extortionate prices or we will withhold lifesaving treatments. Indeed, countries like Germany and Canada manage to foster pharmaceutical innovation while enforcing far lower drug prices—undermining the claim that high U.S. prices are indispensable for new cures.

Auchincloss’s objections were not grounded in unique constituent concerns, but in pharmaceutical industry talking points. And notably, he raised these objections while “flush with pharma cash,” as HuffPost characterized his campaign finance situation. The transactional nature was unmistakable: he had accepted tens of thousands from drug interests, and now was using their arguments to weaken a bill those interests opposed.

After public pressure and negative press—including progressive groups in Massachusetts running ads calling him out for “blocking efforts to lower your drug prices”—Auchincloss ultimately reversed course. He voted for the pared-down negotiation provisions that made it into the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and eventually even co-sponsored H.R.3. But his initial resistance, alongside a handful of other pharmaceutical-funded Democrats, helped water down the final policy. The pharmaceutical industry’s investment in Auchincloss had already paid dividends in weakening drug price negotiation before it could pass.

2022 Re-Election: The Money Keeps Flowing

The pharmaceutical industry’s investment in Auchincloss did not end after his 2020 victory. Having demonstrated his willingness to echo industry talking points and oppose aggressive price negotiation in 2021, Auchincloss became an even more attractive recipient of pharmaceutical dollars.

By mid-2021, he had already received $40,000 from pharmaceutical interests for his 2022 re-election campaign.³ This represented a continuation of the same funding pattern: pharmaceutical executives, biotech investors, and industry lobbyists who profited from high drug prices investing in a congressman who had proven he would protect those profits. Campaign finance records show pharmaceutical industry donors continued supporting Auchincloss’s Victory Fund throughout the 2022 cycle, reinforcing the transactional relationship—pharmaceutical money in exchange for legislative opposition to meaningful price controls.⁵

2023-2024: Pharmaceutical Money Reaches New Heights

By 2024, Auchincloss’s reliance on pharmaceutical industry funding had only deepened. RA Capital Management became the #1 donor to Auchincloss’s Victory Fund with $104,650 in combined contributions from the firm’s partners and employees.⁶ This represented an extraordinary show of support from a single firm whose business model depends entirely on high drug prices.

RA Capital’s business model creates a direct financial interest in opposing drug price negotiation. The firm invests in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, then profits when those companies charge maximum prices for medications. Medicare drug price negotiation directly threatens RA Capital’s returns by constraining the prices its portfolio companies can extract from patients. When drug prices fall, RA Capital’s investment returns fall.

The firm’s $104,650 investment in Auchincloss’s 2024 Victory Fund represents a calculated political expenditure: contribute six figures to a representative who has demonstrated willingness to protect pharmaceutical industry profits from regulatory constraints. For RA Capital, this is simply rational business strategy—spending $104,650 to help elect someone who will work to preserve billions in potential profits from their portfolio companies delivers an extraordinary return on investment.

Few members of Congress rely on pharmaceutical money as heavily as Auchincloss, especially among Democrats from safe blue districts where industry funding is unnecessary for electoral survival. The pharmaceutical industry’s sustained, multi-cycle investment in Auchincloss—from 2020 through 2024—reflects their assessment that he consistently delivers value for their contributions, value measured in his opposition to aggressive price negotiation and his willingness to echo industry talking points in critical legislative debates.

The Pharmaceutical-Political Network: Visualizing the Connections

The Broader Pattern: Industry Money, Legislative Outcomes

Auchincloss is not unique. He exemplifies a pattern that pervades congressional drug pricing debates: pharmaceutical industry campaign contributions correlate strongly with opposition to price negotiation. The industry targets donations strategically to members of Congress who serve on committees with jurisdiction over healthcare and pharmaceutical policy, ensuring maximum influence on legislation.

The pharmaceutical industry spent nearly $150 million on federal lobbying in 2025, hiring hundreds of lobbyists including many former congressional staffers and executive branch officials who maintain relationships with current policymakers.¹ This spending purchases access, shapes legislative language, and delivers talking points to friendly members of Congress. Combined with direct campaign contributions, the industry creates an ecosystem where its interests dominate policy discussions.

Beyond direct contributions, the industry uses dark money groups to obscure the source of political spending. PhRMA donated $4 million to the American Action Network, a Republican-aligned dark money organization that spent over $55 million supporting GOP candidates in 2024.¹ This allows pharmaceutical companies to influence elections while maintaining plausible deniability about their involvement. Candidates benefit from dark money advertising supporting their campaigns without voters knowing that pharmaceutical companies funded those ads.

The return on investment is extraordinary. The recent Republican rollbacks of drug pricing provisions delivered $8.8 billion in savings to pharmaceutical companies over the next decade.¹ This $8.8 billion windfall resulted from industry lobbying expenditures of approximately $300 million over the relevant legislative period. A 29-to-1 return represents a better investment than any drug these companies manufacture.

Conclusion: Follow the Money

The pharmaceutical industry’s influence on drug pricing policy is not subtle. Companies donate to candidates, those candidates echo industry talking points, Congress delivers billions in corporate welfare. The money flows, the legislative favors flow back, and Americans die because they cannot afford medications.

Jake Auchincloss received $80,000 from pharmaceutical interests, opposed strong price negotiation, and echoed industry arguments about innovation. This is not coincidence—it is corruption made legal through campaign finance law. Massachusetts District 4 voters can end this corruption by electing representatives who refuse pharmaceutical money and champion constituent interests over donor interests.

For a comprehensive overview of prescription drug pricing policy and what Congress must do, see our Lower Prescription Drug Prices issue page.

---

References