The New Business Coup? Increasing Evidence that Large Health Care Corporations are Funding Threats to Democracy

Introduction: Health Care Corporations' Political Contributions: From Bipartisan to Trumpian

 At one time, leadership of large health corporations were circumspect in their financial support for US politicians and political causes. They provided some funds directly to politicians and political organizations, but often amounts given to different parties and organizations with different ideologies were balanced. Presumably, the goal was to promote access to whomever was in power at any given time. 

 

With the rise of Donald Trump, things changed. Many leaders apparently went all in for Trump and his Republican supporters.  In June, 2018  we discussed how CVS channeled money to a "dark money group," that promoted Trump administration policies, including repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates. In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians. In March, 2019, we discussed how in the 21st century, health care corporate CEOs' personal political contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

Some corporations paused some of their political giving after a mob whipped up by Trump at a January 6, 2021, rally violently stormed the US Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 election. However, within two months they started giving again in support of Republicans in Congress who voted not to certify the election (see this April, 2021, post, this July 7, 2021, post, and this September 7, 2021 post).

Now just after the anniversary of an insurrection that almost prevented the certification of the 2020 US presidential election results, there are new indications that leaders of big health care corporations are continuing to support Republicans in Congress who voted to overrule the results of that election.

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of the Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has updated their report on corporate sponsorship of the politicians who wanted to overturn the election.  The January 3, 2022 version is entitled "The Corporate Insurrection: How companies have broken promises and funded seditionists." It described the "717 corporations and industry groups have donated over $18 million to 143 of the 147 members of Congress who objected to the results of the 2020 presidential election, as well as the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee."  It referred to the updated data about the largest corporate funders appearing in the current version of CREW's previous report.  The health care corporations that appear in this list of 80 are:

Pfizer                                        $71,000

Merck                                      $68,000

Eli Lilly                                   $42,000

Johnson & Johnson                   $38,500

Anthem                                   $32,500

Cigna                                       $30,000

CVS Health                            $30,000 

AstraZeneca                           $26,500

Humana                                $15,000

Blue Cross & Blue Shield         $15,000 

Keep in mind that these amounts only reflect corporate donations directly to members of Congress, their own leadership PACs, and to the national Republican campaign committees, which must be disclosed by law. They do not include any amounts given by corporate executives, or amounts given to various kinds of dark money organizations, which do not have to be disclosed according to law.  Thus they may seriously undercount the financial support given by health care corporations to support those who wanted to nullify the election. But at least these figures suggest that 5 large pharmaceutical/ biotechnology companies, 4 health care insurance companies, and one diversified pharmacy company continue to be strong supporters of legislators who were willing to do so.  

Furthermore, as noted in a January 5, 2022, article in Fierce Pharma, spokespeople for some of these corporations declared they were no longer worrying about whether politicians support democracy or tried to overturn an election, but only about whether the politicians support policies that would improve their corporate bottom lines.  For example, see this from Pfizer:

Pfizer’s PAC supports policymakers who value innovation and expanded access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines that change patients’ lives,

And see this from Eli Lilly: 

[the company] supports candidates across the political spectrum who understand the value of a vibrant pharmaceutical ecosystem to address unmet patient needs.

Billionaires Who Made Their Money from Health Care Corporations Who Supported the Attempt to Overturn the Election  

A January 6, 2022 article in Forbes listed the "more than 50 billionaires [who] donated in the second half of 2021 to legislators who voted against certifying the presidential election, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records."  Two the billionaires made their fortunes from health care corporations.  They were: 

- Phillip Frost, worth $2,500,000,000, described as "a long-time health care investor, inventor and founder, Phillip Frost now runs diagnostics-maker Opko Health." He "joined Key Pharmaceuticals in 1972, reformulated its asthma drug and sold the company in 1986 for $836 million." Also, he "founded Ivax, a generic drugmaker, in 1987. He sold it to Teva Pharmaceuticals for $7.6 billion in 2005"  Frost supported Sen Hawley (R-MO). 

- James Leininger, worth $1,500,000,000, described as having "made his fortune founding medical devices company Kinetic Concepts (KCI), which focuses on wound care." He also runs "Medcare Investment Funds, which manages $1 billion in assets." Leininger supported Rep Cloud (R-TX). 

 Discussion

 As we said before, most health care corporations publish high-minded aspirational statements that promise pluralism, support of the community, and of our representative democratic society. Data revealed recently and discussed in our previous three posts increasingly show that some leaders of  large health care corporations saw fit to direct contributions to politicians who promoted anti-democratic policies. Funding political leaders who would challenge election outcomes in the absence of very clear evidence of election irregularities seems to violate high-minded corporate pledges of inclusiveness.

Is it that health care corporate leadership just are more interested in making money than in bettering society, despite their aspirational mission statements? As we previously discussed, that is a plausible formulation.  For example, per the Washington Post in January, 2021,

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee.

Also, the quotes above support the idea that corporate leaders put their own bottom lines ahead of supporting the republican form of government that partially made their revenues possible.

On the other hand, maybe it is not just about money.  Again, as we said before, by virtue of being top corporate managers, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they would  be able to control as private persons, and to do so quietly and sometimes anonymously.  Corporate leaders may thus be able to promote their own interests through their corporations' political giving.  Those interests may go beyond just personal enrichment.   Some may also be interested in personal political power, or have other ways they might benefit from anti-democratic, authoritarian, even openly fascist national political leadership.  

Big industrialists have backed authoritarian and openly fascist regimes in other countries before, some to make more money, but in retrospect, some for darker reasons. (See, for example, this article on how German industrialists financially bailed out the Nazi party in 1932.)  

There was at least one previous instance in which US business leaders tried to effect a coup to oust a President they considered too left wing.  This was sometimes called the "business coup."  According to a Washington Post article from 2021, its sponsors included "included J.P. Morgan Jr., Irénée du Pont and the CEOs of General Motors, Birds Eye and General Foods."  Their goal was to depose President Franklin D Roosevelt and 

install a dictator who was more business friendly. After all, they reasoned, that had been working well in Italy

The plot failed because the former military officer they chose to lead it informed the government.  So far, the attempt by now former President Trump and his followers to do something similar has also failed. That does not mean, however, that the next attempt will not succeed.

 

IMHO, all citizens need to wake up and  protect our republic.  Furthermore, all medical and public health professionals specifically need to take action to wake up and protect our republic specifically from self-interested health care corporate leaders.  Imagine what health care and public health might be like were they to exert near absolute control facilitated by an authoritarian they installed in office 

 

 

Leadership of Big Health Care Corporations Go Back to Financially Supporting the Opponents of Democratic Governance

At one time, leadership of large health corporations were circumspect in their financial support for US politicians and political causes. They provided some funds directly to politicians and poltical organizations, but often amounts given to different parties and organizations with different ideologies were balanced. Presumably, the goal was to promote access to whomever was in power at any given time. 

With the rise of Donald Trump, things changed. Many leaders apparently went all in for Trump and his Republican supporters.  In June, 2018  we discussed how CVS channeled money to a "dark money group," that promoted Trump administration policies, including repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates. In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians. In March, 2019, we discussed how in the 21st century, health care corporate CEOs' personal political contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

 

Some corporations paused some of their political giving after a mob whipped up by Trump at a January 6, 2021, rally violently stormed the US Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 election. However, within two months they started giving again in support of Republicans in Congress who voted not to certify the election (see this April, 2021, post).

Now two new reports show continuing support by large health care corporations for Republican legislators who also supported the nullification of the election, and legislation that might decrease voting by citizens who oppose Trump

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of Voter Suppression

In April, 2021, Public Citizen published "The Corporate Sponsorship of Voter Suppression." It detailed support from direct corporate contributions and corporate political action committees (PACs) from 2015 through March, 2021, to state legislators who authored, sponsored or voted for 245 bills that could have made it more difficult for citizens to vote in elections. 

The 25 companies contributing the largest amounts of money to these legislators included UnitedHealth Group ($411,200 total); Pfizer ($308,085); and Centene Corp ($205,200).  Companies that gave somewhat less included Merck ($180,000),  CVS ($174,000), Anthem ($138,150) Eli Lilly ($124,000) and Cigna ($109,225).

Two health care related trade groups also gave significant funds to these legislators: the Virginia Dental Association ($223,000) and the  Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America/PhRMA ($200,000).   

Note that the data did not include personal contributions from corporate leaders, and could not include corporate money directed to dark money organizations that ended up supporting these legislators.

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of the Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election

In June, 2021, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) published "This Sedition is Brought to You By..." It detailed contributions from corporate PACS and trade groups to those in the US Congress who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election and the two main party organizations that supported them, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) since the vote not to certify.  

The largest contributions from health care corporate PACs included those tied to Fresenius Medical Care Holdings ($76,000); CVS ($45,000); Cigna ($42,500); Johnson & Johnson ($30,000); Pfizer ($20,000); and Humana ($15,000).

Note that the data also did not include contributions from corporate leaders, and could not include corporate money directed to dark money organizations that ended up supporting these legislators. 

Discussion

Most health care corporations profess to missions that are pluralistic and support the community and society as a whole.  For example, Pfizer's mission statement includes:

We partner with governments, non-profits, and other organizations to ensure that more people around the world have access to the medicine and resources they require.

UnitedHealthCare's mission statement includes:

UnitedHealthcare is dedicated to helping people live healthier lives and making the health system work better for everyone

Merck's mission statement includes:

We demonstrate our commitment to patients and population health by increasing access to health care through far-reaching policies, programs and partnerships

However, leaders of some large health care corporations saw fit to direct contributions to politicians who promoted anti-democratic policies. Funding political leaders who would restrict voting rights in ways likely to impact already disadvantaged groups, and challenge election outcomes without strong evidence of irregularities would seem to violate high-minded corporate pledges of inclusiveness like those above.    

Is it that health care corporate leadership just are more interested in making money than in bettering society, despite their aspirational mission statements? As we previously discussed, that is a plausible formulation.  For example, per the Washington Post in January, 2021,

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee.

However, there are problems with this formulation.  As we wrote before,  it is obvious why a pharmaceutical company might want to defeat legislation that would lower its prices or raise its taxes.  It is not obvious why it would want to consistently support actions by one party, or by people at one end of the political spectrum, even if some such people seem generally "pro-business."  After all, for years big corporations and their executives openly gave money to both US parties and their candidates, apparently in the belief that this would at least allow more visibility for the corporations' priorities no matter who was in power.

Maybe it is not just about money.  Again, as we said before, by virtue of being top management of a corporation, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they may be able to control as private persons, and to do so anonymously.  It may be that top corporate leaders are not just interested in making more money.  Some may also be interested in personal political power, or have other ways they might benefit from anti-democratic, if not openly fascist national political leadership.  Big industrialists have backed authoritarian and openly fascist regimes in other countries before, some to make more money, but in retrospect, some for darker reasons. (See, for example, this article on how German industrialists financially bailed out the Nazi party in 1932.)

At least health care professionals, policy makers, patients and the public at large deserve to know how health care corporate leadership is directing money to political causes, and how they benefit from doing so. 

 

    

A Few Leaders of Big Health Care Corporations Hesitate in Their Support of Extreme Politics and Insurrection, But Will Anything Really Change?

 Some recent but not well publicized articles suggests how big health care corporations are still enabling some of the worst aspects of health care and larger political economic dysfunction.

Introduction - Health Care Corporate Political Donations Become More Partisan and Ideological

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away big health care corporations in the US had an apparently straightforward philosophy of political giving.  They gave contributions more or less equally to both major political parties.  Apparently the theory was that the corporate giving would be remembered favorably by whoever won elections and got governmental power.  Corporate contributions raised major concerns about their ability to purchase access and influence policy far beyond those of less wealthy groups and the public at large.  At least, however, it was overtly non-partisan, and ostensibly not ideological.

However, things changed, and health care (and larger corporate) political giving became more partisan, and and more ideological. As we discussed here, 

- In June, 2018, we first noted how the huge pharmacy chain CVS, had been secretly making contributions to America First Policies, an ostensibly non-profit organization.  CVS claimed that it helped fund AFP because it supported tax reform.  Actually, AFP acted to promote Trump administration policies. AFP encouraged repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and building a wall on the US southern border.  These seemed at odds with CVS claims about its social responsibility.  

- In September, 2018, we noted that big health care corporations often make high-minded public pledges about supporting patients' and the public's health, and sometimes social responsibility, but have been found to be covertly supporting policy initiatives that seemed to subvert these goals, using "dark money."  The dark money groups they used to channel this money often had explicitly partisan leadership and direction, usually right-wing and Republican.

 

- In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates.

- In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians.

- In March, 2019, we discussed a study of the personal political contributions of CEOs of large corporations.  In the 21st century, the CEOs' contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

- In October, 2020, we discussed the apparent relationship between the support to Trump provided by large pharmaceutical corporations and his inclination to outsource his coronavirus pandemic management to them. 

Corporate leadership's enthusiasm for Trump, his policies, and his associates seemed to arise from  economic interests of the corporations and the self-interest of their top management, but without consideration of how Trump and associates' actions may have harmed larger corporate, social, or national interests.  As discussed in a Washington Post article on January 8, 2021:

Business groups big and small largely stuck by Trump as he broke one norm after another over the past four years, including insulting immigrants, appearing to empathize with white supremacists in Charlottesville and clearing a Black Lives Matter protest in Washington for a photo op. They stuck by him still after he pressured the Ukrainian president in a bid to help his own election chances, after his impeachment, after he intentionally downplayed the effects of the novel coronavirus and last week after he was recorded pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to overturn the election results.

Even Trump supporters admitted the corporate leaders' extreme compartmentalization:

'It isn’t going to affect tax rates. How about monetary policy? Allow me to stay pure to my turf,' Art Laffer, a supply side economist who is close with White House economic officials and speaks to the president, said in a brief interview.

One observer described their thinking thus:

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee. 'They should have known from the beginning.'

However, the Trump administration's actions and policies often seemed to directly contradict the stated values, visions and missions of health care corporations.  For example, Pfizer declares its values to be:

customer focus, leadership, quality innovation, collaboration, respect for people, integrity, and performance

How would the value "respect for people" align with Trump's hostility toward immigrants, or sympathy for white supremacists?  How would the value "integrity" align with Trump's pressure on the Ukraine to influence his election, or his pressure on officials in the state of Georgia to alter the election results in his favor?  

Nonetheless, until very recently, hardly anyone seemed to notice that large health care corporations had changed their political giving so as to make its effects antithetical to the corporations' declared principles and values.  

Trump's Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election Inspire A Few in Corporate Leadership to Rethink Its Political Support for Him and His Associates

Yet things apparently changed after Trump's attempts to overturn the election, including claims that he actually won despite obvious evidence to the contrary, baseless legal challenges to the election results that were almost all dismissed by the courts, and an attempt by Trump supporters in Congress to challenge and possibly override the election results in congressional proceeding.  That crossed a line.

Within days, corporate leaders who had generally been quiet about Trump administration's actions and policies that ran counter to their organizations' stated goals and mission began to speak up.  Several hundred signed a statement:  

Congress should certify the electoral vote on Wednesday, January 6. Attempts to thwart or delay this process run counter to the essential tenets of our democracy.

Most of those who signed lead financial firms, but the list did include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, a firm that had been one of Trump's favorites (see above).

Then, Trump's exhortation to his supporters at a rally to march on the Capitol while congress was debating Trump's supporters' challenge to the election results, which led to an insurrection and armed occupation of the Capitol building,  which was eventually beaten back by law enforcement with significant casualties led some corporate leaders to rethink their positions. 

The next day, per the Washington Post:

The mob scenes at the Capitol attracted harsh and unusual criticism from business groups, including the chief executive of one of the nation’s largest banks saying he is 'disgusted' and a manufacturing trade group calling it 'sedition' and suggesting that President Trump must be removed from office immediately.

It was a stunning series of rebukes for a president who had received widespread support from corporate America for most of his turbulent term, especially for his efforts to cut government regulations and reduce corporate tax rates.

But what occurred Wednesday seemed finally to be too much. Trump staged a rally in Washington a short walk from where Congress was counting the electoral college votes, with Trump whipping up his followers with fabrications about election results and urging them to march to the Capitol to protest. Later, Trump appeared to sympathize with the mob and support the violent actions.

 The National Association of Manufacturers soon after released an extraordinary statement from its president, Jay Timmons, saying Vice President Pence 'should seriously consider working with the Cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to preserve democracy.'

At that time, one more CEO of a pharmaceutical company that had been one of Trump's favorites spoke up:

Alex Gorsky, the chief executive of Johnson & Johnson, said in a statement that he is 'devastated by this assault on what our country has stood for since its founding: free, fair and peaceful elections.' He said it is time to stand for unity, 'not face-to-face in conflict — and to chart our path to a better and healthier future.'

Furthermore, some large corporations, including health care corporations, announced a review or freeze on political donations through their corporate political action committees (PACs). Per the New York Times, January 11, 2021:

A flurry of companies have since reviewed political giving via their corporate political action committees.... Blue Cross Blue Shield, Boston Scientific... are taking a similar, targeted approach to donation freezes.

On January 12, 2021, StatNews summarized responses by health care corporations:

 The list, so far, is short: the Blue Cross BlueShield Association, an insurer federation, said this week it would pause contributions specifically to candidates who effectively voted to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election.  Drug manufactures Gilead Scientific and Amgen, as well as BIO, the biotech lobbying group, said they would pause contributions to all candidates regardless of how they voted on election certification, according to spokespeople.  UnitedHealth Group and Boston Scientific, the medical device giant, said the same.

Others, like CVS Health and the insurance lobby group America's Health Insurance Plans, were more cautious, saying they would review their future giving.

However,

Many other health care corporations and lobby groups... have not responded publicly.

The article also noted:

Many of the GOP lawmakers who voted against certifying the Electoral College results are those whom the drug industry and other health care sectors have long viewed as allied.  

The list included Republicans in Congress whom may be regarded as extreme supporters of Trump, eg Rep Devin Nunes (R-CA), and Rep Andy Harris (R-MD).

I found one other report of a big health care corporation which changed its political donation policy in response to the attempt to overturn the election.  Per the Kansas City Star, January 13, 2021:

Cerner Corp. will suspend political donations to Sen. Josh Hawley and other politicians who it determines helped to incite the violent mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol building last week.

The North Kansas City-based healthcare IT firm is the latest to seek distance from Hawley, a Missouri Republican, and others who have supported baseless allegations of voter fraud in the November presidential election. 

A company spokesperson said:

'Effective immediately, Cerner PAC will suspend contributions to any candidate or official who took part in or incited violence last week in Washington, D.C.,' the statement said. 'Focusing on the health and well-being of the American people transcends partisan politics, and we will continue working with all elected leaders to advance policies that put the patient at the center of their care.'

I found another report of a big industry group which planned a "review" of its giving.  The American Hospital Association announced on January 14, 2021:

The tragic events last week at the U.S. Capitol were an assault on our democracy. This prompted the AHA to begin an immediate review of our political giving practices to ensure they are guided by our Association’s vision and mission, as well as the democratic values we share as a nation.

But that was it, a total of six large health care corporations and three industry groups announced a pause or review of political contributions (apparently limited to those from corporate PACs) to some of the politicians who voted to challenge the election results.  The Potter Report, authored by health care insurance whistle blower Wendell Potter, noted: 

There’s been a lot of talk this week about big corporations such as Amazon, Verizon and Comcast deciding to stop giving money to House and Senate Republicans who voted to overturn last year’s election. 

Guess which giants aren’t on that list? America’s big for-profit health insurers. 

Over the past two election cycles, Big Insurance has donated to just about all the 147 House and Senate Republicans who voted against certifying the election. That includes Cigna and Humana, where I once worked, and Centene and CVS/Aetna. Plus, the industry’s lobbying group, the American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

 The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which represents a lot of nonprofit insurers and for-profit Anthem, says it’s suspending donations to those Republicans. And UnitedHealth says it will 'pause' its political donations. But let’s see how long these 'pauses' actually last. 

So far, we haven’t heard a peep from AHIP or the other big for-profits, all of which have made huge profits during the pandemic, thanks largely to having lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle in their pockets. 

Big Insurance donated more than $9 million to House and Senate candidates during the 2020 cycle. Among their favorites? Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who led the effort to overturn the election. All the big for-profits donated to Cruz, and all but CVS/Aetna donated to Hawley. 

Note that no health care corporation announced changes in the donations by its top management.  Certainly none even mentioned political contributions through dark money groups (like those that CVS had been revealed to be making, see above).  So the attempt at overturning the election to keep Trump in office, first by quasi-legal maneuvering, then by an armed insurrection, had little effect on continuing underwriting by big health care corporations of the politicians who acquiesced to or actively supported this assault on the fundamentals of our representative democracy 

Two Months Later, Health Care Corporations "Back to Bankrollling Insurrectionists"

Within months, some of the few health care corporations who paused donations again seemed ready to cozy up to anti-democratic politicians.  As reported by the Daily Beast, March 24, 2021:

After the Jan. 6 insurrection, more than 120 corporations swiftly vowed to suspend campaign donations to Republicans who objected to certifying the 2020 election....

But it took less than two months for Pfizer to break that pledge. Their PAC gave $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by one of eight GOP Senators who voted to decertify election results—Rick Scott of Florida—on Feb. 23.

In total, The Daily Beast identified four companies that appear to have gone back on their suspension of donations to GOP election objectors: AT&T, Cigna Health, Ford Motors, and Pfizer.

[Note that I had not earlier found notice that Cigna Health, a for-profit insurance company, had suspended donations.]

Summary

So as far as I can tell, while Trump is out of office, the big health care corporations that provided plentiful financial support for his initial election and attempts at remaining in office, through electoral and anti-democratic means, are back to supporting the political party that has become his personal sandbox.

 It is increasingly evident that big health care corporations, despite their protestations of social responsibility and non-partisanship, now are actively supporting one wing, an extreme one, of the political spectrum.  This raises big questions: cui bono? Who benefits?

It is obvious why a pharmaceutical company, for example, might want to defeat legislation that would lower its prices or raise its taxes.

It is not obvious why it would want to consistently support actions by one party, or by people at one end of the political spectrum, even if some such people seem generally "pro-business."  After all, for years big corporations and their executives openly gave money to both US parties and their candidates, apparently in the belief that this would at least allow more visibility for the corporations' priorities no matter who was in power.

Now, the most obvious theory is that the new practice of secret donations only in right-wing, Republican, pro-Trump, and/or anti-democratic directions, which must be orchestrated by top corporate management, and which are not disclosed to employees or smaller corporate shareholders, are likely made to support the top managers' self interest more than the broad priorities of the corporations and their various constituencies. By virtue of being top management of a corporation, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they may be able to control as private persons, and to do so anonymously.  This could present many temptations, but the rationales for particular managers directing their corporations' fund to particular politicians or organizations remain unknown.  

Thus not only is more investigation needed, at the very least, "public" corporations ought to fully disclose all donations made to outside groups with political agendas.  This should be demanded by at least the corporations' employees and shareholders, but also by patients, health care professionals, and the public at large. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to ask that all organizations disclose all political funding which allows their leaders and managers to leverage their own political intentions.

Meanwhile we are left with the suspicion that top health care corporate management is increasingly merging with the Trumpist movement in one giant corporatist entity which is not in the interests of health care, much less government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

 

ead more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248457745.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248457745.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

Health Care Corporate Leaders Have Pledged Their Support for Racial Justice and Harmony: Will They Renounce Their Previous Support of a Very Racially Divisive Politician?

Leaders of big health care organizations frequently profess their social responsibility, and traditionally have avoided political partisanship.  However, their actions have not always been consistent with these sentiments.

Now, in response to the police killing of George Floyd and subsequent protests, many health care leaders pledged their support for racial peace and justice.  However, some of these leaders have previously supported  political leaders whose actions may have contributed to the current crisis.

Recently there were two cases showing vivid contrasts between health care leaders' pronouncements and their and their organizations' recent actions.

CEOs Condemn Racism

CVS CEO Larry Merlo

Early out of the gate was Larry Merlo, CEO of CVS, who released a statement to his employees on June 1, 2020:

The turmoil we are witnessing grows out of a long and deep history in our country, and as a nation we must focus on the injustices and discrimination that continue to divide us. I remain hopeful that we can find a way to move forward in unity to solve the nation’s most pressing issues.

In our workforce and in our communities, CVS Health’s commitment to inclusion and belonging is unwavering. It is critical to those we serve and grounded in our company values. We are a diverse community here at CVS Health – all 300,000 of us – and that diversity is one of our key strengths. It shows up in how we care for one another – walking in each other’s shoes, joining forces for the greater good and respecting one another no matter what our race or ethnicity. We will continue to uphold the commitment of mutual respect in everything we do. Discrimination and intolerance have no place in our business and will not be permitted in any form.

Johnson and Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky

On June 3, 2020, CNBC reported:

Johnson and Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky said Wednesday that white men need to 'do more listening' in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police.

'I realize that can be difficult,' Gorsky said during an interview with CNBC’s 'Squawk Box.' 'I think there’s no way you can just move through a checklist without I think demonstrating empathy and an understanding of some of the deep-seated nature and experiences the [black] community has had and is currently experiencing.'

Gorsky announced Tuesday that J&J is committing $10 million over the next three years 'to fighting racism and injustice in America' as people across the United States and other parts of the world protest against police killings of blacks.

'As the CEO of the world’s largest health-care company, I must state unequivocally that racism in any form is unacceptable, and that black lives matter,' he said in a LinkedIn post. 'And as a white man, I also need to acknowledge the limits of my own life experience and listen to those who have faced systemic injustice since the day they were born.'

CEOs' Friendliness with and Support for President Donald Trump


President Trump's recent actions have fanned the flames of racial discord. Here are just a few examples of news about what is still an evolving story: He called for a tough, militarized response to peaceful protests after the killing of George Floyd.  He tweeted "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," and  called protesters "thugs" (see Washington Post, May 29, 2020.)  He told governors to "dominate" the streets (see Washington Post, June 1, 2020.)  His Attorney General arranged the clearance of peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square near the White House using teargas and flash bang grenades so Trump could have a photo opportunity at a nearby church (see New York Times, June 3, 2020.)  He pushed to call out 10,000 active duty US troops to quell a protest in Washington DC that was largely peaceful (see Reuters, June 7, 2020).

That seems like the opposite of "focusing on injustice and discrimination," or "fighting racism."  However, in contrast with their current proclamations about racial harmony and inclusion, and against racism, these two CEOs have shown their friendliness to and support for President Donald Trump.


CVS CEO Larry Merlo

Merlo's stance on racial inclusivity and harmony, and against racism does not seem to fit with the CVS track record of quietly supporting a dark money non-profit organization whose main mission seemed to be providing political support for Trump, and was once led by people with very different views on race, as we posted in 2018.

CVS was revealed to have been contributing to a "dark money" organization called America First Policies (AFP), ostensibly a "social welfare" charity, but actually an organization devoted to promoting the Trump agenda.  While CVS said its support for AFP was related to the organization's tax reform agenda, it also promoted various policies that seemed to contradict the CVS ethics and social responsibility policies.  In addition, the relationship between CVS and AFP only came to light after some AFP leaders were found to have made racist and pro-Nazi proclamations.  When the unsavory nature of the AFP leaders' utterances came to light, a CVS spokesperson announced the company would sever ties with AFP.  However, to my knowledge, CVS never clearly explained why it was giving money to the group in the first place, and how doing so was consistent with its stated policies and goals.

CVS past support for an organization led by professed racists seems inconsistent with Mr Merlo's recent commitment to inclusion and belonging.  One wonders if he will renounce his company's previous actions.

In 2018, we also noted that CVS was making substantial contributions to the US Chamber of Commerce, which despite its bland name, some asserted had become a major source of "dark money" support for politically right-wing and pro-Trump causes.  In 2019, we noted that CEO Merlo, like many of his fellow health care corporate CEOs at the time, had become very partisan in his personal political giving.  All the money he gave around the time of the 2018 election to organizations identified with either major political party went to the Republican party.

Now that he has proclaimed his anti-racist credentials, one wonders if Mr Merlo will renounce his previous direct and indirect support of Mr Trump and his associates?

Johnson and Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky

Again, Johnson and Johnson CEO Gorsky's stance on racial inclusivity and harmony, and against racism does not seem to fit well with the company's and Gorsky's track record of coziness with Trump.

In 2017, after a rally by white nationalists in Charlotte, Virginia lead to conflicts between them and counter-protesters. Many of the latter were injured, and one was killed, Trump initially refused to take any stand against the rally, and suggested that both sides were equally responsible.  After that, some corporate leaders broke with Trump, but  at first not Gorsky.  As the outrage about Charlottesville grew, Gorsky dropped his membership in Trump's Manufacturing Council, but one year later, but then returned to Trump's in-group, as reported by CNBC:

The manufacturing council was also disbanded in August of 2017, following a wave of public resignations from its CEO members in the wake of Charlottesville.

One of these came from Alex Gorsky, who leads Johnson and Johnson. Gorsky called Trump’s response to the rally 'unacceptable,' and said in a statement that it 'has changed our decision to participate in the White House Manufacturing Advisory Council.' Nonetheless, Gorsky is on the guest list Tuesday for dinner at [Trump's] Bedminster [golf club]. A spokesman for the company did not respond to a request for comment.

In February, 2020, Vanity Fair reported that the meeting that included Trump and Gorsky at Bedminster resulted in some very suspicious activity.  Trump seemed to assume the role of salesman for a drug Johnson and Johnson just put on the market:

On March 5 [2018], Trump signed a little-noticed order to create “a national roadmap to empower 'veterans and end suicide.' That was the same day, it turned out, that the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of Spravato, an antidepression drug manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a J and J subsidiary.

Then,

Trump continued to be a booster of Spravato, which analysts have estimated could earn some $600 million for J and J by 2022. At a June 12 White House meeting convened to discuss the opioid crisis in America, Trump urged Robert Wilkie, who replaced Shulkin as the secretary of veterans affairs, to essentially back the truck up for Spravato at the V.A. because, Trump said, it would result in an “incredible” drop in suicide among veterans. He even offered to negotiate the price of the drug with J&J. 'I think they’ll be very generous with you,' Trump told Wilkie. 'And if you like, I’ll help you to negotiate.'

The next year,

But Trump, being Trump, was not done trumpeting the drug. In August 2019, at an AMVETS conference in Louisville, Kentucky, he repeated his view that Spravato was 'incredible' and said he’d ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to 'get as much of it as you can from Johnson and Johnson.'

The Trump promotion of the Johnson and Johnson drug is now under investigation. 'the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has demanded documents and information from the V.A.

Finally, the Vanity Fair included a reminder that Trump has not only been cozy with Gorsky, but a member of the family that founded Johnson and Johnson who also may be one of the company's bigger investors:

Trump’s ambassador to the U.K., Woody Johnson, is the great-grandson of one of the founders of J and J and, reportedly, continues to own more than 1.5 million shares in the company, worth around $217 million. His net worth is said to be around $4 billion. He donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

So it appeared that the CEO of Johnson and Johnson, and a big shareholder in the company who is descended from its founder went out of their way to cozy up to Trump, who appears to have reciprocated by doing some marketing for its drug, and possibly improperly using his executive powers to increase its use.


Furthermore, in 2018 we noted that Johnson and Johnson, like CVS, was making substantial contributions to the US Chamber of Commerce, which despite its bland name, some asserted had become a major source of "dark money" support for politically right-wing and pro-Trump causes.


Now that Gorsky is so devoted to "fighting racism and injustice," given all that Trump has done to fan the flames of racial conflict after the death of George Floyd, one wonders if Gorsky will denounce his previous coziness with Trump?


Discussion

After the killing of George Floyd, the CEOs of two large health care corporations publicly espoused  racial harmony and inclusion and condemned racism.  Both these CEOs had become very friendly with President Trump, and appeared very comfortable with his policies, despite the history of non-partisanship among leadership of the health care field.

Trump, however has sought to amplify racial conflict since protests began in response to the death of Mr Floyd.  Will these CEOs now renounce their previous coziness with and support of President Trump? 

There are bigger questions. Will there now be more attention to how health care corporations have preached social responsibility, and lately racial harmony while they were quietly pushing their own agendas, which often undermined these worthy goals?  Will health care organizations disclose their ties to political leaders, including contributions to "dark money" groups? Will there be new calls for accountability for those who lead the most powerful organizations in health care?  Will there be investigations into this or other forms of regulatory capture? Will there be penalties for resulting conflicts of interest?  Or will the leaders once again manage to make even discussions of their failings taboo?    


 

Despite Public Protestations of of Bipartisanship, Many CEOs of the Largest US Health Care Corporations Appear Partisan, and Mainly Republican

Leaders of big health care organizations clearly are interested in influencing public policy and government regulation in ways that favor their organizations, and often indirectly themselves. On the other hand, big health care organizations have traditionally been non-partisan.  While their leaders certainly may have political views, they used to keep them very quiet.

In this sense, the leaders of big health care organizations have seemed similar to the leaders of large businesses in general.  For example, a recent New York Times article noted,

The Business Roundtable, the top lobbying organization for industry in Washington, is often characterized as a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization.

Yet,  recently, especially in the US, we have seen evidence that some health care organizations have become partisan, albeit stealthily, throwing their support behind political candidates, parties and organizations that may support their policy and regulatory goals, even while they may also support positions that go against the health care and public health mission, or even may be frankly anti-democratic.  In the US, organizations and their leaders now may support partisan aims with dark money, funds whose origin is disguised.

The recent NYT article noted above summarized some newly released research showing how corporate leaders in general have become more partisan, and more partisan in a particular sense. 

Based on Disclosed Personal Contributions, Since 2000 Most Top Corporate Executives Became Very Republican

The NYT article summarized a study of disclosed personal political contributions made by S&P 1500 executives from 2000 to 2017.

To be counted a supporter of Republicans or Democrats, executives had to direct at least two-thirds of their donations to candidates affiliated with one party.

They only released aggregate data, not data on particular industries, much less particular companies.  The main findings were:

More than a quarter of the executives studied gave enough to both parties to be classified as 'neutral.'

But,

just 18.4 percent of the executives studied were designated as Democrats. The clear majority — 57.7 percent — demonstrated their affiliation through donations to the Republican Party. Indeed, 75 percent of donations from the median chief executive were directed to Republicans.

That strongly contrasts with the notion that big business and its leaders are non-partisan, although perhaps eager to be popular with people, particularly customers and politicians, with all sorts of political affiliations.

The study disclosed no information on any particular executive or company other than Tim Cook of Apple, one of the minority of apparently studiously bipartisan corporate leaders.


However, another article from October, 2018 in MarketWatch provided some particular information on how partisan leaders of health care corporations have become.


Many CEOs of Big Health Care Corporations are Very Republican

The MarketWatch article, which reported the journalists' own study, also opened with the notion that corporate executives have been known for being non- or bi-partisan,

Company executives often steer clear of any appearance of partisanship, in large part because they don’t want to alienate customers and investors who back the other side.

Their study focused on disclosed political contributions from CEOs of S&P 500 companies, the largest publicly traded companies in the US, from 2017 through August 31, 2018, that is, those relevant to the most recent US national election, the 2018 mid-term election.

They also found that many executives were heavily partisan based on their personal political donations.

MarketWatch’s analysis found that among the CEOs who did contribute to party-affiliated committees, nearly all leaned heavily blue or red, with few donating equally to the two main parties. More than 84% of the 261 CEOs who contributed to partisan committees donated 70% or more of their money to one party or the other. And about 100 of the CEOs spent above the median amount and contributed 75% of their money to one party.

Overall,

The chief executives contributed a total of $7.4 million to Republican groups, almost triple the $2.6 million contributed to Democratic committees.

The article presented a graphic showing the CEOs who were most partisan and contributed the most money.  It included several CEOs of big health care corporations.

The article included a database of CEOs ranked by amount contributed.  The amounts and proportions spent by the health care CEOs among the top 100 spenders were:

9. Timothy Wentworth, Express Scripts Holding: total contributions: $262,594, to Democrats, $10,000; to Republicans, $244,722

10. Robert A Bradway, Amgen: $235,800; D $41,000; R $194,800

13. Kenneth C Frazier, Merck: $196,961; D $48,500; R $140,000

14. Mark J Alles, Celgene; $195,682; D $15,000; R $173,600

16 Ian C Read, Pfizer; $181,833; D $25,800; R $145,400

23. David A Ricks, Eli Lilly; $128,020; D $23,300; R $89,500

25. Leonard S Schliefer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; $125,000; D $120,000; R $ 0

28. Marc N Casper, Thermo Scientific; $118,100; D $2,700; R $105,400

29. Brenton L Saunders, Allergan; $115,100; D $ 0; R $105,100

32 Michael F Nieidorff, Centene; $105,994; D $60,794; R $35,200

38 Miles D White, Abbott Laboratories; $90,400; D $ 0; R $90,400

39. Kent J Thiry, DaVita; $86,500; D $ 29,300; R $42,200

57. Clifford W Illig, Cerner; $47,000; D $0; R $42,100

70. Steven H Collis, Amerisource Bergen; $39,784; D $2,800; R $28, 100

85. Dow R Wilson, Varian Medical Systems; $30,800; D $0; R $15,800

88. Giovanni Caforio MD, Bristol-Myers Squib; $30,184; D $5,000 ; R $17,300

90. John F Milligan, Gilead Sciences; $30,000; D $0; R $20,000

92. Larry J Merlo, CVS;  $28, 733; D $0; R $15,400

93. Vincent A Forlenz, Becton-Dickinson; $28,700; D $11,500; R $0

100. George S Barrett, Cardinal Health; $27,168; D $13,900; R $5,000

So, there were 19 health care corporate CEOs among the top 100 of those giving disclosed political donations for the 2018 election.  Of those, 15 gave most of their donations to Republicans, 4 to Democrats.  Furthermore, note that many of the companies represented on the list have been Health Care Renewal "frequent fliers," often discussed because of problems with leadership, governance and/or ethics.  

Discussion

While publicly often non--partisan, it appears that the top leaders of the biggest US health care corporations (and other corporations) have become increasingly partisan, and and increasingly supporters of one US political party, the Republican.  This is important since, as the NYT article noted:

The opinions held by executives have always resonated beyond their own industries, but their importance is more pronounced today. Mr. Trump, for example, has not hesitated to equate economic policy with foreign policy.

Also, the authors of the research paper summarized by the article wrote:

Especially since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which allowed corporations to make unlimited independent political expenditures, corporate political spending can substantially affect politics and policymaking

In particular,

These executives wield enormous influence over not just policy, but the inclinations of their own employees. One of the most fascinating revelations of the study was that it also looked at the conduct of the businesses themselves, and in the process discovered that disclosures of political donations were highly correlated with the political leaning of its chief executive.

Political contributions by public companies do not have to be disclosed to shareholders, although some of companies do it. So the researchers looked instead at the which companies disclosed the donations to shareholders. Using an index developed by the Center for Political Accountability, the professors found that there was'“a statistically significant association between having a Republican C.E.O. and a lower' disclosure score.

Also, in the era of Trump, the heavily Republican partisanship of top corporate CEOs seems at variance with how their corporations' claim to be socially responsible, and

given the outspoken positions a number of executives have taken in recent years on social issues like climate change, guns and immigration policies.

Furthermore, the heavily Republican partisanship of  CEOs of big health care corporations seems at particular variance with the health care missions espoused by these corporations. 

For example, in 2018 we discussed the case of CVS, which boasts a code of ethics including respecting the covenantal relationship between pharmacists and patients, promoting "the good of every patient," acting with "honesty and integrity," and serving "individual, community and social needs." It also has a social responsibility policy including "keeping the planet in balance," and making "quality health care more affordable, more accessible and more sustainable."  However, CVS was revealed to have been contributing to a "dark money" organization called America First Policies, ostensibly a "social welfare" charity, but actually an organization devoted to promoting the Trump agenda.  While CVS said its support for AFP was related to the organization's tax reform agenda, it also promoted various policies that seemed to contradict the CVS ethics and social responsibility policies.  In addition, the relationship between CVS and AFP only came to light after some AFP leaders were found to have made racist and pro-Nazi proclamations.  Whether CVS made is making contributions to other such groups was unknown.  At the time, we speculated whether the contributions to AFP reflected the self-interest of CVS leadership.

Now we find out that CVS CEO Larry Merlo gave $15,400 to Republicans in the run-up to the 2018 election, but nothing to Democrats.  This increases suspicion that CVS corporate political action is more about its CEO's ideology than its professed mission. 

This anecdote, coupled with recent findings that big health care corporations' policies about political activities are lax at best (look here), and the evidence above, should prompt concern about the political actions of other big health care corporations, and their intent. 

Thus not only is more investigation needed, at the very least, "public" corporations ought to fully disclose all donations made to outside groups with political agendas.  This should be demanded by at least the corporations' employees and shareholders, but also by patients, health care professionals, and the public at large.

Meanwhile we are left with the suspicion that top health care corporate management is increasingly merging with the current administration in one giant corporatist entity which is not in the interests of health care, much less government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

Why Did CVS Health Betray its Charitable Giving Policy and Social Responsibility Agenda to Donate to a Sketchy Non-Profit Devoted to Trump's Agenda?

Many big health care organizations, including for-profit corporations, have high-minded mission statements, and proclaim their social responsibility.  Unfortunately, we have shown that many leaders of such organizations seem indifferent to these seemingly exemplary goals, and even exhibit mission-hostile management.

A recent example involving CVS Health provided an unprecedented example of mission-hostile management, or something worse.

Introduction: CVS Health and the Promotion of Social Responsibility

CVS Health is a huge corporation that runs a large chain of pharmacies, many of which contain MinuteClinics, touted as quick albeit limited sources of primary care, staffed by nurse practitioners.

It thus employees numerous health care professionals with strong professional values.  For example, the American Pharmacists Association has a code of ethics which includes respecting the covenantal relationship between pharmacists and patients, promoting "the good of every patient," acting with "honesty and integrity," serving "individual, community and social needs."

CVS Health proclaims its "social responsibility." This includes "keeping the planet in balance," and making "quality health care more affordable, more accessible and more sustainable."

CVS claims to act socially responsible by making charitable contributions for

improving health and health care nationwide. We support programs that improve access to health care services, provide chronic disease management and promote smoking cessation and prevention.

That seems fine and dandy, but then....

CVS Will Stop Funding America First Policies After Three of its Leaders were Revealed to Have Made Racist, Misogynistic, and pro-Nazi Remarks

CNN reported on June 1, 2018, that 

CVS Health said Friday that it would no longer donate to America First Policies, a nonprofit group that works to promote President Donald Trump's agenda, after CNN and other outlets reported racist comments made by staffers of the organization.

The details were,

[Carl] Higbie has a history of making racist, sexist, Islamophobic and anti-LGBT comments. Some of his more inflammatory statements were that the 'black race' had 'lax' morals and that Americans should be allowed to shoot undocumented immigrants crossing the border with Mexico. Following CNN's January report, Higbie resigned from his position as chief of external affairs for Corporation for National and Community Service, which manages volunteer services for the federal government. He joined America First Policies in March.

Higbie initially apologized for his remarks but later defended them and said they were taken out of context.

John Loudon, a policy adviser for the group, has also made inflammatory comments about Muslims and women, CNN's KFile reported in May, such as calling Barack Obama 'the Islamchurian candidate' and joking about 'crack whore Dem voter.'

In May, Mediaite reported that Juan Pablo Andrade, another America First Policies adviser, praised Nazis and said that, 'The only thing the Nazis didn't get right is they didn't keep f***ing going!' Andrade claims the video is out of context and he was quoting someone else. He has said he is looking for the full video, which would exonerate him.

One wonders if CVS Health had vetted America First Policies prior to making its contribution, since the presence in the latter's leadership of three such people suggest there just could be a bit of a corporate culture problem.

In any case, the CVS Health response came courtesy spokesperson Carolyn Castel:

Comments made by employees of America First Policies that were reported after we made our contributions are unacceptable to us. We have zero tolerance for discriminatory actions or behaviors, and as such we will not be making contributions to this organization in the future.

CVS Health's denial of further donations to America First Policies seemed admirable, but begged the question of why it made its initial donation.  In the Providence Journal, Brian Amaral reported on June 1 that  CVS justified its initial contribution to America First Policies as a way to “to support the tax cuts signed into law last year,” saying that it “supported this legislation and used the tax savings it created to invest in the growth and success of our employees,...”

However, that rationale seemed at best very loosely related to CVS Health's stated policy of making donations to improve health and health care.  I suppose that perhaps if tax cuts did lead to happier CVS employees, the indirect result would be better health care.  However, at least the purpose of the contribution did not seem in direct conflict with the stated goals of CVS charitable giving.

Nonetheless, the result of the CVS Health contribution to America First Policies seemed retrospectively a spectacular case of mission-hostile management.

But wait, there is more.


America First Policies Also Advocated Multiple Positions at Odds with CVS Health's Support of Social Responsiblity

As noted above,  CVS Health suggested that it supported America First Policies because it was dedicated to tax reforms that would result in increased CVS Health's revenues.  Their website does list "tax cuts that put America first," as one of its issues.

CVS Health's comments suggested that this is America First Policies' only issue.  It is not.  The America First Policies website lists advocacy on 13 other issues.

One is "repeal and replace Obamacare."  In particular,

America First Policies believes Obamacare is a disaster, burdening our country with rising premiums, unaffordable deductibles, fewer insurance choices, and higher taxes. Congress needs to repeal and replace this law, including rescinding the individual mandate and eliminating taxes that drive up costs,

This issue certainly has to do with quality and accessibility of health care.  However, whether most CVS Health employed health care professionals, or customers think that dismantling the Affordable Care Act would lead to better or worse, or more or less accessible health care is doubtful.  Certainly CVS Health management did not explicitly justify how supporting America First Policies was informed by the company's stated objectives for charitable giving that supports health and health care.


Another issue addressed by America First Policies is "securing our border."  In particular, the organization advocates for

a wall to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling; putting an end to sanctuary cities; and deporting illegal aliens with criminal records.

These issues seem to have nothing directly to do with health care, or with the company's stated reasons for charitable giving.  Many people might argue that these objectives could harm the health care, at least of some immmigrant groups.

So far, it is not clear why CVS Health really chose to donate to America First Policies.

But wait, there is more...

America First Policies Appears to be a Partisan Political Operation of Dubious Legality

A Political Agenda from the Start

A few more minutes of Google searching reveals that America First Policies has an advocacy agenda that seems in direct conflict with the CVS committment to social responsibility, and that America First Policies does not in the least resemble the sort of charitable organization that CVS says it intends to fund.   Recall that CVS says that the purposes of its charitable giving are

improving health and health care nationwide.

We support programs that improve access to health care services, provide chronic disease management and promote smoking cessation and prevention.

Yet when America First Policies was started, initial coverage, like this AP report from January, 2017, per WJLA, said it was a political operation.

Six of President Donald Trump's top campaign aides have banded together to start a nonprofit called 'America First Policies' to back the White House agenda.

In addition,

'Some of the same like-minded individuals who put their energy into getting Mr. Trump elected are now going to be part of a grassroots group to go out there and help with the agenda, help the White House be successful,' [former Trump campaign digital director Brad] Parscale said.

Was it about improving health and health care?

America First Policies will conduct research into public policies and promote Trump's favored causes, such as dismantling and replacing President Barack Obama's health care law and changing immigration policies.

Again, many would argue such actions could harm health and health care.

For a Non-Profit "Social Welfare Organization," Doing Political Polling May be Illegal

In March, 2018, CNBC did a long investigative article on America First Policies political polling operation.

Last summer, America First Policies took an unprecedented step for a politically allied nonprofit: It started using three top polling firms from Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to produce a steady stream of Trump-focused polls, strategy memos and reports that continue to this day. The three firms initially put their own logos on the polling they did for the group, but over time the America First Policies logo gradually replaced theirs on some of the documents.

CNBC reviewed many of the polls it conducted. One example of an obviously political poll was

A September poll showed that America First Policies was exploring ways to defeat Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake in a primary, a month before Flake, a Trump critic, announced his retirement.

Note that America First Policies worked closely with a political polling firm which was founded by a close Trump associate who now works in the White House, but somehow obtained an ethics waiver  allowing her to continue working with this firm.

The America First Policies polling effort operates as a network of coordinated groups, with two lesser-known firms, National Research Inc. and Baselice & Associates, working alongside a well-known Washington firm, The Polling Company, which was founded by former Trump campaign manager-turned-White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway.

When Conway sold her firm in September 2017, The Polling Company had already been working for America First Policies for more than two months, judging from the company's logo on polls that it conducted for the group in June and July.

Conway was granted a special ethics waiver last June so she could engage in 'communications and meetings' with former clients of The Polling Company without violating Trump's two-year ban on communications with former employers or clients. Conway has been called the 'Trump whisperer' for her ability to influence the often mercurial president. In a 2016 interview with MSNBC, she described herself as a 'discreet advisor' to Trump who was expected to use her data and strategy experience to help Trump craft his message.

CNBC interviewed ethics experts on the legality of what America First Policies was doing.

'AFP is doing the type of polling that would typically be done by a presidential campaign or a major party committee like the RNC or the DNC,' said Brendan Fischer, an election law expert at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. 'So even though they claim to be committed to a set of issues, the available evidence here indicates that they're operating as a polling shop for the president.'

 Also,

Stephen Spaulding, a former special counsel at the Federal Election Commission and now director of strategy for the nonpartisan watchdog group Common Cause, agreed. 'There are ample grounds here to investigate whether America First Policies has been raising money that's subject to limits and disclosure requirements because it's being used for political purposes,' he said.

Finally, the article suggested that America First Policies was a way for wealthy donors, who could be individuals or corporations, to fund Trump's political agenda while hiding their identities and circumventing legal limits on direct political contributions.

'So you have a situation where large donors are contributing to America First Policies with the understanding that their secret donations are going to be seen as valuable by the president, because this group appears to work so closely with the White House,' said Campaign Legal Center's Fischer. 'And because these donors are secret, the public and Congress will never know if the White House later took action to advance a donor's interests.'

So it appears that CVS Health was one of those wealthy corporate donors who was secretly giving to a obviously political operation, possibly to be seen as "valuable to the president," which may be a way of saying to bribe the president?

America First Policies' Founders Included Shady Characters

The early AP article about the founding of America First Policies stated that the people involved included,

The group includes Trump's digital and data director Brad Parscale, onetime deputy campaign manager Rick Gates and two campaign advisers to Vice President Mike Pence, Nick Ayers and Marty Obst.

As the New York Times reported in February, 2018, Rick Gates pleaded guilty to the federal crimes of financial fraud and lying to investigators,

A former top adviser to Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election after pleading guilty on Friday to financial fraud and lying to investigators.

The adviser, Rick Gates, is a longtime political consultant who once served as Mr. Trump’s deputy campaign chairman

Note that Mr Gates had previously been charged with many more crimes,

The deal came as the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has been raising pressure on Mr. Gates and Mr. Manafort with dozens of new charges of money laundering and bank fraud unsealed on Thursday. Both men were first indicted in October and pleaded not guilty.

By that time, it was likely that Mr Gates was increasingly involved in America First Policies.  As of March, 2017, an article in Politico noted that,

Rick Gates, a former Trump aide who served as Paul Manafort’s deputy, is increasingly involved day-to-day [in America First Policies].

Also, Brad Parscale, the 2016 Trump campaign digital director, was involved with Cambridge Analytica's highly questionable operations on behalf of the campaign.  Per a New York Times article of March 17, 2018, 

Under the guidance of Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s digital director in 2016 and now the campaign manager for his 2020 re-election effort, Cambridge performed a variety of services, former campaign officials said. That included designing target audiences for digital ads and fund-raising appeals, modeling voter turnout, buying $5 million in television ads and determining where Mr. Trump should travel to best drum up support.

A New Yorker article published on March 21, 2018 stated,

Cambridge Analytica contractors worked with Trump’s digital team, headed by Brad Parscale and Jared Kushner. Alongside all of them were Facebook employees who were embedded with the Trump campaign to help them use Facebook’s various tools most effectively—including the so-called 'dark posts,' used to dissuade African-Americans from showing up to vote. Did any of them know that the data that Cambridge Analytica was using to target voters, craft ads and blog posts, and determine Trump’s travel schedule came from millions of American Facebook members whose data had been taken without consent and sold for a million dollars—what Cadwalladr is calling a massive data “breach”? 

Discussion

CVS Health says it donates to charity to improve health and health care, and that it has a social responsibility agenda to again improve health and keep the planet in balance.  Yet it secretly donated to a "social welfare" organization that explicitly was devoted to upholding the Trump agenda, founded by former Trump campaign officials, at least two with questionable ethics, one of which  pleaded guilty to federal crimes, and which ran a political polling operation that may have been illegal.  When its donation was discovered, and the racist sayings of two, and apparently pro-Nazi sayings of another of the organization's leaders were exposed, CVS then said it would not donate further.

Why did CVS Health donate to America Health Policies in the first place?

Given what transpired, at least CVS Health should immediately explain the reasons for this donation, and why it was made despite its obvious conflicts with CVS Health's stated policies and mission.

CVS Health should also disclose whether it has made any similar donations in the past, and what its policy on donations will be in the future.

Until such disclosures are made, we are left with further, exceedingly troubling questions.

Was this merely a case of severe and mission-hostile (mis)management?  However, it is difficult to believe that CVS Health managers did not know what the purpose of America First Policies was, and who its leaders were.

Was the donation to America First Policies an effort to cozy up to the Trump regime, arguably the most conflicted and corrupt presidential administration (look here), in hope of securing economic favors for CVS Health and/or its managers?

Did the donation somehow otherwise support top CVS Health managers' self-interest?  Given that President Trump has failed to condemn white supremicists and neo-Nazis (look here), and has recently proclaimed he is above the law, and thus called by editorialists a president who would be a king (e.g., here in the New York Times), are CVS Health managers closet monarchists, authoritarians or fascists?

Is this case unique?  Are other corporations that proclaim their social responsibility secretly funding groups like America First Policies?  Are these corporations thus covertly undermining not only patients' and the public's health, but the foundations of the American republic?

The frogs must figure out how to get out of the pot of now boiling water.