Johnson & Johnson

<h1 class="title">=</h1><div>some corp person lately? off-label mkting?</div><div>=<div>=</div><div><div>11 21 grab acsh</div><div>
</div><div>Health Scares Vs Health Threats</div><div>Thank You, Trial Lawyers, For Protecting Us from the Scourge of Baby Powder</div><div>
</div><div>Scientists say that talcum baby powder doesn't cause cancer. Trial lawyers say it does. As usual, the lawyers win. Scientists, common sense, and Americans lose.</div><div>Read more</div></div>=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/katie-porter/">https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/katie-porter/</a>no lnxRep Porter (D-Calif.) recently blasted Johnson & Johnson for moving to split its baby powder from the rest of the company amid a highly publicized class-action lawsuit from thousands of women.Since the group of plaintiffs, some of whom have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, are alleging that the corporation's baby powder and other talc products were contaminated with asbestos, Porter is criticizing the company's push to treat its baby powder as a separate company, Business Insider reports.On Tuesday, October 19, the Democratic lawmaker questioned the corporation's decision and criticized its attempt to shield assets from litigation."Johnson & Johnson filed in court last week to split its Baby Powder from the rest of the company," the congresswoman tweeted. "Why? J&J knew asbestos laced some bottles but kept it a secret for decades. Tens of thousands of women with ovarian cancer are suing, and the company wants to shield its assets.""J&J sold the powder for 60 years, and now that it has to pay for these women's medical bills, it wants the courts to treat 'Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder' as a separate company," the California congresswoman continued.Linda Lipsen, who works for the American Association for Justice, also released a statement criticizing the corporation's actions, according to ABC News."There are countless Americans suffering from cancer, or mourning the death of a loved one, because of the toxic baby powder that Johnson & Johnson put on the market that has made it one of the most profitable pharmaceutical corporations in the world," Lipsen said in the statement. "Their conduct and now bankruptcy gimmick is as despicable as it is brazen."FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLESSteve Mnuchin stepped in to prevent Donald Trump from appointing ... ›House progressives say they'll move to block the Senate's bipartisan ... ›Watch: Rep. Katie Porter takes down 'fiscally irresponsible' Joe ... ›RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEBPunches fly at Rep. Katie Porter's town hall - Los Angeles Times ›=921infra twin bill
https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/lobbying-congress/
New report details a 'massive lobbying blitz' against Biden's agenda — but Sanders has a warning for them
an 921...no lnx...the Post, which published Sanders' remarks on Tuesday, offered a detailed look at the "massive lobbying blitz" that corporate America has launched in recent days in a bid to water down—or kill entirely—the reconciliation package, a centerpiece of President Joe Biden's economic and climate agenda.
The range of big-name corporations involved in the campaign—from the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to the fossil fuel behemoth ExxonMobil—reflects the potentially far-reaching scope of the nascent reconciliation bill, which could allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, reverse former President Donald Trump's corporate tax cut, institute paid family and medical leave, strengthen workers' rights, and establish a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants.
"The emerging opposition appears to be vast, spanning drug manufacturers, big banks, tech titans, major retailers, and oil-and-gas giants," the Post's Tony Romm reported. "In recent weeks, top Washington organizations representing these and other industries have started strategizing behind the scenes, seeking to battle back key elements in Democrats proposed overhaul to federal healthcare, education, and safety net programs."
One of the organizations that has been "most active" in the effort to prevent passage of the reconciliation bill, according to the Post, is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying organization in the country. Romm reported that the Chamber is "in the early stages of putting together an economywide coalition to coordinate the fight against the still-forming economic package, including its significant price tag, policy scope, and potential for tax increases."
"The Chamber-organized effort could encompass traditional lobbying on Capitol Hill as well as advertising campaigns targeting Democratic lawmakers," Romm noted. "The group has been in talks with potential allies such as the National Association of Manufacturers, whose board includes executives from firms such as Dow Inc., Exxon, Caterpillar, and Johnson & Johnson... Other opponents include the Business Roundtable, whose board counts the chief executives from Apple and Walmart."
As Democrats move further along in the process of translating their newly approved $3.5 trillion budget blueprint into legislative text—a process lawmakers hope to complete by next month—the lobbying push is likely to intensify. The Hill reported Monday that corporate influence-peddlers are growing "increasingly optimistic" that they will succeed in keeping major tax hikes, Medicare expansion, and other critical measures out of the final package..."The business community has made progress with certain Democrats on legitimate policy concerns with some of these proposals and their implications on the economy and international competitiveness," an unnamed lobbyist with ties to Senate Democrats told The Hill. "A lot of those arguments are landing."
While The Hill does not name the "certain Democrats" who have been receptive to lobbyists' arguments, the outlet noted that "business interests have Democratic allies in Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and the group of House moderates led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (N.J.)"—all of whom have voiced opposition to the $3.5 trillion price tag.
But Sanders—who has characterized the reconciliation bill as potentially the most consequential legislation since the New Deal—said in an interview last week that $3.5 trillion is "the minimum of what we should be spending."...
=<div>=</div><div>an 220</div><div>
</div><div>t<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/trump-endorsed-a-risky-antidepressant-for-veterans-lawmakers-want-to-know-if-his-mar-a-lago-pals-had-a-stake-in-the-drugmaker/" style="font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" color="color" transition="transition" all="all" s="s" ease="ease" cursor="cursor" pointer="pointer" font-size="font-size" letter-spacing="letter-spacing">rump endorsed a risky antidepressant for veterans. Lawmakers want to know if his Mar-a-Lago pals had a stake in the drugmaker</a></div><div class="header-list-style" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; color: rgb(49, 49, 49); font-family: Cabin, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="grid-post-box-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 12px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 12px;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/isaac-arnsdorf/" title="Posts by Isaac Arnsdorf" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(49, 49, 49); transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; font-size: inherit;">Isaac Arnsdorf</a> / <a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/propublica/" title="Posts by ProPublica " class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(49, 49, 49); transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; font-size: inherit;">ProPublica </a>February 27, 2020</div></div><div class="item-content entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 18px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(49, 49, 49); font-family: Cabin, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">House Democrats requested emails and financial records as they investigate why the president told the VA to “corner the market” on a Johnson & Johnson drug.</div><div></div>=<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8/27/oklahoma_johnson_and_johnson_572_million">https://www.democracynow.org/2019/8/27/oklahoma_johnson_and_johnson_572_million</a>In a landmark ruling, an Oklahoma judge has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million for contributing to the state’s opioid crisis. It marks the first time a drug company has been held responsible for the opioid crisis, though it fell far short of the $17 billion judgment sought by the state. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost 400,000 people died from an overdose involving opioids from 1999 to 2017, including from prescription and illicit opioids. Court documents say more than 6,000 people have died of painkiller overdoses in Oklahoma alone. The Oklahoma ruling sets the stage for the more than 40 states that are currently pursuing similar claims against drug makers and distributors. A massive federal lawsuit brought by almost 2,000 cities, counties and Native American tribes is scheduled to begin in October. We speak with Julia Lurie, senior reporter at Mother Jones, who has covered the opioid crisis for years.<div class="mobile_anchor_target" id="transcript" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 27px; letter-spacing: -0.2px;">AMY GOODMAN: In a landmark ruling, an Oklahoma judge has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million for contributing to Oklahoma’s opioid crisis. Oklahoma District Judge Thad Balkman announced the ruling Monday.<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243);">JUDGE THAD BALKMAN: The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans. My judgment includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that the state met its burden that the defendants Janssen and Johnson & Johnson’s misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance as defined by 50 O.S. Section 1, including a finding that those actions compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans. Specifically, defendants caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma. This is a temporary public nuisance that can be abated. And the proper remedy for public nuisance is equitable abatement. As I just stated, the opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma. It must be abated immediately. For this reason, I am entering an abatement plan that consists of costs totaling $572,102,028 to immediately remediate the nuisance.</blockquote>AMY GOODMAN: Oklahoma Judge Thad Balkman, speaking Monday. Johnson & Johnson has vowed to appeal the ruling. This marks the first time a drug company has been held responsible for the opioid crisis, which has led to more than 400,000 overdose deaths since 1999. According to court documents, more than 6,000 people have died of painkiller overdoses in Oklahoma alone. The state of Oklahoma had sought a $17 billion judgment, but Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter still celebrated the ruling.<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243);">ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE HUNTER: Today, Judge Balkman has affirmed our position that Johnson & Johnson, motivated by greed and avarice, is responsible for the opioid epidemic in our state. Johnson & Johnson will finally be held accountable for thousands of deaths and addiction caused by their activities. … There is no question in my mind that we had to bring this case, that it had to be tried, that these facts had to see sunlight. That’s been accomplished here. And at the end of the day, you can’t sit in a corporate suite somewhere for the last 20 years and oversupply the country. Ten times more of this drug was coming in, and then you had, concomitantly, 15 times more people dying from opioid overdoses. So, there’s no question in my mind that these companies knew what was going on at the highest level. They just couldn’t quit making money from it. And that’s why they’re responsible.</blockquote>AMY GOODMAN: The Oklahoma ruling sets the stage for the more than 40 states that are currently pursuing similar claims against the pharmaceutical industry, lawsuits targeting drug makers and distributors. A massive federal lawsuit, brought by almost 2,000 cities, counties and Native American tribes, is scheduled to begin in October in Cleveland.Well, for more, we go to San Francisco, California, where we’re joined by Julia Lurie, a senior reporter at Mother Jones. Her new <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/08/johnson-and-johnson-was-just-found-guilty-of-fueling-the-opioid-epidemic-in-a-historic-trial/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">article</a>, “Johnson and Johnson Was Just Found Liable for Fueling the Opioid Epidemic in a Historic Trial.”Julia Lurie, welcome to Democracy Now! You’ve been following this trial very closely. Talk about the significance of the ruling.JULIA LURIE: So, this ruling is huge. This is the first time that a case like this has gone to trial. And, you know, honestly, we didn’t really know what was going to happen. There is not really a precedent for this, for a pharmaceutical company being held liable for its role in this crisis. So, you know, you had all of this evidence that was being put out over the past several weeks, and still we didn’t really know how the judge was going to come down. And so, the news yesterday, that the state was going to be receiving millions of dollars from Johnson & Johnson, was really impressive. And at the same time, you know, the state had requested a lot more money. So, it’s definitely, I think, a mixed bag, but, overall, it definitely sets the tone for future cases like this, of which there will be many.AMY GOODMAN: Now, it’s not as if this was the only drug company that contributed to the opioid crisis. But two other companies, Purdue Pharma and Teva, had settled with Oklahoma before, at less than — well under half the amount that this judge has now found Johnson & Johnson liable for.JULIA LURIE: Correct. So, Johnson & Johnson was basically making the gamble that the state could not find a single company, namely Johnson & Johnson, liable for the entirety of the opioid crisis, that their role was so minuscule that they would not be found responsible. And that strategy really ended up backfiring, because, as you said, they ended up paying far more than Purdue and Teva combined.AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, Johnson & Johnson’s attorney Sabrina Strong vowed to appeal the ruling.<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243);">SABRINA STRONG: We have sympathy for all who suffer from substance abuse, but Johnson & Johnson did not cause the opioid abuse crisis here in Oklahoma or anywhere in this country. We do not believe that the facts or the law supports the decision today. We have many strong grounds for appeal, and we intend to pursue those vigorously.</blockquote>AMY GOODMAN: That’s Johnson & Johnson’s attorney Sabrina Strong vowing to appeal the ruling. Julia Lurie, one of the main arguments of Johnson & Johnson is “We didn’t prescribe these drugs; doctors did.”JULIA LURIE: That’s true, and at the same time, Johnson & Johnson played a big role in getting those doctors to prescribe these drugs. So, what we now know from the evidence that was laid out in this trial was that Johnson & Johnson was a pharmaceutical company that went about a massive and misleading and false advertising, effectively, marketing campaign, in which they had sales representatives target high-volume prescribers, so doctors that they knew would be amenable to prescribing more and more opioids, and encouraging those doctors to prescribe higher doses of opioids, and also trying to convince folks, doctors and patients alike, that these were safe and effective drugs, that they were — that addiction was not a problem, that it was perfectly fine to take them at high doses for long periods of time. You know, one of the things that came out over the course of this trial was that Johnson & Johnson representatives, sales representatives, made — I think it was 150,000 calls just across the state of Oklahoma, sales calls, to doctors, pushing them to prescribe these opioids. And so, you know, it’s correct that ultimately the doctors are the ones that are prescribing these drugs; however, Johnson & Johnson played a huge role in influencing those doctors.And another thing that we know that Johnson & Johnson did was support the pain patients, the advocacy groups, specifically, that were advocating on behalf of pain patients. You know, when a message is coming from a doctor or from a patient advocacy group, it seems much more trustworthy than a message coming from a pharmaceutical company. So we know that they really leveraged those messaging techniques. And as a result, the prescribing of opioids in Oklahoma, and really across the country, skyrocketed.AMY GOODMAN: Oklahoma also argued that Johnson & Johnson targeted young children in its efforts to expand the opioid market. The state compared the company’s recruiting tactics to those of the tobacco industry. Julia, tell us more.JULIA LURIE: So, it seems like there was no population that was sort of off limits for Johnson & Johnson to basically push these opioids onto. And, you know, from a marketing perspective, it makes sense. If you can get more people hooked on these drugs, especially people from a younger age, then you’ll have, you know, lifetime customers, as it were. However, as we know, these drugs are extraordinarily addictive, and there are all sorts of negative effects to prescribing these drugs. So, you know, we have all this marketing information now, that if you were just taking an economic perspective, you would say, “Oh, yeah, that makes sense. Target as many different populations as you can. Target people with cancer pain. Target people with noncancer pain. Target old people. Target young people.” And in reality, that kind of targeting has really devastating consequences.AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/06/johnson-and-johnson-opioid-poppies-tasmania-oklahoma-lawsuit/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">piece</a> not a little while ago called “Inside Johnson and Johnson’s Quiet Domination of the Opioid Market.” Explain how key Johnson & Johnson was and how this market and the epidemic developed simultaneously. How did they do it? There is so much that is not known about the way these companies operate, with their secret documents, that now come out in trial.JULIA LURIE: Sure. So, the company’s role was really multipronged. So, on the one hand, they had their own opioid products that they were selling and they were marketing, and they had a whole salesforce of folks who were going to doctors and encouraging doctors to prescribe those medications. But also — and this is something that I think that most people don’t know about Johnson & Johnson — Johnson & Johnson had two subsidiaries that were responsible for manufacturing the majority of active ingredients in opioids that were marketed and sold in the United States, not just Johnson & Johnson opioids but all sorts of opioids.So, the way that they did this was, back in the '90s they had developed this high-thebaine poppy. Thebaine is a type of opioid that's used in a lot of painkillers. And back in the ’90s, they were able to connect with what is now Purdue Pharma to basically say, “Look, we have all these poppies. We have this active ingredient. We can help you to make this opioid painkiller, and we can supply as much of it as you want.” And over the years, you know, Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries ended up providing pharmaceutical companies across the country with 60% of the active ingredients that are in painkillers.So, you know, on the one hand, you have Johnson & Johnson with its own painkillers and with its own salesforce, but they also were quietly playing this really massive role in providing the entirety of the United States and its pharmaceutical companies with the active ingredients that ended up in painkillers in medicine cabinets all over the country.AMY GOODMAN: I also wanted to ask about Purdue Pharma’s role in the opioid crisis. Again, they settled earlier and didn’t go to trial in Oklahoma. Earlier today, the investigative news organization ProPublica published video testimony of Dr. Richard Sackler of Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. This is a part of a deposition he gave in a 2015 lawsuit in Kentucky. The company waged a three-year legal battle to keep this video secret.<blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243);">TYLER THOMPSON: Sitting here today, after all you’ve come to learn as a witness, do you believe Purdue’s conduct in marketing and promoting OxyContin in Kentucky caused any of the prescription drug addiction problems now plaguing the commonwealth?</blockquote><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); padding-top: 30px !important;">DR. RICHARD SACKLER: I don’t believe so.</blockquote><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); padding-top: 30px !important;">TYLER THOMPSON: Sitting here today, after all you’ve come to learn as a witness, do you believe that Purdue’s conduct in Kentucky has led to an excessive or unnecessary amount of opioids being located throughout the commonwealth of Kentucky?</blockquote><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); padding-top: 30px !important;">DR. RICHARD SACKLER: I don’t believe so.</blockquote><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); padding-top: 30px !important;">TYLER THOMPSON: Do you believe that any of Purdue’s conduct has led to an increase in people being addicted in the commonwealth of Kentucky?</blockquote><blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding-left: 30px; border-left: 3px solid rgb(241, 242, 243); padding-top: 30px !important;">DR. RICHARD SACKLER: No.</blockquote>AMY GOODMAN: That’s Dr. Richard Sackler of Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, again, part of a deposition he gave in a 2015 lawsuit in Kentucky. They did not want this video made public. Julia Lurie, as you listen to this for the first time, can you talk about the significance of his testimony in this affidavit?JULIA LURIE: You know, on the one hand, it seems completely absurd that he would say that, and, on the other, that company has really stuck to those lines, that “we are not responsible for this addiction crisis” and “we’re not responsible for this overdose crisis.” So, in that way, it’s very on brand.And, you know, with this crisis, overall, it’s complicated, because you have so many different companies that were playing a role in this, from Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical companies to the pharmaceutical distributors, who were responsible for taking pills from those pharmaceutical companies and distributing them to pharmacies across the country. And then you have the pharmacies, who were not responsible with making sure that these pills got into the right hands. And you have doctors who were overprescribing. There are so many places where the system failed. And Purdue has basically stuck to the line that, like, “Look, we just manufacture this one drug. How can we be responsible for this entire crisis that has subsequently unfolded?”AMY GOODMAN: So, you now have the next series of lawsuits, and we’re talking about thousands and thousands of lawsuits. One case that’s going forward in Cleveland in October is actually 2,000 lawsuits brought together, brought by cities, counties and Native American tribes. Talk about the significance of this coming up and what this trial and verdict mean for the Cleveland trial.JULIA LURIE: Sure. So, you know, over the past few years, municipalities, whether it’s cities or counties or tribal lands, have been paying financially for the cost of this crisis. It is very, very expensive to put people in treatment, to have the emergency services that are necessary when someone overdoses, to have the drug courts that folks go to when they’re dealing or using drugs. And so, for all of those things, they take a lot of money, and a lot of counties are really struggling with this. They don’t have the financial means to deal with this, or it’s cutting into budgets that they had for other things. So, over the years, a number of places have sued pharmaceutical companies for causing this crisis, and basically said, “Look, you are costing us all of this money. You’re causing this widespread devastation. And you need to pay up. You need to be responsible for this.”So, all of those — or, a lot of those cases have been sort of rolled together into one big multidistrict litigation, that is going to trial in October. And this is going to be a huge case. It is — like you said, it is about 2,000 municipalities that are suing, and there are a ton of defendants — a lot of pharmaceutical companies, as well as distributors. And it’s expected that a lot of evidence against a number of pharmaceutical companies and distributors will come out during this trial.We don’t know yet where things stand, if some places are going to — if some defendants are going to settle, if this is going to lead some companies into bankruptcy, if it’s not going to be a big deal. We don’t know. What we do know is that this trial that just happened in Oklahoma really sets the tone and sets a precedent for what this multidistrict litigation could be like. In Oklahoma, the lawyers for Oklahoma, the prosecutors, were basically saying that this was a public nuisance. They were basing their argument on the idea that the public nuisance that was created by Johnson & Johnson was so expensive that the company had to pay up. And that is a strategy that we didn’t know if that was going to hold up in court or not. And now that we know that, at least in this one case, it did, it’s expected that the lawyers for the defendants [sic] in the multidistrict litigation will also stick to that strategy.AMY GOODMAN: And just to be clear, this was a nonjury case, right? This was a judge —JULIA LURIE: Correct.AMY GOODMAN: — made this decision. These pharmaceutical companies are, it seems, terrified of a jury of someone’s peers, of a victim’s peers.JULIA LURIE: Correct. And the multidistrict litigation will be a jury. They will have a jury in that case.AMY GOODMAN: Well, Julia Lurie, I want to thank you so much for being with us, senior reporter at Mother Jones. We’ll link to your new <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/08/johnson-and-johnson-was-just-found-guilty-of-fueling-the-opioid-epidemic-in-a-historic-trial/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; border: 0px;">piece</a>, “Johnson and Johnson Was Just Found Liable for Fueling the Opioid Epidemic in a Historic Trial.”
</div></div>Although the Mercers had initially been persuaded to back Texas senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primary, Bannon preferred Trump, and by the time of the Republican National Convention the Mercers were with him. Rebekah made her move last August, at a fundraiser at the East Hampton estate of Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets. According to two sources, one who strategized with the Mercers and another who worked closely with Trump, Rebekah insisted on a 30-minute face-to-face meeting with Trump, in which she informed him that his campaign was a disaster. (Her family had pledged $2 million to the effort about a month earlier, so she felt comfortable being frank.) Trump, who knew her slightly, was willing to listen. He had been disturbed by recent stories detailing disorganization in his campaign and alleging ties between Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and pro-Russia officials in Ukraine. Rebekah knew of this and arrived at her meeting with “props,” says the source who strategized with the Mercers: printouts of news articles about Manafort and Russia that she brandished as evidence that he had to go. And she also had a solution in mind: Trump should put Bannon in charge of the campaign and hire the pollster Kellyanne Conway.[3]3....</div><div></div><div>trump inaug slush fund: 1 mill</div><div>
</div><div>CEO of THE JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. is corporation filed with the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS). The DOS ID is 911687. The business entity is incorporated in New York County. The entity type is DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION. The initial DOS filing date is 04/24/1984. Woody Johnson, Owner New York Jets</div><div> https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=4883121&privcapId=31018145</div><div></div><div><a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-4">https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-4</a></div><div><h2 style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Big Pharmaceutical Corporation Makes Billions Lying about Drug's Safety to Children and the Elderly</h2>Over the course of 20 years, Johnson & Johnson Corporation created a powerful drug, promoted it illegally to children and the elderly, covered up the side effects, and made billions of dollars.In February 2015 a jury found the Johnson & Johnson Corporation responsible for causing bodily deformation of an Alabama boy after Risperdal sales reps encouraged his doctor to prescribe the drug without warning of its risks.<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-4#1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">1</a> Austin Pledger, who suffers from severe autism, started growing breasts when he was 12 that eventually measured 46DD.  Austin took Risperdal for five years, when it was only approved by the FDA for schizophrenic adults.  The Pledgers were never informed by their doctor that breast development was a known side-effect in children, first discovering the truth about Risperdal through an attorney’s TV ad.“I went into it very naively,” Austin’s mom, Benita Pledger said.  “[T]he part that upset me the most, [was that] Johnson & Johnson knew what they were doing to my child. They don’t care about Austin Pledger. … It was just a game to them.  He doesn’t know there was a case.  He doesn’t know he was the victim of a crime. … I can’t put him through the surgery it takes to repair [his chest] because he’s not a typical child who understands what that requires.” Johnson & Johnson, Inc. is appealing the decision. In 1994 the pharmaceutical company, Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, premiered its new anti-psychotic drug, Risperdal.  The FDA approved Risperdal to treat schizophrenia in adults and prohibited its use in children and the elderly, fearing side effects such as weight gain, hormonal disorders and diabetes in children; and strokes, diabetes and other ailments in the elderly.  Yet by the time young Austin started to grow breasts, more than half of Risperdal sales were for prescriptions written to children and the elderly to alleviate a multitude of “behavioral issues.”  Thousands of our most vulnerable patients were put at risk and suffered harm so that Johnson & Johnson, Inc. could continue profiting.<img alt="" src="https://movetoamend.org/sites/default/files/risperdallego.jpg" style="border: 0px; max-width: 100%; height: 216px; width: 325px;" />Risperdal promotional material for pediatric officesFrom the beginning, Risperdal sales were directed toward expanding markets outside of FDA’s approved labeling despite it being a crime for the company to sell doctors on the benefits of using Risperdal to treat these populations.  The drug company based this promotion on reports of positive experiences and scientific studies that claimed effectiveness.In 1997, a suit brought by a Big Pharma front group charged that FDA’s guidelines prohibiting disseminating information of a drug’s off-label uses deprived companies of their First Amendment right to offer information to doctors.  The court’s ruling on this case prohibited the FDA from enforcing its guidelines on exactly those First Amendment grounds.With court approval to disseminate scientific articles, Janssen Corporation went into full swing funding studies on the side effects of Risperdal that included false data and faulty statistical analyses in order to falsely conclude Risperdal’s safety in children.<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-4#2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">2</a> The business plan for Risperdal’s off-label marketing was large in its scope and organization.  It included special sales units, bribing doctors with “speaking fees” and targeting state institutions using Medicaid.Lawyers and government investigators were first alerted to this illegal activity by whistle blower and ex-Risperdal sales rep, Vicki Starr.  In 2013 a plea deal was reached with the Department of Justice for civil and criminal charges in which damages to the Johnson & Johnson Corporation approached $3 billion.<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-4#3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">3</a>This penalty meant little to the company or its ability to continue the practice of off-label promotion.  Additionally, the plea bargain named no responsible individuals.  The then head of Risperdal sales, and current Johnson & Johnson chairman and chief executive, Alex Gorsky, had a direct hands-on role throughout this illegal activity.  “That raises significant questions about whether our legal system can or will ever hold the high-ranking people who run our largest corporations… responsible for wrongdoing.”<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-4#4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">4</a>This only scratches the surface of the complexity of the Risperdal case.  For an in-depth review of this decades long scheme, see the Huffington Post’s exposé <a href="http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">“America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker”</a> by Steven Brill.<h3 style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </h3><h3 style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;">Video: The Boy with 46DD Breasts</h3></div><div>===</div>

<p style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; padding: 5px 0px 15px; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACSH claims it does not seek donations from corporations or trade groups that are earmarked for specific research projects –in short, there is no quid pro quo. But at Mother Jones reported:

[I]n a March 1992 internal memo obtained by Consumer Reports, Whelan wrote that ACSH staffers would ask the Calorie Control Council, a trade group backed by diet food and drink companies, and McNeil Specialty Products, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that owned the US marketing rights to Splenda (an artificial sweetener), for contributions to underwrite the dissemination of a research paper touting artificial sweeteners. (Splenda was then seeking approval for sale in the United States.)

<h1 class="title">update: bailed: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11585">http://www.prwatch.org/node/11585</a></h1>

<h1 class="title">Breaking Up with ALEC is Hard to Do For Johnson & Johnson</h1>

<div class="meta">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35298/sara-jerving" title="View user profile.">Sara Jerving</a> — April 24, 2012 - 11:00pm</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations">Corporations</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-9">Projects: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed">ALEC Exposed</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<div class="facebookshare-box"><a id="fb_share" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2012%2F04%2F11460%2Fbreaking-alec-hard-do-johnson-johnson&src=sp" name="fb_share" type="box_count" style=" text-decoration: none;">47Share</a></div>

These Johnson & Johnson products were previously recalledAs <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11477/procter-gamble-13th-firm-dump-alec" title="reference on Procter and Gamble" target="blank">Procter and Gamble</a> became the 13th major American firm to announce that it was dropping its membership in the <a href="http://www.ALECexposed.org" title="reference on American Legislative Exchange Council" target="blank">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (ALEC), a few corporations have publicly confirmed their loyalty to the controversial organization. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Johnson%26_Johnson" title="reference on Johnson & Johnson" target="self">Johnson & Johnson</a> is one of the companies that has so far stood by ALEC, despite ALEC's role in pushing "model" laws that make it harder for Americans to vote and that advance the NRA's gun agenda.

<h2>Firm Tries to Distance itself from Extreme ALEC Agenda</h2>

Instead of quitting, Johnson & Johnson prefers to try to distance itself from certain elements of the ALEC agenda, which may explain ALEC's PR move to dump its "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Public_Safety_and_Elections_Task_Force" title="reference on Public Safety and Elections Task Force" target="_self">Public Safety and Elections Task Force</a>," where corporate lobbyists and elected officials voted behind closed doors on templates for changing gun and voting laws.

Bill Price, a spokesman for the New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-16/altria-stands-by-group-for-florida-gun-law-as-kraft-quits" title="reference on said" target="_blank">said</a> the company financially supports ALEC and other organizations because of "a broad range of issues and, while we express our views to organizations with which we work, we may not align with or support every public position each of these broad-based groups takes." Johnson & Johnson's Vice President for State Government Affairs Don Bohn represents the company on ALEC's corporate "Private Enterprise" board, as of 2011.

The company was also a "Vice-Chairman" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 Annual Conference, which in 2010, equated to $25,000. It was also a 2011 sponsor of ALEC's New Orleans convention's "Kids Congress," which provides day care and activities for the children, six months or older, of ALEC legislators and corporate lobbyists.

Despite assertions by corporations that their interest in ALEC membership can be selective, corporations like Johnson & Johnson provide ALEC with general support that makes its operations and agenda possible. ALEC's agenda includes bills to privatize public schools, prisons, and public assets, bills to push climate change denial, bills to repeal the rights of workers, and resolutions in support of the privatization of Medicare and Social Security.

<h2>Johnson & Johnson Stands to Benefit from ALEC's Agenda</h2>

Why would Johnson & Johnson, which sells a host of consumer products such as its "no more tears" baby shampoo, Listerine mouthwash, and Tylenol brand pain killer, risk tarnishing its image by renewing its vows to ALEC? What does it get in return for its financial investment, besides one-stop shopping for legislators at ALEC meetings and the chance to vote as equals with elected officials on "model" legislation, away from the eyes of the press and public?

ALEC's corporate bill mill includes numerous templates that make it more difficult for American families to hold corporations accountable when their products injure or kill their child, partner, or parent. Backed by Big Tobacco, drug companies, insurance companies, and other global corporations, ALEC has long been pushing changes to the laws, so-called "tort reform bills," governing claims by people injured by corporate products.

Johnson & Johnson has also had a seat (and a vote) on ALEC's so-called "Civil Justice" Task Force, co-chaired by state senator Bill Seitz (R-OH). His co-chair is <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Victor_Schwartz" title="reference on Victor Schwartz" target="self">Victor Schwartz</a> of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon" title="reference on Shook, Hardy & Bacon" target="self">Shook, Hardy & Bacon</a> law firm, who is the national point person for the corporate wish list in this area of the law, working with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Tort_Reform_Association" title="reference on American Tort Reform Association" target="_self">American Tort Reform Association</a>, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other global corporations to push this agenda forward.

Johnson & Johnson sells numerous products sold in drug stores across the country, under such names as Neutrogena soaps and lotions, Acuvue contact lenses, and Splenda sweetener. It also sells Band-Aids, Neosporin, and RoC moisturizer and wrinkle cream. Johnson & Johnson also sells over the counter and prescription drugs, such as anti-seizure medicines. These include the pain killers, Tylenol and Motrin, St. Joseph's children's aspirin, Benadryl, and Rolaids.

<h2>Defective Products</h2>

Rolaids antacids were subject to a massive voluntary recall in 2010 due to contamination with a chemical called 2,4,6-tribromoanisole (TBA). Johnson & Johnson also recalled more than 135 million units of children's Tylenol, Benadryl, and Motrin medicines in 2010 <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/30/news/companies/hearing_johnson_fda_drug_recalls/index.htm" title="reference on for possible bacterial contamination and the presence of small metal parts" target="_blank">for possible bacterial contamination and the presence of small metal parts</a>.

In 2010, Johnson & Johnson's then-CEO, William Weldon, was called before Congress after regulators learned that the company had also engaged in "stealth" recalls by buying up products -- supplies of the pain killer, Motrin -- rather than notifying the public of its need to recall defective Motrin tablets.

And, just this month, on April 10, a <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/04/11/150429867/ark-judge-socks-johnson-johnson-with-1-1-billion-penalty" title="reference on jury determined" target="_blank">jury determined</a> that a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary had downplayed and had hidden risks associated with the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. The Arkansas Attorney General is seeking fines of at least $1.1 billion for the 250,000 prescriptions of this drug that the state's Medicaid program paid for over three and a half years. Johnson & Johnson is involved in other claims about this and other products as well.

For example, Johnson & Johnson has faced lawsuits over defective heart stents as well as hip replacement parts, the failure of which put at-risk American patients at additional risk from more surgery to address these defective medical devices. In the case of the defective hip joints, some recipients have experienced degradation of the soft tissue around the joint, leaving injured Americans unable to fully replace the defective part and instead suffering long-term disability and reduced mobility.

Through ALEC's "tort" task force, global corporations like Johnson & Johnson underwrite an agenda that would bar American families from suing if their loved one dies as a result of a drug if that drug were approved by the FDA. ALEC has pursued such legislation despite the long-history of inadequate regulation by the FDA and numerous recalls of dangerous or defective drugs -- including numerous drugs manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.

The ALEC agenda also focuses its rhetoric on "frivolous" claims while pushing bills that limit the ability of a jury that has found that a drug company has acted dangerously, irresponsibly or recklessly from punishing the company through substantial damages to deter similar conduct in the future. Some ALEC legislators have gone even further than ALEC's templates, as with a bill introduced in Wisconsin last year that would extend ALEC's bar on suit for FDA-approved drugs to reach medical devices, like defective hip joints or heart stents. The text of ALEC's model bills, along with analysis, is available <a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Bills_Affecting_the_Rights_of_Americans_Injured_or_Killed_by_Corporations" title="reference on here" target="_blank">here</a>.

Johnson & Johnson had revenue of over $62 billion last year and has accumulated assets valued at over $100 billion. Last year's profits were consistent with prior years: in 2010, it had a gross profit of $42.8 billion on revenue of $62 billion, along with a net income after taxes of $13.3 billion. It paid its CEO over $28 million in total compensation that year.

<h2>ALEC's Exile of Gun Laws Won't Stop Push for So-Called "Tort Reform"</h2>

Last week, ALEC announced it had reassigned the staff of its "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Public_Safety_and_Elections_Task_Force" title="reference on Public Safety and Elections Task Force" target="_self">Public Safety and Elections Task Force</a>" after the task force was subject to opprobrium for pushing bills to make it harder for American citizens to vote and that advance the NRA's extreme gun agenda. In a PR maneuver to limit corporate and legislative defections, ALEC claimed this move would allow it to sharpen its focus on "jobs, free markets and growth." But, when ALEC talks about enhancing employment opportunity, hiding just behind that are templates to change the laws so that a family might not be able to sue a corporation like Johnson & Johnson for the damages its product caused.

Such policies enrich drug companies while they may impose devastating losses on families -- all because the company escapes responsibility under ALEC-promoted laws. And, many of the bills in the ALEC agenda seek to supplant the democratic check of the jury system and its careful evaluation of the facts in an individual case with the generic judgment of a legislator, who may have schmoozed and boozed with corporate lobbyists and even voted behind closed doors on an ALEC task force as an equal with unelected corporate representatives from companies like Johnson & Johnson.

The Center for Media and Democracy's Executive Director Lisa Graves has <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11456/grassroots-campaign-makes-alec-try-stanch-bleeding-corporate-donors-alec-companie" title="reference on written off" target="_blank">written off</a> ALEC's announcement to nix one of its task forces as a public relations stunt. "ALEC's so-called 'jobs' agenda is a thinly disguised effort to make it more difficult for American families to hold corporations accountable ... ," she said. ALEC's measures "strip workers of their rights to organize or even get sick pay to help care for their children when they are ill, limit the ability of the government to protect the health and safety of American families and to fight climate changes underway, funnel tax dollars from public institutions like schools into private coffers, and to continue a reckless agenda of tax loopholes and giveaways to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the world, like Koch Industries and the Koch family."

CMD, along with Color of Change, Common Cause, People for the American Way, Progress Now!, and others will <a href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/632/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10002" title="reference on continue to expose" target="_blank">continue to expose</a> ALEC's corporate funders, including Johnson & Johnson. Already, hundreds of thousands of Americans have asked ALEC corporations to sever their ties with ALEC and its extreme agenda.

<hr />

(Lisa Graves and Jonathan Rosenblum contributed to this story.)

</div>