Democrats Say United Seniors Association Ads Supporting Republicans Is ‘Stealth Campaign’ by Drug Industry

Democrats have alleged that campaign advertisements run in 20 congressional districts by the United Seniors Association, a conservative group that receives some funding from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, are part of a "stealth campaign" by the drug industry to help Republicans win congressional elections, the New York Times reports. The television ads praise incumbent lawmakers, mostly Republicans, for supporting legislation that would enact a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Starring television personality Art Linkletter, the ads, individualized for various races, state that the candidate in question "is fighting for real prescription drug coverage" and ask that viewers "urge him [or her] to keep standing up for America's seniors." Democrats say the association is being used as a "front group" to support Republicans, the Times reports. They add that the campaign is "clearly misleading" because it does not mention that the association receives funding from PhRMA or that the legislation to which the ads allude is the House-passed Medicare reform bill (HR 4954), which is supported by Republicans. Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack said, "The pharmaceutical lobby has taken deceptive advertising to new heights." Because of its tax status, the association is not required to divulge its sources of income, and USA Chair Charles Jarvis has declined to disclose how much PhRMA has provided to the association or how much the ads cost. Jarvis called the accusation that his group is being used as a front by the pharmaceutical industry "ludicrous," adding that PhRMA has given the group funds "because it shares its market-oriented views on health care," the Times reports (Toner, New York Times, 10/21). A transcript and video of the television ads are available online.

Senior Constituency Growing
Meanwhile, the number of elderly Americans who plan to vote in the Nov. 5 elections outnumbers by two-to-one the number of people under age 30 who plan to vote, "distort[ing]" campaign issues to favor seniors' concerns, which include a prescription drug benefit, according to a new study, the Washington Post reports. Researchers from the Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University in August surveyed 2,886 randomly selected adults, finding that the majority of younger Americans do not vote, while the majority of older Americans do, and that gap is getting bigger. In 1974, voters under age 30 outnumbered those ages 65 and older, according to Census Bureau figures. By 1998, older voters outnumbered younger voters by more than two-to-one. Further, researchers predict that if current trends continue, the ratio of older to younger voters could reach four-to-one by 2022. Thomas Patterson, a political scientist at Harvard, said, "If young people don't vote, their issues don't get addressed." Stuart Jones, a campaign representative for Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) added, "It's a chicken-and-the-egg syndrome. The young people don't feel connected to the candidates, because they don't campaign to them. And the candidates don't feel connected to the young people, because they think they don't vote." Even though the nation's 45 million young adults make up a "constituency-in-waiting," some campaign consultants say it would not make sense to attempt to draw them to the polls, the Post reports. "Any political party that allocated a huge chunk of its resources for a good civic purpose (increasing the participation of young adults) would be malfeasant in its prime duty, which is to win elections," an unnamed GOP consultant said (Goldstein/Morin, Washington Post, 10/21).