WASHINGTON _ An examination of recent political contributionscompiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) shows AmgenInc. focused most of its political contributions on the Republicannational party apparatus while Genentech Inc. increased its supportfor individual members of the House and Senate.

Amgen, of Thousand Oaks, Calif., reported $85,000 in corporatedonations to Republican party operatives since January 1995.Specifically, the biotech giant donated $40,000 to the 1995Republican Senate-House Dinner, $20,000 to the NationalRepublican Senate Committee, chaired by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.),and $20,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee.Amgen gave an additional $5,000 to the National RepublicanCongressional Campaign Committee.

This level of spending for Amgen is consistent with previous politicalaction committee (PAC) outlays. In 1994, Amgen distributed nearly$100,000 to national Democratic and Republican election committeesand key members of Congress. (See BioWorld Today, May 31, 1995,p. 1.)

The only national contribution to the Democratic Party given byGenentech, of South San Francisco, was a $5,000 check to theDemocratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

These corporate contributions are termed "soft money" by the FEC.Soft money includes corporate and individual contributions in excessof the federal limits which cannot be legally used in connection withfederal elections. Usually the Republican and Democratic NationalCommittees funnel these dollars to gubernatorial races or "get out thevote" drives, according to an FEC spokesman. Some of the money,however, ends up staying at the national committee, the spokesmanadded.

Amgen confined its PAC money to a handful of Senate candidates"because our PAC is so small," said Pete Teeley, Amgen's vicepresident for government and public relations. But Amgen's PACrecipients were Congressional powerhouses.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N. Mex.) andSen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who were instrumental in negotiatingseveral deals in the 1995 budget negotiations, each received $1,000.On the House side, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) received $1,000. House Commerce Committee ChairmanThomas Bliley (R-Va.), whose panel has jurisdiction over FDAreform, also received $1,000 in 1995. In all, Amgen gave $5,000 tosix Republican incumbents and $1,000 to one Democratic incumbentin 1995.

Genentech donated to a much longer list of Congressional candidatesthan Amgen. FEC records show that Genentech gave $37,000 in1995 to 39 Republican Congressional incumbents and 16 DemocraticCongressional incumbents.

Of the 25 Republican members of the House Commerce Committee,11 received contributions of $1,000, or more commonly, $500 fromGenentech. Committee chair Bliley received $1,000 as did Oversightand Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.).Three of the 21 Democrats received $500 each from Genentech.Genentech's total PAC contributions to Democratic Congressionalincumbents was $10,000. It gave $27,000 to 39 RepublicanCongressional incumbents.

"We give to members of Congress who have worked with us andhave asked for a contribution," said Walter Moore, senior director ofgovernment affairs, in Genentech's Washington office. "AGenenPAC contribution is not a clear indication of political ties. Wemay have a close political relationship with a Congressman but ifthey are unopposed or don't ask for a contribution, there won't be acontribution," he added.

Moore said Genentech will continue to contribute throughout the1996 election cycle and plans contributions to the Democratic andRepublican national committees closer to the general election.

"Don't read too much into whether we give to Republicans orDemocrats. We don't have a balancing strategy. We make ourcontributions on a case-by-case basis," Moore said in an interviewwith BioWorld Today.

According to a recent FEC report, soft money contributions fromcorporations may unduly influence the federal legislative process.

"Some legislators and public interest groups are still concerned aboutthe effect of soft money. They say, for example, that soft moneyspending _ even for the nonfederal share of expenses _ influencesfederal elections because it permits committees to conserve federalfunds that can later be spent to support federal candidates," accordingto the report. n

-- Michele L. Robinson Washington Editor

(c) 1997 American Health Consultants. All rights reserved.