Worst Case Conflict of Interest: One From Each Party
All data pulled live from Congress.gov, Senate.gov, FEC (including PAC disbursement records), FDIC, FRED, World Bank, and Senate Lobbying Disclosure APIs on February 26, 2026.
What Is a "Conflict of Interest"?
A conflict of interest happens when a politician votes on something that directly benefits people or companies who give them money. It doesn't mean they broke the law ΓÇö it means the public should ask: "Did they vote this way because it was right, or because their donors wanted it?"
In both cases below, there's no proof of corruption — but the pattern of money flowing in → votes going out → the public paying the price is documented across multiple independent government databases.
REPUBLICAN: Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and the Bank Deregulation That Cost Taxpayers $34.8 Billion
Who Is Mike Crapo?
Mike Crapo is a Republican senator from Idaho who has been in Congress since 1993. During the 115th Congress (2017-2018), he was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee ΓÇö the committee that oversees every bank in America.
What "Chairman of the Banking Committee" means: This is one of the most powerful positions in the Senate. The chairman decides which banking bills get a vote, which ones die, and how they're written. Every bank, investment firm, and financial company in America cares deeply about who holds this chair ΓÇö because this person controls the rules that govern their industry.
What He Did
In 2017, Crapo introduced S.2155, officially called the "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act." Despite the friendly name, the bill's main effect was to dramatically weaken the rules put in place after the 2008 financial crisis.
What the Bill Changed (In Plain English)
After the 2008 crash that destroyed the economy, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) which said: any bank with $50 billion or more in assets is "systemically important" ΓÇö meaning if it fails, it could take down the whole economy. These banks had to:
- Do stress tests ΓÇö prove they could survive another recession
- File "living wills" ΓÇö a plan for how to shut down safely if they fail
- Hold extra cash reserves ΓÇö so they don't run out of money in a crisis
S.2155 raised this threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion. This means banks with $50B to $250B in assets no longer had to follow any of these safety rules. They were free to take bigger risks with less oversight.
Who Paid for His Campaigns
The FEC (Federal Election Commission) tracks every dollar raised by every federal candidate. Here are Crapo's numbers:
| Election Cycle | Total Raised | PAC Money | PAC % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | $1,948,398 | $1,241,988 | 63.7% |
| 2010 | $3,670,595 | $1,846,761 | 50.3% |
| 2016 | $4,289,036 | $2,294,342 | 53.5% |
| 2022 | $4,821,698 | $1,956,903 | 40.6% |
What "PAC money" means: A PAC (Political Action Committee) is a fund that collects money from employees and executives of a company or industry and bundles it together to give to politicians. When a bank's PAC gives money to a senator, it's because the bank wants that senator to vote in ways that benefit the bank.
The key number: Over his career, Crapo consistently received 40-64% of his campaign funds from PACs ΓÇö with his highest PAC dependency (63.7%) in 2004 when he was already on the Banking Committee. The chairman of the committee that regulates banks was funded, in large part, by the banks he regulated.
Source: FEC Candidate ID S8ID00027
The Direct Money Trail: Named Banking PACs → Crapo
The FEC tracks every disbursement from every PAC to every candidate. Here are the specific, named banking company PACs that gave money directly to "Mike Crapo for US Senate" during 2015-2017 ΓÇö the period surrounding S.2155:
| Banking PAC | Date | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABA BankPAC | Feb 27, 2015 | $4,500 | Contribution |
| ABA BankPAC | Jun 3, 2015 | $5,000 | Contribution |
| Wells Fargo Employee PAC | Jan 29, 2015 | $1,000 | 2016 Primary |
| Wells Fargo Employee PAC | Jan 29, 2015 | $1,000 | 2016 General |
| Wells Fargo Employee PAC | Sep 23, 2015 | $4,000 | 2016 General |
| Wells Fargo Employee PAC | Mar 3, 2017 | $1,500 | 2022 Primary |
| Citigroup Federal PAC | Mar 30, 2015 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Citigroup Federal PAC | Jun 8, 2015 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Citigroup Federal PAC | Jun 13, 2016 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Citigroup Federal PAC | Jun 27, 2016 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Citigroup Federal PAC | Aug 14, 2017 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Goldman Sachs PAC | Mar 24, 2015 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Goldman Sachs PAC | Mar 23, 2016 | $5,000 | Contribution |
| Goldman Sachs PAC | Mar 23, 2016 | $1,000 | Contribution |
| Goldman Sachs PAC | Nov 21, 2017 | $1,000 | Contribution |
| Bank of America Federal PAC | May 13, 2015 | $1,500 | 2016 Primary |
| Bank of America Federal PAC | Apr 11, 2016 | $2,000 | 2016 Primary |
| Bank of America Federal PAC | Apr 11, 2016 | $500 | 2016 General |
| Bank of America Federal PAC | Jul 12, 2016 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Bank of America Federal PAC | Sep 7, 2016 | $2,000 | 2016 General |
| $47,500 | Total from 5 banking PACs |
In plain English: The five biggest banks and their trade group ΓÇö the same companies that lobbied for S.2155 and would directly benefit from it ΓÇö gave the bill's author $47,500 in direct, traceable PAC donations during the two years surrounding the bill. That's not total industry PAC money (which was much more). That's just the named donations we can trace from these five PACs alone.
Note the timing: Wells Fargo gave $1,500 on March 3, 2017. S.2155 was introduced later that year. Goldman Sachs gave $1,000 on November 21, 2017. The bill passed the Senate on March 14, 2018. Citigroup gave $2,500 on August 14, 2017 ΓÇö right in the middle of the bill's development.
Source: FEC Committee Disbursement Records ΓÇö Committee IDs: C00004275 (ABA), C00034595 (Wells Fargo), C00008474 (Citigroup), C00350744 (Goldman Sachs), C00364778 (Bank of America)
Who Lobbied for the Bill
What "lobbying" means: Companies and trade groups hire professional lobbyists to meet with senators and their staff, explain why a bill is good (for the company), and persuade them to vote a certain way. Companies must report how much they spend on lobbying. It's legal, but it means industries are spending millions to influence the people who regulate them.
The American Bankers Association (ABA) is the banking industry's main lobbying group. Here's what they spent during the years around S.2155:
| Year | ABA Lobbying Spend | What Was Happening |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | ~$9.27M | Building support for deregulation |
| 2017 | ~$11.04M | S.2155 introduced by Crapo |
| 2018 | ~$9.35M | S.2155 passed and signed into law |
The ABA spent $11 million the year the bill was introduced ΓÇö a 19% increase over the prior year. Their lobbying disclosures list their issues as: Banking, Financial Institutions, Consumer Issues, Housing, Taxation ΓÇö all directly related to S.2155.
Individual banks also lobbied heavily in 2018 (the year S.2155 passed):
| Company | 2018 Lobbying Spend |
|---|---|
| Wells Fargo | ~$3.83M |
| Citigroup | ~$4.50M |
| Bank of America | ~$2.79M |
| Ind. Community Bankers of America | ~$4.92M |
| Combined (these 4 alone) | $16.04M |
Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings
How the Senate Voted
Senate Vote #54, 115th Congress (March 14, 2018):
| Party | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Republican | 50 | 0 |
| Democrat | 16 | 30 |
| Independent | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 67 | 31 |
Every single Republican voted yes. Not one defected. Sixteen Democrats also crossed party lines to vote yes.
Signed into law: May 24, 2018
Source: Senate.gov Roll Call Vote XML
What Happened Next: The 2023 Banking Crisis
Five years after S.2155 became law, three banks in the exact $50BΓÇô$250B asset range that the bill deregulated collapsed in the largest banking crisis since 2008:
| Bank | Total Assets | Date Failed | Cost to FDIC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silicon Valley Bank | $209 billion | March 10, 2023 | $19.0 billion |
| Signature Bank | $110 billion | March 12, 2023 | ~$0 |
| First Republic Bank | $213 billion | May 1, 2023 | $15.8 billion |
| Total | $532 billion | $34.8 billion |
What "cost to FDIC" means: The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is the government agency that insures bank deposits. When a bank fails, the FDIC pays depositors their money back. The $34.8 billion cost was ultimately paid by fees on other banks and, indirectly, by consumers through higher banking fees.
The connection: Under the original Dodd-Frank rules, all three of these banks would have been required to do stress tests and hold more capital reserves. S.2155 specifically removed those requirements for banks in their size range. Whether the failures would have been prevented is debatable ΓÇö but the safety checks that might have caught the problems earlier were gone.
Source: FDIC Bank Failures Database
Who Profited from the Wreckage
JPMorgan Chase ΓÇö the largest bank in America ΓÇö acquired First Republic Bank's $213 billion in assets at a steep discount in a government-assisted deal.
After the acquisition, JPMorgan's lobbying spending increased:
| Year | JPMorgan Lobbying | Key Event |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | $3.32M | Acquired First Republic at discount |
| 2025 | $4.38M (+32%) | Lobbying continued to increase |
Source: Senate LDA Filings
The Conflict of Interest
Here's the chain of events, all documented in public government data:
- The banking industry spends $30M+ lobbying during 2016-2018 (ABA + individual banks)
- The Chairman of Banking receives 40-64% of his campaign funds from PACs over his career
- He writes and sponsors a bill that removes safety requirements from mid-size banks
- Every member of his party votes yes, plus 16 from the other party
- Five years later, three banks in the exact deregulated range fail ΓÇö costing $34.8 billion
- The largest bank in America acquires the wreckage at a discount and increases its own lobbying by 32%
Suspicious or OK?
Why it looks suspicious: The person who wrote the bill was funded by the industry it benefited. The lobbying spend spiked during the year the bill was introduced. The exact category of banks the bill freed from oversight are the ones that failed. The failure enriched even larger banks.
Why it might be OK: Crapo genuinely believed smaller banks were over-regulated by rules designed for mega-banks like JPMorgan. Community banks really did struggle with compliance costs. The 2023 failures had other causes too ΓÇö the Federal Reserve raised interest rates from 0% to 5.33% in just 18 months, and Silicon Valley Bank made spectacularly bad bets on long-term bonds without hedging. S.2155 didn't cause the failures ΓÇö it removed safeguards that might have caught the problems sooner.
DEMOCRAT: Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) and the Vote That Kept Drug Prices High
Who Is Cory Booker?
Cory Booker is a Democratic senator from New Jersey who has been in the Senate since 2013. He's known as a progressive who speaks frequently about fighting for working families and against corporate greed.
Why New Jersey matters for this story: New Jersey is the pharmaceutical capital of the United States. Some of the largest drug companies in the world are headquartered there:
- Johnson & Johnson ΓÇö New Brunswick, NJ
- Merck & Co. ΓÇö Rahway, NJ (moved from Kenilworth in 2023)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb ΓÇö major NJ operations
- Numerous other pharma companies, research labs, and manufacturing plants employ hundreds of thousands of NJ residents
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest employers in New Jersey. A senator from NJ who votes against pharma interests risks angering a major part of their state's economy ΓÇö and their donor base.
What He Did
On January 11, 2017, at 11:06 PM, the Senate voted on Klobuchar Amendment #178 ΓÇö a proposal that would have allowed Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada, where the exact same medications cost 40-90% less.
What "Drug Importation" Means (In Plain English)
Here's the problem: A drug that costs $300/month in the U.S. might cost $30-$80/month in Canada for the identical product, made by the same company, in the same factory. Why? Because Canada's government negotiates prices with drug companies. The U.S. doesn't (or didn't, until very recently and very limitedly).
The Klobuchar amendment would have created a system where Americans could legally buy those cheaper drugs from licensed Canadian pharmacies, saving patients thousands of dollars per year.
The pharmaceutical industry opposed this intensely because it would undercut their ability to charge Americans the highest prices in the world.
How the Senate Voted
Senate Vote #20, 115th Congress, Session 1 (January 11, 2017):
| Party | Yes (for cheaper drugs) | No (against cheaper drugs) |
|---|---|---|
| Republican | 12 | 39 |
| Democrat | 32 | 13 |
| Independent | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 46 | 52 ΓÇö REJECTED |
The amendment failed by 6 votes. If just 4 of the 13 Democrats who voted "No" had voted "Yes" instead, Americans would have had access to cheaper drugs starting in 2017.
Cory Booker was one of the 13 Democrats who voted No.
A Democratic senator ΓÇö from the state where pharma companies are headquartered ΓÇö voted against letting Americans buy cheaper drugs. He did this alongside 39 Republicans. Together, they killed the amendment.
Source: Senate.gov Roll Call Vote XML, 115th Congress Session 1, Vote #20
The Pharma Lobbying Machine
Here's how much the pharmaceutical industry spent on lobbying during this period ΓÇö just from the organizations whose filings we can verify:
PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)
This is the main lobbying group for brand-name drug companies.
| Year | PhRMA Lobbying Spend | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | ~$20.9M | Baseline |
| 2017 | ~$25.4M | +22% ΓÇö the year of the vote |
| 2018 | ~$27.5M | +8% |
| 2019 | ~$28.8M | +5% (peak) |
| 2020 | ~$25.5M | -11% (pandemic) |
PhRMA spent $25.4 million lobbying in 2017 alone ΓÇö the year the drug importation amendment was killed. That's $69,600 per day, every day of the year.
Individual Drug Companies (2017 Lobbying)
| Company | 2017 Lobbying | HQ Location |
|---|---|---|
| PhRMA (trade group) | ~$25.43M | Washington DC |
| Pfizer | ~$10.38M | New York (major NJ operations) |
| BIO (Biotechnology Innovation Org.) | ~$9.39M | Washington DC |
| Merck & Co. | ~$6.23M | Rahway, NJ |
| Total (just these 4) | ~$51.4M |
Merck alone ΓÇö a New Jersey company ΓÇö spent $6.23 million on lobbying the same year Booker, their home-state senator, voted against cheaper drug imports.
Source: Senate LDA Filings
Booker's Campaign Finances
| Election Cycle | Total Raised | PAC Money | PAC % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 (first full Senate race) | $18,368,139 | $1,880,427 | 10.2% |
| 2020 (re-election) | $8,290,751 | $667,416 | 8.0% |
Booker's PAC percentage is lower than Crapo's ΓÇö but $1.88 million in PAC money is still significant. And PAC money is only one channel. Drug companies also donate through individual executives, "bundlers" (people who collect donations from many executives), and independent expenditure groups that don't have to disclose donors.
Source: FEC Candidate ID S4NJ00185
The Direct Money Trail: Named Pharma PACs → Booker
Just like with Crapo, FEC disbursement records show the specific pharmaceutical company PACs that gave money directly to "Cory Booker for Senate":
| Pharma PAC | Date | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pfizer PAC | Jun 17, 2013 | $5,000 | 2013 Special Primary |
| Pfizer PAC | Sep 30, 2013 | $5,000 | 2013 Special General |
| Pfizer PAC | Feb 27, 2014 | $2,500 | 2014 Primary |
| Pfizer PAC | May 22, 2014 | $2,500 | 2014 Primary |
| Pfizer PAC | Oct 22, 2014 | $2,500 | 2014 General |
| Merck PAC | Sep 25, 2013 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Merck PAC | Mar 27, 2014 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Merck PAC | May 23, 2014 | $2,500 | Contribution |
| Merck PAC | Oct 11, 2014 | $5,000 | Contribution |
| $30,000 | Total from 2 pharma PACs |
In plain English: Two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world ΓÇö one headquartered in Booker's home state (Merck, Rahway NJ) ΓÇö gave his campaign $30,000 in direct, traceable PAC donations during his first Senate race. That's just from two companies. The broader pharma PAC universe contributed more.
Note the timeline: Pfizer gave $10,000 across two donations in 2013, before Booker even won his first full Senate term. Merck, the NJ company, gave $12,500 across four donations in 2013-2014. When the drug importation vote came up in January 2017, these were established donor relationships. Neither Pfizer nor Merck PACs made traceable disbursements to Booker during the 2018 or 2020 cycles ΓÇö suggesting the relationship may have cooled after the public backlash over his vote.
Source: FEC Committee Disbursement Records ΓÇö Committee IDs: C00016683 (Pfizer PAC), C00097485 (Merck PAC)
What It Cost Americans
Drug Prices
Americans pay dramatically more for prescription drugs than people in every other wealthy country. Here's what the World Bank says about total healthcare spending per person:
| Country | Health Spending Per Person (2023) | vs. United States |
|---|---|---|
| United States | $13,473 | ΓÇö |
| Germany | $6,395 | 2.1x less |
| Canada | $6,187 | 2.2x less |
| United Kingdom | $5,407 | 2.5x less |
| France | $5,149 | 2.6x less |
| Japan | $3,638 | 3.7x less |
Americans spend more than double what Canadians spend on healthcare per person. Drug prices are a major reason why.
The amendment that Booker helped kill would have let Americans buy from Canada ΓÇö the country right next door that pays 2.2x less for the same care.
Source: World Bank indicator SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD
The Timeline of Inaction
| Year | What Happened |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Booker + 12 other Democrats kill drug importation amendment |
| 2017-2021 | No major drug pricing legislation passes Congress |
| 2022 | Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passes ΓÇö allows Medicare to negotiate prices on 10 drugs |
| 2026 | Those negotiated prices finally take effect ΓÇö 9 years after the vote |
For nine years after that vote, Americans continued paying the highest drug prices in the world. The IRA (2022) was a small step ΓÇö it only covers 10 drugs for Medicare patients, not the thousands of drugs Americans buy.
Booker's Reversal
After the January 2017 vote, Booker faced intense public backlash. Progressive groups and media criticized him heavily. In response:
- He later co-sponsored the SAFE Importation Act (a drug importation bill)
- He voted for the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022
- He publicly stated his initial concerns were about drug safety standards in imported medications
His stated reason for voting No: Booker said he wanted to ensure any imported drugs met FDA safety standards. Critics pointed out that Canada's drug safety standards are comparable to America's, and that the amendment included safety provisions.
The Conflict of Interest
Here's the chain of events:
- Pharma companies spend $51.4M+ lobbying in 2017 (just from 4 organizations we checked)
- Booker represents the state where pharma companies are headquartered and employ hundreds of thousands
- He votes against letting Americans buy cheaper drugs from Canada ΓÇö alongside 39 Republicans and 12 other Democrats
- The amendment fails by just 6 votes ΓÇö meaning the 13 Democratic "No" votes were the deciding factor
- Americans continue paying the highest drug prices in the world for 5+ more years
- PhRMA's lobbying spend increases 37% from 2016 to 2019 ($20.9M → $28.8M), suggesting the investment paid off
Suspicious or OK?
Why it looks suspicious: A progressive senator from pharma's home state voted against cheaper drugs for Americans, alongside the industry that employs his constituents and funds campaigns in his state. The pharma industry spent over $50M lobbying that year. The vote failed by just 6 ΓÇö the 13 Democrats who voted No were the margin of defeat. Years of continued high drug prices followed.
Why it might be OK: Booker's safety concerns about imported drugs aren't unreasonable in theory ΓÇö counterfeit drugs are a real problem globally. He later changed his position and co-sponsored importation legislation. NJ genuinely depends on pharma jobs ΓÇö a senator has a duty to their state's economy, not just national policy. And unlike the Crapo/banking case, there's no catastrophic failure that directly resulted ΓÇö just continued high prices that were already the status quo.
Follow the Money: Visual Timelines
These timelines show the documented sequence of events ΓÇö money flowing in, votes going out, consequences following. Every item is sourced from a government database.
Crapo / Banking Timeline
2015
├── Jan 29 — Wells Fargo PAC → Crapo: $2,000
├── Feb 27 — ABA BankPAC → Crapo: $4,500
├── Mar 24 — Goldman Sachs PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Mar 30 — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── May 13 — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $1,500
├── Jun 3 — ABA BankPAC → Crapo: $5,000
├── Jun 8 — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Sep 23 — Wells Fargo PAC → Crapo: $4,000
Γöé
2016
├── Mar 23 — Goldman Sachs PAC → Crapo: $6,000
├── Apr 11 — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Jun — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $5,000
├── Jul 12 — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Sep 7 — Bank of America PAC → Crapo: $2,000
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Nov ΓÇö Γÿà CRAPO RE-ELECTED, remains Banking Committee Chairman
Γöé
2017
├── Mar 3 — Wells Fargo PAC → Crapo: $1,500
├── Aug 14 — Citigroup PAC → Crapo: $2,500
├── Nov 21 — Goldman Sachs PAC → Crapo: $1,000
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Γÿà S.2155 INTRODUCED BY CRAPO
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ ABA lobbying spend: $11.04M (+19% from prior year)
Γöé
2018
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Mar 14 ΓÇö Γÿà SENATE PASSES S.2155: 67-31 (all 50 Republicans + 16 Democrats)
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ May 24 ΓÇö Γÿà SIGNED INTO LAW ΓÇö banks $50B-$250B freed from stress tests
Γöé
2023
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Mar 10 ΓÇö Γÿà SILICON VALLEY BANK FAILS ($209B assets) ΓÇö cost to FDIC: $19.0B
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Mar 12 ΓÇö Γÿà SIGNATURE BANK FAILS ($110B assets) ΓÇö cost to FDIC: ~$0
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ May 1 ΓÇö Γÿà FIRST REPUBLIC BANK FAILS ($213B assets) ΓÇö cost to FDIC: $15.8B
ΓööΓöÇΓöÇ TOTAL COST: $34.8 BILLION ΓÇö all 3 in the deregulated $50B-$250B rangeMoney in: $47,500 from 5 named banking PACs (2015-2017) Lobbying: $30M+ from banking industry (2016-2018) Outcome: $34.8 billion in FDIC losses from deregulated banks
Booker / Pharma Timeline
2013
├── Jun 17 — Pfizer PAC → Booker: $5,000 (special primary)
├── Sep 25 — Merck PAC → Booker: $2,500
├── Sep 30 — Pfizer PAC → Booker: $5,000 (special general)
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Oct ΓÇö Γÿà BOOKER WINS NJ SPECIAL ELECTION TO SENATE
Γöé
2014
├── Feb 27 — Pfizer PAC → Booker: $2,500
├── Mar 27 — Merck PAC → Booker: $2,500
├── May — Pfizer PAC + Merck PAC → Booker: $5,000
├── Oct — Pfizer PAC + Merck PAC → Booker: $7,500
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Nov ΓÇö Γÿà BOOKER WINS FULL SENATE TERM
Γöé
2016
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ PhRMA lobbying spend: $20.9M
Γöé
2017
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Jan 11 ΓÇö Γÿà SENATE REJECTS DRUG IMPORTATION AMENDMENT: 46-52
Γöé Booker votes NO alongside 39 Republicans and 12 other Democrats
Γöé Amendment fails by 6 votes ΓÇö the 13 Democratic "No" votes are the margin
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ PhRMA lobbying spend: $25.4M (+22%)
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Merck lobbying spend: $6.23M (NJ company)
Γöé
2018-2020
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Γÿà NO pharma PAC disbursements found to Booker (possible relationship cooling)
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ PhRMA lobbying peaks at $28.8M (2019)
Γöé
2022
Γö£ΓöÇΓöÇ Aug ΓÇö Γÿà INFLATION REDUCTION ACT passes ΓÇö allows Medicare to negotiate 10 drug prices
Γöé
2026
ΓööΓöÇΓöÇ Γÿà First negotiated drug prices take effect ΓÇö 9 YEARS after the importation voteMoney in: $30,000 from 2 named pharma PACs (2013-2014) Lobbying: $51.4M+ from pharma industry (2017 alone) Outcome: Drug importation blocked; Americans continued paying 2-3x more than other countries for 9+ years
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Crapo (R) ΓÇö Banking | Booker (D) ΓÇö Pharma | |
|---|---|---|
| Their role | Chairman of Banking Committee | Senator from pharma's home state |
| The vote | Sponsored S.2155 (bank deregulation) | Voted No on drug importation |
| Direct PAC money from industry | $47,500 from 5 named banking PACs | $30,000 from 2 named pharma PACs |
| Total PAC funding | 40-64% of all campaign funds from PACs | 8-10% of all campaign funds from PACs |
| Industry lobbying | $30M+ (banking industry, 2016-2018) | $51M+ (pharma industry, 2017 alone) |
| The outcome | 3 banks failed → $34.8B FDIC cost | Cheaper drugs blocked → years of high prices |
| Who paid the price | Taxpayers (FDIC costs), depositors | Patients paying 2-3x more than other countries |
| Who benefited | JPMorgan (acquired failed bank at discount) | Pharma companies (protected U.S. pricing) |
| Later reversal? | No ΓÇö still supports deregulation | Yes ΓÇö later co-sponsored importation bill |
| Vote margin | Passed 67-31 (comfortable) | Failed 46-52 (close ΓÇö 6 votes) |
| PACs continued giving after? | Yes (2017-2018 cycle donations found) | No (no pharma PAC disbursements in 2018/2020) |
Which Is Worse?
Both are concerning, but they're different kinds of concerning:
The Return on Investment
One way to understand the scale: compare what the industries spent to what they gained.
Banking (Crapo case):
- Direct PAC donations to Crapo: $47,500
- Industry lobbying (2016-2018): ~$30 million
- Outcome: Banks freed from stress tests; when 3 failed, FDIC covered $34.8 billion
- Ratio: For every $1 the banking industry spent on lobbying, the eventual FDIC cost was ~$1,160
Pharma (Booker case):
- Direct PAC donations to Booker: $30,000
- Industry lobbying (2017 alone): ~$51.4 million
- Outcome: Drug importation blocked; Americans continued paying 2-3x more than Canadians
- Ratio: The U.S. spends ~$7,000 more per person per year on healthcare than Canada (World Bank: $13,473 vs $6,187). For 330 million Americans, even attributing a small fraction of that gap to drug pricing, the annual cost dwarfs any lobbying investment
The uncomfortable math: These are some of the most cost-effective investments in American business. A few tens of millions in lobbying and PAC donations yielded billions in favorable outcomes ΓÇö whether that was deregulation that let banks take bigger risks or preserved pricing power that kept drug costs high.
What "Chairman of Banking" means in dollar terms: Crapo received $47,500 from five banking PACs. He then wrote a bill that freed those banks from safety requirements. Five years later, three banks in the deregulated range failed. The FDIC paid $34.8 billion. That's a ratio of $732,631 in public costs for every $1 in direct PAC money to the bill's author. (This is not to suggest $47,500 "caused" $34.8B in losses ΓÇö many factors contributed. But the ratio illustrates the asymmetry between what industries spend on influence and what the public bears in consequences.)
Crapo's case has a clearer cause-and-effect chain: He wrote the bill → it removed specific safeguards → the specific banks it freed from oversight failed → there's a measurable $34.8 billion cost. The pipeline from lobbying money to legislation to public harm is documented.
Booker's case has a larger affected population: Every American who buys prescription drugs was affected by continued high prices. But the harm is diffuse ΓÇö there's no single catastrophic event, just millions of people quietly paying too much for medications, year after year.
The common thread: In both cases, an industry spent millions on lobbying, a senator with ties to that industry voted in the industry's favor, and the public bore the cost.
Glossary of Terms Used
| Term | What It Means |
|---|---|
| PAC | Political Action Committee ΓÇö collects donations from a company's employees/executives and gives them to politicians as a bundle |
| PAC disbursement | A specific, traceable payment from a named PAC to a named candidate ΓÇö the most direct evidence of money flowing from an industry to a politician |
| Lobbying | Hiring professionals to meet with legislators and persuade them to vote a certain way; must be reported publicly |
| Stress test | A simulation that checks if a bank could survive a recession without failing |
| Living will | A bank's plan for how to shut down safely without crashing the economy |
| FDIC | Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ΓÇö insures bank deposits up to $250,000 per account |
| FEC | Federal Election Commission ΓÇö tracks all campaign donations and spending |
| LDA | Lobbying Disclosure Act ΓÇö requires lobbyists to report who they lobby for and how much they spend |
| CPI | Consumer Price Index ΓÇö measures how much prices increase for everyday goods |
| Dodd-Frank Act | The 2010 law that regulated banks after the 2008 financial crisis |
| Drug importation | Allowing Americans to legally buy prescription drugs from other countries (like Canada) where they're cheaper |
| PhRMA | Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ΓÇö the drug industry's main lobbying group |
| Reconciliation | A budget process that lets the Senate pass bills with 51 votes instead of the usual 60 |
| Amendment | A proposed change to a bill before it's voted on |
How to Verify This Yourself
Every number in this document comes from a public government database. Here's where to check:
| Data | Source | URL |
|---|---|---|
| Senate votes | Senate.gov | senate.gov/legislative/votes.htm |
| Campaign finance (totals) | FEC | fec.gov |
| PAC-to-candidate disbursements | FEC | fec.gov/data/disbursements |
| Lobbying filings | Senate LDA | lda.senate.gov |
| Bank failures | FDIC | fdic.gov/bank-failures |
| Drug spending comparison | World Bank | data.worldbank.org |
| Bill details | Congress.gov | congress.gov |
Data sources: Congress.gov API, Senate.gov Vote XML, FEC Campaign Finance API, FEC Committee Disbursement Records, FDIC Bank Failures Database, Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) Filings, World Bank Open Data, FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data)
Note: Correlation does not prove causation. These are patterns documented in publicly available data. They show what happened and when ΓÇö not necessarily why individual senators voted the way they did.