Fred donors' firm tied to Medicaid scandal

[no name 1]

Fred donors' firm tied to Medicaid scandal

By: Kenneth P. Vogel

Sep 7, 2007 01:19 PM EST

Fred Thompson accepted at least $13,800 from a Tennessee family that oversaw pharmaceutical company accused of ripping off federal and state governments.

Though the contributions could become fodder for his critics as he officially launches his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, the Thompson campaign defended the family's support and pledged to keep the cash.

The company,

King Pharmaceuticals, paid $124 million in 2005 to settle with the Justice Department and 49 states, which had alleged the company overcharged Medicaid and other government health programs for drugs from 1994 through 2002.

The company was founded in 1994 by John M. Gregory, a pharmacist who grew it from a small family operation to a publicly traded firm that made nearly $2 billion last year.

Gregory, who retired in 2002, in June contributed $2,300 – the maximum donation for the primary election – to Thompson's testing-the-waters committee, according to a report Thompson filed with the IRS.

Also giving $2,300 on the same day were five other members of the family, who either had leadership positions or significant stock in King or had ties to those who did during the period it was alleged to have stiffed the government: Joseph R. Gregory, Lucinda Gregory, Joan P. Gregory, Susan K. Gregory and James M. Gregory.

The family may have given more to the campaign, said Thompson spokeswoman Karen Hanretty. She added that Joseph R. Gregory, who until 2002 was a major King stockholder and vice chairman of the board, was among Thompson's "First Day Founders."

That's the name Team Thompson gave to an elite group of supporters who pledged to raise cash from friends and associates – a technique known as bundling that allows donors to raise more than the $4,600 limit on contributions to federal candidates.

In a presidential election witnessing unprecedented early fundraising and spending, the backgrounds of big donors and bundlers have become an issue.

Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have come under fire for accepting contributions from Norman Hsu, who was a fugitive for 15 years after pleading no contest to grand-theft in 1991.

Both candidates – and several other Democratic politicians at various levels of government – have worked to distance themselves from Hsu, either returning his contributions or donating them to charity. But Clinton continues to face scrutiny over her connections to Hsu because he was among her key bundlers.

Hanretty rejected comparisons between Hsu and the Gregory family and said the federal government's case against King wasn't relevant to the campaign.

The company "settled with the government two years ago. And two years later, they've donated to Fred Thompson," she said, adding the Gregory family isn't involved in King now. "I just don't see a clear association there."

Hanretty would not say whether Thompson's operation was aware of King's settlement before accepting the Gregory contributions, but emphasized the campaign vets donors for potential public relations problems, among other things.

"We're not going to go through the exact criteria of our vetting process, but of course there's always a vetting process," she said..

Gregory family members aren't fundraising neophytes. They've written checks totaling more than $350,000 since 1996 to Republican candidates for federal offices and national committees, including President Bush, the Republican National Committee, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Rudy Giuliani's 2000 Senate campaign, and a host of Tennessee politicians ranging from Sen. Bob Corker to Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Zach Wamp.

And the Gregory family had given much more to Republican candidates for Tennessee state offices and political action committees that play in state races, according to local press reports.

The Gregory family hasn't been involved in the company since 2002. But when the settlement was announced in 2005, Tennessee Democrats called on Republican politicians and committees to return contributions from the family.

"In modern politics, this is as close as it gets to blood money," Bob Tuke, then-chairman of the state Democratic Party said in a statement at the time.

"This is taxpayer money that was taken away from health care for the poor, the sick and the disabled," he said, adding that donations from John M. Gregory in particular "now clearly are tainted because of the drug maker's questionable business practices that occurred under his management."

King's civil settlement resolved claims that the company knowingly overcharged various government programs for drugs and underpaid Medicaid rebates by "systemic and widespread misreporting of its drug prices to the government," according to a Justice Department press release.

The department's investigation resulted from a whistleblower suit, according to the release, which said the company "cooperated fully in uncovering the full extent of its problems."

source

Edited September 10, 2007 by devilette

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow - these threads never end. Did it not occur to anyone that it would be less irritating to people if these HC/FT posts were contained in a single thread, rather than all over the forum?

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I wonder how he will excuse this one away? Maybe he too has a wide stance.

Daniel

:energetic:

Wow - these threads never end. Did it not occur to anyone that it would be less irritating to people if these HC/FT posts were contained in a single thread, rather than all over the forum?

i prefer it like this. different news item, so to say.

Daniel

:energetic:

[mawilson 2,133]

Wow - these threads never end. Did it not occur to anyone that it would be less irritating to people if these HC/FT posts were contained in a single thread, rather than all over the forum?

Or in a subforum of Off-Topic

[Peikko 1,575]

Or maybe they'll get tired of it and just stop posting that type of ####### for tat rubbish and find something that's worth reading

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am just waiting for Mr. and Mrs. Scandal to be involved in one and the same scandal. That'd be so much fun to watch Gary and Devilette argue about how much worse the involvement of one is vs. the other. Or maybe that would help both of them realize that no politician in the US will ever make it to the nominating stage for the presidency w/o having stepped on a few mines.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am just waiting for Mr. and Mrs. Scandal to be involved in one and the same scandal. That'd be so much fun to watch Gary and Devilette argue about how much worse the involvement of one is vs. the other. Or maybe that would help both of them realize that no politician in the US will ever make it to the nominating stage for the presidency w/o having stepped on a few mines.

In fairness - and correct me if I'm wrong, Gary - he decided to throw his support behind Fred Thompson because none of the existing Republican candidates were worthy of Gary's support. They have too many skeletons in closet...so to speak. So along comes Laissez Fred as the Great White Hope, because he doesn't have any scandals in his past (according to Gary)...at least nothing on the scale of what Mrs. Scandal has done.

Devilette felt obliged to enlighten Gary on the error of his ways. I think she's done a pretty good job.

[no name 1]

I am just waiting for Mr. and Mrs. Scandal to be involved in one and the same scandal.

I think Hills will stay far away from FT.

Or maybe that would help both of them realize that no politician in the US will ever make it to the nominating stage for the presidency w/o having stepped on a few mines.

Preaching to the choir, mister.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Laissez Fred! I love it. I jsut think it hilarious that many chose to treat his candidacy as the second coming of Ronald Reagan. All they really have in common is they were both second-rate actors. Now that he is officially a candidate he's not going to have such an easy time and will actually have to confront the issues, his lobbyist past, etc.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Laissez Fred! I love it. I jsut think it hilarious that many chose to treat his candidacy as the second coming of Ronald Reagan. All they really have in common is they were both second-rate actors. Now that he is officially a candidate he's not going to have such an easy time and will actually have to confront the issues, his lobbyist past, etc.

Now imagine someone from Tennessee butchering the word 'laissez' ...I'm thinking something like 'lazy'.

[no name 1]

In fairness - and correct me if I'm wrong, Gary - he decided to throw his support behind Fred Thompson because none of the existing Republican candidates were worthy of Gary's support. They have too many skeletons in closet...so to speak. So along comes Laissez Fred as the Great White Hope, because he doesn't have any scandals in his past (according to Gary)...at least nothing on the scale of what Mrs. Scandal has done.

Devilette felt obliged to enlighten Gary on the error of his ways. I think she's done a pretty good job.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83333

I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstances. I would go Libertarian first. Giuliani isn't much better but I guess I would hold my nose and vote for him. If the Reps could find a real conservative and not just a RINO we could stomp all over Clinton or Obama. The only one that I have seen so far that looks good is Fred Thompson. I would love to see him run.

The Dems will fail to put up an electable candidate and the republicans will win.

Probably true but winning isn't enough. We need a strong conservative that won't take sh!t from the dems or the terrorists. It's getting to be do or die time. The future isn't looking good unless we get serious about securing our nation.

I really don't know enough about him to decide one way or another. I want a strong conservative president, but at the same time I want one that will listen to the advice of others and not go off half cocked. Yeah, I am talking about Bush. I agree it is time for a change. This immigration sh!t finally shot it with me and Bush.

Even though I disagree with some of his positions I am leaning towards Guiliani. I respect his strength that he showed after 9/11. I have to do more research before I make up my mind. Clinton has a strong following but those people would vote for her regardless of her positions. It's more of a Clinton love affair than politics.

Personally, I don't think much of her one way or another...but why does someone beat themselves around the head looking for things that irritate them about a particular candidate?

If you think (Gary) that you are going to influence the election by posting all these links to Clinton's faults, I think you are well deluded.

It's good therapy. I find Hillary so repugnent that I have to shout it out. If I can keep just one person from voting for her then I would feel that my time was well spent. I don't have any illusions that I can change Dev but there may be a fence sitter out there that I may change. Stay tuned, I am not going to stop until the election night.

PS: Thanks S.

Edited September 10, 2007 by devilette

[Peikko 1,575]

What exactly is the point of this synopsis?

[Peikko 1,575]

Or should I say collection of assorted quotes?

[no name 1]

Or should I say collection of assorted quotes?

Now I can't post in an already established thread? Geez. You don't need to reply just to reply, ya know! I wasn't aware I needed to go before a judge before replying. Duly noted.

A question was asked by Steven, I posted various answers from Gary.

Edited September 10, 2007 by devilette

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't see a question, I do see a statement, and you quoted something I said, so I wondered what it was all about. I still don't see the point of it but I don't really care enough to worry about it now.