J Sharfstein1. 1. Boston Medical Center, Mass., USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the political action committee of the American Medical Association (AMA) contributed more to pro- or anti-tobacco members of Congress in the 1995/96 campaign and whether representatives' voting records on malpractice reform could explain the AMA's contribution patterns. METHODS: Campaign contributions to House members were analyzed. RESULTS: The AMA's political action committee contributed averages of $5382 to pro-tobacco representatives and $2103 to anti-tobacco representatives (P < .0005). This contribution pattern can be fully explained by representatives' votes to limit malpractice awards. CONCLUSIONS: In seeking malpractice reform, the AMA contributed significantly more to pro-tobacco representatives, potentially undermining tobacco control legislation.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the political action committee of the American Medical Association (AMA) contributed more to pro- or anti-tobacco members of Congress in the 1995/96 campaign and whether representatives' voting records on malpractice reform could explain the AMA's contribution patterns. METHODS: Campaign contributions to House members were analyzed. RESULTS: The AMA's political action committee contributed averages of $5382 to pro-tobacco representatives and $2103 to anti-tobacco representatives (P < .0005). This contribution pattern can be fully explained by representatives' votes to limit malpractice awards. CONCLUSIONS: In seeking malpractice reform, the AMA contributed significantly more to pro-tobacco representatives, potentially undermining tobacco control legislation.