U$ Big Pharma Drug Patent Abuses Cost Medicare Billions: Report


"As CMS negotiates the prices Medicare will pay for top-selling drugs, it should take into account the billions we've already lost due to these patenting tactics," said one researcher.


An elderly man waits for his prescription to be filled on October 3, 2023 at a CVS pharmacy in New York City.
(Photo: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images)


Eloise Goldsmith
Dec 11, 2024
COMMON DREAMS


When the Inflation Reduction Act became law in 2022, it included a historic provision that gave the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the ability to negotiate maximum fair prices for select drugs. This means that CMS now has an important tool to resist high prices imposed by pharmaceutical companies and lower the cost that Medicare recipients pay for their drugs. So far, Medicare has negotiated the maximum fair prices for 10 drugs, which will go into effect January 1, 2026.

But according to a report released Wednesday by the watchdog group Public Citizen, the manufacturers behind these drugs are able to rely on another method to protect their profits: patent abuses and evergreening tactics.

The report defines "evergreening tactics" as the practice of "patenting trivial and/or obvious modifications of existing medications to lengthen exclusivity on branded medicines."

The makers of the drugs Eliquis, Imbruvica, Jardiance, Farxiga, and Entresto, for example, obtained patents on what constitute trivial or minor changes to earlier patent claims, "such as crystalline forms of drug compounds which would be discovered and managed during routine testing that is part of the drug approval process," according to Public Citizen. These new patents allow the manufacturers to extend their monopoly on these drugs.

"Big Pharma patent abuse is cheating Medicare enrollees of more affordable drugs and costing taxpayers billions," said Public Citizen Access to Medicines program researcher Jishian Ravinthiran in a statement.

"Patent abuses enable Big Pharma companies to unfairly extend their monopolies and keep prices artificially high. As CMS negotiates the prices Medicare will pay for top-selling drugs, it should take into account the billions we've already lost due to these patenting tactics," he added.

The report makes this same point, arguing that the agency's initial offers on pharmaceuticals should take into account how long-monopoly drugs have been able to obtain longtime exclusivities on medicines by manipulating patents.

This is paramount, Public Citizen argues, given the scope of lost savings. The group estimates that Medicare will lose somewhere between $4.9 and $5.4 billion in savings that should have accrued to taxpayers if four out of the 10 drugs did not take advantage of patenting tactics, and therefore would have faced greater competition prior to negotiation.

"These lost savings are nearly as much as what Medicare is expected to save if negotiated prices go into effect on all of the selected drugs in the first year of the program ($6 billion)," according to the report.

As an example, the drug etanercept, which is marketed as Enbrel, is on the list of 10 drugs that will be subject to a negotiated cap come January 2026. Etanercept's maker Amgen did not contribute to the original research and development of etanercept, per Public Citizen, it just acquired the original maker of the drug, Immunex, in 2002.

Immunex's patent of etanercept was set to expire in 2019, but "by using abusive patent practices" Amgen was able to extend the patent protections through 2029, according to Public Citizen. Amgen was able to evade competition of two potential "biosimilar" competitors, Erelzi and Eticovo, which received FDA approval in the 2010s.

Referencing analysis done in a separate report, Public Citizen estimated "that biosimilars could have entered the market after August 2019 were it not for Amgen's unwarranted patent exclusivities, and we calculated Medicare would have spent $1,891,500,836 less on a net basis had enrollees been able to use lower-cost alternatives by the time negotiated prices go into effect on January 1, 2026."

Huge Administrative Waste Makes Clear For-Profit Insurance Is 'Actually Very Bad': Analysis

"It is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system," writes Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project. "The quicker we nationalize health insurance, the better."

Healthcare advocates risk arrest protesting care denials at UnitedHealthcare headquarters on July 15, 2024 in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
(Photo: David Berding/Getty Images for People's Action Institute)

Jake Johnson
Dec 10, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Last week's murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought to the surface a seething hatred of the nation's for-profit insurance system—anger rooted in the industry's profiteering, high costs, and mass care denials.

But that response has led some pundits to defend private insurance companies and claim that, in fact, healthcare providers such as hospitals and doctors are the real drivers of outlandish U.S. healthcare costs.

In an analysis published Tuesday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project argued that defenders of private insurers are relying on "factual misunderstandings and very questionable analysis" and that it is reasonable to conclude that the for-profit insurance system is "actually very bad."

"From a design perspective, the main problem with our private health insurance system is that it is extremely wasteful," Bruenig wrote, estimating based on existing research that excess administrative expenses amount to $528 billion per year—or 1.8% of U.S. gross domestic product.

"All healthcare systems require administration, which costs money, but a private multi-payer system requires massively more than other approaches, especially the single-payer system favored by the American left," Bruenig observed, emphasizing that excess administrative expenses of both the insurance companies and healthcare providers stem from "the multi-payer private health insurance system that we have."

He continued:

To get your head around why this is, think for a second about what happens to every $100 you give to a private insurance company. According to the most exhaustive study on this question in the U.S.—the CBO single-payer study from 2020—the first thing that happens is that $16 of those dollars are taken by the insurance company. From there, the insurer gives the remaining $84 to a hospital to reimburse them for services. That hospital then takesanother $15.96 (19% of its revenue) for administration, meaning that only $68.04 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.

In a single-payer system, the path of that $100 looks a lot different. Rather than take $16 for insurance administration, the public insurer would only take $1.60. And rather than take $15.96 of the remaining money for hospital administration, the hospital would only take $11.80 (12% of its revenue), meaning that $86.60 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.

High provider payments, which some analysts have suggested are the key culprit in exorbitant healthcare costs, are also attributable to the nation's for-profit insurance system, Bruenig argued.

"Medicaid and Medicare are able to negotiate much lower rates than private insurance, just as the public health insurer under a single-payer system would be able to. It is only within the private insurance segment of the system that providers have been able to jack up rates to such an extreme extent," he wrote. "Given all of this, I think it is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system. They are directly responsible for over half a trillion dollars of administrative waste and (at the very least) indirectly responsible for the provider rents that are bleeding Americans dry."

"The quicker we nationalize health insurance," he concluded, "the better."




Bruenig's analysis comports with research showing that a single-payer system such as the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and other progressives in Congress could produce massive savings by eliminating bureaucratic costs associated with the private insurance system.

One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2020 estimated that Medicare for All could save the U.S. more than $600 billion per year in healthcare-related administrative costs.

"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, lead author of the study, said at the time. "That money could be spent for care if we had a Medicare for All program."

Deep-seated anger at the systemic and harmful flaws of the for-profit U.S. insurance system could help explain why the percentage of the public that believes it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling released Monday.

"There's a day of reckoning that is happening right now," former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, said in an MSNBCappearance on Monday. "Whether we're talking about employers, patients, doctors—just about everybody despises health insurance companies in ways that I've never seen before."

ALT. BUSINESS NEWS

Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights


"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."


U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks during a January 11, 2024 hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Dec 11, 2024
COMMON DREAMS


Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.

The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.

In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"

That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."


Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."


"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.

The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.

The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.

Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.

"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."

The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.

"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."

Doing For-Profit Tax Industry's Bidding, GOP Calls On Trump to Cancel Direct File Program


"This is the most efficient way and cost-efficient way for millions of people to pay their taxes," said one advocate.


Advocates gather in Washington, D.C. to call out tax prep companies like Intuit TurboTax and H&R Block for blocking simplified filing and to support Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exploration of alternative free tax filing on April 17, 2023.
(Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Economic Security Project)

Julia Conley
Dec 11, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Responding to the "absurd" news that more than two dozen U.S. House Republicans are calling on President-elect Donald Trump to end the Internal Revenue Service's Direct File program, Rep. Gerry Connolly came to one conclusion: "Republicans want to make your lives more difficult."

The Virginia Democrat wasn't alone in denouncing a letter penned by Reps. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) and Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.) and signed by at least 27 other Republicans who called on Trump to sign a "day-one executive order" to end the free tax-filing program that allowed roughly 140,000 taxpayers to save an estimated $5.6 million in filing costs this year.



Direct File, which was introduced as a pilot program in 12 states in the last tax filing season and is set to be expanded to 24 states and more than 30 million eligible taxpayers this year, is "a free, easy way for people to file their taxes directly online with IRS," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

The software allows taxpayers to keep their entire tax refund "rather than paying $150 to a sleazy tax prep company," said the senator, adding that Republicans evidently want Americans "to keep wasting money on TurboTax," the popular tax filing program run by Intuit, which reported a net income of $2 billion in 2023 and spent $3.5 million on federal lobbying the previous year. The private tax filing industry has spent decades lobbying to ensure a system like Direct File wouldn't be made available to Americans.


In the letter, the Republicans claim the Direct File system is "unauthorized and wasteful" and that "the program's creation and ongoing expansion pose a threat to taxpayers' freedom from government overreach."

The Republican lawmakers also sent the letter to billionaire businessmen Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, Trump's nominees to lead the proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In the letter they claim to want to protect "hardworking Americans" from the "overreach" of the IRS, but as In the Public Interest founder and executive director Donald Cohen told Common Dreams on Wednesday, the Direct File program is "incredibly popular" with those who have used it.

"This is the most efficient way and cost-efficient way for millions of people to pay their taxes," Cohen said. "So what the Republicans want to do is make it more costly, more complicated, and more profitable for the big tax software vendors."

Cohen also questioned how Smith and Edwards could argue, as they do in the letter, that Direct File is a "clear conflict of interest."

"It is in all of our interests for the federal government to... collect taxes in the most efficient and cheapest way," he told Common Dreams.

On the contrary, he said, private tax software companies like Intuit and H&R Block are incentivized to fight against Direct File, which keeps them from collecting about $1 billion in filing fees as well as users' data.

At the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, vice president of tax policy Chuck Marr said Republicans who signed Wednesday's letter are essentially pushing for "a tax on paying taxes."

Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and the former chief economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, argued that Direct File "does what policymakers should be in favor of: It makes a core government function more efficient and user-friendly, in a way that's accessible for everyone."

With Defeat of Megamerger, Sanders Thanks Khan for Taking On 'Corporate Greed'

"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said the Vermont senator.


FTC Chair Lina Khan prepares to testify during a congressional hearing in Washington, D.C. on July 13, 2023.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Dec 11, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Praise for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan continued to pour in on Wednesday after a pair of judges blocked the merger of grocery chains Kroger and Albertsons following challenges by the FTC and state attorneys general.

"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Let me thank FTC Chair Lina Khan for successfully fighting this merger and standing up to corporate greed."


Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) also welcomed the rulings and sent "a big thank you to Lina Khan and her team at the FTC."

Their comments on Wednesday followed similar applause from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal as well as groups including the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and Groundwork Collaborative.

Khan addressed the win during a Tuesday stream with political commentator Hasan Piker, noting that "this is the first time that the FTC has ever sought to block a merger not just because it's gonna be bad for consumers, but also because it's gonna be bad for workers."



Khan, an appointee of outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden, has won praise from progressives for taking on not only grocery giants and other companies trying to build monopolies but also Big Pharma and Big Tech.

Sanders recently called her "the best FTC chair in modern history" and AELP earlier this year published a document detailing how, under Khan's leadership, the agency "has entered a new era of more effective, modern, and democratic enforcement to better protect consumers, workers, and independent businesses."

Examples included in the AELP roundup include Khan's "crackdown on deceptive 'junk fees,'" a ban on noncompete clauses that's being challenged in court, a historic lawsuit against Amazon.com, and a "click-to-cancel" rule that requires sellers to "make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."

However, the new era of the FTC is set to soon come to an end. Since President-elect Donald Trump's victory last month, speculation has been building that he would replace Khan with someone who would do the bidding of big business. Amid celebrations of the rulings against the Kroger-Albertsons merger on Tuesday, the Republican announced Andrew Ferguson as his pick for chair.

As Common Dreamsreported earlier Wednesday, Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel, said that elevating Ferguson, who already sits on the FTC, to chair, "is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."

Although the agency is expected to be friendlier to mergers under the next Trump administration, Albertsons responded to the Tuesday rulings by bailing on the $24.6 billion deal and suing Kroger for billions of dollars on Wednesday, rather than appealing or moving to in-house FTC hearings.

That move could reflect industry fears of U.S. courts that are willing to block major mergers, as The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen pointed out after the federal court decision on Tuesday.

"The important thing here is not that Biden's enforcers blocked a merger... it's that courts are increasingly comfortable with merger enforcement," he said. "States can sue under the Sherman Act, and they will. The real change to track is in the judiciary. Wall Street, take note."

Judges Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger in 'Win for Farmers, Workers, and Consumers'

"We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement," said one advocate.


Unionized grocery store workers rally to oppose the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons outside a Ralph's supermarket in Los Angeles, California on April 13, 2023.
(Photo: Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Dec 10, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Antitrust advocates on Tuesday welcomed a pair of court rulings against the proposed merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which was challenged by Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and multiple state attorneys general.

"The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons," said Henry Liu, director of the commission's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets."

"This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether that's a Fry's in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois," he added. "This is also a victory for thousands of hardworking union employees, protecting their hard-earned paychecks by ensuring Kroger and Albertsons continue to compete for workers through higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions."

While Liu was celebrating the preliminary injunction from Oregon-based U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson, later Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson released a ruling that blocked the merger in Washington state.

"We're standing up to mega-monopolies to keep prices down," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "We went to court to block this illegal merger to protect Washingtonians' struggling with high grocery prices and the workers whose jobs were at stake. This is an important victory for affordability, worker protections, and the rule of law."



Advocacy groups applauding the decisions also pointed to the high cost of groceries and the anticipated impact of Kroger buying Albertsons—a $24.6 billion deal first announced in October 2022.

"American families are the big winner today, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission. The only people who stood to gain from the potential merger between Albertsons and Kroger were their wealthy executives and investors," asserted Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US. "The rest of us are letting out a huge sigh of relief knowing today's victory is good news for competitive prices and consumer access."

Describing the federal decision as "a victory for commonsense antitrust enforcement that puts people ahead of corporations," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf also pointed out that "persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse."

"Already, a handful of huge corporations' stranglehold on our food system means that consumers are paying too much for too little choice in supermarkets, workers are earning too little, and farmers and ranchers cannot get fair prices for their crops and livestock," she noted. "Today's decision and strengthened FTC merger guidelines help change the calculus."

Like Wolf, Farm Action president and co-founder Angela Huffman similarly highlighted that "while industry consolidation increases prices for consumers and harms workers, grocery mergers also have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers."

"When grocery stores consolidate, farmers have even fewer options for where to sell their products, and the chances of them receiving a fair price for their goods are diminished further," Huffman explained. "Today's ruling is a win for farmers, workers, and consumers alike."

Some advocates specifically praised Khan—a progressive FTC chair whom President-elect Donald Trumpplans to replace with Andrew Ferguson, a current commissioner who previously worked as chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and as Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Today's decision is a major win for shoppers and grocery workers. Families have been paying the price of unchecked corporate power in the food and grocery sector, and further consolidation would only worsen this crisis," declared Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement.

"FTC Chair Lina Khan's approach is the blueprint to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and an economy that works for everyone," Owens argued. "The rebirth of antitrust enforcement has protected consumers against the worst of corporate power in our economy and it would be wise to continue this approach."

Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the federal ruling "a resounding victory for workers, consumers, independent retailers, and local communities nationwide—and a powerful validation of Chair Khan and the FTC's rigorous enforcement of the law."

"The FTC presented a strong case that Kroger and Albertsons fiercely compete head-to-head on price, quality, and service. The ruling is a capstone on the FTC's work over the past four years and includes favorable citations to the FTC's recent victories against the Tapestry-Capri, IQVIA-Propel, and Illumina-Grail mergers," Kilgour continued.

"The court also cites long-standing Supreme Court law which recognizes that Congress was also concerned with the impacts of mergers on smaller competitors," she added. "We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement and for successfully protecting the public interest from harmful consolidation."

Despite the celebrations, the legal battle isn't necessarily over. The Associated Pressreported that "the case may now move to the FTC, although Kroger and Albertsons have asked a different federal judge to block the in-house proceedings," and Colorado is also trying to halt the merger in state court.

Booze Hound! Lina Khan, Not Done Yet, Targets Nation's Largest Alcohol Seller

"The FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," said one advocate.


Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on July 13, 2023.
(Photo: Graeme Jennings/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Dec 12, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, alleging that the nation's largest alcohol distributor, "violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains."

The FTC said its complaint details how the Florida-based company "is engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful price discrimination" by "selling wine and spirits to small, independent 'mom-and-pop' businesses at prices that are drastically higher" than what it charges large chain retailers, "with dramatic price differences that provide insurmountable advantages that far exceed any real cost efficiencies for the same bottles of wine and spirits."

The suit comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan's battle against "corporate greed" is nearing its end, with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announcing Tuesday that he plans to elevate Andrew Ferguson to lead the agency.

Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "instead of heeding bad-faith calls to disarm before the end of the year, the FTC is taking bold, needed action to fight back against monopoly power that's raising prices."

"By suing Southern Glazer under the Robinson-Patman Act, a law that has gone unenforced for decades, the FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," she added.



According to the FTC:
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. The FTC's case filed today seeks to ensure that businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field with equivalent access to discounts and rebates, which means increased consumer choice and the ability to pass on lower prices to consumers shopping across independent retailers.

"When local businesses get squeezed because of unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, Americans see fewer choices and pay higher prices—and communities suffer," Khan said in a statement. "The law says that businesses of all sizes should be able to compete on a level playing field. Enforcers have ignored this mandate from Congress for decades, but the FTC's action today will help protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law."

The FTC noted that, with roughly $26 billion in revenue from wine and spirits sales to retail customers last year, Southern is the 10th-largest privately held company in the United States. The agency said its lawsuit "seeks to obtain an injunction prohibiting further unlawful price discrimination by Southern against these small, independent businesses."

"When Southern's unlawful conduct is remedied, large corporate chains will face increased competition, which will safeguard continued choice which can create markets that lower prices for American consumers," FTC added.

Southern Glazer's published a statement calling the FTC lawsuit "misguided and legally flawed" and claiming it has not violated the Robinson-Patman Act.

"Operating in the highly competitive alcohol distribution business, we offer different levels of discounts based on the cost we incur to sell different quantities to customers and make all discount levels available to all eligible retailers, including chain stores and small businesses alike," the company said.

Peterson-Cassin noted that the new suit "follows a massive court victory for the FTC on Tuesday in which a federal judge blocked a $25 billion grocery mega-merger after the agency sued," a reference to the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal.

"The FTC has plenty of fight left and so should all regulatory agencies," she added, alluding to the return of Trump, whose first administration saw relentless attacks on federal regulations. "We applaud the FTC and Chair Lina Khan for not letting off the gas in the race to protect American consumers and we strongly encourage all federal regulators to do the same while there's still time left."

'A Gift to the Oligarchs': Trump Pick to Replace Lina Khan Vowed to End 'War on Mergers'



"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said one antitrust attorney.


Andrew Ferguson, a Republican member of the Federal Trade Commission, was selected by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the agency on December 11, 2024.
(Photo: Federal Trade Commission)

Jake Johnson
Dec 11, 2024
COMMON DREAMS


President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission vowed in his job pitch to end current chair Lina Khan's "war on mergers," a signal to an eager corporate America that the incoming administration intends to be far more lax on antitrust enforcement.

Andrew Ferguson was initially nominated by President Joe Biden to serve as a Republican commissioner on the bipartisan FTC, and his elevation to chair of the commission will not require Senate confirmation.

In a one-page document obtained by Punchbowl, Ferguson—who previously worked as chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—pitched himself to Trump's team as the "pro-innovation choice" with "impeccable legal credentials" and "proven loyalty" to the president-elect.

Ferguson's top agenda priority, according to the document, is to "reverse Lina Khan's anti-business agenda" by rolling back "burdensome regulations," stopping her "war on mergers," halting the agency's "attempt to become an AI regulator," and ditching "novel and legally dubious consumer protection cases."

Trump announced Ferguson as the incoming administration's FTC chair as judges in Oregon and Washington state blocked the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons, decisions that one antitrust advocate called a "fantastic culmination of the FTC's work to protect consumers and workers."


According to a recent report by the American Economic Liberties Project, the Biden administration "brought to trial four times as many billion-dollar merger challenges as Trump-Pence or Obama-Biden enforcers did," thanks to "strong leaders at the FTC" and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.





In a letter to Ferguson following Trump's announcement on Tuesday, FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter wrote that the document obtained and published by Punchbowl "raises questions" about his priorities at the agency mainly "because of what is not in it."

"Americans pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the developed world, yet they die younger," they wrote. "Medical bills bankrupt people. In fact, this is the main reason Americans go bankrupt. But the document does not mention the cost of healthcare or prescription medicine."

"If there was one takeaway from the election, it was that groceries are too expensive. So is gas," the commissioners continued. "Yet the document does not mention groceries, gas, or the cost of living. While you have said we're entering the 'most pro-worker administration in history,' the document does not mention labor, either. Americans are losing billions of dollars to fraud. Fraudsters are so brazen that they impersonate sitting FTC commissioners to steal money from retirees. The word 'fraud' does not appear in the document."

"The document does propose allowing more mergers, firing civil servants, and fighting something called 'the trans agenda,'" they added. "Is all of that more important than the cost of healthcare and groceries and gasoline? Or fighting fraud?"

As an FTC commissioner, Ferguson voted against rules banning anti-worker noncompete agreements and making it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions. Ferguson was also the only FTC member to oppose an expansion of a rule to protect consumers from tech support scams that disproportionately impact older Americans.

"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel. "Appointing him to chair the FTC is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."

Despite 100% Pentagon Audit Failure Rate, House Passes $883.7 Billion NDAA


"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex," said Defense Spending Reduction Caucus co-chairs.


U.S. soldiers drive a tank through the Vistula River during NATO military defense drills on March 4, 2024 in Korzeniewo, Poland.
(Photo: Omar Marques/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Dec 11, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Despite the Pentagon's repeated failures to pass audits and various alarming policies, 81 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted with 200 Republicans on Wednesday to advance a $883.7 billion annual defense package.

The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025, unveiled by congressional negotiators this past Saturday, still needs approval from the Senate, which is expected to vote next week. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Wednesday that he plans to vote no and spoke out against the military-industrial complex.

The push to pass the NDAA comes as this congressional session winds down and after the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced last month that it had failed yet another audit—which several lawmakers highlighted after the Wednesday vote.

Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairs and co-founders of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement, "Time and time again, Congress seems to be able to find the funds necessary to line the pockets of defense contractors while neglecting the problems everyday Americans face here at home."

"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex with even more unaccountable funds," they continued. "After a seventh failed audit in a row, it's disappointing that our amendment to hold the Pentagon accountable by penalizing the DOD's budget by 0.5% for each failed audit was stripped out of the final bill. It's time Congress demanded accountability from the Pentagon."

"While we're glad many of the poison pill riders that were included in the House-passed version were ultimately removed from the final bill, the bill does include a ban on access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender children of service members, which will force service members to choose between serving their country and getting their children the care they need," the pair noted. "The final bill also failed to expand coverage for fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), for service members regardless of whether their infertility is service-connected."

Several of the 124 House Democrats who voted against the NDAA cited those "culture war" policies, in addition to concerns about how the Pentagon spends massive amounts of money that could go toward improving lives across the country.

"Once again, Congress has passed a massive military authorization bill that prioritizes endless military spending over the critical needs of American families. This year's NDAA designates $900 billion for military spending," said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), noting the audit failures. "While I recognize the long-overdue 14.5% raise for our lowest-ranking enlisted personnel is important, this bill remains flawed. The bloated military budget continues to take away crucial funding from programs that could help millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet."

Taking aim at the GOP's push to deny gender-affirming care through TRICARE, the congresswoman said that "I cannot support a bill that continues unnecessary military spending while also attacking the rights and healthcare of transgender youth, and for that reason, I voted NO."

As Omar, a leading critic of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, also pointed out: "The NDAA includes a provision that blocks the Pentagon from using data on casualties and deaths from the Gaza Ministry of Health or any sources relying on those statistics. This is an alarming erasure of the suffering of the Palestinian people, ignoring the human toll of ongoing violence."

Israel—which receives billions of dollars in annual armed aid from the United States—faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court last month issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The NDAA includes over $627 million in provisions for Israel.

Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who voted against the NDAA, directed attention to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), set to be run by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

"How do we know that DOGE is not a good-faith effort to address wasted funding and unaccountable government? The NDAA passed today," Ramirez said. "Republicans overwhelmingly supported the $883.7 billion authorization bill even though the Pentagon just failed its seventh audit in a row."


"Billions of dollars go to make defense corporations and their investors, including Members of Congress, rich while Americans go hungry, families are crushed by debt, and bombs we fund kill children in Gaza," she added. "No one who voted for this bill can credibly suggest that they care about government waste."


Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who also opposed the NDAA, wrote in a Tuesday opinion piece for MSNBC that he looks forward to working with DOGE "to reduce waste and fraud at the Pentagon, while strongly opposing any cuts to programs likeSocial Security, Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."




"We should make defense contracting more competitive, helping small and medium-sized businesses to compete for Defense Department projects," Khanna argued. "The Defense Department also needs better acquisition oversight. Defense contractors have gotten away with overcharging the Pentagon and ripping off taxpayers for too long."


"Another area where we can work with DOGE is reducing the billions being spent to maintain excess military property and facilities domestically and abroad," he suggested. "Finally, DOGE can also cut the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile program."

The congressman, who is expected to run for president in 2028, concluded that "American taxpayers want and deserve the best return on their investment. Let's put politics aside and work with DOGE to reduce wasteful defense spending. And let's invest instead in domestic manufacturing, good-paying jobs, and a modern national security strategy."

As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget

"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.


Flanked by Congressional Progressive Caucus members, CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on May 24, 2023.
(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Dec 12, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."


CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."

Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.


Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."

As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.

The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.


Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."

"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.

The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.

"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."

"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."




Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.

"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."

By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."

"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

In Wake of UN Climate Summit, Azerbaijan Targets Independent Journalists

"Azerbaijan's international partners should take note and urge the authorities to end the crackdown," said a major human rights group.


The logo of the COP29 climate conference appears on the facade of a building under renovation in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku on September 11, 2024.
(Photo by TOFIK BABAYEV/AFP via Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Dec 11, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Mere weeks after thousands of delegates descended on Baku, Azerbaijan for the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, authorities in the country arrested multiple independent journalists on charges that one prominent human rights group called "bogus."

On December 6, police arrested six employees with the independent media organization Meydan TV: Ramin Deko (Jabrailzade), Aynur Elgunesh (Ganbarova), Aysel Umudova, Aytaj Tapdig (Ahmadova), Khayala Agayeva, and Natig Javadli on suspicion of smuggling, according to a statement from Meydan TV. Another media worker, Ulvi Tahirov, was also arrested that day. All seven have been given four months pretrial detention, according to Human Rights Watch.

In a statement released December 6, Meydan TV—which is headquartered in Berlin—said that "since the day we started our activities over a decade ago, our brave journalists have been arrested, and they and their families have been subjected to persecution. Journalists who cooperate with us have been illegally banned from leaving the country, and have been surveilled by Pegasus spyware, among other forms of pressure." Meydan TV has also called the charges "unfounded" and the detention of its journalists "illegal."

Since launching in 2013, Meydan TV has become one of the most important sources of independent news in Azerbaijan, broadcasting interviews with opposition politicians and publishing investigative reporting, according to the Eurasianet, an outlet that covers South Caucasus and Central Asia.

As part of its coverage of COP29, Meydan TV addressed the scrutiny that the Azerbaijani government has engendered for its human rights record.

Members of the Azerbaijani media were also arrested last year. Reporters with Abzas Media, Toplum TV, and Kanal 13 were arrested in 2023 and remain in pretrial custody, and like those targeted in this most recent wave of arrests they face smuggling charges, according to Human Rights Watch.

"Having created a network of laws and regulations in Azerbaijan designed to make it virtually impossible for journalists and activists carrying out legitimate work in full compliance, the government then invokes such bogus charges as politically convenient to silence critics," wrote Arzu Geybulla, a research assistant with Human Rights Watch.

Geybulla added: "Azerbaijan's international partners should take note and urge the authorities to end the crackdown, including releasing all those arbitrarily detailed, and dropping all politically motivated prosecutions."

Another rights group, Reporters Without Borders, urged the Azerbaijani government to release these journalists, as well as others that have been "arbitrarily detained."

Jeanne Cavelier, head of Reporters Without Borders' Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk, said that "barely a month after Ilham Aliyev's regime used the glitz of COP29 to polish its international image, it has resumed its relentless repression of journalists."