TX-GOV: Back to Basics PAC Launches New TV Ad About Rick Perry's HPV Vaccine

facts in the video are exaggerated. (0.00 / 0)

Let me first state that I was appalled at the way Perry handled the HPV vaccine back in 2007, so I'm not by any means in support of that.

But some facts are exaggerated. First, the $260,000 figure used in the video in relation to Toomey is what he POTENTIALLY made if it had gone through, he pocketed somewhere between 25k-50k...not that it justifies it. Any money involved is still awful, except this helps justify the case that the video may be deceptive in nature.

In addition, I'm curious about the fact that Back to Basics is primarily funded by a personal injury lawfirm, who would be significantly impacted by the tort reform measures passed under Perry. Almost seems like sour grapes to me.  

---

by: justathought @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 17:41:50 PM UTC

To be accurate (3.00 / 1)

The $25K - 50K was 2007 only. Toomey made $260,000 from Merck over 2005 -2010, at least.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 18:06:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ah, then I stand corrected. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: justathought @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 18:14:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In response on behalf of Back To Basics PAC (0.00 / 0)

Here is our full statement in response:

""We believe it's important to show the full amount Toomey has been paid over the years. Money is money, and the fact is Toomey was and still is a highly paid lobbyist for Merck.

To correct the record: the actual total Toomey could have been paid by Merck and its subsidiaries is as high as $525,000, not $260,000 as stated, which is actually the minimum.

The Perry-Toomey deal was in the works well before Perry's mandate, Executive Order-RP65, was released. And here's something else worth noting. Toomey's pay from Merck shot up to anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 during the last two months of 2009. What's coming up in the next legislative session? The next review to decide whether to require the vaccine for school enrollment.

We at Back to Basics believe these are facts Texas parents deserve to know."

The $260,000 is the low range of numbers reported by Mike Toomey from 2006-2010 during the Merck campaign for the Gardasil vaccine. The high range of numbers amounted to $525,000 in that same time period. We have also linked our dossier, which includes the full lobbying reports submitted to the Texas Ethics Commission:

http://www.backtobasicpac.org/hpv

Noelle Bell
Director of New Media
Back To Basics PAC
www.backtobasicspac.org
@backtobasicspac

---

by: slinkerwink @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 20:32:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

bah (0.00 / 0)

As someone who's lost several women to cervical cancer, this is one of the VERY few things I'm glad Perry did.

Yeah, yeah, money for Merck, BAD, whatever. It saves lives.

---

by: TxVoodoo @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 00:31:48 AM UTC

yeah it's good public policy but that's just a coincidence (0.00 / 0)

Perry didn't do this because it's good public policy - he did it because of Merck's ties to Toomey.  I wish every young woman everywhere in the world would get the HPV vaccine, but Perry shouldn't credit for doing something for the wrong reasons.  

---

by: austinite @ Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 21:02:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said, Austinite (0.00 / 0)

T

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Todd Hill @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 14:22:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have mixed feelings (0.00 / 0)

Mandating the vaccine was probably good public policy in 2007, and will certainly be a good idea within a couple of years, as the vaccine is both better tested (hence safer) and cheaper. It's very much a legitimate function of government to protect public health by mandating vaccines-- not just the health of the girls who get the vaccine, but of the people they might otherwise infect.

But that doesn't mean that the governor should be making that sort of decision unilaterally, with extremely little public input. Perry tried to do something beneficial, but he did it for all the wrong reasons and he abused his authority to do it.

So I'll keep sitting on the fence. I'm not going to cheer for an ad that blasts Perry's decision to save lives, but I'm not about to cheer for the way Perry handled the case, either.  

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 23:09:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]