Pharma is looming large in the Maine Senate raise. But not in the way you’d expect

Across the country, the relationships of incumbent politicians with drug companies have rapidly become a political liability. Democrats and Republicans alike are facing attack ads from challengers over their financial ties to drug makers. In Maine, the finger pointing is happening on both sides.

Liberal groups have run ads claiming that the incumbent Republican, Sen. Susan Collins, voted against a 2010 drug pricing policy she now supports because of drug makers’ campaign contributions. (Collins aired her own ad criticizing the groups for lying about her record.) 

Collins has dished it out too: She has repeatedly criticized her opponent, Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, for not living up to her pledge to reject donations from drug makers. Collins’s ads criticize Gideon for taking money from so-called leadership PACs, which are run by politicians, not corporations, but are often funded with corporate money.  

The attacks come as both Collins and Gideon are also flooding the airways with ads touting their respective records on bringing down prescription drug prices. Collins aired an ad, for example, highlighting her role in ending so-called pharmaceutical gag clauses. Gideon, in turn, has an ad highlighting how Maine capped insulin costs during her tenure as speaker of the house.

You can’t escape the ads. Trust me, they almost ruined my attempts at decompressing in the Maine woods. And they’re exposing a unique dynamic in this year’s election: Being cozy to drug makers isn’t popular for either party’s political base, and any politicians’ ties to the industry can quickly become a liability … even if those ties are less than clear and the politician has never held a national office.