Sacklers’ Millions to Opioid Policy Advisers A Conflict of Interest?

The Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, have been under fire for their role in the opioid epidemic for years. Recently, a new report has surfaced that reveals the family donated millions of dollars to opioid policy advisers, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest.

According to the report by watchdog group American Oversight, the Sackler family donated over $4.5 million to various groups and individuals involved in shaping opioid policy between 2008 and 2017. These donations went to organizations such as the Pain Care Forum, a group that lobbied for the widespread use of prescription opioids, and to political action committees and campaigns for lawmakers who supported policies that were favorable to Purdue Pharma.

The timing of these donations is also significant. Many were made during key moments in the opioid crisis, such as when Purdue Pharma was facing increased scrutiny and lawsuits. For example, in 2016, the Sacklers donated $500,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC that supported candidates who opposed stricter regulations on opioid manufacturers.

These donations raise serious questions about conflicts of interest and underscore the corrupting influence of money in politics. As American Oversight noted in their report, the Sacklers’ donations helped shape opioid policy in their favor, even as their company was fueling the epidemic and facing legal consequences.

Furthermore, the Sacklers’ donations to opioid policy advisers may have undermined efforts to address the opioid crisis. By funding organizations and individuals who supported policies that were favorable to Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers may have hindered efforts to hold the company accountable for its role in the epidemic and to implement policies that could have mitigated the harm caused by prescription opioids.

The Sacklers themselves have faced increasing legal action in recent years, with Purdue Pharma agreeing to pay billions of dollars in damages for its role in the opioid epidemic. However, critics argue that the Sacklers themselves have not faced sufficient consequences for their actions.

The Sacklers’ donations to opioid policy advisers highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the policymaking process. As American Oversight notes, the current system allows wealthy donors to wield undue influence over policy decisions, often to the detriment of public health and safety.

Ultimately, it is up to policymakers and watchdog organizations to ensure that transparency and accountability are maintained in the policymaking process. The Sacklers’ donations to opioid policy advisers serve as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a fair and impartial policymaking process, free from the corrupting influence of money in politics.