Washington, DC, is a city often better known for inaction than action. Traffic on the Beltway, like the legislative process on Capitol Hill, is often described as “gridlocked,” and well-intentioned initiatives regularly collapse amid partisan stalemate.

In contrast, political trends around the country often emerge rapidly and with little warning. A little-known candidate (like our current president) can come from relative obscurity to win the biggest prize in the country, whereas long-standing elected official servants may find themselves out of work when voters become frustrated with the status quo and seek a change in leadership.

This phenomenon has been seen in congressional races nationwide as the Democratic Party, in control of the White House and holding majorities in both the House and Senate, faces an increasingly hostile electorate when the country votes in November.

Of course, we have come to expect the party in the White House to find itself in trouble in the midterm elections. The 1994 “Republican Revolution” arose from voter dissatisfaction after the first 2 years of President Clinton’s first term. President Bush managed to defy history by actually increasing the Republican majorities in Congress at the 2002 midterm elections, although this achievement was partly attributable to the unique political solidarity our nation experienced after the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

The Republicans, after experiencing heavy congressional losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections, have turned the proverbial corner, and they are expected to make significant gains in November 2010. But even with the Democratic Party in disarray and the economy stubbornly refusing to bounce back to life, the outlook for November is far from predictable.

The Sarah Palin Effect

Few knew what to predict when Governor Sarah Palin burst onto the national political scene in summer 2008. Her youth and energy invigorated Senator McCain’s moribund campaign, but her inexperience and perceived unfamiliarity with key policy issues proved fatal to the ticket. This, coupled with a series of awkward television appearances, led many to believe that her national political aspirations ended in November 2008 with the election of President Obama.

Yet the self-described hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska, continued to defy predictions, and she has emerged as the undisputed darling of a conservative movement sweeping the country known informally as the Tea Party Movement.

The link to the famous protest in Boston Harbor against the English monarch King George may be slightly tenuous, but the sentiment is clear. Fueled by fears about the sustainability of America’s budget deficit, our potentially crippling national debt, and concerns regarding the apparent expansion of the federal government into areas as diverse as auto manufacturing, banking, and health care, the Tea Party Movement has gained national and even worldwide recognition in a short time.

Of course, many of the major initiatives the Tea Party opposes—the bailouts of Detroit and Wall Street in particular—were originally initiated under President Bush and, at least so far, most economists and experts have actually credited these initiatives with preventing further economic unrest and decline. Yet the perception remains that American domestic policy has moved sharply to the left, and the Tea Party Movement is a clear indication of the opposition to this shift.

So Why Is the GOP Worried?

At first glance, congressional Republicans should be delighted with the rise of the conservative movement. A strong turnout in November would likely help the Republicans, especially as many of the “newly registered” voters who helped elect Barack Obama are not expected to cast their ballots this time around.

Yet Republican strategists are worried—concerned that the Tea Party Movement will lead the Republicans too far to the right and alienate centrist voters and that the candidates chosen by conservatives during the primary process will prove unelectable in the general elections.

Incumbent Republicans have not been spared the onslaught of conservative momentum. In Utah, long-standing Senator Bennett was rejected by Republican primary voters in favor of the Tea Party–endorsed Mike Lee. In Delaware, at-large House member Mike Castle lost his bid for the nomination for the Senate seat vacated by Vice President Joe Biden to conservative Christine O’Donnell. In Florida, popular Republican Charlie Crist opted to run as an Independent rather than shift sufficiently to the right to secure his party’s nomination.

Nationwide dissatisfaction with the Democratic-controlled White House and Congress indicates that the Republican Party will see significant gains in the 2010 congressional elections. However, Democrats continue to hold out hope that the candidates elected in the Republican primary contests will prove too conservative for the general election.

Four Senate Races to Watch

Connecticut

The race to replace retiring Democratic Senator Chris Dodd was never expected to be so competitive. Connecticut, in general, leans Democratic, and the Democratic candidate, long-standing state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, was expected to win an easy victory.

However, The New York Times uncovered bizarre misstatements from Blumenthal regarding his military record (he suggested on several occasions that he served in Vietnam, when in reality, he obtained at least five military deferments that enabled him to avoid going to war), which undermined his candidacy and opened the door for a surge from Republican Linda McMahon.

McMahon is an unusual candidate herself. Her previous post as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) did not provide your typical preparation for the U.S. Senate. Yet McMahon’s corporate success owes much to her political nous.

In August 2000, McMahon initiated a nonpartisan “Smackdown Your Vote!” campaign aimed at registering the 18–30 voter demographic, ultimately registering 150,000 new voters for the 2000 election.

By 2008, the WWE “vote” was considered so important that candidates Obama, Clinton, and McCain all made live appearances at WWE events during the presidential campaign. McMahon’s work to fight steroid use in sports, support the Special Olympics, and bring WWE into the entertainment mainstream through a PG rating all point to a corporate executive who understands the political side of operations as well as the financial.

Delaware

Little Delaware has enjoyed an unusual period in the political limelight after the nomination and election of popular Senator Joe Biden as vice president. Biden was replaced in the Senate by former his chief of staff and Capitol Hill insider Ted Kaufmann. However, Senator Kaufmann chose not to seek a full term in office, seemingly opening the door for at-large congressional representative Republican Mike Castle. Castle had served in his statewide district since 1993 after 8 years in the Governor’s Mansion. In short, Castle knew exactly how to win a statewide seat in Delaware. Or so it seemed.

Backed by the Tea Party Express, conservative pundit Christine O’Donnell defeated Castle in the Republican primary, stunning many and shocking the Republican establishment, who saw Castle as a shoo-in and were excited about the bragging rights of winning the incumbent vice president’s former seat.

O’Donnell, virtually unknown before her victory, had just $20,000 in her election campaign at the beginning of the summer, but she raised a staggering $2.6 million after her primary win as conservatives around the country rallied in support.

Amid all of this, the Democratic candidate, former New Castle County Executive Chris Coons, has gone almost unnoticed. Few expected him to put up much of a fight against Castle, but in a center/moderate state where Republicans represent less than 30% of registered voters, he must prefer his chances against O’Donnell over those of the more formidable Castle.

Kentucky

Some of the early rumblings of what would emerge as the Tea Party Movement were heard in the 2008 Republican primary when outspoken libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) consistently ran third in the races (winning 25% in Montana and 21% in North Dakota caucuses) before ultimately conceding the nomination to Senator John McCain.

After dropping out of the presidential race, Congressman Paul’s son, Rand Paul, rode the wave of Tea Party momentum all the way to a surprising victory in the Kentucky Republican Senate primary.

Rand Paul’s name recognition and unflinching conservative values helped the candidate maintain a strong fundraising record, but his libertarian positions on many key election issues may prove his undoing as he enters the final weeks of the campaign.

The Democratic candidate, Attorney General Jack Conway, who defeated Kentucky Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo (a speaker at the 2008 ACCP Annual Meeting) on his way to the nomination, has so far struggled to define his candidacy. But Rand Paul’s propensity to speak his mind may ultimately cost the Republican victory.

Nevada

Statistically speaking, incumbents are generally far more likely to win reelection than their challengers. But holding office also makes you a target for your opponents, and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has his fair share of opponents.

As the leading Democrat in Congress, Reid has taken credit for the passage of initiatives such as health care reform and the stimulus bill. But Reid, who staked his political future on these controversial legislative successes, is now vulnerable in a state hit harder than most by the collapse of the housing market.

His opponent, the relatively inexperienced former state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, won the nomination through support and endorsements from the conservative Tea Party establishment, but her calls to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and withdraw from the United Nations may be too extreme even for eccentric Nevada.

Senator Reid has the backing of the national Democratic Party and several of his Republican colleagues, but recent precedent is on Sharron Angle’s side—Republicans famously defeated Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in 2002 to return the Republican Party to the majority.

Four House Races to Watch

2nd Congressional District, Louisiana.

Incumbent: Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R)

As the only Vietnamese-American in Congress and the only Republican to vote in favor of the health care reform legislation earlier this year, Rep. Cao may find life rather lonely. Even Cao’s election in 2008 set him apart from most of the freshman class in Congress—his was an unlikely Republican victory in a majority African American district as President Obama swept into the White House.

Cao was elected to replace the disgraced Congressman William Jefferson, who was famously indicted on bribery charges after an FBI sting in which he was caught with $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Yet the burst of enthusiasm for Cao’s candidacy was short-lived. His vote in favor of the health reform law—a necessity in a city where the health care infrastructure remains gutted even 4 years after the destruction of Hurricane Katrina—meant that financial support from conservative and Republican groups outside his district dried up. Short on cash and facing a tough challenge from popular local attorney Cedric Richmond, Cao looks to be the most vulnerable Republican in 2010. Yet his proven ability to win against the odds and his self-described status as a reformer in the Republican tradition of Ronald Reagan indicate that he will probably remain a strong candidate.

6th Congressional District, Minnesota.

Incumbent: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R)

Just as conservatives across the country have successfully capitalized on voter dissatisfaction with the Obama administration and Democratic majorities in Congress, so too has candidate Tarryl Clark taken advantage of public distrust of the Tea Party Movement and mounted a strong challenge against Republican incumbent Michele Bachmann. Bachmann herself won an unlikely victory, thanks in part to the financial backing of well-funded conservative organizations, back in 2006 when Democrats enjoyed a net gain of more than 30 seats in the House.

While in office, Bachmann’s outspoken opinions garnered a great deal of national attention, but they also benefitted Clark’s candidacy and helped support her impressive fundraising campaign.

Although 2010 may be shaping up to be a good year for congressional Republicans, Bachmann’s controversial statements (she appeared to advocate eliminating social security and Medicare) may prove too much in the fiercely independent and politically sophisticated state of Minnesota.

5th Congressional District, Virginia.

Incumbent: Tom Perriello (D)

Virginia has experienced a demographic transition in the past decade. Although Virginia was once a Republican stronghold, Democrats have increasingly made inroads into the Old Dominion, mainly because of the expanding, affluent, liberal Washington, DC, suburbs of Northern Virginia.

In 2008, Perriello upset the odds by defeating 38-year Republican incumbent Virgil Goode, helped in part by enthusiasm for President Barack Obama and Senator Mark Warner at the top of the ticket. Although Perriello’s support for the major Democratic initiatives of this Congress—the stimulus package, cap-and-trade energy reform, and health care reform—raised his profile among Democratic leadership and the party’s national financial base, these liberal positions will cause him problems with his conservative-leaning constituency.

17th Congressional District, Texas.

Incumbent: Chet Edwards (D)

This 10-term congressional representative is known as a survivor. A long-time target of well-organized Texas Republicans, Edwards was reelected during an era of Republican Texan power that ranged from President George W. Bush to House Speaker Tom “The Hammer” Delay. Despite a voting record considered more conservative than that of most Republicans, Rep. Edwards’ campaign has become defined as a referendum on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. Given the frustration around the country regarding the Democratic leadership in Washington, this could prove too much even for a legislator and campaigner as accomplished and formidable as Edwards.

ACCP Political Action Committee (PAC)

ACCP’s 2007 Strategic Plan called for an examination of the feasibility and value of establishing an ACCP Political Action Committee (PAC). In February 2010, based on research conducted by staff and outreach to ACCP membership, the ACCP Board of Regents approved the establishment of a PAC to support and advance ACCP’s advocacy agenda.

ACCP-PAC was formally registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in July 2010, and the PAC Governing Council was established to oversee the PAC.

The founding ACCP-PAC Governing Council is composed of the following ACCP members:

The purpose of the ACCP-PAC Governing Council is to provide oversight and strategic input into the operations of ACCP-PAC, with particular focus on fundraising activities and decisions around which candidates to support. The Council members will sit for a 2-year term, mirroring 2-year congressional cycles.

What Is a Political Action Committee (PAC)?

A PAC is a legally defined entity organized to help elect political candidates. PACs must report all financial activities, including direct donations and other expenses, to the Federal Election Commission, which makes the reports available to the public.

Why Establish a PAC?

• A PAC is the only means by which ACCP can provide financial support to help elect pro-pharmacy candidates.
• Political contributions help raise our profile in Washington, DC.
• Attending fundraising events offers an opportunity to secure face time with members of Congress or congressional staff.
• ACCP members can also attend events on behalf of the College and help improve their relationships with elected officials.

Why Support ACCP-PAC?

The success of ACCP-PAC depends entirely on the support of ACCP members. Although we recognize the commitment ACCP members already make to the College and other professional organizations, this is clinical pharmacy’s PAC, which presents a unique opportunity to raise our political profile and advance our advocacy agenda.

ACCP/ASHP/VCU Pharmacy Policy Fellow Program

In 2006, ACCP, the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of Pharmacy, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) established the country’s first Pharmacy Healthcare Policy Fellow Program.

Under the leadership of Gary R. Matzke, Pharm.D. (VCU School of Pharmacy), Ed Webb, Pharm.D., MPH (ACCP), and Brian Meyer (ASHP), the program was developed to provide active learning in many policy environments.

The initial month of the program consists of an orientation curriculum put on by faculty of the VCU School of Pharmacy and the government affairs staff of ACCP and ASHP. Fellows then spend 1 year working as special assistants/fellows on the staff of a congressional committee or the personal staff of a U.S. senator or representative.

The program provides a unique health care policy learning experience that allows the Fellow to make practical contributions to the effective use of scientific and pharmaceutical knowledge in government decision-making.

The Fellow will be actively mentored during his/her development of legislative evaluation and policy development skills as well as his/her research and writing skills as he or she integrates practical policy experience with theory.

The Fellow will also be expected to undertake a wide array of responsibilities in the congressional office he/she serves, including researching and writing briefs on health care issues; assisting with policy decisions; drafting memoranda; and planning, organizing, and contributing to the management objectives of the office.

Introducing the Pharmacy Healthcare Policy Fellows

2006–2007. The program’s inaugural fellow, George Neyarapally, Pharm.D., MPH, worked in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for 6 months, followed by almost 6 months in the office of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (Independent-Connecticut).

Dr. Neyarapally went on to serve as a policy scientist in the Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research in the Center for Outcomes and Evidence at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. He is currently a pharmacist at the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2007–2008. Our second Pharmacy Healthcare Policy Fellow, Anna Legreid Dopp, Pharm.D., took leave from her position as a clinical assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin, School of Pharmacy to move with her husband to Washington, DC.

Dr. Legreid Dopp also worked on health care issues in the office of Senator Lieberman. Anna returned to Wisconsin with her husband, John, and baby, Krista, and currently serves on the pharmacy group at the Access Community Health Center, part of the Wisconsin Education Association Trust, which provides insurance as well as retirement and investment services to Wisconsin public school employees and their families.

2008–2010. Our third Pharmacy Healthcare Policy Fellow, Stephanie Hammonds, Pharm.D., served on the majority staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee under the leadership of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

Dr. Hammonds was also selected as the 2009–2010 Fellow on the basis of her strong desire to continue her contribution to the health care reform initiatives overseen by the Senate HELP Committee. Dr. Hammonds currently serves under HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA).

2010–2011. Joshua P. Lorenz of Columbus, Ohio, has been named the 2010–2011 Congressional Healthcare Policy Fellow. Lorenz earned his Pharm.D. degree in 2009 from Butler University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in Indianapolis. While enrolled at Butler, he also earned a master’s degree in business administration. He also recently completed a PGY1 pharmacy practice residency affiliated with The Ohio State University.

Dr. Lorenz began his fellowship September 1, spending 1 month with the ASHP government affairs staff and 1 month with the ACCP government and professional affairs staff before serving as a policy fellow on Capitol Hill. “The program had a dramatic increase in the number of qualified applicants this year,” said Gary R. Matzke, a past ACCP president and the founding director of the fellow program. “The selection committee, composed of eight individuals from the sponsoring organizations and past fellows, was delighted with this increased interest by pharmacists in healthcare policy.”

Applications for 2011–2012 Pharmacy Healthcare Policy Fellow Program

Interested candidates should visit the Pharmacy Healthcare Policy Fellow Program’s website for more information and instructions on submitting an application.

Contact Us!

For more information on any of ACCP’s advocacy efforts, please contact:

John K. McGlew
American College of Clinical Pharmacy
1455 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20004-1017
Telephone: (202) 621-1820
Fax: (202) 621-1819
E-mail: [email protected]