Anyone who lurks about the internet knows about Martin Shkreli, the guy who bought the rights to a drug and immediately jacked up the price by 4000%. The fellow has a bit of a tin ear, and it really seems that he truly can’t understand why anyone would find what he did to be at all offensive, especially Bernie Sanders, whose been using him as a punching bag. So, what did Mr. Shkreli decide to do about it? He figured he could bribe Bernie, and sent him the maximum donation, in an amount equal to about what he charges for four pills:
“Shkreli made the contribution, he said, partly because he supports some of Sanders’ proposals — just not the ones about drug prices. But mainly, he said, he donated to get the senator’s attention in the hopes that he could get a private meeting to explain why drug companies set prices the way they do.”
via The Boston Globe
Call me a prude, but that looks like a quid pro quo to me. Shkreli tweeted about his donation during the debate, and when the Sanders people realized what he’d done, they donated the money to a charity. What I found odd about the Globe article is that the reporter did not follow up on Shkreli’s admission that he donated money in the hopes of getting access to Sanders. It’s been remarked in the Benghazi context that one of the biggest mistakes some politicians can make is telling the truth, like the obvious fact that the Benghazi investigation is political. Isn’t admitting you were attempting to buy access similar? Apparently not, as the admission went unremarked. Maybe paying for access is now considered business as usual.
Of course, the press has likely missed a lot in the Shkreli story. He’s been insisting, after his bald declaration that he had a right to make a profit fell flat, that he jacked up the price, not to line his own pockets, but to fund research into an improved treatment for the disease that the now overpriced drug treats perfectly well. It would be interesting to know if he’s matched the action to the word. I personally rather doubt it.
Anyway, it really seems that Mr. Shkreli should consider just lying low until the heat dies down. After all, Andy Warhol had a point. The American attention span might exceed 15 minutes, but not by much. If Shkreli just shut his mouth and his tweeter, in a short time no one would remember him. Unless, of course, Bernie doesn’t let that happen.
Post a Comment