Politico's “Sinema rakes in Pharma and finance cash…” A salient issue and an exceptional pattern of donations, or just cherry picking of statistics?
Politico's October 15, 2021 Sinema rakes in Pharma and finance cash amid reconciliation negotiations begins
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) raised more campaign money in the last three months than in any quarter since she became a senator. And she hit that $1.1 million haul with a big assist from the pharmaceutical and financial industries, whose political action committees and top executives stuffed her coffers in the middle of negotiations on Democrats’ massive infrastructure and social spending bills.
Sinema has emerged as a key player in those negotiations, with the reconciliation bill needing support from all 50 Democratic senators...
and includes various items like
As those objections have been registered, Sinema’s Senate campaign has cashed checks from industries facing potential losses or other disruptions. She received $27,800 from PACs of pharmaceutical companies from July through September — up from $5,000 in the three months prior, according to her campaign finance filings.
Little of the $1.1 million Sinema raised came from her constituents. Nearly 90 percent of Sinema’s cash from individual contributors came from outside Arizona.
Her individual donors also included a who’s who of powerful people in the pharmaceutical industry. Top donors included the pharma giant Gilead’s CEO, Daniel O’Day, who gave $5,000 this past quarter. Another $2,900 came in from Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks. The executive chair of Merck’s board, Kenneth C. Frazier, also gave $2,900, as did the chair and CEO of Bristol Myers Squibb, Giovanni Caforio.
Sinema is not up for reelection until 2024. But her campaign account has been a landing spot for donors nonetheless. Sinema never raised more than $700,000 in a quarter during the last Congress, but she has now topped $1 million twice in the last two quarters of 2021.
The Winklevoss twins, the American investors who battled with Mark Zuckerberg over the founding of Facebook and gained wider fame from the movie “The Social Network,” both maxed out to Sinema this quarter. The brothers are involved in cryptocurrency, a field that falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, on which Sinema sits.
Those with interest in the battle over potential tobacco and nicotine taxes from Congress were generous, too. John Hoel, an in-house lobbyist for Altria Client Services, a major tobacco company, gave $500. The Cigar Association of America’s PAC donated $1,000. Additionally, a PAC for the National Association of Truckstop Operators, a group with ties to big tobacco companies which has fought the potential taxes, gave Sinema $5,000.
A cursory read could give an inexperienced reader the impression that these statistics prove that Sinema has been singled out by companies and their executives as a target for "effective contributions" and without saying so explicitly, could promote the idea that Sinema's voting in both in committee and in the full Senate is perceived by those donors as being more influenceable than average.
In general politicians receive donations from companies and executives regularly. That this Politico article has singled out Sinema suggest there's something anomalous here.
But is there, really?
Question: Politico's "Sinema rakes in Pharma and finance cash..." Does this article raise a salient issue and highlight an exceptional pattern of donations, or is it just just cherry picking statistics to try to show a pattern that really isn't there?
From The Mercury News' October 21, 2021 5 veterans quit advising Sinema, calling her an obstruction is this statement from the resigning advisors, which seems to echo the same sentiment (without supporting it) that Sinema's actions are "for sale":
“You have become one of the principal obstacles to progress, answering to big donors rather than your own people,” the veterans wrote. “We shouldn’t have to buy representation from you, and your failure to stand by your people and see their urgent needs is alarming.”
“We do not know who has your ear, but it clearly isn’t us or your constituents,” they added.