Living Up To Our Reputation as a Political Powerhouse

Many in the natural products industry may remember the first piece of broad negative legislation targeting dietary supplements introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) in 2002, the now infamous S. 722. During an address promoting his legislation on the Senate floor, Durbin called the dietary supplement industry a big political player, saying he had never faced more political pressure in his life even when he had taken on other pretty big players, including the big tobacco companies.

But how big a political player is the dietary supplement industry? Generally, political power is measured by three benchmarks: money spent on lobbying, supporting political candidates (both directly and through political action committees, or PACs) and grassroots strength. A weakness or over-reliance on any of the three can mean the difference between winning or losing a vote on an important bill, getting your message heard or having a seat at the table when legislation is crafted. So based on these criteria (with information from the Center for Responsive Politics, CQ and Public Affairs Council), how does the industry measure up?

Well, theres good news and bad news. Lets start with the good newsgrassroots. Clearly, the natural products industry has ardent supporters who are willing to take action when needed. This was stunningly demonstrated with the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The efforts of retailers and manufacturers who reached out to consumers to rally their support for DSHEA is legendary on the Hill. In fact, until DSHEA went through Congress, only the Vietnam War had generated more messages to legislators. While Internet advocacy has done much to level the grassroots playing field, natural products retailers still represent a formidable force in generating consumer support or opposition to legislation. So in terms of political power, grassroots is one of our strengths.

Now for the bad news. When it comes to lobbying Congress on dietary supplement issues and supporting federal candidates, not only are we not a big player, were barely on the playing field. Out of 86 industries, ours ranks 74th in money spent on lobbying and 81st on supporting federal candidates.

Lobbying may have gotten a bad rap recently, but, when done lawfully and right, it serves an industry well. In our case, it allows us to educate members of Congress about the important benefits our products contribute to the health of all Americans. There are more than 2,700 associations in Washington, D.C., alone, representing a wide variety of interest groups and issues, so capturing a legislators attention on any topic is a challenge.

The dietary supplement industry collectively spends approximately $1.8 million per year on lobbying. For perspective, the top three industries that spend the most on lobbying are insurance companies ($120 million), electric utilities ($92 million) and drug manufacturers ($91 million). Of course, these industries are many times larger than the dietary supplement industry, which is currently at around $22 billion, so we would expect those industries to spend more.

So how do we compare with other industries with consumer sales closer to our own? The recording industry, which has U.S. retail sales of about $13 billionalmost $10 billion less than supplementsspends $5.9 million on lobbying annually, more than three times that of the dietary supplement industry. The cruise line industry, with consumer sales very close to our own at $25 billion, outspends us by more than a third at $2.5 million. Big tobacco, to which Sen. Durbin has compared this industry in terms of political might, has consumer sales of $38 billion and spends a whopping $20 million more than we do.

Obviously, an industrys size is not the sole determinant of how much should be invested in lobbying activities. Whether issues concerning an industry are on the political agenda and the degree to which decisions made by Congress will affect an industry are two key factors in determining the extent of lobbying activities. Arguably, issues concerning dietary supplements have occupied an increasingly larger amount of Congress time in the last two sessions. Showing support for those running for office is another important way to gain political power. Industries and individuals can support those running for office by contributing directly to the candidates themselves or through PACs sponsored by companies or associations. Why is this important? Because campaigns are expensive. Very expensive. For instance, in a 2006 House race in New Mexiconot the most populous statea pair of Democrat and Republican opponents raised more than $4 million. Keep in mind that House members are running for office every two years. The last presidential race cost George Bush $367 million and John Kerry $328 million.

Contributions to candidates campaign funds go toward a variety of expenses including staff, research, voter outreach (ads, Web sites, direct mail), office space and miscellaneous but important costs (yard signs, campaign buttons, bumper stickers).

When it comes to supporting candidates, as measured by aggregate contributions to both PACs and direct contributions to candidates, the dietary supplement industry is not a major player. In fact, with contributions just under $100,000, we are in the bottom 10 (81st) out of 86 industries. The waste management industry ($137,150), chiropractors ($156,550) and advertising and public relations industries ($165,956) all outspend us. In another ranking, this time of PACs alone, combined industry PAC contributions landed us in the top third (998) out of organizations representing various industries. Better, but we were still outranked by the Bowling Proprietors Association and Outdoor Advertising Association. While not diminishing the importance of either of these groups or the members they represent, they have not faced the same level of regulatory or legislative challenges we have. Nor do they approach the significance of this industry from a public health standpoint (although bowling can be good exercise).

In comparison to other industries of our size, there is similar disparity in total PAC contributions. For example, the cruise line industry made $170,950 in PAC contributions, $70,000 more than the dietary supplement industry PACs. The recording industry contributed more than $376,000 through its PACs, nearly four times the dietary supplement industry.

So what do these statistics mean? Regardless of what Sen. Durbin or others may say, the reality is that the dietary supplement industry lags far behind other, even smaller, less regulated industries, when it comes to lobbying and supporting political candidates. To remedy this, industry members need to get involved and stay involved politically. Involvement could take the form of supporting your districts representative or contributing to a company or association PAC. Establishing or increasing personal contact with your legislators in Congress is equally important, particularly so before a crisis happens. The bottom line is that by keeping our grassroots strong, increasing our lobbying efforts and candidate support, we can truly become the political powerhouse were reputed to be.

David Seckman is the executive director and chief executive officer (CEO) of the Natural Products Association (www.naturalproductsassoc.org), a leading trade association for the natural products industry. The Natural Products Associations annual lobbying event, Natural Products Day, is set for March 27 in Washington; details are available online (www.naturalproductsassoc.org/npd07).