Bernie Sanders’s Latest Crusade Could Kill Your Favorite Christmas Commercials

Perhaps the only thing Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on these days is that the pharmaceutical industry is bad. In particular, there has been bipartisan movement in recent years to ban direct-to-consumer drug ads, which are only permitted in the United States and New Zealand. Some supporters, like The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, have called these ads dangerous.

But even those who don’t feel that strongly about the issue aren’t jumping up to defend these ads, which generally feature a bunch of shiny, happy stock-photo models dancing around while a narrator speed-reads through a list of side effects ranging from nausea to death.

In this provocative piece, Stephen Moore does just that. A noted economist and political commentator, Moore served as a senior economic adviser to President Donald Trump and was instrumental in crafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Moore not only argues that pharmaceutical ads help patients, but that banning them could have negative downstream consequences. We hope you enjoy. — Tim Rice

***

Chevrolet’s newest holiday ad is tugging at America’s heartstrings.

The spot follows a family’s classic Chevy Suburban through decades of memories — kids tumbling around the backseat, tearful college drop-offs, and that quiet, bittersweet moment when the house becomes an empty nest. The ad ends as the couple parks their old Suburban beside a shiny new one, welcoming their grown children and grandchildren home for the holidays.

It’s the kind of commercial American companies have long excelled at: emotionally evocative in all the right ways, tapping into nostalgia, family, and the warmth of the season — and, yes, selling a product. Holiday ads have become part of our cultural fabric. Think of Coca-Cola’s polar bears, or the Budweiser Clydesdales. These ads don’t just market products; they help set the tone for the season.

Ads like these may not survive if Washington continues down a troubling road of restricting TV commercials for politically unpopular — but legal — products. At the top of this list is pharmaceutical ads, which Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants removed from the airwaves. In that fight he has an unlikely ally: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

This may seem like a rare instance of bipartisan cooperation. And in today’s political climate, dinging pharmaceutical companies is almost certain to prove popular.

But we already have strict advertising laws against including false or misleading claims in ads, and severe penalties for violations — and appropriately so. Banning pharmaceutical ads would be regulatory overkill, and could have negative consequences its advocates aren’t considering.

Contrary to what critics say, prescription drugs preserve life and improve health. Because of this, advertising can be a social good. An ad that makes people aware of a new drug’s benefits can literally save lives and alleviate suffering.

Some politicians and regulators say these ads only serve to artificially drive up demand. And they do drive up demand — for treatments that work. That’s a good thing.

Think about what would happen if we had a new wonder drug to help cure or stop the spread of breast cancer. Now imagine that the government prevented the pharmaceutical company from promoting this treatment to patients.

It could take months before patients get access to this miracle cure.

Plus, if lawmakers succeed in chipping away protections for advertisers, it will only empower future government censors. Imagine a future Democrat administration that wants to ban ads for gas-powered cars or disposable diapers in the name of “protecting the environment.”

Pharmaceutical ads may not be the most popular thing in the world. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have a real benefit — or the fact that banning them would do more harm than good.

Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former senior economic advisor to President Donald Trump.