Know Your Rulers: John R. Stafford

[TygrBright]

About this series: A few thousand people live and “work” at the most rarefied levels of our economy. The decisions they make affect our lives in ways we cannot even begin to imagine. These few thousand people are the Oligarchs, the string-pullers, the law-buyers, the elected official-owners who rule our world in the most practical sense. We should know more about our rulers, shouldn’t we?

So now and then when I have the time, I'll select an Oligarch from one of the helpful websites that track their interrelationships (see “References” below,) and follow the information trail on the first twenty pages returned by the Google search engine. I select bits and pieces of this publicly-available information and create a helpful profile.

Know Your Rulers: Oligarch John R. Stafford

John R. Stafford

Oligarch Stafford is currently, or has recently served, on the boards of directors of Verizon Communications, Honeywell International, NYNEX Corporation, and JP Morgan Chase. His past board of directors service includes John Deere International (possibly as a favor to his fellow-Oligarch, Hans W. Becherer, also on the boards of Chase and Honeywell,) Allied Signal, Inc., and possibly the Rothschild Bank, Manufacturers Hanover.

Mr. Stafford rose through the power structure after graduating with a law degree from George Washington University in Washington, DC. (He did his undergraduate work at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA.) His early career was associated with the Washington DC law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, and he served on the legal staff of healthcare giant Hoffman-LaRoche.

It can be inferred that the young Oligarch-to-be did a fine job for Hoffman-LaRoche, because we next meet him in a variety of increasingly powerful and responsible positions at American Home Products—owners of Wyeth, another pharma giant. In 1980 he was elected to AHP’s board of directors, and in 1986 he became the corporation’s CEO and Chairman of the Board.

His tenure at AHP/Wyeth was notable for a number of distinctions, including:

Divestiture of less-profitable “non-core” businesses, including household products, foods, and candy, the merger with pharma corp Ayerst, and the acquisitions of Dalkon Shield manufacturer AH Robins, and animal health businesses from Bristol-Myers and Parke-Davis.

Under Oligarch Stafford’s leadership, Wyeth identified women’s health concerns as a major unexploited profit area for the pharmaceutical industry, and invested in marketing its flagship product Premarin to become the #1 prescribed drug in the United States in 1993. Flush with cash, they created the Women’s Health Research Institute, dedicated to conducting trials for drugs connected with menopause, endometriosis, contraception, etc. Wyeth’s me-too long term contraceptive Norplant was a big hit for them, justifying the investment.

Oligarch Stafford was listed as one of the pharmaceutical industry’s five highest-paid executives in 2000, with $27,008,927 in salary and $81,847,569 in stock options. It might have been a terrible loss to him when he stepped down from the CEO position in 2001—but fortunately American Home Products took their ex-CEO on as a “consultant.” As a consultant, his compensation need not be disclosed, but it can be inferred from the $1.6 million in above-market interest alone reported by Wyeth on his compensation package in 2003 that he wasn’t missing any meals. Thank heavens. We were worried.

Although it may seem, when you add the 1990s “downsizing” of 4,000 AHP workers (for which he received a 132% salary increase) to all the wheelie-dealing, mergers, and acquisitions, that Oligarch Stafford was merely a soulless corporate bastard, it must be noted that when one of Wyeth’s key researchers, Robert I. Levy (whose work in lipid metabolism doubtless added much to the company’s bottom line) died in 2000 after a short illness, Mr. Stafford not only tolled a bell at his memorial service, but said some nice things about him.

And there is a human side to Oligarch Stafford: His golf handicap, in 2000, was a respectable 10.9, so he couldn’t have been spending ALL his time burning the midnight oil at AHP. He’s had a bypass operation. He has a daughter, Carolyn (Brown, ’82; Harvard Law, ’85) who shares with President Obama the distinction of having edited the Harvard Law Review. She married a nice doctor in 1988, did a short stint as an assistant US Attorney in Massachussetts, and is now a lecturer at Harvard Law School. And a press release from John Deere when he joined their board of directors in 1997 noted that he was then “active in numerous civic and charitable organizations in the New York/New Jersey area.”

So, what kind of things does Oligarch Stafford interest himself that might affect you or me?

Well, perhaps this 1992 quote from a Philadelphia Inquirer story on “Making Medicine, Making Money: How Drug Companies Minimize R&D Risks” will provide a hint:

“The Food and Drug Administration's system” was misunderstood, misrepresented and misused for years, and to put it into well-deserved oblivion was a PMA (Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association) priority for a very long time," John R. Stafford, chairman and chief executive officer of American Home Products, told executives at the manufacturers group convention in May. “Now it is accomplished.”

Oligarch Stafford was a Bush Pioneer who raised $100,000 for Bush in 2000. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals reported $3.8 million in lobbying expenditures in 2001 and $4.13 million in 2002. Whether there is any correlation between these facts and the subsequent decision by the Bush Administration and Congress to make it illegal for the U.S. Government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries is, of course, speculative. And in any case, other Big Pharma players were in the game as well. It’s not Oligarch Stafford’s fault, in other words. At least, not entirely.

Among the affiliations listed for Mr. Stafford with regards to political donations, the bulk are, astoundingly, Republican. But he hedges his bets, with contributions to the DNCC, the Clinton primary campaign in 2007, and a few other “D”s here and there.

Who is Oligarch Stafford connected with? Here is a map to the strings Oligarch Stafford can pull. (You'll have to click through the Flash intro.)

References:

They Rule
Muckety
NNDB
Open Secrets
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals on Wikipedia
Tracked.com
Forbes.com
Buying A Law: Big Pharma's Big Money and the Bush Medicare Plan

[subterranean]

1. Thanks. I look forward to future installments of your series.

[bemildred]

2. "Oligarch". I like that, we need to use that title more, and appropriately.

Robert Gates is an Oligarch, for example, but this is never mentioned.

[RandomThoughts]

3. I know the concept of people having 'rulers'

And it has nothing to do with them for me.


I also know the concept of 'self rule'

[Sonoman]

4. Good work.

I had never heard of this guy, but I spent most of my younger years into my 30s on the fringes of this type of environment.

These people have no soul or conscience.

Sonoman

[glitch]

5. Most excellent, thank you! The disinfection of sunlight.

Or this forum's equivalent. :) K & R

:applause:

[midnight]

6. Baucus received 145,372 from Pharmaceutical company PACs.

He and seven other elected officials. No wonder Baucus was put on writing our insurance laws.


Elected Official Contributions Pharmaceutical company PACs, employees, and their families gave more than $3 million in campaign contributions to these eleven elected officials:
President George W. Bush Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Senator John Breaux (D-LA) Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA) Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT) Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA) Total

[Amonester]

7. 'campaign contributions' is just a fancy word they use to catapult

their propaganda

the real words are 'highly profitable investments'

in reality, sick, and many times, old people's pockets are emptied so they can enjoy their golf handicaps... and many, oh so too many other frugal 'things'

'campaign contributions' my a.. :grr:

[leveymg]

8. There isn't anything out of the ordinary about this guy's bio. Maybe, that's the point?

Surely, you can find some rulers who are truly heinous, not just Republican? Maybe, a Michael Milken, Jack Welch or Pete Peterson.

[HughBeaumont]

9. Especially Milken.

We all know what a loathsome piece of job-offshoring, "fuck the workers" garbage Neutron Jack was and still is.

How does a convicted felon, barred from the securities industry, attain a 2 billion dollar fortune within 18 years of being released from prison through philanthropy and "education" (or the privitization of)? How did he make that money? Was he allowed to keep his ill-gotten gains while he served time?

[TygrBright]

11. Yes, that's the point.

As I said in this post, our Oligarchs aren't evil beings in conspiracy to do harm. They are merely the beneficiaries of a system that rewards people for considering their own economic benefit over their responsibility to the well-being of the community and future generations.

And I'm not arguing that we need a system that rewards people for considering their responsibility to others over their own economic benefit, that's not realistic.

I am merely trying to make the point that we need to resume control of the political system and use OUR government as the powerful and effective tool the founders of the Republic intended. Use it to establish a balance of incentives and disincentives that will tip the priorities back to a better balance between self-interest and altruism in economic and social behavior. And that will ensure that in the big, important things, the infrastructure that supports ALL of us, and the future well-being of ALL of our children, are the most important priorities for our government.

That's all.

I'm not ragging on our Oligarchs because they are "bad people" intentionally making heartless, selfish, cruel decisions. They aren't. They are people who are responding to ordinary human motivations to use a system that has made it easy to pursue the self-interest of themselves, their families, and their fellow-Oligarchs. A system that offers plenty of "moral" cover and justification for such behavior under the screen of a distorted economic model. And they have no disincentive to stop using that system to further distort the economic and political systems to their own benefit. And every incentive to catapult the propaganda to get the rest of us to accept the system and even to believe it benefits us as well.

I'm ragging on our Oligarchs because until ALL of us see the system for what it is, and understand that the system is thoroughly warped in their interest and not in ours, we will remain disunified, with too many good ideas and too many correct solutions to important problems occupying us, and we will not be effective in making change happen.

I have nothing against Oligarch Stafford. I bet he's kind of a nice guy to know, actually. Probably a loving grandparent, a conscientious philanthropist, and a loyal friend to people he knows personally.

But he remains an Oligarch.

And while we allow the Oligarchs to continue in control, things will only continue getting worse for everyone except the Oligarchs and their helots.

So, yeah. I don't want people mad at Oligarch Stafford. I want them to realize that he's one of a few thousands of people who are pulling the strings that affect ALL of our lives, and not to our benefit. And to demand change, to re-take control of our political system and use government as it was intended by the Founders: Of, By, and For ALL OF US.

expositorially,
Bright

[bertman]

10. Thank you for that very important Public Service Announcement, TygrBright.

Considering that Stafford 'worked' for these corporations my guess is that he is several rungs down the ladder from the real Oligarchs. You mentioned some large banking institutions that have been around for centuries. Find out who the controlling interests are in those outfits (if that's even possible) and then we'll be getting close to the real Levers of Power.

I don't mean to be unappreciative because this is what we need to know. However, I think Stafford is lower on the food chain than some might think.

Rec.

[TygrBright]

12. Oh, point taken, bert...

I know who you're talking about.

But the thing is, no matter WHAT happens to our political, social, and economic models, those uber-Oligarchs are so secure that they don't need to worry or respond up until the tumbrils roll into the streets and the minions of oligarchic power desert them and join the mob at the foot of the guillotine. And I don't want it to go that far, sorry. In the end that just results in a thinning of the oligarchic herd and a new set of Oligarchs working their way into control.

The Oligarchs at Stafford's level are the ones who have the incentive to use their economic power to distort the political and social systems. They are the ones with the motivation to keep tilting the playing field in their direction. They are the ones who impact our lives pretty directly.

The uber-Oligarchs, like the poor, we will always have with us. As long as they concentrate on playing their one-up games among themselves, patronizing the arts, etc., and keep the hell out of politics and social engineering, I'm willing to let them live in their own weird reality.

diffidently,
Bright

[saras]

13. Curious definition of evil

"As I said in this post, our Oligarchs aren't evil beings in conspiracy to do harm. They are merely the beneficiaries of a system that rewards people for considering their own economic benefit over their responsibility to the well-being of the community and future generations."

I think you're flat-out wrong for implying that these are two somehow unrelated propositions. You can't work for the second proposition without qualifying for the first.

That is to say, you CAN'T choose your own short-term benefit over future generations and the common good, when they are in opposition, WITHOUT being evil. And if you do it in organizations with a small number of others, then that's the textbook definition of conspiracy.

Of the extensive range of things one can do to benefit themselves, they benefit, or harm, others to varying degrees. I think you could say it isn't evil to choose the largest personal benefit that doesn't harm others. Selfish and shortsighted, perhaps, but not evil. But when you cross over the line to active harm to others so you can profit from it, well, what other use does the word 'evil' have, if not that?

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Maybe you can make up a deck of cards.............

with these guys pictures and relevant fax on them for widespread sale. I'd buy a deck.

It would be nice for a LOT of us serfs to have ready access to info on our capitalist overlords.