WASHINGTON -- If there's no such thing as a free lunch (because one must pay by listening to whomever provides the food), is there such a thing as a near-free plane ride?
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, finds himself arguing there is.It comes as a national Associated Press story last week told how he has flown to many of his presidential campaign stops on a jet owned by a drug company that could make a fortune from legislation he controls.
That company, Schering-Plough, wants to extend a patent on a popular prescription allergy drug that it makes called Claritin. That would prevent generic drug companies from copying it for years.
The story ran the day that Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee was to vote on a bill that would create a process for drug companies to appeal for patent extensions, which they say they deserve to help recoup high research and development costs.
Hatch defended himself with four main arguments: 1. Everyone else does it. 2. It's legal. 3. He pays as much as required by election laws for such flights. 4. It's appropriate.
No one will likely argue with Hatch over the first three points of his defense. But whether it's appropriate should stir plenty of debate.
First, I have enough friends who have worked on other campaigns to know that most indeed do resort to using private corporate jets on occasion -- unless they are extremely wealthy and have their own jet or have government jets at their disposal (such as Vice President Gore does with Air Force Two).
"I don't do it very often. We have to do it on occasion to get to places where we otherwise couldn't get by commercial plane, at least not on time," Hatch told the Deseret News. That includes rushing from Washington to small hamlets in New Hampshire and Iowa, which are important in early primaries and caucuses.
While everyone may do it, Hatch was singled out for attention because his committee was voting on something of great worth to his benefactor immediately.
Few seemed to make the connection that others -- if elected president -- would be in position later on to also help the companies that make flights available to them now.
Hatch is also correct in saying that the situation is legal -- as long as candidates pay their benefactors the equivalent of a commercial airline's first-class ticket to a similar destination. He has made such payments.
However, that covers only a fraction of the $1,800 an hour that the Gulfstream jet owned by Schering-Plough pays for just fuel and maintenance -- let alone salaries for pilots and crew and purchase of the $28 million aircraft.
Some statements by Hatch raise questions about his assertion that the situation is appropriate anyway.
For example, he said, "My campaign doesn't have the money to afford other private airplanes." That appears to make him beholden to private groups that step in to help.
And it appears many are ready to jump in. As Hatch said, "We have a standing offer from a variety of companies and individuals to fly us if needed."
Why do companies offer such flights? Is it out of patriotism? Or are they hoping for access to policymakers and a chance to at least be thought of better by them?
Hatch says their generosity has no effect on him. "They get no special favors," he said.
For example, he notes that he pushed legislation in 1984 that helped create the generic drug industry and says he is seen as one of that industry's biggest defenders. Of course, Schering-Plough is fighting that industry to try to extend its patents.
But if some sinister company existed somewhere that wanted to buy influence with lawmakers and future presidents, a way it might do that would be to offer them heavily subsidized flights.
So even if Hatch, in his mind, is doing nothing inappropriate, it's easy to see how others might think he is.
As the Bible says, it's wise to avoid even the appearance of evil -- or the price of those near-free flights could become astronomical with voters.
Deseret News Washington correspondent Lee Davidson can be reached by e-mail at leed@dgs.dgsys.com