Sharfstein J
Boston Medical Center, Mass., USA.
Am J Public Health. 1998 Aug;88(8):1233-6. doi: 10.2105/ajph.88.8.1233.
This study sought to determine whether the political action committee of the American Medical Association (AMA) contributed more to pro- or anti-tobacco members of Congress in the 1995/96 campaign and whether representatives' voting records on malpractice reform could explain the AMA's contribution patterns.
Campaign contributions to House members were analyzed.
The AMA's political action committee contributed averages of $5382 to pro-tobacco representatives and $2103 to anti-tobacco representatives (P < .0005). This contribution pattern can be fully explained by representatives' votes to limit malpractice awards.
In seeking malpractice reform, the AMA contributed significantly more to pro-tobacco representatives, potentially undermining tobacco control legislation.
本研究旨在确定美国医学协会（AMA）的政治行动委员会在1995/96年竞选活动中对支持或反对烟草的国会议员的贡献是否更多，以及代表们在医疗事故改革方面的投票记录是否可以解释AMA的贡献模式。
分析了对众议院议员的竞选捐款。
AMA的政治行动委员会向支持烟草的代表平均捐款5382美元，向反对烟草的代表平均捐款2103美元（P < .0005）。这种捐款模式可以通过代表们限制医疗事故赔偿裁决的投票得到充分解释。
在寻求医疗事故改革时，AMA对支持烟草的代表的捐款显著更多，这可能会破坏烟草控制立法。
