Pharmaceutical companies target doctors for sales pitches through a process known as “detailing.” Data miners comb through prescription records to find out which doctors are treating which conditions with which drugs, and sell this data to drug companies so that they can pitch doctors on drugs they are likely to actually prescribe. If your doctor is treating a lot of people who take a certain unusual heart medication, detailing allows the pharmaceutical industry to learn that fact and try to convince the doctor to prescribe a different but similar drug.

A major problem with this practice is that it drives up the cost of care. Drug companies routinely discover that a doctor frequently prescribes an older or generic drug that is cheaper for patients, and then target that doctor to convince them to prescribe a newer, much more expensive drug. For this reason, Vermont passed a law banning detailing. Under Vermont’s law, prescription records can be used for any number of purposes, but they cannot be used by detailers to help drug companies target their sales pitches.

In a 6-3 decision by Justice Kennedy (Justice Sotomayor joined the five conservatives), the Supreme Court just struck this law down. According to the majority, the law violates the First Amendment because it allows prescription data to be used for many purposes, but not for data mining that benefits drug companies:

Under Vermont’s law, pharmacies may share prescriber-identifying information with anyone for any reason save one: They must not allow the information to be used for marketing. Exceptions further allow pharmacies to sell prescriber-identifying information for certain purposes, including “health care research.” And the measure permits insurers, researchers, journalists, the State itself, and others to use the information.

In the Supreme Court’s words, the law “imposes a burden based on the content of speech” — information gleaned from data can be used to improve the quality of drugs but not to sell them — and thus the law violates the First Amendment.

One silver lining to this decision is the fact that the Court leaves open the possibility that a law that does not target detailing specifically could survive scrutiny. “If Vermont’s statute provided that prescriber-identifying information could not be sold or disclosed except in narrow circumstances then the State might have a stronger position.” In the mean time, however, yesterday’s decision is a big win for the drug companies, and an equally big loss for privacy and medical cost control.

Sen. Ron Johnson defeated three-term incumbent Russ Feingold (D-WI)in the 2010 elections.

Federal law prohibits corporations from donating to individuals running for public office, but freshman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) may have made an end run around this law:

After dropping nearly $9 million from his own pocket to win a seat in the U.S. Senate, Ron Johnson didn’t have to feel the pain for very long.

Johnson’s plastics company paid him $10 million in deferred compensation shortly before he was sworn in as Wisconsin’s junior senator, according to his latest financial disclosure report.

The first-term Republican declined to say how his Oshkosh firm, Pacur, came up with a figure that so closely mirrored the amount he personally put into his campaign fund.

“You take a look in terms of what would be a reasonable compensation package, OK?” Johnson said this week. “It’s a private business. I’ve complied with all the disclosure laws, and I don’t have to explain it any further to someone like you.”

Sadly, Johnson’s refusal to explain his actions could be exactly the right legal strategy for him, even if he is guilty of evading campaign finance laws. As one election lawyer told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, to determine that Johnson violated a federal statute, the FEC would need to find a “smoking gun” proving the existance of a tacit agreement between Johnson and Pacur that the company would reimburse his campaign costs.

The unlikelihood of such a prospect may be what makes Johnson comfortable refusing to talk about his enormous single payday.

–Sarah Bufkin

ThinkProgress reported earlier today that Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) would be signing his budget bill at the business of a man convicted on felony charges of tax evasion. Shortly after our report was published, a Walker spokesperson was asked about it and said, “I know nothing about that.”

The governor’s staff apparently quickly did find out about it. After researching the matter, the governor announced today that he will be cancelling the event:

Walker aide Cullen Werwie said his office would be announcing a new location soon for the budget ceremony on Sunday. The announcement came less than an hour after the Journal Sentinel contacted the governor’s office to ask about the executive’s criminal history.

Werwie acknowledged that Walker’s advance team had erred by not conducting a thorough background check on Gregory A. DeCaster, chief executive officer of Badger Sheet Metal Works.

Werwie described the situation as a “breakdown” by the governor’s staff.

DeCaster was convicted on six felony counts for not paying income taxes and sentenced to three months behind bars, plus two years of supervised released, and a $10,000 fine. DeCaster said he was a supporter of Walker’s campaign, but did not contribute.

This Sunday, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) will be signing into law his budget bill at an event at a local Wisconsin business. The budget radically reshapes Wisconsin’s priorities, slashing investments in Main Street Wisconsin, raising taxes on the poorest Wisconsinites, and actually continuing to give tax handouts to some of the state’s richest and special interests.

Given that Walker has all but given up on the idea that the richest Wisconsinites should be paying their fair share in these hard times, it is appropriate that he actually will sign the bill at a business owned by Greg DeCaster, a convicted tax evasion felon. The signing will be held at Badger Sheet Metal Works.

In United States v. DeCaster, DeCaster was convicted of multiple felony tax crimes in 1995, and sentenced to three months in prison:

While none of this should cast aspersion on Mr. DeCaster, who served his time in jail dutifully and has paid his debt to society, it is fitting that Walker would choose to sign a budget that absolves the rich from paying their fair share at a business owned by someone who was once convicted of the felony of tax evasion. (HT: Mike Elk)

In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) — the lead sponsor of a bill which would strip Supreme Court justices of their immunity from a code of ethical conduct that applies to other federal judges — suggests that an investigation may be necessary to determine whether Justice Clarence Thomas’ many ethics scandals rise to the level where Thomas is no longer fit to serve on the nation’s highest Court:

QUESTION: Do you think what Thomas has done is as serious as what forced [disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Abe] Fortas off the bench?

MURPHY: I think our problem is we don’t know the full extent of Justice Thomas’ connections to [leading GOP donor] Harlan Crow, or, frankly, to a further network of right-wing funders. What he’s done is incredibly serious. I think, at the very least, his actions should disqualify him from sitting on any cases in which Crow-affiliated organizations are parties to or have attempted to influence [the Court]. But this is starting to rise to the level where there should start to be some real investigations as to whether Clarence Thomas can continue to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Watch it:

Justice Thomas has sat on at least 11 cases where a Harlan Crow-affiliated group filed a brief — adopting the group’s preferred outcome in all but one case. Moreover, Thomas has yet to explain the full extent of his connections to Crow, despite news reports that Crow lavished gifts and other expensive favors on Thomas and his family. Nor has Thomas explained how his gifting scandal differs from the very similar gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas.

Read more