>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encoura

>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encourage pharma companies to increase US prices to give Africa free doses? I don't see how that is a better use of the money. Now you've spent twice as much money on this. Once for lobbyists and then again from US price increases and pharma companies make just as much in the end.