The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow direct advertising on prescription drugs, according to University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy professor Dr. David Kreling, a pharmaceutical policy and marketing expert.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration approves marketing of prescription drugs through the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The act also prohibits using false or misleading information in advertisements.
The FDA requires advertisements to present the statement on a drug’s side effects in a “clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.”
Most countries prohibit direct advertising of pharmaceuticals because some available drugs aren’t tested enough to guard against rare but potentially severe side effects.
While the U.S. has never had a federal law banning direct advertising of prescription drugs, companies did not publicize prescription information through direct advertisements until the 1980s. Previously only doctors and pharmacists received that information.
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made the claim April 21.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy: David Kreling
The Legislature’s Republican-controlled budget committee used its first working meeting on the state’s next two-year budget to scrap Gov. Tony Evers’ recommended spending plan — but it offered clues to which of the public’s priorities remain in the mix and which are DOA.
Using committee rules, Republicans put a prohibition on committee members discussing certain ideas put forth by the governor — including proposals relating to some of the public’s top priorities: education funding, health care and child care — but left the door open to discussing some of his ideas even as they struck them from the budget document.
The Joint Finance Committee’s action marks the fourth time in four budget cycles that it has scrapped hundreds of the Democratic governor’s proposals — though some of them can return to the budget, in some form or another. GOP lawmakers on the committee have gotten used to “the way we have to manage Gov. Evers’ budgets,” committee co-chair Rep. Mark Born, R-Beaver Dam, told reporters, adding that the governor’s plan called for too much state spending.
Democrats on the committee denounced their GOP colleagues for tossing Evers’ budget.
“People are struggling, and it’s a challenging world,” said Rep. Tip McGuire, D-Kenosha. “The one thing we should not be doing, the one thing that nobody votes for their legislator to do, is to make their life harder.”
Committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, panned the idea that Evers’ proposals were the only way to address certain issues in the state.
“This idea that the door is closed on all these things is pretty ridiculous,” he said during the committee’s meeting.
There is more than “one way to address issues and those will all be debated and built over the next couple of months,” Born added.
Here are issues legislators will and won’t be able to discuss as the committee crafts a spending plan over the next two months.
Education funding
The committee closed the book on a number of education issues. That includes a $148 million proposal from Evers to make school meals free to all K-12 students in Wisconsin regardless of income. The program would have taken effect for the 2026-27 school year.
The committee also shut down a $500,000 proposal to fund a grant program for peer-to-peer suicide prevention programs, $5 million in funding to help school districts encourage people to pursue a career in teaching and $1 million to pay for feminine hygiene products that can be distributed to Wisconsin students at school.
Though the committee voted to scrap scores of other Evers proposals, it did not vote to end the discussion on certain issues that were priorities for the governor and raised by the public at committee hearings.
One thing scrapped by the committee but left open for discussion was Evers’ $1.13 billion request to have the state pay for 60% of Wisconsin school districts’ special education costs. The state currently covers a third of such costs for public schools and upwards of 90% of costs for some private voucher schools. Multiple public hearing attendees said their public school districts have transferred thousands of dollars from their general funds to their special education funds to cover costs that have not been reimbursed.
The committee also tossed out a $212 million proposal to increase general per pupil aid and a $168 million request to fund school-based mental health services, but left the door open for future discussion on both topics.
The committee’s decision to definitively shut down some proposals but leave open others suggests lawmakers could increase spending for certain programs funded by Evers, just in different ways or amounts.
Health care
As it has throughout Evers’ time in office, the committee rejected a proposal to accept federal Medicaid expansion and used committee rules to block further discussion of the topic. Medicaid expansion has been a top priority for the governor during his six-plus years in office, but Republicans have repeatedly blocked efforts to expand the program.
Wisconsin is one of 10 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, has defended that decision as insulating the state from the federal government scaling back Medicaid reimbursements.
Republicans on the committee also closed the door on a $100 million proposal from Evers to fund a program focused on lead hazard remediation. The funds would have been used to help low-income families remediate lead in homes built before 1950.
The committee also clipped a $1.4 million request from Evers to pay for a study to assess so-called “forever chemicals” and identify potential methods for limiting further human exposure. PFAS, as the chemicals are commonly known, have contaminated water sources across Wisconsin. Two years ago, the Legislature approved $125 million to help address PFAS contamination in the state. The funds have so far not been released, with Evers and Republicans at odds with how the money should be spent.
One key item lawmakers threw out but did not block future consideration of is postpartum Medicaid expansion. Wisconsin is one of two states that have turned down a federal expansion of Medicaid coverage for up to 12 months for new moms. Wisconsin’s coverage currently lasts 60 days after birth, far shorter than what health experts recommend. Evers’ proposal would have expanded coverage to one year.
A stand-alone bill that would provide Medicaid coverage to new moms for 12 months is currently working its way through the Legislature. It is co-sponsored by a majority of the Legislature’s 132 members. All six Senate Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee voted in favor of the stand-alone bill last month. Including it in the state budget could provide lawmakers a way to circumvent opposition from Vos, who has criticized the bill as welfare expansion.
Child care
Among the Evers provisions discarded by the committee without a possibility of future consideration were programs that would provide financial assistance to child care providers, assist workers with licensing and certification and pay down debt associated with child care accrued by certain qualifying families.
Child Care Counts was established in 2020 using federal funds to provide monthly stipends to child care providers to cover costs of their services and support the recruitment and retention efforts of child care workers in Wisconsin. But funding for the program is set to expire at the end of June.
Evers’ budget proposal would have allocated $442 million over the next two years to make the program permanent, funding annual payments to child care providers. The recommendation would also fund four new positions at the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families to oversee the program.
Without continued state support for the program, around 25% of child care centers in Wisconsin face the threat of closing once current funding runs out.
Another program removed from the budget would have provided a $4.5 million grant to Wonderschool — an organization aimed at meeting the demands of child care — to continue expanding child care in Wisconsin. The program also would provide $5.5 million to the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association to support child care workers in the state, including assistance with the licensing and certification process.
Another cut program would have used federal funds to reduce child care debt for qualifying parents.
Child care access and affordability have been a persistent problem in Wisconsin, with some families expressing concern over how they will cover the costs of child care without state support.
The Joint Finance Committee will continue its work on the budget throughout May and June. The state’s current fiscal year expires on June 30, but if a new budget isn’t yet in place, funding will continue at existing levels.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Democratic legislators on April 10 introduced Assembly Bill 227, which would expand Wisconsin’s existing election bribery laws to also prohibit people from making payments to voters in exchange for signing petitions during an election period.
The bill was introduced just nine days after the April 1 election, before which Elon Musk offered the public $100 to sign a petition opposing “activist judges.” At an event just two days before the election, Musk gave two Wisconsin voters $1 million checks.
Here’s what you need to know:
Context
Wisconsin law already prohibits election bribery and makes it illegal to offer “anything of value,” including money, to bribe an elector to go to or refrain from going to the polls, vote or refrain from voting, or vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular person.
In a deleted X post from March 27, Musk said $1 million checks would be awarded “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote” in the April 1 election between liberal Judge Susan Crawford and conservative Judge Brad Schimel. Musk followed this up with another X post a day later on March 28 to say the checks would be awarded to two individuals to be “spokesmen for the petition.”
On March 29, Democratic Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit against Musk and the Musk-affiliated America PAC. In the complaint, Kaul requested the court grant a temporary restraining order to stop Musk from promoting the $1 million gifts, calling the giveaway “a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11.”
But judges in Columbia County Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear Kaul’s petition. Columbia County Circuit Court Judge W. Andrew Voight filed a dismissal order April 1, saying Kaul’s complaint lacked two of the four required elements for a temporary restraining order — no alleged irreparable harm and no explanation of why the temporary restraining order was the only possible solution.
Voight noted at the end of his dismissal that the court did not come to a conclusion as to whether Musk and America PAC’s actions were illegal.
Musk gave out the $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters who signed his America PAC petition during a Green Bay rally on March 30.
The actions on behalf of Musk and America PAC consequently sparked debates regarding the legality and ethics of the petition.
The bill
In an effort led by Rep. Lee Snodgrass, D-Appleton, the “Petition Payment Prohibition Act” would expand existing election bribery laws to prohibit bribing voters to sign or refrain from signing election nomination papers, recall petitions and other petitions, including in support or opposition of candidates.
“To be clear, election bribery is already illegal in Wisconsin,” the co-authors wrote in a memo to their legislative colleagues. “However, Musk has attempted to circumvent this law by paying people to sign a petition instead — something not explicitly banned by current law.”
If passed, the bill would prohibit anyone from offering anything of value — exceeding $5 — to influence whether or not someone signs a petition relating to elections. These petitions include those opposing and supporting candidates or referendums, political or social issues, state law, and proposed or potential legislation, according to the bill.
The prohibition would only be enforced when it relates directly to an election or referendum or if it is circulated during an election period, which the bill defines as the period between Dec. 1 and the spring election or April 15 and the general election.
Under the bill, it would be illegal to pay someone $100 to sign a petition within an election period that is in support of a state referendum or a candidate.
Election bribery is currently a Class I felony, meaning if the bill passes, violators could face up to three-and-a-half years in prison, a fine as high as $10,000 or both.
So, what’s next?
So far 34 Democratic lawmakers support the “Petition Payment Prohibition Act,” in addition to Snodgrass. No Republicans have signed on.
The bill has been referred to the Committee on Campaigns and Elections where the Republican who heads the committee could schedule a public hearing and vote. Republicans who control the Legislature could then schedule it for a vote in the full Assembly. An identical version must also pass the Senate.
If this bill passes, it would be sent to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who can either sign or veto it.
Democratic sponsors said the bill should be bipartisan.
“Candidates and issue groups should use the strength of their message to attract voters to their cause, not cash bribes or promises of financial reward,” the sponsors said in a memo to colleagues. “It is a gross perversion of our democracy and must not be allowed to continue in future elections. Failing to act is a tacit acceptance that our votes are for sale. Rejecting this premise is something members of both parties should be able to agree on.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
A reader asked: “I’m wondering how the federal freeze and mass federal firings are affecting veterans’ employment and services through VA in Wisconsin. Thank you!”
Recent changes to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs have left some Wisconsin veterans uncertain about what the future means for their employment, health care and resources offered through the VA.
On Feb. 11, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to implement the Department of Government Efficiency’s Workforce Optimization Initiative. In the order, Trump called for a DOGE team to collaborate with the highest-ranking officials of each government agency to reduce the federal workforce through hiring approvals, job cuts and reorganization plans.
While the order stated the plans exclude military personnel, recent layoffs have proved troubling for veterans working for the federal government.
Andrew McKinney, a veteran from Cottage Grove and cashier for the Veterans Health Administration who ran for state Assembly in 2022 as a Republican, was alerted of his layoff Feb. 24, before his supervisor learned about the decision.
McKinney, a probationary employee, said the email came from the Office of Personnel Management, citing his “performance” as the reason he was let go. But later his supervisor was informed via email the dismissal was a result of Trump’s Feb. 11 executive order.
McKinney’s layoff was part of a wave of VA dismissals, removing over 1,000 probationary employees from their positions.
“Those dismissed today include non-bargaining unit probationary employees who have served less than a year in a competitive service appointment or who have served less than two years in an excepted service appointment,” according to a VA press release.
While McKinney was given his job back the week of March 23, he says the unexpected removal and uncertainty have made him rethink his current situation.
“People have families, and they have to take care of their bills, and they have to take care of things, you know,” McKinney said. “I was kind of concerned a little bit, but I had faith that I was going to come back. But it also shows that, you know, I’m gonna have to start really saving and putting stuff aside for things that happen like this.”
The VA said the personnel reorganization would save the department over $98 million a year, funds that could be redirected toward health care, benefits and services, according to the Feb. 18 press release.
But the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) — a union representing federal employees — said further dismissals could make the already understaffed organization worse. Specifically, removals could threaten mental health resources and health care services, leading to longer wait times and threatening benefits promised to veterans.
For example, the PACT Act was passed to expand VA health care eligibility for veterans exposed to toxic substances, such as burn pits and Agent Orange. The union argues further cuts, such as the proposed 83,000 dismissals by the end of 2025, could harm the VA’s ability to provide those promised services.
In the first year following the approval of the PACT Act, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin reported around 15,000 Wisconsin veterans filed PACT Act claims, with about 6,600 receiving approval in the first year.
The VA did not respond with comment on the federal layoffs’ impact on VA clinics or the PACT Act in Wisconsin.
Currently, there have been no reports or claims of longer wait times or delayed services at VA clinics in Wisconsin since the first round of layoffs, according to Veterans of Foreign Wars State Adjutant Adam Wallace and American Wisconsin Legion Adjutant Julie Muhle. But these advocacy groups are preparing for the potential consequences future changes could bring.
“We’re kind of laying the groundwork now, getting the word out there to be vigilant about it,” Wallace said. “But we haven’t … gotten any specific complaints regarding interrupted services at the VA.”
A memo published by the VA chief of staff said its reorganization plan will be published June 25, with the reduction in workforce to be carried out by the end of the fiscal year.
“We don’t suspect that we’ll see any sort of impact in health care, probably until it’s enacted, maybe in July or later,” Wallace said.
As of now, the biggest issue veterans face in Wisconsin is uncertainty.
Because the cuts are coming from the White House, local advocacy organizations worry VA offices will not have the adequate time and resources to prepare for further reductions in the workforce.
“The uncertainty is causing anxiety in the employees working there, that it’s distracting from their mission, which is a very important one, and that’s serving our veterans and their health care needs and their benefit needs,” Wallace said.
Wisconsin Watch readers have submitted questions to our statehouse team, and we’ll answer them in our series, Ask Wisconsin Watch. Have a question about state government? Ask it here.
Login
