Economist Stephen Moore is criticizing a push by Senator Bernie Sanders and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to remove direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisements from television, arguing that the move would harm patients and open the door to wider advertising restrictions. In a commentary published by The Daily Wire, Moore contends that drug ads, currently permitted only in the United States and New Zealand, can help patients learn about life‑saving treatments.
The pharmaceutical industry has become a frequent target for politicians in both parties, with growing criticism focused on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. These ads, which are currently permitted only in the United States and New Zealand, typically feature upbeat imagery while a narrator quickly lists potential side effects, including serious harms.
In a recent opinion piece for The Daily Wire, economist Stephen Moore argues against efforts in Washington to bar such ads from television. Moore writes that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants pharmaceutical commercials "removed from the airwaves" and that Sanders has an "unlikely ally" in Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is also pushing to restrict them.
Moore, a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and a former senior economic adviser to President Donald Trump, is described in the piece as having been instrumental in crafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. He uses his Daily Wire commentary to defend pharmaceutical advertising, asserting that it can serve a public purpose by informing patients about treatments that preserve life and improve health.
According to Moore’s argument, greater awareness generated by advertising can speed patients’ access to new therapies, countering critics who say such campaigns simply inflate demand. He maintains that ads drive demand for treatments that work, which he frames as a positive outcome.
To illustrate his concern, Moore presents a hypothetical scenario involving a breakthrough breast cancer drug. If the government prevented the manufacturer from promoting that therapy directly to patients, he suggests, it could take months for many people to learn about and receive the treatment.
Moore also contends that existing regulations already bar false or misleading claims in advertising and impose significant penalties on violators, and he argues that an outright ban on pharmaceutical ads would therefore amount to "regulatory overkill."
His column links the debate over drug ads to a broader worry about government control over commercial speech. Moore warns that if lawmakers succeed in restricting politically unpopular but legal products, such as prescription drugs, it could embolden future efforts to curb other forms of advertising. He speculates that a future administration might seek to block ads for gas-powered cars or disposable diapers on environmental grounds.
To underscore the cultural role of television commercials, Moore points to a recent Chevrolet holiday advertisement featuring a family’s Chevy Suburban over several decades — from childhood moments in the back seat to college drop-offs, an empty nest, and a holiday reunion with grown children and grandchildren. He notes that such emotionally resonant campaigns, along with classic seasonal ads like Coca-Cola’s polar bears and Budweiser’s Clydesdales, have become part of the holiday tradition.
Moore concludes that, while pharmaceutical commercials may be unpopular with many viewers, he believes they provide real benefits and that banning them would ultimately do more harm than good. His essay reflects his personal views and does not represent government policy or a finalized legislative proposal.
