The political landscape is dominated by three companies: pharmaceutical companies, political action committees, and political action committee managers.
And while there is a lot to like in terms of the influence they have over our political process, there are some companies that stand out for their potential to influence our electoral outcome.
Here are 10 companies that can influence the way our elections are fought, and how we elect our leaders.
Pharmaceutical companies The pharmaceutical industry has been the driving force behind the health care reform movement since its inception, and their influence on politics is strong.
As a result, they have been one of the main players in promoting and financing campaigns that use their products and their products’ marketing to influence voters.
Their influence extends to everything from advertising and marketing campaigns to lobbying and even influencing the way politicians and lawmakers look at issues.
But as much as the pharmaceutical industry likes to say that they are not directly involved in political campaigns, they do.
In the last election cycle, pharmaceutical companies spent nearly $6 million on lobbying and political advertising, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
That’s about twice as much spent by the pharmaceutical and health care industries combined.
It’s a good sign that drug companies like Pfizer and AstraZeneca are still active in influencing politics.
In 2015, the pharmaceutical company Astra Zeneca spent $7.6 million lobbying the U.K. government, according the Center on Media and Democracy.
But its influence has increased in recent years, especially after the U,S.
and European Union began to crack down on the drug industry.
Astra is now one of just three companies that have spent more than $100 million lobbying in the U-K.
Pfizer spent nearly a third of its lobbying budget on lobbying in 2015, according a Center for Public Integrity analysis of lobbying disclosures.
This year, the company has spent about $14.6 billion lobbying the government, which has led to a spike in the number of government bills that Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer have lobbied in the last few years.
Astaxa has spent millions lobbying on several major bills, including the Anti-Piracy Act of 2016, which would criminalize the downloading of copyrighted works.
Political action committees Political action committee (PAC) managers are companies that make money from raising money for or against a candidate or political party.
Some PACs are registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but the vast majority are not.
But in recent elections, there has been a proliferation of PACs that are run by former members of Congress, including former Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Renacci.
These PACs are often referred to as political action panels (PACs).
They have become a major moneymaker for political campaigns and can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
PAC managers have been a major contributor to both sides of the aisle, donating over $10 million to Democrats in 2016 and $6.5 million to Republicans in 2015.
The political action groups that manage PACs have the same goal: to influence the direction of elections.
As the American Democracy Legal Fund notes in a report on the PAC industry, political PACs can have “a direct influence on the outcomes of elections.”
PACs that have been heavily involved in the 2016 presidential election were led by former Representative Steve Israel, a Republican who served as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
Israel was a major backer of Republican candidates including Mike Pence, who served in Congress for 22 years.
PAC Managers PAC managers are the people in the political world who manage the money and finances of PACs.
They have access to funds and staff that can help them manage and spend money on behalf of candidates and committees.
These managers are often former members or former staff members of a candidate, but also have access from outside the PAC to staff and money.
They are also paid a salary and receive perks like free meals and other perks.
One of the biggest perks for political managers is that they get to pick the PAC that receives the most contributions from donors.
PAC owners can then spend those donations on their own PACs.
Political PACs that received more than 100 million dollars in contributions from PACs that control the PACs can then run for office.
In 2014, the Center to Protect Patient Rights found that more than 60% of PAC managers and executives who worked for PACs that controlled the PACs had received more money from PACs than from PACs in control of the PACs.
Political advertising Political ads are one of several forms of media that candidates and parties have been forced to embrace.
Political ads can be created, aired, and distributed by groups, such as corporations, unions, or individuals.
However, there is no standard way to classify ads as “sponsored” or “independent.”
It’s not uncommon for ads to be placed by outside groups that are not affiliated with the candidate or the party.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are just a few examples of laws that make it difficult