After Accusing GOP Rival Jack Ciattarelli Of Fueling Overdose Deaths, Democrat Mikie Sherrill Faces Scrutiny For Her Own Pharma Cash & CCP-Linked Donors
Wednesday, October 15, 2025, 6:30 P.M. ET. 3 Minute Read, By Jennifer Hodges: Englebrook Independent News,
TRENTON, NJ.- In a fiery debate that set off shockwaves across New Jersey politics, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Mikie Sherrill accused her Republican rival, Jack Ciattarelli, of “killing” New Jerseyans through his past work with a publishing firm that allegedly promoted misleading information about opioid safety.
Initially, Sherrill claimed Ciattarelli’s company was responsible for the “deaths of millions,” a number she later scaled back to “tens of thousands,” then “thousands” of residents.
Ciattarelli’s campaign has dismissed the charge as “outrageous and defamatory,” confirming plans to pursue legal action.
It is true that Galen Publishing, a firm once associated with Ciattarelli, produced continuing-education materials that were later criticized for echoing pharmaceutical industry narratives on pain management. However, the leap from such publications to overdose deaths remains speculative, and Sherrill’s shifting claims weaken her credibility.
Sherrill’s Own Ties To The Opioid Industry;
Despite her moral indignation, public records show Sherrill herself has accepted campaign money from multiple major pharmaceutical companies with documented roles in the opioid epidemic.
According to Federal Election Commission and OpenSecrets filings, Sherrill’s congressional committees took in more than $120,000 from the pharmaceuticals and health products sector during the 2023–24 cycle, including contributions from Johnson & Johnson, Teva, AmerisourceBergen, and Endo, all of which have settled or pled guilty in federal opioid-related cases.
While such donations are legal, they undermine the congresswoman’s attempt to portray herself as an untainted crusader against Big Pharma’s abuses. Her willingness to accept money from the very corporations she condemns raises questions about integrity and consistency, and about whether her attacks on Ciattarelli are principled or purely political.
Money From A CCP-Linked Donor;
Adding to her troubles, Sherrill’s gubernatorial campaign accepted $65,000 in total donations from Pin Ni, a Chinese-American businessman tied to Wanxiang America, a subsidiary of the CCP-connected Wanxiang Group.
Ni reportedly gave $60,000 to a pro-Sherrill super PAC and $5,800 directly to her campaign.
Though Ni is a U.S. resident, the optics of CCP-linked funding further erode the moral high ground Sherrill claims in attacking others over ethical lapses.
Border Policy And Sanctuary Politics;
Sherrill has also stood behind President Biden’s border policies and voiced support for New Jersey’s sanctuary-state measures — policies that bar local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
Republican challenger Ciattarelli vows to repeal those directives on “Day One,” arguing they endanger communities and strain law enforcement.
While no comprehensive public database isolates crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in New Jersey, Ciattarelli’s campaign notes that sanctuary policies shield offenders from deportation, citing multiple cases in which repeat offenders benefited from non-cooperation directives. Critics accuse Sherrill of prioritizing political correctness over public safety. And over the past two years, our outlet has published hundreds of crime-related articles and found and confirmed that many of the crimes had been or were alleged to have been committed by undocumented migrants.
The Verdict: Double Standards On Full Display;
Sherrill’s rhetorical assault on Ciattarelli may energize progressive voters, but the facts undercut her outrage. Her shifting claims, pharmaceutical ties, and questionable foreign-linked donations together expose a pattern of do-as-I-say hypocrisy, one that New Jersey voters should not overlook.
If she intends to make morality and accountability the pillars of her campaign, Sherrill owes the public transparency about her donors and a forthright explanation of why her own record so starkly contradicts her attacks. Otherwise, her crusade against “blood money” looks less like justice and more like political theater.
Editor’s Note:
This article draws on public campaign-finance records and reporting from The New York Post, OpenSecrets.org, and The New Jersey Monitor. All claims regarding contributions, donor identities, and campaign statements are based on verifiable filings or on-the-record reporting as of October 15, 2025.
