Of course, the pharmaceutical companies have been at the center of the campaign to stop compulsory licensing of patented drugs in developing nations. A case in point is the recent lawsuit mounted by the pharmaceutical industry in South Africa, where a law had been passed that would have permitted the generic manufacture of patented drugs in a health crisis and the importation of branded drugs from countries where they are sold at cheaper prices. The pharmaceutical companies dropped the suit after the South African government pledged to inform the industry before issuing any licenses or conducting so-called parallel imports. There's little wonder that activists from the "far left" -- or journalists, for that matter -- would question how a journalist could accept a sponsorship from an industry in a global controversy that he regularly champions and maintain credibility.

Still, Sullivan doesn't see any inherent conflict of interest in the sponsorship -- nor, he said, was he persuaded by the statements of his New York Times and New Republic editors to terminate the relationship. "The statements ... were not the basis of my decision," he wrote. "I intended to add such a disclosure if I were to write anything on the subject in the future. The basis of my decision is as I said on the site. I didn't want to have to deal with people dismissing my views as bought and paid for. It's important for me to address this issue in the future without that kind of ammunition from my critics. It would get in the way of work."

He added: "It's not a conflict of interest in any meaningful sense. My views on this subject have been quite clear and well-known for years. The idea that I'd changed my views on financial grounds is simply nuts. I've criticized and praised these companies before. I think even my worst enemies would concede I'm sincere on this. By far a bigger conflict of interest is the fact that these companies have saved my life. But under the rules of journalism, that is irrelevant. But a few bucks to pay expenses is regarded as horrifying."

	Print story E-mail story

His solution? Continue the hunt for sponsors, but maybe with slightly higher standards. "If you know of any company that would be willing to sponsor this site, with a minimum sponsorship of $10,000 ... We need financial support," he wrote in a post on his site last night, before adding, "and we'd prefer it from companies which are not directly involved in major controversy."

Salon Politics: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.