Why It Matters
New Hampshire’s gubernatorial contest has drawn the opioid crisis into sharp focus, as Republican critics repeatedly characterize Democratic challenger Cinde Warmington as a former advocate for the pharmaceutical industry at the height of the opioid epidemic. The accusations carry weight in a state that has been among the hardest hit by overdose deaths — part of a nationwide toll estimated at 645,000 lives.
What Happened
Warmington, who is challenging Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte, has faced a sustained campaign linking her to the opioid industry. Ayotte campaign spokesperson John Corbett has publicly characterized Warmington as someone who lobbied on behalf of opioid manufacturers. A political action committee connected to House Deputy Majority Leader Joe Sweeney — called Granite Solutions PAC — built a website targeting Warmington’s pharmaceutical-related legal work. The New Hampshire Republican Party went further, erecting a billboard in Manchester tying her to the opioid industry. At one Warmington press event this spring, counterprotesters arrived holding signs calling her an “opioid lobbyist.”
The attacks are not new. Warmington faced similar criticism during her 2024 primary contest against Joyce Craig for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.
The Purdue Pharma Connection
The Republican line of attack stems from Warmington’s time as a healthcare attorney at the Shaheen and Gordon law firm. Purdue Pharma — the manufacturer of OxyContin and a company widely blamed for accelerating the national opioid crisis — retained Warmington in late 2001 and into 2002.
Her specific assignment involved opposing a New Hampshire House bill, HB 1218, that would have required physicians to try at least three alternative treatments before prescribing OxyContin. Warmington testified against that measure at a state Senate hearing on April 9, 2002. In her testimony, she described OxyContin as “a miracle drug for many patients,” adding that its popularity stemmed from what she characterized as few side effects and its effectiveness in treating pain.
Whether that work constitutes “lobbying” in the formal, registered sense is a matter of framing. Warmington performed the work in her capacity as a private attorney; critics nonetheless use the term to describe her advocacy on Purdue’s behalf before a state legislative body.
The PainCare Chapter
Beyond Purdue Pharma, Warmington’s professional record includes legal work for PainCare, a clinic chain that was among the larger opioid painkiller prescribers in New Hampshire. PainCare was owned and operated by Dr. Michael O’Connell.
O’Connell’s own record became legally complicated over the years. He surrendered his medical license in 2012 following allegations of inappropriate conduct with patients. Two years later, he was indicted on two felony counts of witness tampering, though those charges were dropped before the case went to trial. Warmington represented O’Connell during the medical license proceedings. Her husband, attorney Bill Christie, separately represented O’Connell in the criminal matter.
O’Connell and a parent company connected to PainCare contributed to Warmington’s 2020 and 2022 Executive Council campaigns. Before his death in 2023, O’Connell also donated $10,000 to Warmington’s first gubernatorial bid.
By the Numbers
- 645,000 — estimated number of Americans who have died in the opioid crisis nationally
- 2001–2002 — the period during which Purdue Pharma retained Warmington for legal work
- $10,000 — amount O’Connell donated to Warmington’s first gubernatorial campaign
- 2012 — year O’Connell surrendered his medical license
- 2014 — year O’Connell was indicted on witness tampering charges, which were later dropped
Zoom Out
Candidates’ past legal and lobbying work has become an increasingly common line of attack in gubernatorial races nationwide. Campaign PACs and party organizations regularly deploy opposition research on professional histories, particularly when those histories intersect with industries tied to public harm. The opioid crisis, given its geographic breadth and death toll, remains one of the most politically potent such issues. Notably, Ayotte herself received campaign donations from members of the Sackler family — the Purdue Pharma ownership family — during her U.S. Senate campaigns, a fact that adds a layer of complexity to her campaign’s attacks on Warmington. For more on how Ayotte has navigated politically sensitive legislative decisions in New Hampshire, see our earlier coverage.
What’s Next
With the general election approaching, the opioid-lobbyist framing appears set to remain a core element of Republican campaign messaging against Warmington. How she responds — and whether she can reframe her legal work as routine professional representation rather than ideological advocacy for the opioid industry — may shape a key battleground in the race. Campaign finance records and her attorneys’ previous statements will likely continue drawing scrutiny from both parties and outside groups monitoring the contest.