First of all, you provided no information. You provided a source of information which means you supplied nothing specific. How convenient. If you're going to claim that Perry was bought by Merck and/or his actions were a direct result of Merck's financial contributions, you're going to have to come up with some specifics.....that is, if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't, then you're no better than Michelle Bachmann making claims she can't support.
Any fool with a typewriter can make a false claim (Cheney started the war for oil and to enrich his buddies at Halliburton - it must be true, just look at all the info I found from googling it!!) but it takes a lot more to show an actual quid pro quo between Perry and Merck for the measly amount of money they contributed to him over a ten year period. There are legitimate issues regarding Perry, but your irrational attachment to this one issue is costing your credibility big time.
Obviously I can’t attest to why Perry took that money as I wasn’t in the room at the time. But that he has lied about the amount speaks volumes. You, of course, are free to draw your own conclusions as is any Mitt Perry supporter. But you questioned the veracity of the original poster’s claim and I provided you with multiple links that prove Perry did in fact receive more money from Merck. You can discount one or all sources but you cannot deny Perry lied about the amount (the basis for your original objection) because, unfortunately for you, the Perry campaign has now admitted to it.