ABOUT         CONTACT     CONTRIBUTION     OVERVIEW       TUTORIALS   LEGAL/COPYRIGHT

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |     Dates
CREATED 3/30/2013

WARNING: This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
    There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
    Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.




TOBACCO INDUSTRY EXPLANATORY

ABBREVIATIONS
JARGON
SPIN-MEISTERS
INITIALS
FIRST & NICKNAMES
Misc.RESEARCH HELP
Smoking-Gun docs.

RELEVANT LINKS

NETWORK OPERATIONS
Cash-for-comment economists' network
General TI networks
James E Long
George Berman
James Savarese
Ctr.Study Pub.Choice
James Buchanan
Robert Tollison
Anna Tollison
Richard Wagner
James C Miller III
Carol M Robert
Elizabeth A Masaitis
Committee on Tax & Economic Growth
Harold Hochman
Fred McChesney
Thomas Borcherding
Delores T Martin
Dennis Dyer
George Minshew
Fred Panzer
Susan Stuntz
Peter Sparber
Carol Hrycaj
Debra Schoonmaker
Jeff Ross
Cal George
William Prendergast
Bill Orzechowski
CASH-FOR-COMMENT
NETWORK MEMBERS

Dominick Armentano
Burton A Abrams
Lee Alston
Ryan C Amacher
Gary Anderson
Lee Anderson
William Anderson
Terry Anderson
Scott E Atkinson
Roger Arnold
Richard W Ault
Michael Babcock
Joe A Bell
Bruce L Benson
Jean J Boddewyn
Peter Boettke
Thomas Borcherding
William J Boyes
Charles Breeden
Lawrence Brunner
Henry N Butler
Bill Bryan
Cecil Bohanon
John H Bowman
Dennis L Chinn
Morris Coates
Roger Congleton
Jeffrey R Clark
Michael Crew
Allan Dalton
John David
Michael Davis
Arthur T Denzau
Clifford Dobitz
John Dobra
Robert Ebel
Randall Eberts
Robert B Ekelund
Roger L Faith
David Fand
Susan Feigenbaum
Clifford Fry
Lowell Gallaway
Celeste Gaspari
David ER Gay
Kenneth V Greene
Kevin B Grier
Brian Goff
James D Gwartney
Sherman Hanna
Anne Harper-Fender
Kathy Hayes
Dennis Hein
James Heins
Robert Higgs
Richard Higgins
F Steb Hipple
Harold M Hochman
George E Hoffer
John Howe
Randall G Holcombe
William Hunter
Stephen Huxley
John D Jackson
Joseph M Jadlow
Cecil Johnson
Samson Kimenyi
David Klingaman
Roger Kormendi
Michael Kurth
David Laband
Sumner La Croix
Dwight R Lee
Dennis Logue
James E Long
C. Matt Lindsay
Donald P Lyden
Craig MacPhee
Mike Maloney
Dolores Martin
Chuck Mason
Charles Maurice
Fred McChesney
James E McClure
Robert McCormick
William McEachern
Richard McKenzie
Robert McMahon
Arthur Mead
Paul L Menchik
John F Militello
William C Mitchell
Greg Neihaus
James A Papke
Allen Parkman
Mark Pauly
William Peterson
Harlan Platt
Michael D Pratt
Thomas Pogue
Barry W Poulson
Edward Price
Robert Pulsinelli
Raymond Raab
Roger Riefler
Terry Ridgeway
Mario Rizzo
Morgan Reynolds
Simon Rottenberg
Randy Rucker
Richard Saba
Todd Sandler
David Saurman
Mark Schmitz
Robert Sexton
Gordon O Shuford
William Shughart
Robert J Staaf
Thomas Stimson
Wendell Sweetser
Mark Thornton
Mark Toma
David G Tuerck
Richard Vedder
Bruce Vermeullen
Richard Wagner
J Keith Watson
Burton Weisbrod
Walter E Williams
Paul W Wilson
Thomas L Wyrick
Bruce Yandle
Boon Yoon
Richard O Zerbe

 

 

OPINION ONLY

S Charles ('Chuck') Maurice     [ Prof]    

— A Texas A&M University cash-for-comments economist who worked secretly for the tobacco industry. —  

S Charles Maurice was clearly a highly succesful writer of economics textbooks (Managerial Economics, and Economic Analysis) ... which can be seen by any casual Google search. It is difficult to understand why he engaged in such a shoddy money-grubbing exercise as lobbying for the tobacco industry.

Professor Charles Maurice was one of the original cabal of economists who created the nation-wide network working for the Tobacco Institute. It was put together by tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University who collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry with academics willing to write propaganda material ... always provided their names were not linked to the industry or to any of the cigarette companies.

The idea was simply that the academic 'sleepers' would be available on a cash-for-services basis when needed to counter attempts to increase excise taxes, or to ban public smoking, or just to appear as independent experts at Congressional hearings and promote the industry causes.

Economist were by far the most useful academics to the tobacco industry because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear: so support of the cigarette companies could always be claimed as support for free-market economics ... the rights of individuals to make public choices ... small government ... or even the first Amendment to the Constitution.

The economist always claimed to be 'independent', 'professionals' and they wre recognised 'academics' from some credible university. They never revealed the source of their funding in their op-eds or letters-to-the-editor.

If ever put under cross-examination, they must be able to claim with weasel-word precision, that they had never received a penny from the tobacco industry. Therefore all payments were laundered, either through tobacco industry lawyers (usually Covington & Burling), the principle organisers, James Savarese & Associates, or through Bob Tollison's Center for the Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.

The aim was to have, in each State, at least one academic economist, one academic lawyer, and one academic from a business management, business law, marketing or advertising discipline willing to jump into action and write op-ed articles for their local newspaper, or to appear at local ordinance or legislative hearings. Copies of these articles were always to be sent to a local Congressman who sat on some important (to the tobacco industry) committee.

The academics were always expected to wave their own and their university's credentials vigorously, and loudly proclaim their "independence' from any crass-commercial motives. And those who could boast of being 'non-smokers' were especially prized — since without this addiction, their non-dependent-on-tobacco status was thought to be proved beyond any doubt!



Network beginnings:
  • 1979 Jan: Academic economists Professor Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner have been recruited by George Berman of Devon Management Resources to provide material supporting the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI... later INFOTAB)
  • 1980: Tollison and Wagner had been commissioned by ICOSI's Social Acceptability Working Party (SAWP) to write a monograph "Consumer Protection, Public Policy and Cost-Benefit Analysis"
  • 1982: Under Tollison and Public Choice guru James Buchanan, the team of Public Choice economists at Virginia Polytechnic/State University resign en masse and migrate over to the break-away, corporate funded, George Mason University (including their think-tank Center) — thus providing the tobacco industry with a Washington DC pool of unfettered free-market Randian-political economists who are all looking for outside commissions.
  • 1982 Nov: A labor economic lobbyist working for his own company (through via Ogilvy & Mather PR), James Savarese, proposes to the Tobacco Institute that they use academic economists (mainly Kenneth Greene of SUNY and Harold Hochman of CUNY) to prepare papers opposing cigarette tax excise increases in New York State.
  • 1983: The Tobacco Instittue puts the Tollison/Wagner team (which has the resources of the Center for Study of Public Choice, together with Savarese and Ogilvy & Mather PR to prepare a book "Free to Smoke" and later a propaganda booklet Smoking & Society
  • 1984 Jan /E. The Tobacco Institute is now expanding the Savarese-run network of economist to other States — mainly recruiting academic economists to write op-eds for their local newspapers. Tollison is able to provide the recruitment services through his Center for the Study of Public Choice and the Public Choice Society.
  • 1984 April: The Tobacco Institute has again put Tollison together with Savarese and his associates to prepare a pseudo-study which will become their economic defence against proposed smoking bans in New York resturants. The TI's Excise Tax Plan for this month lists 14 Public Choice economists in other States who have been recruited to help in the fight against excise increases.
  • 1984 Jun: The network has now been formalised under the name Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth. with Savarese as administrator. They have about 15 members overall and 10 active op-ed writers.

The foundation document for the network still in the tobacco industry archives is the Draft plan (below) dated 30 April 1984

This 109 page DRAFT Tobacco Institute "Cigarette Excise Tax Plan" was aimed at countering the Reagan Administration's "Packwood Tax Plan" and the list of economist involved includes Charles Maurice.


Some key documents

• Economist at Texas A&M University


1931 June 25: Born in Huntington West Virginia but raised in Pennsylvania


1953: AB at the University of Georgia. He served in the U.S. Army Tank Corps from 1953 to 1955 and then worked at Sears Roebuck for several years


1967: PhD from the University of Georgia


1967: joined Texas A&M University as Assistant Professor of Economics


1977: Professor of Economics at Texas A&M


1984: Hoover Institute Press published "The doomsday myth: 10,000 years of economic crises" by S Charles Maurice and Charles W Smithson.

It was published during the energy crisis of the 1970s and 1980s and was a challenge to the then fashionable notion that the world is running out of resources. That book was a critical success and one of the Hoover Institution's best-selling works.


1984–96: Member of the Executive Committee of the Southern Economic Association and on the Board of Editors of their journal.


1984 Apr 30: This 109 page DRAFT Tobacco Institute "Cigarette Excise Tax Plan" was aimed at the Reagan Administration which they suspected was about to extend the life of a temporary excise tax on cigarettes (16 per pack). They had an immediate requirement of

  • One public finance economist for 10 days @ $1,000, [Total $ 10,000 ] including meetings with coalition members and/or the Governor's staff; research and preparation; and testimony.
  • One economist for a union workshop on the tax issue, [Total $5,000] including 3 or 4 training sessions over the course of a convention.
  • Six economists @ $5,000 and one senior economist @ $20,000 for a tax symposium, including publishing of the proceedings at $3,000. [Total $53,000] The senior economist would play an oversight/organizational role and would be responsible for editing the proceedings. Such a symposium would be staged for regional or national impact.
  • One economist provided to a public employee union to do original research on the need for adequate services to be funded by broad-based taxes; this would include the final report and testimony. [Total $ 25,000]
It also had draft copy and designs for a couple of different booklets aimed at different states, and others aimed at labor/union and racial groups.

    It also identifies the Congress Committeemen and state Assembleymen who should be targetted as most likely to be influenced, and adds an appendix which lists economists who can be enlisted to help.
Potential Economic Consultants
    Following is a list of economists in key states who might assist us as consultants. We have begun contacting them to ensure their willingness and expertise. We are asking each about past experience; work with similar issues; previous work with the industry; published articles or research; and speaking availability.

    As discussed in the body of this program, our intent is to have a group of individuals who we can call upon regularly to testify, conduct special research projects, and discuss their research and/or views on excise taxes with the media.
  • California, Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
  • Connecticut, William McEachern, University of Washington
  • Florida, Richard Wagner, Florida State University
  • Georgia, Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
  • Illinois, James Heins, University of Illinois
  • Massachusetts, Harlan Platt, Northeastern University
  • Minnesota, Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota (St. Paul Campus)
  • New York, Harold Hochman, City University of New York
  • Ohio, David Klingaman, Ohio University
  • Pennsylvania, Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
  • Texas, Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
  • Washington, Yoram Barazel, University of Washington
  • Washington, D.C. Robert D. Tollison, George Mason University
  • Wisconsin, Burton Weisbrod, University of Wisconsin

    Tollison is the most influential and prestigious on this list; he would be hired to consult on federal tax situations and to oversee efforts of the others throughout the country.

See last page
Yoram Barazel is the only name on this list who appears to have resisted the Institute's overtures.

Potential Economic Consultants
The two most important universities in the state are the University of Texas and Texas A&M. A number of elected officials also attended Baylor University.
  • University of Texas
    • Ray Marshall, former Secretary of Labor, has a long time affiliation. Marshall is very close to almost all labor union presidents. [There are 292 documents with his name in the archives. He was recruited as a 'labor consultant' by Savarese.]
    • Steve Magee is a public financial economist who would probably be sympathetic to the industry's position. Magee is currently Chairman of the Economics Department [He wasn't recruited]
  • Texas A&M University
      •   Chuck Maurice is sympathetic to the industry and serves as Chairman of the Economics Department. Maurice is very close to Congressman Phil Gramm, who served on the faculty before his election to Congress.
  • Baylor University
      •   Calvin Kent is on the faculty at Baylor's Institute of Free Enterprise. Both Governor White and the Chairman of the House and Ways Committee are Baylor alumni.



1984 June: /E Tobacco Institute appendixes to some report. Page 5 is a list of "Potential Economic Consultants."

Following is a list of economists in key states who might assist us as experts receiving honoraria. We have begun contacting them to ensure their willingness and expertise. We are asking each about past experience; work with similar issues; previous work with the industry; published articles or research; and availability.

    Our intent is to have a group of individuals whom we can call upon as needed to testify, conduct special research projects, and discuss their research and/or views on excise taxes with budget officials, potential coalition members, legislators, and the media.
Thirteen consultants are ordered by State.
STATEECONOMIST
California Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
Connecticut William McEachern, University of Washington
Florida Richard Wagner, Florida State University
Georgia Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
Illinois James Heins, University of Illinois
Massachusetts Harlan Piatt, Northeastern University
Minnesota Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
New York Harold Hockman, City University of New York
Ohio David Klingaman, Ohio University
Pennsylvania Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
Texas Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
Washington, DC. Robert D. Tollison, George Mason University
Wisconsin Burton Weisbord, University of Wisconsin



1984 Jul: The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan.

The plan augments our basic lobbying efforts by relying on groups outside the industry — some not regularly associated with the industry — to argue against excise taxes for us.

    It is an ambitious program, based on the notion that many of the most effective protests against tobacco taxes will come from groups philosophically distant from The Institute. Many such groups agree with us on the excise issue, even though they disagree with us on other matters.

    At the federal level, supporting Congressional members from the tobacco states is essential to our lobbyists. The tobacco members consistently vote as a unified group — something that is rarely seen in Congress today. They are our lobbyists' most important resource.

    The program recommends that economic and other consultants assist us in developing, "packaging," and presenting our anti-excise arguments in legislative testimony or meetings with coalition members.

Resources:
Economic consultants with different areas of expertise will conduct research and act as spokespersons for The Institute and organizations supported by The Institute. Specific activities with economists are discussed throughout the tactics.

Tactics:
  • Stimulate reputable public finance economists at key state universities to determine the validity of state revenue forecasts, perhaps on behalf of state business organizations and present arguments against excise taxes in various forums; e.g., meetings with potential coalition members or budget officials.
  • Encourage economists to make the case against regressive taxation in meetings with potential coalition members and legislators.
  • Retain public finance economists affiliated with non-profit organizations to research the subject and use their findings in forums such as:
    • Private meetings with state legislators or staff ;
    • formal testimony before government bodies ;
    • targeted media appearances;
    • speeches before business, civic, labor, and other groups ;
    • tax symposia in key states where the proceedings could be published for use in other states ; and
    • articles which raise the visibility of key arguments in the business, academic, and popular press.
Strategies:
  • Presenting specific members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees with arguments prepared by economists with whom they share some common interest; e.g college affiliation, service on the same commission.
  • Gaining the support of Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), the most influential labor/liberal tax reform group in the country, in opposition to excise taxes.
  • Relying on the AFL-CIO — via The Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers Union — to ensure that the labor/liberal tax package that emerges in the next session of Congress does not include tobacco.

Appendix: A list of economists in key states who may be willing to act as industry and third-party spokespersons on the tax issue.

Following is a list of economists in key states who might assist us as experts receiving honoraria. We have begun contacting them to ensure their willingness and expertise. We are asking each about past experience; work with similar issues; previous work with the industry; published articles or research; and availability.

Cash-for-Comment Economists
StateEconomist
California Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
Connecticut William McEachern, University of Washington
Florida Richard Wagner, Florida State University
Georgia Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
Illinois James Heins, University of Illinois
Mass. Harlan Platt , Northeastern University
Minnesota Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota (St.P)
New York Harold Hockman, City University of New York
Ohio David Klingaman, Ohio University
Penn. Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
Texas Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
Wash.DC. Robert D Tollison, George Mason University.
Wisconsin Burton Weisbord, University of Wisconsin
[This was the core group which established the cash-for-contents network. Over the years the numbers reached over 100.]


    Our intent is to have a group of individuals whom we can call upon as needed to testify, conduct special research and discuss their research projects and/or views on excise taxes with budget officials, potential coalition members, legislators and the media.



1985 Dec: /E President Ronald Reagan asked Senator Bob Packwood, chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, to design a proposal for comprehensive tax reform

which would reduce the highest individual income tax rate down to 35% from its current 50% level, but retain adequate incentives for business investment, and avoid inclusion of any new taxes.

    In an attempt to do this without reducing the total amount of tax revenue that is currently collected, the Packwood plan proposes to offset reduced revenues from income taxes by what the Wall Street Journal has referred to as a "backdoor increase in excise taxes."

    The Packwood plan proposes to eliminate the income tax deductibility of excise taxes and import tariffs paid by businesses [and it] would increase federal excise tax receipts by an estimated $75 billion over five years. Approximately $13 billion of this would be a result of a direct increase in excise taxes on motor fuel, wine, distilled spirits, and tobacco.

    See also in this document James Savarese's report to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute on the progress of his Packwood Excise Tax/Op-Ed project. This economist and 18 others are writing opinion pieces for their local newspapers, and sending letters to their congressmen.
[The Packwood Plan triggered a substantial increase in the activities of the cash-for-comments economists already employed by the tobacco industry and led to the creation of the very substantial network of academic economists in every state who could be called upon to help fight tax increases on cigarettes — and later public smoking bans.]

Packwood's Dilemma
The Reagan Administration had gone on a spending spree while promising to rein in the bureaucracy and cut taxes. Under Reagan the national debt was skyrocketing, so Oregon Republican Bob Packwood was given the job of designing a new tax plan. However President Reagan insisted that it must:
  • avoid inclusion of any new taxes.
  • retain adequate incentives for business investment
  • reduce the top individual income tax rate from the current 50% to 35%.
This left Packwood with only one alternative — to use a "back-door increase in excise tax." His scheme was estimated to raise $75 billion over five years from increasing excise taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco — and eliminating tax-deducibility for businesses of both excises and import tariffs.

    So while actively supporting the Reagan Administration's anti-agency (FDA, EPA, OSHA) activities and the Republican attempts to limit product-liability, class actions, etc. the tobacco companies (who also owned beer, wine and spirit businesses) took a prominent stand against Packwood — but kept themselves in the background through hiring academic economists to promote their propaganda.


1986 March: Copies of the letters that the cash-for-comments economists wrote to various newspapers editors, and also the ones they wrote to their Senators — none of which mentioned that they'd been paid by the Tobacco Institute to write both the op-eds and the Congressional letters. These were sent to the Tobacco Institute as proof of their activities:

    Newspaper clippings of some of the network members' published articles for this project are grouped here:

[Printed versions]

  • Joseph Jadlow, Tax reform Hidden excise boost hurt consumers...
  • Allen Dalton, Hidden taxes gut Reagan reform plan.
  • Charles Maurice, Packwood proposal picks our pockets.
  • Scott Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

[Typewritten draft versions]
  • Allen Dalton, Tax Revision: Reform or Fraud.
  • Thomas F Pogue, Senator Packwood's Proposal is Not Tax Reform.
  • Richard B McKenzie, Excise Taxation: A Misguided Soultion to the Federal Governments Fiscal Woes.
  • Terry Anderson, Tax Reform We Don't Need.
  • Michael Crew, Tax Reform Hides Massive Excise Tax Increases: Senator Packwood Is Too Clever by Half.
  • JJ Bodewyn, Taxwise, We are going to be had.
  • Anne Harper-Fender, The Packwood Tax Plan: Reform or Expediency.
  • Scot Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

These draft articles have all been freshly retyped on two different typewriters. This confirms that they are the final output after they've passed the Tobacco Institute's vetting, clearance, and 'improvement' stages.

1986 Mar 20: Tobacco Institute document: Background Update Of the Estimated Effect of the Packwood Tax Plan On the Price Increase Necessary For Cigarettes

If the deductibility of the excise taxes is eliminated, then most, if not all, of this tax increase will be passed on to tobacco consumers as price increases to cover the additional corporate taxes they will be required to pay, plus the indexed excise tax requirement.

    On the basis of 1985 sales, and the level of federal excise taxes paid on cigarettes, the level of taxable sales would be: $4.5 billion / $0.16 = 28.125 billion packs — the remainder are either sent overseas as exports or to armed services, or to government institutions.

    If the Packwood plan is adopted, and if the effective tax rate on tobacco corporations is 35 percent as in 1983, the increase in corporate income taxes would be about $1.83 billion.

    It must be assumed that this tax increase will be passed on to consumers in order to maintain net income. This will cause a decline in demand on the base level of 28.125 billion packs.



1986 Apr: /E James Savarese has circulated these instructions to his stable of cash-for-comment economists. He is asking them to write to the House Ways and Means Committee members in their states, and include a copy of their op-ed articles.

    He provides stamped and addressed envelopes, and strict instructions for what the letter should say:

Contents of your letter to the member
  • Opposition to consumption taxes, especially federal excise taxes, and in particular alcohol and cigarettes (you may list others if you wish).
  • Opposition to any tax increase as part of the budget reconciliation process; i.e., the need to comply with Gramm-Rudman target of $145 billion deficit limit. This deficit target should be reached with spending reductions.
  • However, if the tax reform package that ultimately emerges generates some windfall tax revenues during the first year, FY 1987, these should take the place of any other tax increase that might be considered. (For your information, most analysts believe that the Packwood version of the tax bill is revenue neutral over a five year period, but that it raises between $15-$20 billion during the first year.
  • One tax bill per year is more than enough. Whatever tax bill (if any) passed will create enormous uncertainty among the taxpaying public. The last thing that taxpayers — as investors, consumers, etc. — need is another tax bill one month after the major reform bill is passed.
Charles Maurice was one on the list of "Economists asked to write letters to Congressmen."
[This is lobbying in any sense of the word. The economists were exploiting their university credentials for personal and tobacco industry financial gain.]


1986 April: Professors Joseph M Jadlow (Oklahoma) and Charles Maurice (Texas A&M) have prepared draft articles attacking the Packwood Tax Plan. James Saverese has sent them, together with clippings of articles already published, along to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute for correction and clearance. (See page 10)

    It lists many dozens of articles which the cash-for-comment economist on the network have now written, including one:

TEXAS
Prof C Maurice
Submitted to Paper: 3/31/86, University Public Information Services
Current Status: The University system distributed his article to all state newspapers.
Letter have been sent on 3/31/86 to Senators Gramm and Bentson


    The Tobacco Institute also keeps a record of his submissions and letters to his State Senators, which is circulated to the tobacco companies (here Lorillard).

    One of the network economists, William Mitchell, has also written an "Open Letter to Senator Packwood" attacking his plan, and this is being circulated along with a letter from "Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc."


1986 Apr 1: An Open Letter to Senator Robert Packwood (by Wm Mitchell) has been sent to the network economists to help them write their articles. This is a checklist of those in the 1) Writing Stage 2) Submitted to Newspapers 3) Letters Written to Senators.

    This cash-for-comments participant has written both the article and the letters to Senators, and has attached a copy of the article sent back to the Tobacco Institute.


1986 Apr 3: James Savarese writes to his stable of economists on the subject of "New Research Opportunities." [A sure-fire come-on with academics]

I would like to thank you for all of your cooperation and diligence in handling the projects we have worked on together. I am taking this opportunity to alert you to some new research opportunities that may be available in the upcoming weeks.

    The Tobacco Institute is interested in considering research proposals which would establish a much more realistic examination of the social cost issue as it relates to the smoking issue.
He includes an OTA paper on the dangers of smoking and also...
... rebuttals developed by Bob Tollison and Richard Wagner to the OTA report.

    The Institute would like to examine proposals for research that test, in a quantitative way, a number of propositions on the relevant cost considerations that apply to the smoking issue.

    If some aspect of this interests you, please provide me with a brief (1-2 page) description of any project you have in mind by April 30. Please include a cost approximation.
The scent of possible research money on top of the op-ed writing must have generated substantial academic enthusiasm. He is listed as one of the recipients of this letter on the "Brainstorming - Research Ideas" project.


1986 Apr 3: This appears to be the approved copy of the letter on "New Research Proposals" that Jim Savarese sent to his long list of network economists. This letter leaves no doubt that these academic economist knew that they were being paid to protect the interests of the tobacco industry.

    The economist were also being given outline "rebuttals" developed by Tollison and Wagner to help them in writing their counter-attacks to an an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) anti-smoking report.

I would like to thank you for all of your cooperation and diligence in handling the projects we have worked on together. I am taking this opportunity to alert you to some new research opportunities that may be available in the upcoming weeks.

As you know, the tobacco industry is exposed continuously to a barrage of attacks on economic issues. Many of these attacks involve a serious perversion of the concept of social cost. The Tobacco Institute is interested in considering research proposals which would establish a much more realistic examination of the social cost issue as it relates to the smoking issue.

I have attached a report prepared by the staff of the Office of Technology Assessment which is representative of the kind of "research" being put forth by anti-tobacco activists. I have also included the rebuttals developed by Bob Tollison and Richard Wagner to the OTA report.

The Institute would like to examine proposals for research that test, in a quantitative way, a number of propositions on the relevant cost considerations that apply to the smoking issue.
This went out to the long list of cash-for-comments economist on the network.


1986 Apr 11: The Tobacco Institute plans for State-by-State actions to generate opposition to the Packwood Tax Plan.


1986 Apr 15: Jim Savarese is reporting to Fred Panzer at the TI about the [anti] Packwood Tax Plan project. He includes numerous letters sent to Senators, copies of published op-eds, and a revised op-ed for Maine and one for Minnesota, He lists the successes of the network economists, including:

TEXAS, Prof C. Maurice
[Submitted to] University Public Info Services (distributed to all state papers) 3/31/86
[Letters sent to Senators] Gramm and Bentson 3/31/86



1986 May: /E A Tobacco Institute list of "Schedule of Payments - Excise Tax Op-Ed project." (April-May 1986) This lists those academic economists who have already planted their article on a local newspaper, and the amount they are to be paid.

    They appear to have been paid $900 for each article, and $1025 if they had also made contact with their local Congressman. However a number of the cash-for-comments network members still have not completed their commission.

    The George Mason (Uni) production staff of Bob Tollison, Bill Shughart, and Gary Anderson were paid for "rewrites, editing and research, 18 articles", and Carol Robert for the "production of final product. " A total of $18,000 + $1067 expenses [or $1000 per article to make them into saleable propaganda for their local newspapers]

Maurice in Texas has been given the target of planting his article on the and was due for payment of $900.
A later Schedule of Payments increases this amount by another "$125 + $975.00 — Paid in Full"

    The GMU production staff were also being paid another $9,500 for rewrites, editing and research on 9 additional articles, while Savarese seems to have been charging $5,800 + $235 in expenses for recruiting replacement economists in California, Montana, New York, Ohio and Tennessee.


1986 May: The cash-for-comments network has been busy writing to Senators and Representatives opposing the Packwood Tax Plan. Copies of these letters are then sent to Savarese, who bundles them up and sends them on to the Tobacco Institute. There are letters here from:

  • Two from Jean J Boddewyn, (with op-ed and letter sent to the Senate Finance Commitee)
  • One from Joseph Jadlow (with op-ed published in Tulsa Tribune)
  • One from Michael Crew (with op-ed submitted to the Jersey Journal)
  • Published op-ed by Charles Maurice.



1986 May 22: James Savarese has written to his cash-for-comments economists requesting that they now...

... produce a follow up letter to the members of the House Ways and Means Committee in your state. You will note that we are asking that you send this correspondence by Tuesday, May 27, to the home district offices of these members.

    You should refer to your correspondence with the state's Senators and attach copies of your OP-EDs that were placed. In the event that your OP-ED has not yet been placed, please attach it and mention one newspaper to which it has been sent.

Contents of your letter to the member:
  • Opposition to consumption taxes,
  • Opposition to any tax increase as part of the budget reconciliation process;
  • One tax bill per year is more than enough.
He also enclosed the target list of the Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, and (to the Tobacco Institute) the list of economists.


1986 May 23: Charles Maurice writes on Texas A&M University letterhead to both the Honorable Bill Archer and JJ Pickle about the Packwood Tax Plan and calling to their attention his editorial in the Houston Post.


1986 July 9: Robert Ekelund's private economists sub-network at Auburn University has been formed, and it is now attacking the decision of the General Service Administration to ban smoking by writing a joint letter at the request of the Tobacco Institute.

    They say they are bothered by economic considerations only:

  • Our general concern is that the costs of such a regulation will ultimately fall on taxpayers.
  • The most obvious costs of the regulation are those for physical alterations to the several thousand buildings that will be effected by the regulation. We would imagine that No Smoking Except in Designated Areas" would have to be placed at all entrances, and that "Smoking" and 'No Smokirrg" signs would have to be posted throughout GSA-controlled buildings.
  • A major cost of this regulation would result from a loss in productivity of federal workers.
  • Implementation of this regulation would require a great deal of time by
        administrative personnel. The regulation would of course lead to disputes
        which would also involve valuable time of both employees and administrative
        personnel.
  • In addition the regulation will be disruptive and lead to discrimination against minorities and low income employees.

[For some reason, this 'cost-benefit analysis' ignored all the benefits of a non-smoking environment — both for the workers and the building maintenance...?]


The signatories were Richard B Ekelund, Richard Ault, David Saurman, John D Jackson, Robert F Hebert, John K Watson, and Mark Thornton — all from the Economics Department.




1986 Jul 10: Cash-for-comments economist Charles Maurice, at Texas A&M University, copied the pattern of the Ekelund/GSA letter and has his Economics Department write one similar to that from Auburn University.

    Five Texas A&M economists got embroiled in this scam... but unlike the signatories at Auburn University, this appears to be their single indiscretion. [There were no further records of them working for tobacco.] Those caught were

  • Leonardo 'Pepe' Auernheimer, from Argentina
  • John R Hanson II
  • Gregory Delemeester
  • Niccie L McKay [Assistant Professor of Economics and Maurice's wife]
  • Lynn Gillette
Sixteen copies of this letter were circulated around the tobacco industry. Clearly the tobacco industry was absolutely delighted to find a group of suckers willing to add their names to Maurice's letter,

Henry Butler from George Mason University; D Allan Dalton from Boise State Uni; and Arthur Mead from Rhode Island Uni also wrote GSA letter, and collected their payments from the Tobacco Institute.




1986 Jul 21: Sam Chilcote of the Tobacco Institute writes to the members of the Executive Committee detailing their successes in generating objections to the proposed GSA {Government Services Administration] anti-smoking bans.

    They have persuaded the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to help having the rules amended, and have turned out their friends and associated companies to generate letters of objection.

Included among the comments received by GSA thus far are thousands generated as a result of contact with TAN [Tobacco Action Network] activists, other tobacco family organizations, key coalitions, organized labor and economists.

    The State Activities Division's alert of key contacts in the field, as well as TAN activists, has generated at least 3,100 letters of opposition. These are letters for which copies have been sent to division headquarters; there are no doubt many others.

    Among member companies, all have asked their employees to write letters of opposition. In addition, RJ Reynolds reports its phone bank efforts to reach Washington, DC, residents, may have resulted in up to 3,700 opposition letters. Reynolds also sought letters from respondents to an earlier mailing on the federal excise tax issue. Philip Morris initiated a program designed to generate up to 10,000 mailgrams to GSA by the comment deadline.

    Letters of objection (all remarkably similar in content) from numerous academic economists were also attached. They all seemed to focus on one extraordinary aspect: the cost of implementating the ban.

    They all attacked the GSA's calculation "that the costs of NO-SMOKING signs in government buildings would cost less than $100 million annually." Robert Tollison had circulated a much higher estimate of costs (which some of the letter-writers mentioned)... and all of the economists' letters completely ignored any cost savings, such as lower cleaning and painting costs in government buildings; reduced sick days; higher productivity, etc.

    These letters, were all written within a few days of each other by university professors spread across the country, and they came from:
  • 8th July — Arthur T Denzau, Washington University, St Louis, Mo
  • 3rd July — Barry W Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder
  • 10th July — Thomas E Borcherding, Claremont College/Graduate School, California
  • 7th July — William F Shughart II, Center for the Study of Popular Choice, George Mason University, Washington DC
  • Undated — (joint) Cecil E Bohanon, James E McClure, Stephan F Gohmann, Clarence R Deitsch, Lee C Spector — all PhDs in economics at Ball State University, Muscie, Ind.
  • 7th July — John F Militello, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
  • 7th July — Jean J Boddewyn, Baruch College, The City University of New York [Advertising lecturer]
  • 5th July — Morgan Reynolds, Texas A&M University
  • 8th July — Cliff P Dobitz, North Dakota State University
  • 8th July — William C Mitchell, University of Oregon
  • 11th July — Arthur C Mead, Economist, Newport RI
  • 10th July — D Allen Dalton, Boise State University, Idaho
  • 10th July — Henry N Butler, George Mason Univeristy
  • 10th July — (joint) S Charles Maurice, Leonardo Auernheimer, Niccie L McKay, John R Hanson II, Lynn Gillette, Gregory Delemeester at Texas A&M University
  • 9th July — (joint) Robert B Ekelund, Richard Ault, David Saurman, John Jackson, RG Hebert, JK Watson, Mark Thonton, at Auburn University, Alabama
  • 9th July — (joint) Richard K Vedder, Lowell E Gallaway, Jan Palmer, David Klingaman at Ohio University



1986 Dec 8: Sam Chilcote is summing up the Tobacco Institute's activities in fighting the Packwood Tax Plan which attempted to impose special excise taxes on tobacco, alcohol and fuel (in the oil crisis years) to reduce use. Packwood also wanted to make these taxes and tarffs non-deducatable for federal income tax purposes.

    The document bundle (219 pages) includes:

  • Pages 2 to 34: A major study done for the TI by Policy Economics Group
  • Pages 35 to 50: Another major study commissioned from DeSeve Economics for the Coalition Against Regressive Taxation (CART) [funded by tobacco to act as a front]
  • Pages 51 to 57: A couple of papers done for Covington & Burling
  • Pages 58 to 100: A long document which has deliberately NOT included the name of the organisation which produced it within the document itself. (But done by deSeve Economics Associates Inc).
  • Pages 101 to 129 : A paper on the "Burden of Tobacco Taxes on Selected Demographic Groups"
  • Pages 130 to 144: Some booklet trying to rabble-rouse the Hispanic and Black communities and make them believe Packwood is attacking them racially.
  • Page 145 to 177: A Citizens for Tax Justice 'poll' on attitudes. and Coalition Against Regressive Taxation document
  • From Page 178 on: many of the op-eds they have had published in newspapers by the cash-for-comment academic economists, (including one from this source.)

See Maurice's article on page 190 of the document bundle.


1986 Dec 11: James Savarese sends Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute a summary of the activities of his network of economists. This is effectively the beginning of the main cash-for-comments economists network.

Dear Fred,
    I have attached a list of all the economists we have used along with the projects they have worked on in behalf of the Tobacco Institute.
There are now 62 names on the list (Some states have 4 or 5) not counting himself and Bob Tollison. The details given for each consist of State, Regional Division [of the TI], Name, Address and Telephone number. Added to this is a list of the 'Projects' they have completed (in later lists, also the names of Congressmen they have contacted.)

    Virtually all of these cash-for-comment academics have been generating op-ed articles for newspapers, or have, in some unspecified way, opposed the Packwood Excise Tax plan — or perhaps helped fake up one of the 'Chase' [Econometrics studies]. A few participants have attended Congressional or government inquiries ['Treasury I') or local ordinance hearings as 'independent witnesses' while secretly acting for the tobacco industry. Two of the 64 members (Ann Harper-Fender and Gary Anderson) were acting termporarily as advisors to Ronald Reagan's Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations— which sought to bring pressure on the FDA, EPA and OSHA and stop them being pro-active with smoking bans.

    Other participants have been promoting the industry line at various academic conferences and fora [mainly as keynote speakers at economic society meetings] , and a few of the core-team were involved in brianstorming sessions with members of the tobacco industry looking for new angles for their PR, and for possible research project which might generate some economic propaganda for the industry.

    Many of them have joined in with the industry's orchestrated letter-writing campaigns opposing workplace smoking bans.
  • GSA = Government Services Administration.
  • 'Ways & Means' = Congressional committee on finances
  • ALEC = American Legislative Exchange Council (a formalised way for big business to directly influence Congressional and State politicians)
  • Chase Econometrics = A company that did economic impact studies for the tobacco industry in various locations to 'prove' that smoking bans would destroy local economies.

        The references for this network member were:
Texas [ Region VIII ]

Professor S. Charles Maurice

    Economics Department , Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 78740, 409-845-7356

    Services rendered:
    • Packwood
    • Ways and Means letter writing campaign
    • GSA letter writing campaign



1987 Jan 6: and 12 Jim Savarese advises the Tobacco Institute that some economists were no longer working for his network. However Charles Maurice is still being listed as their main Texas economist-for-hire.

    A note alongside his entry confirms that he accepted a new commission on the 20th of January.

In order to keep this project straight with respect to the economists, we were specifically assigned to go back to all 42 names on the original list to check to see if the economists were still interested in working for us, still in the same state, and available to meet with representatives from state activities.

    We have 34 who fit this criteria and have been contacted. The list is attached. The states that we once had that are currently missing are Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

    The attached invoice covers the project of re-contacting the original 42 economists and coming up with the present 34 people.
[The invoice is missing, and he gives no details of the current project.]

    An internal memo within the Tobacco Institute explains to Regional Directors why they had needed Savarese to check on availability:
The primary purpose of this contact is to determine if a given economist is capable of testifying effectively before a legislative body.

    They have been informed that someone from TI will be in contact with them.

    We request that an initial contact be made by telephone immediately. Please let me know when this initial contact has been made. Personal meetings should be arranged and completed no later than May 1, 1987.



1987 Jan 6: Savarese is charging the Tobacco Institute $3,200 to update the cash-for-comments economists list (with Maurice still active)


1987 Feb 6: James Savarese has finalised his list of compliant economists, and sends them to Susan Stuntz at the Tobacco Institute. It lists all the familiar cash-for-comment economists

Old faithfuls:
Lee Anderson, Terry Anderson, Dom Armentano, Cecil Bohanon, Thomas Borcherding, Henry Butler, JR Clark, John David, Allan Dalton, Arthur Denzau, Clifford Dobitz, Robert Ekelund, David Gay, Anne Harper-Fender, Dennis Hein, John Howe, Wm Hunter, Joe Jadlow, Michael Kurth, Suuner LaCroix, Dwight Lee, C Matt Lindsay, Dennis Logue, Chuck Mason [Masen], Charles Maurice, Fred McChesney, Robert McMahon, Arthur Mead, Wm Mitchell, Allen Parkman, Wm Peterson, Thomas Pogue, Barry Poulson, Raymond Raab, Simon Rottenberg, Mark Schmitz, Richard Vedder, Richard Wagner
plus a few new ones.[
Greg Niehaus, Mario Rizzo, Roger Riefler, and Boon Yoon.]



1987 Feb 6: This is the Tollison/Saverese network list of economists recruited until the end of 1986. It has 64 names, but it still doesn't cover all 50 States. Some States have two or three network members, so newspapers [and sometimes Congressmen] need to be specified for each member to ensure there is no accidental duplication.

    Telephone numbers (office and home) are often included in case an urgent op-ed or ordinance hearing is needed. These are grouped by State:

TEXAS
Prof S. Charles Maurice

    Economics Department, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas 78740, 409-845-7356

Professor Michael Davis

    Department of Economics, Southern Methodist University,
Dallas, TX 75275, 214-692-3394

Professor Morgan Reynolds

    Economics Department, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas 78740





1987 Mar 24: Jim Savarese writes to Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute about the "Tobacco Excise Tax Op-ed Project".

Attached please find two more excise tax op-eds and a copy of the clipping from the Hartford Courant.

    As of today, 18 articles have been written and 2 articles have been published. As I mentioned earlier, the Des Moines Register has accepted an article and we have a good chance at the Houston Post.
Attached were 7 new articles (in draft form) from Professors Chuck Mason, Dennis Logue, Charles Maurice, Dominick Armentano, William Mitchell, Robert McMahon, and Clifford Dobitz.


1987 Mar 30: A list of quotes excerpted from major newspaper editorials and op-eds from the TI's cash-for-comments economists about the Packwood tax plan.

Houston Chronicle, March 30, 1987
"Those proposing this increase are implicitly saying, let's base a tax increase on inability to pay rather than abitity." "In the interest of equity and fairness, the excise tax is one of the last taxes that should be increased."

S. Charles Maurice, professor of economics at Texas A&M University




1987 Mar 31: A large bundle of documents (121 pages) with a clipping of Charles Maurice's article "The last tax we should be increasing" which has appeared in the Houston Chronicle. He forgot to tell the editor and the readers that the article was commissioned by the tobacco industry.


1987 May 28: Economic Consultants in Region VIII — Recruitment document from TI staffer Stan Boman to his superior Hurst Marshall in State Activities at the Tobacco Institute.
[The Tobacco Institute has just had James Saverese & Associates/Bob Tollison's books audited because they suspected laundered payments hadn't been made to the economists. This was now a formal retainer to the Tobacco Institute.]

Following is the information you requested on TI economic consultants in Region VIII. Contact will be made during the next week with Allen Parkman in New Mexico and Chuck Masen [sic] in Wyoming. I will update my report accordingly at that time.

    He has identified five new consultant economists:
Colorado: Prof Barry Poulson
Contact made — Personal Visit
Results of Contact — Excellent - extremely knowledgeable and persuasing
Recommendations — Recommend retaining him and using him extensively in the future.

Kansas: Prof John Howe
Contact made — Personal Visit
Results of Contact — Good — Scholarly appearance and demeanor — very knowledgeable
Recommendations — Recommend retaining him,

Missouri: Prof Arthur Denzan
Contact made — Phone call
Results of Contact — Cordial — good speaking voice — seems eager to help
Recommendations — Recommend retaining him, and using him at first opportunity

Oklahoma: Prof Joseph Jadlow
Contact made — Personal visit
Results of Contact — Positively excelent! — Extremely articulate and advocates our position very well
Recommendations — Recommend his continued retainer.
[Note: 'continued'. ]

Texas: Prof S Charles Maurice
Contact made — Personal visit
Results of Contact — Makes a good impression — seems eager to be of help
Recommendations — Recommend retaining him.



1987 June 9: The Tobacco Institute's Phase II - Excise Tax Op-Ed project involved an article-writing campaign by cash-for-comment economists was run by James Savarese & Associates. It was secretly directed by Robert Tollison from George Mason University with Savarese as the organiser and front.

    In the mid 1987 period, the project was controlled by Jeff Rose [under Peter Sparber] at the Tobacco Institute and it focussed on defeating cigarette excise tax increases — and especially the threat of such taxes being 'earmarked' to bolster health care budgets.

    Saverese and Tollison appear to have been in some form of loose partnership, because Anna Tollison, the wife of Bob Tollison, was employed by James Savarese & Associates to keep a record of the articles generated by their large contingent of academic economists and to organise payment.

    She reported that

"In sum, 41 economists were solicited to write editorials. We have publications in 20 states, 14 articles have been written and submitted, and 7 articles are still outstanding." [Others were in the offing]
She included a long list of the economists who wrote the articles, the newspapers in which they were published, together with their circulation figures [eg. the potential number of readers they may have influenced] and the publication date. This economist is featured on her list.
TEXAS, Maurice,Houston Chronicle, [circ.] 427,500, [pub date] 3/30/87



1987 June 22: The Tobacco Institute has been sent by Savarese a "Schedule of Payments — Excise Tax Op-Ed Project." It details the name of the cash-for-comment economist, the State, the targetted newspaper, and both past and current payments — with a separate column labled "Total Earned to Date".

In TEXAS
[Charles] Maurice for Houston Chronicle —Owed $975 — Total to date $2000
Also there were payments to George Mason production staff ( Bob Tollison, Bill Shughart and Gary Anderson) for rewrites ($27,500) and a $5,800 payment for replacement of five economists (presumably because they were unproductive or unsatisfactoy). Carol Roberts was also paid for the final production. ($5,000)

    Total here with expenses was $33,810 on top of the $40,525 paid to the network economists.


1987 June 23: Savarese writes to Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute sending along a list of Democrat members of the House Ways and Means Committee...

... along with the economists we use in those areas. Nine of these are good, solid hits which we should be able to count on to do the job and get a publication. I have *ed these on the attached list. The remaining 6 are all people we have used in the past, but who have not been consistently successful.

    Since I'm under a new financial arrangement with the Tobacco Institute and I need to get these costs cleared in advance, I'll make my best effort here to budget this proposed project.

    If all 15 would get published, which is highly unlikely, the cost of Phase II Excise Tax Op-ed Project would run $45,000.

    More than likely we'll get 8-10 placements and 3 to 4 others who won't get placed, but will still send letters to their members on the Ways and Means Committee. In that case, the cost will be $37,000.
[This proves, beyond doubt, that under their arrangement with the network economists, they were only paid if their op-eds were published in local newspapers, and if they actually sent letters to their Congressmen.]

    The attached list showed who was considered reliable or unreliable:

DEMOCRAT WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE PROJECT
STATEDemocrat CongressmenEconomist Reliability
IllinoisDan Rosenkowski
Marty Russo
Fred McChesney Unreliable
FloridaSam Gibbons Richard Wagner Unreliable
Texas J. J. Pickle
Michael A. Andrews
Charles Maurice RELIABLE
California Fortney H. (Pete) Stark
Robert T. Matsui
Gary Anderson RELIABLE
IndianaAndrew Jacobs Cecil Bohanon RELIABLE
Tennessee Harold E. Ford Brian Goff
(in Kentuxky)
RELIABLE
Georgia Ed Jenkins Dwight Lee RELIABLE
Missouri Richard A. Gephardt Tom Wyrick Unreliable
New Jersey Frank J. Guarini JR Clark RELIABLE
Arkansas Beryl Anthony, Jr David ER Gay Unreliable
Alabama Ronnie Flippo Robert Ekelund RELIABLE
North Dakota Byron Dorgan Cliff Dobitz RELIABLE
Connecticut Barbara Kennelly Dominick Amento Unreliable
Pennsylvania William J. Coyne Ann Harper-Fender Unreliable
Wisconsin Jim Moody William Hunter RELIABLE



1987 July: a selected group of the economists have been commissioned to write op-eds about cutting the deficit — and to de-emphasise the value of excise taxes. Generally they follow the line of listing four possibilities approaches

  • a general consumption tax (efficient but regressive)
  • increased excise taxes (inefficient and regressive)
  • a national lottery (regressive and competitive with State lotteries)
  • increased income taxes (unpopular)
In this bundle are very similar articles planted on their local newspaper in the March-April period by
  • Dwight Lee (2 of),
  • Dominick Armentano (3 of),
  • John Howe,
  • Joseph Jadlow,
  • S Charles Maurice (2 of),
  • Thomas Pogue,
  • Cecil Bohanon (2 of),
  • Chuck Mason,
  • JR Clark (2 of),
  • Allen Parkman.
  • Robert Ekelund Jr. (2 of),
  • William Mitchell,
  • Cliff Dobitz (2 of),
  • Barry Poulson,
  • William Hunter,
  • Michael Kurth,
  • John David,
  • David Gay,
  • Lee Anderson,
  • Robert McMahon,
  • Craig McPhee,
  • Brian Goff (2 of),
  • Dennis Logue,
  • Thomas Wyrick,
  • Arthur Mead,
  • Richard Wagner.

[This was one of their most successful projects. Professor Dominick Armentano writes to Anna Tollison [wife of Robert] that "... the article went national"]

1987 Aug 21: Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute has prepared a consolidated summary of "Field Staff Evaluation of Economists" for his superiors, William Kloepfer and Peter Sparber. They have been asked to look at 34 of these academics. This includes an outline of their recent achievements.

TEXAS
Professor S. Charles Maurice
Texas A&M University College Station, TX

Excise Tax Op Eds: Houston Chronicle — 031390/87.
Economic Witness/Testimony:
Field Staff Contact: Yes.
Field Staff Evaluation: Good impression; would like to utilize in the future.



1987 Aug 31: Peter Sparber [Issues Manager] to Bill Kloepfer [PR head] at the Tobacco Institute:

Jeff [Rose] has done a good job of summarizing the economic consultant situation and I am attaching my copy of his report with some marginal notes. I think he should consider sending a collection of all of the published op-ed pieces to each of the consultants for the sake of inspiration.

    In the case of those who have not had an article accepted for publication I would like to know whether they submitted one.
[This memo leaves no room for doubt that these economists knew precisely who they were working for, and why they were being paid (about $1000 per article) by the tobacco industry.]

    The economists were visited by State [regional] tobacco staff, and subject to an evaluation of their work and their prospects. Not all measured up. Jeff Ross reported:
Two general comments from field staff warrant some consideration. Michael Brozak recommended a political orientation to prepare witnesses for potentially politicized hearings.

    We agree and recommend that State Activities consider advising field staff to conduct such briefings as appropriate. Richard Scanlan suggested that an economist from the state capital city is much more valuable. We have asked Savarese and Tollison to see if they can identify a candidate.



1988 Jan 15: Jim Savarese and Associates, joint subcontracts with Ogilvy & Mather, is outlining the arragements for handling the economists and the labor unions to the Tobacco Institute.

Nineteen eighty-seven was a banner year for the Tobacco Institute in its fight against excise tax increases at the federal level.
    Through careful coalition building and effective message dissemination, the Institute was able to fight the battle on its own terms and secure a substantial victory.

    In reviewing your 1988 plans, we found many areas where Ogilvy & Mather and Savarese and Associates can continue to provide services. There are also new areas where we have expertise which have not been fully explored.
He then outlines a couple of problem areas before dealing with the "Economists Program." [No full list for these 42 network economists appears to exist]
Our work with the network of forty-two economists should continue into 1988. In 1987, the network was effective in producing op-eds and submitting and presenting testimony. These activities should continue in 1988. In addition, the economists network can be used for editorial board briefings, presentations at conferences and the placement of articles on this issue with major media outlets.

    In order to make the most of the new opportunities for the economist network, several factors must be taken into consideration:
  • only 7 or 8 of the economists within the network have the potential to make presentations to editorial boards and conferences.

  • those economists selected to make presentations to editorial boards and conferences need a training program. This program may include media training through Michael Sheehan and briefings by Jim Savarese and Bob Tollison.

  • the editorial board program is a limited strategy with applicability mainly at the federal level with some use at the state level.

  • when implementing the editorial board program, Ogilvy & Mather can assist with pitch materials, press kits, and a placement program.
The opportunity exists to place economists on key economic programs, panels, and at national and regional tax policy conferences. As an addendum to this effort, it is possible to have their comments reprinted and distributed.

    They also want to commission studies. They suggest:
  • Effects of an excise tax increase on the federal budget (and its fairness)
  • on bootlegging "and come up with some strong conclusions" [predetermined!]
  • In addition, Savarese and Associates can locate a conservative economist to make the argument that there is an acceleration of government spending when taxes are increased. The program will include placement in an economic journal.
They also propose to work with a number of right-wing tax groups, some left-wing labor groups, minority groups, senior citizens, agricultural groups, and advertising companies. They propose to sponsor conferences, and make a video on excise taxes.

    A national Excise Tax Op-ed Program will target various important members of the Congress and big businessmen (e.g. Lee Iaococca) on the National Economic Commission (NEC). The network economists will be required to target specific newspapers, and a few key political figures. The target for this member of the network is:
Houston
Targeted paper: Houston Post or Chronicle
Economist: Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University

[Why selected:] Commission member Bob Strauss, House Majority Leader Jim Wright, and Senate Finance chair Lloyd Bentsen are from Texas.



1988 Feb 8: The Tobacco Institute to its Regional VPs and Directors.

Attached is an updated list of The Institute's cadre of excise tax economists. These economists are available for testimony, one-on-one meetings with legislators, writing letters and op-ed pieces in the states in which they teach, as well as in any state you deem appropriate.
This economist is listed.


1988 Mar 31: Jim Savarese is writing to Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute re the National Economic Commission (NEC) and their Excise Tax Op-Ed Project using selected members of the cash-for-comments economists network.

I have listed below areas that we should target that would be beneficial in reaching members of the NEC. Also attached are the materials that we will send out to the authors.

Texas: Commission member Bob Strauss, House Majority Leader Jim
    Wright, and Senate Finance chair Lloyd Bentsen are from Texas.
Houston
Targeted paper: Houston Post or Chronicle
Economist: Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University



1988 Mar 31: The Tobacco Institute's list of available economists, with details of their target for a review of Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner's "Smoking and the State" book (secretly funded and published by the tobacco industry). Jim Savarese writes to Jeff Ross who looks after the cash-for-comments network:

I have listed below potential areas where we could place book reviews for the Tollison/Wagner monograph.

Texas
    Targeted paper: (none given)
    Economist: S Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University



1988 May: Savarese has sent the Tobacco Institute a bundle of clippings of the articles planted by this and other economists in their newpapers. This is proof of service, required for payment.

    Maurice has managed to plant "Economic panel lets officials dodge the deficit bullet" on the Houston Post (May 19)


1988 May 26: Savarese advises the Tobacco Institute that

We have initiated the book review project. A copy of the book and a short summary were sent out today to 17 economists across the country with instructions for writing a brief review suitable for newspaper publication.

    I have attached a list of the economists. I'll keep you up to date as soon as the reviews start rolling in.
Maurice's name was on the list.


1988 June 2: James Savarese has advised the Tobacco Institute on the current status of the "NEC Excise Tax" project. The cash-for-comments economists involved were Abrams, Armentano, Clark, Dalton, David, Davis, Howe, Logue, Maurice, Mitchell, Parkman, Sandler, Tuerck, Wyrick, and Miletello

As it now stands, 5 articles have been published, 2 articles (New Mexico and Missouri) are forthcoming, 6 articles have been submitted for publication, and 5 articles are in the revision stage. We have contacted the authors of the articles which are in the revision stage and those articles should be submitted by the end of next week.



1988 June 23: Debbie Schoonmaker at the Tobacco Institute receives a memo from contract organiser James Savarese with "an update status on the NEC Op-Ed Project: [NEC = National Economic Commission, the group they were trying to influence.]

As it now stands, 9 articles have been published, 4 articles (New Mexico, Missouri, Oregon, and Idaho) are forthcoming, 4 articles have been submitted for publication, and 2 articles are in the revision stage.
It lists the network economists by the state in which they operate together with the academics's successes in planting articles on their principle state newspapers.


1988 July 6: /E Jim Savarese has sent the newspaper clippings of the National Economic Commission (NEC) Excise Tax Op-ed Program along to the Tobacco Institute. Following the second term of the Reagan Administration, the budget deficit had blown out to such an extent that it was obvious that the next President would need to find new revenue streams — and cigarettes were the obvious target. NEC was charged with making recommendations for deficit reduction.

    The Tobacco Institute instructed their tame network economists to write op-eds for their designated local newspapers attacking the idea of increased excise taxes. These are newspaper clippings:

  • Dom Armentano, Uni of Hartford (New Haven Register) "Reagan's successor must resist temptation to raise taxes."
  • Burton Abrams, Uni of Delaware (Sunday News Journal) "Equitable and efficient ways to raise taxes."
  • Dwight Lee, Uni of Georgia (The Atlanta Journal) "Tax increase won't cut budget deficit."
  • Allen Dalton, Uni of Idaho (Idaho Press-Tribune) "Federal tax hike destined in 1989."
  • Todd Sandler, Iowa State Uni (Cedar Rapids Gazette) "The Shape of Taxes to Come"
  • John Howe, Uni of Kansas (The Capital-Journal) "Less spending, not more taxes, is the only real budget solution."
  • David Tuerck, Suffolk University (The Boston Globe) "A sinful proposal".
  • Thomas Wyrick, Southwest Missouri State (The News-Leader) "Higher taxes can't solve budget crisis."
  • JR Clark, Fairleigh Dickinson Uni (Daily Record NJ) "Excise tax: Bitter medicine for economy."
  • William Mitchell, Uni of Oregon (Register-Guard) "Tax increases not solution to reducing deficit."
  • Michael Davis, Southern Methodist Uni (Dallas Times Herald) "Excise taxes are far from painless remedy."
  • Charles Maurice, Texas A&M Uni (Houston Post) "Economic panel lets officials dodge the deficit bullet."
  • John David, West Virginia Tech (Charleston Gazette) "Taxes will target the poor."



1988 Oct: A Savarese memo notes that his review of the Tollison/Wager book was

submitted in papers through Texas. [He] is checking on publication.



1988 Dec 18: Tollison and Wagner have written another book "Smoking and the State" which is being favourably reviewed by their network of tobacco-friendly economists. Robert Ekelund of Auburn University and Cliff P Dobits, a professor of economics at the North Dakota State University soundly endorse their views, as does Professor S Charles Maurice of Texas A&M University, writing in the Bryan-College Station Eagle.

    This is a mutual admiration society. Maurice says the Tollison/Wagner book is

"serious objective analyis [and that] they strip away the emotionalism usually present when people discuss what government should do about smoking.

    This is a carefully reasoned analysis, well thought out and clearly presented. Anyone interested in hearing the other side of the smoking-versus-non-smoking question in an economic framework would do well to read "Smoking and the State."



1989 Jan 4: Savarese sends his December Status Report to Susan Stuntz at the Tobacco Institute. It lists dozens of projects that he is supervising — and meetings he is organizing to help the tobacco industry create coalitions with other industries and unions.

    Entries most relevant to the cash-for-comments economists are:

  • participated in strategy sessions on the National Economic Commission (NEC). [Later a general economists op-ed project]
  • Agricultural Research project — began development of research proposals on the effect of excise taxes on farmers. [Later became an Ekelund and Long 'study'.]
  • Airline Cabin Air Quality — continued op-ed project on Northwest Airlines. [They had been first to ban smoking on domestic flights] As of January 3, three op-ed projects have been published
    • Shreveport Journal [by] Michael Kurth, McNeese State Uni
    • Commercial Appeal [by] JR Clark, University of Tennessee at Martin
    • The Greenville News [by] Ryan Amacher, Clemson University
  • Began Ad Ban op-ed project. As of January 3 one op-ed has been published
    • Chicaco Tribune [by] Lloyd Cohen, California Western School of Law.
  • Social Cost Book Review Program [smoking and the State] - As of January 3, seven book review have been published.
    • The State [by[ Ryan Amacher, Clemson University
    • Tulsa Tribune [by] Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State Uni
    • Grand Forks Herald [by] Cliff Dobitz North Dakota State University
    • Fort Dodge Messenger [by] Todd Sandler Iowa State University
    • Montgomery Advertiser [by] Robert B. Ekelund Auburn University
    • Bryan-College Station [by] Charles Maurice Texas A&M University
    • Columbus Enquirer by Dwight R. Lee Washington University
    Three are forthcoming:
    • Regulation Magazine [by] Dwight R. Lee Washington University
    • Jackson Clarion Ledger [by] Samson Kimenyi University, Mississippi
    • Arkansas Democrat [by] David E. R. Gay University of Arkansas



1989 Jan 11: The Tobacco Institute's Scientific Consultancy Activity 1988-89
This is an 80 page mixed bag of files dumped together [Well worth perusing]. The first document is from 1990 [ordered in reverse]

  • Pages 3 to 23 begin with Witness Appearances in 1988 and 1989 involving both "Indoor Air Quality experts" who work for the Tobacco Institute, and three economists [Bob Tollison, Richard Wagner and Dwight Lee]
  • Pages 24 to 31 Labor IAQ Presentations in 1988 and 1989 which involves key figures in the labor movement and a few "IAQ experts."
  • Pages 32 to 39 IAQ/ETS conferences attended by tobacco industry disinformation experts in 1988 and 1989
  • Pages 40 to 41 Academic and Unaffiliated Scientfic Witnesses
  • Pages 43 to 53 Smokers Rights Legislation in various states.
  • See page 54: Tobacco Institute "Confidential" memo on "Tax Hearing Readiness" which is their battle plan to counter earmaking of cigarette excise taxes to fund health programs. It lists a large number of organizations and a few congressmen who can be relied on to help. It also has both primary and secondary lists of economists from Tollison's "cash-for-comments" network willing to give testimony.
    Economists: [Primary]
    • Bill Orzechowski, Tobacco Institute
    • Robert Tollison, George Mason University
    • Richard Wagner, George Mason University
    • Dwight Lee, University of Georgia, Athens
    • Michael Davis, Southern Methodist University
    • Gary Anderson, California State at Northridge
    • William Prendergast (resource: Prendergast/Solmon papers)
    • Other Network economists [see Secondary attached list below]

          "Due by mid-year is a book examining earmarking and "user fees" from a public choice perspective. The treatise will contain 8-10 chapters written by respected economists, including, Henri LePage and Nobel laureate James Buchanan."
    The Tobacco Institute's list of cash-for-comments professors and senior academics who were available to write op-eds and give evidence at Congressional hearings, etc. had grown extensively.
    TEXAS

    Prof S. Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University

    Prof Michael Davis, Southern Methodist University (Dallas)

    Prof Morgan Reynolds, Texas A&M University

[TI budget papers show that each op-ed now earned the economists $3,000. Presentations to conferences earned them $5,000. Savarese was paid $70 to $100,000 pa for this project, and Ogilvy & Mather $250,000.]

.

See page 5


1989 Jan 11: The Tobacco Institute's list of cash-for-comments professors and senior academics who were available to write op-eds and give evidence at Congressional hearings, etc. had grown extensively.

Texas now has a list of three:
  • Prof S. Charles Maurice, Economics Department, Texas ASM University College Station, Texas 78740
  • Professor Michael Davis, Department of Economics, Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275
  • Professor Morgan Reynolds, Economics Department, Texas ASM University College Station, Texas 78740



1989 April 18: Susan Stuntz (Issues Manager) at the Tobacco Institute memoes her boss Sam Chilcote. She is sending him material previously used for a two-day "Gerry Long" presentation. He wants to use it in a shorter one-day (unspecified) briefing session.

[Gerald H Long was the CEO of RJ Reynolds who in 1988 had just taken over as Chairman of the Tobacco Institute's Executive Committee and wanted to make changes.]

This document has the speaker's powerpoints, including a list of network economists divided on a State-by-State basis.       Note the document is 117 pages

The outline for the Powerpoint slides is here in full, together with the names of the politicians they were required to influence. It boasts that the..
Economists' Network 64 Strong [is] Targeted to Congressional Tax Writing Committees [and utilizing the] Production of Op-Eds on Federal Tax Policy.
[List of economists]



1989 Dec 14: Jim Savarese is listing the economists taking part in their new Excise Tax Op-Ed project.

I have also listed the newspapers we plan to target and a package of the materials we are sending to the economists.

    We should start getting drafts of the op-eds around the first of the year.
This economist is on the list for TEXAS, Houston Post


1990 May: This is a list of the newspapers designated to certain economists on the network. They are to attempt to plant an op-ed article on "Excise Taxes" on this local newspapers.

TEXAS
S. Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
has been given the Houston Chronicle as his propaganda target.


1990 May 7: The Tobacco Institute's "1991 Tax and Social Cost Plans" have sections on

  • "Social Costs" Hearings Readiness (preparation for fielding witnesses at Congressional hearings.) They list here the arguments
    What TI and Its Allies Must Cover
    1. "Social cost" arguments used to justify excise tax increases, smoking restrictions and ad bans are not valid.
    2. Independent economists state that "social cost" calculations used by anti-smokers do not withstand credible economic scrutiny.
    3. There is no convincing economic evidence that smokers impose costs on society. Any supposed costs are "private costs" and are borne by the smoker.
    4. Other industries are vulnerable to social cost attacks. A "slippery slope" may exist as anti-smokers, using "social costs" arguments, seek legislation restricting smoking or increasing taxes. These efforts may signal lawmakers to regulate other products as well.
  • "Tax" Hearing Readiness (as above, but for excise tax increases, State and Federal)
    What TI and Its Allies Must Cover
    1. Excise taxes are regressive and take away tax reform for low- and middle-income Americans. As a percentage of income, low income families pay as much as 27 times more in federal excises than high-income families.
    2. Cigarette excise taxes are discriminatory. They fall disproportionately on Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities.
    3. Excise taxes are unfair. Tobacco consumers are forced to pay more than others for government services benefitting everyone. Why should smokers pay more for national defense than nonsmokers?
  • List of cash-for-comment network economists in each State.
This is an updated list with the current locations of each, with phone numbers and addresses.
TEXAS
Prof S. Charles Maurice
Economics Department, Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 78740 409-845-7356

Professor Michael Davis
Department of Economics, Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275 214-692-3394

Professor Morgan Reynolds
Economics Department, Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 78740



1991 Jan: /E Tobacco Institute draft plan for 1991 with emphasis on "Taxes." These are the economist-related paragraphs:

Objective
To discourage reliance on consumer excise taxes on cigarettes to meet social and economic objectives by demonstrating that excise taxes are regressive and inconsistent with fair taxation.

Goals and Tactics:
  • Commission two op-ed articles in 1991 from consulting economists. As articles are published, provide to other Institute decisions for promotion and submission to appropriate policy makers.
  • Conduct at least 10 presentations by consulting economists on the excise tax issue before national, regional and state tax policy conferences.
  • Continue to utilize consulting economists for testimony and briefings. Expand appearances to include presentations to business clubs and the business press. Conduct media refresher courses for public speaking appearance and delivery of testimony.
  • Utilize the consulting economists for an op-ed program that addresses the national earmarking issue and state specific earmarking issues. As articles are published, provide to other Institute divisions and promote to appropriate public policymakers. Use field staff network to support distribution efforts.



1991 Jan 8: Savarese has sent the current list of network economists to Carol Hyrcaj at the Tobacco Institute. It contains three new names, but otherwise is essentially the same as the old lists.


    ALABAMA, Robert B. Ekelund, Jr., Auburn University
    ARIZONA, William J. Boyes, Arizona State University
    ARKANSAS, David E. R. Gay, University of Arkansas
    CALIFORNIA, Gary Anderson, California State at Northridge
                Roger Arnold, California State Univ. - San Marcos
    COLORADO, Barry Poulson, University of Colorado
    CONNECTICUT, Dominick Armentano, University of Hartford
    DELAWARE, Burton Abrams, University of Delaware
    FLORIDA, Bruce Benson, Florida State University
    GEORGIA, Dwight R. Lee, University of Georgia
    IDAHO, Allan Dalton, Boise State University
    ILLINOIS, James Heins, University of Illinois
    INDIANA, Cecil Bohanon, Ball state University
    IOWA, Todd Sandler, Iowa State University
    KANSAS, Michael Babcock, Kansas State University
    KENTUCKY, Brian Goff, Western Kentucky University
    LOUISIANA, Michael Kurth, McNeese State University
    MAINE, Robert McMahon, University of Southern Maine
    MASSACHUSETTS, David Tuerck, Suffolk University
    MISSISSIPPI, Bill Shughart, University of Mississippi
    MISSOURI, Joe A Bell, Southwest Missouri State University
                Thomas I. Wyrick, Southwest Missouri State University
    MONTANA, Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University
    NEBRASKA, Dee Martin, University of Nebraska
    NEVADA, John Dobra, University of Nevada Reno
    NEW HAMPSHIRE, Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College
    NEW MEXICO, Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico
    NORTH DAKOTA, Cliff Dobitz, North Dakota State University
    OHIO, Richard Vedder, Ohio University
    OKLAHOMA, Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
    OREGON, William Mitchell, University of Oregon
    PENNSYLVANIA, Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College
    RHODE ISLAHD, Arthur Mead, Universityof Rhode Island
    SOUTH CAROLINA, Ryan Amacher, Clemson University
    SOUTH DAKOTA, Dennis Hein, Augustana College
    TENNESSEE, JR Clark, The University of Tennessee at Martin
    TEXAS, S Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
                Michael Davis, Southern Methodist University
    VIRGINIA, Richard B Wagner, George Mason University
    WASHINGTON, Richard D. Zerbe, Jr., University of Washington



1997: Retired from University.
[His wife Niccie L. McKay, was an economist in Health Services Administration at the University of Florida.]



1999 Mar 4: Charles Maurice died.



Texas A&M has a scholarship in his name:
S. Charles Maurice Graduate Fellowship in Economics
This fellowship is established by a generous gift from Niccie L. McKay, wife of late Professor S. Charles Maurice.

This scholarship (typically $2,500) is for a 4th year Ph.D. student in Economics. Submit a letter of nomination from the chair of the advisory committee, papers and other supporting materials by April 15.

WORTH READING
















CONTRIBUTORS:TRMU KRS8 samf


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License