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.

OPINION ONLY

Tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry, through the Tobacco Institute, with a number of networks of academics who would be 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 ' academics' from some credible university, and 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 were always 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!

Some key documents

• Dr William Anderson. Office of Economic Development, City of Chattanooga
    [Note Chattanooga is occasionally spelled with only one 't']

1981 June: /E He has drafted an article for the Tobacco Institute in support of flat-rate income taxes and against....

Excise taxes are narrow-based and regressive, discriminating against those in lower income brackets, forcing the misallocation of resources, and destroying jobs. They are simply federal levies on specific domestic products such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco, gasoline and motor oils, tires, telephone, telegraph, radio, and cable services.

    These consumption taxes are designed to generate revenue from items whose demand is relatively inelastic and to regulate behavior in the consumption of items government deems harmful or frivolous (e.g., alcohol and tobacco products).

[The word 'unhealthy' doesn't appear to be in the lexicon of these economists. Maybe the concept is beyond their mental capabilities!]

And as for regulating consumption habits, it is quite clear that the federal government has no business playing the role of "nanny" to the American public.

    In truth, excise taxes distort the real market for the products that are taxed, causing misallocation of resources and destroying employment opportunities. In Tennessee, for example, tobacco provides approximately 10 percent of all agricultural income; the figure for East Tennessee is much higher. Without the federal excise tax on cigarettes, Tennesseans, who face higher unemployment rates than the rest of the nation, might have increased economic opportunities.

Cigarette Excise Tax Plan

1984 July The Tobacco Institute's plan involving the recruitment of academic economists in each US State:

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:

• 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.

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.

    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 Mar: Tobacco Institute document "Federal Markets" on the likely allies the industry has in opposing the earmarking of cigarette excises for healthcare.

Market: Tennessee
Positive Actions by Local Allies:
Academics: Dr William Anderson (Office of Economic Development, City of Chattanooga) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the Knoxville Journal, Memphis Commercial Appeal and Chattanooga Times. Editors are considering for publication. Copies of the articles were sent to Ways & Means Members Ford and Duncan.

See page 4
See Success List

1985 Dec 12: Annual Report of the Tobacco Institute's Public Relations division lists him as having:

We believe that the active and creative use of experts — our scientists in particular — gives us an edge. But without question, public smoking is our toughest challenge.

    A close second is taxation. In 1985, most of our resources in this area were focused on the federal situation.

    That being the case, we concentrated almost exclusively on the home districts and offices of the 56 members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.

    We identified and utilized economists from universities in 48 of those districts. Some testified at the four federal tax hearings in which had interest. Others participated in academic symposia attended by Congressional staffers. Others communicated directly with their Congressmen.

    And 34 of them wrote op-ed articles on the need to consider excises as part of tax reform. Many of these articles appeared in the principal newspaper in the targeted districts which have, by our estimation, a total circulation of nearly 4 million.

    The economists were of great help. [SNIP]

    Dr William Anderson (Office of Economic Development, City of Chattanooga) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the Knoxville Journal, Memphis Commercial Appeal and Chattanooga Times. Editors are considering for publication. Copies of the articles were sent to Ways & Means Members Ford and Duncan

1985 Dec 12: Annual Report of the Tobacco Institute's Public Relations division lists him as having:

We believe that the active and creative use of experts — our scientists in particular — gives us an edge. But without question, public smoking is our toughest challenge.

    A close second is taxation. In 1985, most of our resources in this area were focused on the federal situation.

    That being the case, we concentrated almost exclusively on the home districts and offices of the 56 members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.

    We identified and utilized economists from universities in 48 of those districts. Some testified at the four federal tax hearings in which had interest. Others participated in academic symposia attended by Congressional staffers. Others communicated directly with their Congressmen.

    And 34 of them wrote op-ed articles on the need to consider excises as part of tax reform. Many of these articles appeared in the principal newspaper in the targeted districts which have, by our estimation, a total circulation of nearly 4 million.

    The economists were of great help. [SNIP]

    Dr William Anderson (Office of Economic Development, City of Chattanooga) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the Knoxville Journal, Memphis Commercial Appeal and Chattanooga Times. Editors are considering for publication. Copies of the articles were sent to Ways & Means Members Ford and Duncan.

1986 Jan: The Tobacco Institute's Public Relations Resource Catalogue for their Regional Directors, lists documents, booklets, article, posters and people who can help them fight local public smoking ordinances and threats to raise the excise taxes on cigarettes.

    It provides a long list of economists who are willing to speak at hearings, write letters to the editor, or create op-eds for the newspapers to counter any threat to public smoking or possible increase in excise taxes.

    It lists him as a contact in:

• Professor William Anderson Economist
  Office of Economic and Community Development, City of Chattanooga.

Public Smoking/Witness: Local economists are available on two-weeks notice to provide economic testimony on the public smoking issue. Those economists who have testified or prepared op-ed pieces on the economic effects of public smoking are marked accordingly. The others may be briefed on the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.

Tax witness: [He will] "explain why excise taxes are regressive and unfair to consumers and unsuitable and unreliable as a means to increase the federal revenue."

    Those economists who have testified or prepared op-ed pieces on the economic effects of public smoking are marked accordingly. The others may be briefed on the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.

1986 May: A bundle of information predominantly on Sick Building Syndrome and Indoor Air Quality is being circulated by the Tobacco Institute to its Regional Directors. However, Section 1 is headed

List of sources. Local and national experts you can call for quotes or background information.

1986 May 30: Fred Panzer of the Tobacco Institute was contacting British-American Tobacco's PR executive, Tom Humber [also Burson-Marsteller and National Smoking Alliance] sending him some of the examples of the network economists.

Enclosed are: (1) The first wave of 27 op-ed reprints, (2) A second wave of 32 op-ed articles (21 published and 11 unpublished), sent out on Packwood's first tax reform proposal.

    I've also included one on the Chase [Economtrics] study. There are a few others being rounded up, as well as a syndicated excise tax feature series we developed. Out of all this should come something useful for your people.

• Florida — Wagner — Tampa Tribune and Washington Times
• Indiana — Bohanon — Muncie Star
• Maine — McMahon — Portland Press Herald
• Minnesota — Raab — Minneapolis Star & Tribune
• Missouri — Denzau — St Louis Post Dispatch
• Montana — Anderson — Billings Gazette
• New Jersey — Crew — Wall Street Journal
• New York — Greene — New York Times and Newsday
• North Dakota — Doblitz — Forum
• Oregon — Eberts — Oregonian, Statesman-Journal, and Washington Times
• Tennessee — Anderson — Knoxville Journal, Memphis Commercial Appeal, and Chattanooga Times.

CONTRIBUTORS:jrtm gwf2 SHHS