  | ||||||||||||||
| 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 5/19/2013 WARNING:
This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
|
OPINION ONLY
Henry N Butler— A cash-for-comments economist who worked both at Texas A&M and George Mason University, and then Kansas while actively supporting the tobacco industry. —Professor Henry Butler was an economist friend of Bob Tollison and an early recruit into the economists network set up by Tollison and James Savarese for the Tobacco Institute. Butler proved to be so useful that he, and another economist friend Professor Dwight R Lee, became associate/partners with Tollison in enlisting and persuading other economists to work for the the tobacco industry. As an academic, he certainly has the ability to move in the right corporate/wealth sectors, and he belongs to the organizations which are able to attract money from those who wallow in it. He has received grants/fellowships from the Koch, Olin, Coor and Scaife-funded organisations, and he currently serves on the:
Note: There are a few discrepencies in the various versions of his curriculum vitae. Professor Butler became part of a network 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 [through the Tobacco Institute] with a number 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 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!
| |||||||||||||
| Chase Econometrics = BULLSHIT |
|---|
1986 Feb 26: Richard Wagner wrote a private note to his friend Robert Tollison.Here is a draft copy of my op-ed piece on the Chase bullshit.[They were promoting a series of faux-economic impact studies on the effects of smoking bans which were done for the Tobacco Institute in specific cities, by Chase Econometrics.]   |
1986 Mar 13: Savarese writes to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute about the "Chase Study/Op-eds".
- The St Louis article has been approved and submitted to the St Louis Despatch.
- The Baltimore article has been approved, but not yet submitted.
- John Militello's Philadelphia article is awaiting approval
- Richard Wagner's Miami article is being discussed.
- Four new articles are enclosed
- Chicago (by Henry Butler)
- (Another by Butler) for either Dallas or Houston
- New York (by Michael Crew)
- Atlanta (by Dwight Lee)
- In writing stages are articles for
- Los Angeles (by Thomas Borsherding)
- Cleveland (by Richard Vedder)
[Note how flexible they are between Dallas and Houston — the articles can quickly be modified to suit the city]
| Chase Econometrics Studies |
|---|
1986 May 19: Scott Stapf at the Tobacco Institute sent to Peter Sparber a "Final report on the Chase Econometrics project." It detailed the successes of the 'Chase Campaign'
|
1986 Mar 11: Bill Kloepfer (Head of PR) reports to Sam Chilcote the president of the Tobacco Institute on a meeting he has had with "Consulting Economists" over "Tax Issue Advice"
As you suggested, I met March 5 in a hotel room with five economists to discuss approaches by the industry to tax issues. Pete Sparber participated. Attending were:[Truncated notes also on]Consensus among the consultants emerged on four points:
- James Savarese, Ogilvy & Mather
- Dennis Logue, Dartmouth
- Dolores Martin, University of Nebraska
- Dwight Lee, University of Georgia
- Henry Butler, University of Chicago
For background, I provided three documents to the consultants a week before the meeting: The executive summary of the Chase [Econometrics] study; the state activities division Feb. 10 memorandum on "Tax Revenue Earmarking Trends and Comments"; and the DeSeve [Economics Associates, Inc.] regressivity study.
- Some types of earmarking of cigarette excises may be beneficial.
- Plotting of a long-run demand curve for cigarettes is necessary.
- Academic research on the "social costs" issue is needed.
- Institute support of alternatives to excises as revenue sources is undesirable.
The discussion lasted for about five hours. It was quite worthwhile. We should take appropriate steps internally now to consider the major points which emerged.
- Earmarking: The advice we received was to consider carefully any earmarking proposals, perhaps accepting those which present a coalition probability and protesting those which do not.
- Demand Curve: The effect of price, including excises, on cigarette demand apparently is usually measured on an immediate basis. Most economists evidently find the demand for cigarettes to be relatively inelastic. [because they are addictive]
- Social Cost: While the so-called social costs issue affects public policy in many ways, it was recognized as one of the incentives for increased cigarette taxes. The group recognized the 1985 Office of Technologic Assessment memorandum as a landmark and its members indicated they would welcome an opportunity to study it as a basis for proposing research projects which could mitigate its unwarrented effects.
They understand that The Institute does not have an economic research budget per se, but that we would welcome any suggestions which we might consider on their merits.
1986 Mar 13: Savarese writes to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute about the "Chase Study/Op-eds".
[These are promoting faux-economic impact studies on the effects of smoking bans, done in specific cities for the Tobacco Institute by Chase Econometrics]
- The St Louis article has been approved and submitted to the St Louis Despatch.
- The Baltimore article has been approved, but not yet submitted.
- John Militello's Philadelphia article is awaiting approval
- Richard Wagner's Miami article is being discussed.
- Four new articles are enclosed
- Chicago (by Henry Butler)
- (Another by Butler) for either Dallas or Houston
- New York (by Michael Crew)
- Atlanta (by Dwight Lee)
- In writing stages are articles for
- Los Angeles (by Thomas Borsherding)
- Cleveland (by Richard Vedder)
[Note how flexible they are between Dallas and Houston — the articles can quickly be modified to suit the city]
1986 Apr 2: The Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (CSEF) newletter reports on a project they have to block...
"developments in the marketplace [which] have swamped banking laws and regulations. Unless changes are made in these archaic laws, we will continue to forego the potential benefits which competition would bring."
Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation has launched a comprehensive Financial Services Project that will both advocate deregulation and monitor the broad range of financial services issues that affect consumers as well as the structure of the industry.
Presently completing a Ph.D. in economics at George Mason University,[CSEF's director of financial services policy, Michael] Becker is joined in his efforts by Dr Henry Butler, CSEF senior fellow in political economy and director of Project Virginia.
CSEF Fellow Dr Tyler Cowen will also contribute to the project. The effectiveness of the project is further enhanced by the participation of CSEF President Richard H. Fink on the Consumer Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Board.
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.He includes an OTA paper on the dangers of smoking and also...
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.
... rebuttals developed by Bob Tollison and Richard Wagner to the OTA report.The scent of possible research money on top of the op-ed writing must have generated substantial academic enthusiasm. Butler is listed as one of the recipients of this letter on the "Brainstorming - Research Ideas" project. Butler's name has been ticked twice, indicating that he has proposed projects.
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.
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.This went out to the long list of cash-for-comments economist on the network.
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.
1986 April 30: /E Henry Butler (at the University of Chicago Law School) replies to Savarese about the 'research proposals"
Dear Jim:
Enclosed in.an informal research proposal in response to your letter of April 3. As you will surely note, the proposal is sketchy. It basically involves the same ideas that I mentioned in my letter of April 1.
So far I haven't had any luck in placing the op-eds written regarding the Chase Econometrics study on the economic impact of the tobacco industry, but I'm still working on it.
Thanks for the business
1986 May: A bundle of 72 pages of information is being circulated by the Tobacco Institute to its Regional Directors. The data is predominantly on the tobacco-industry beat-up known as Sick Building Syndrome and on the general problems of Indoor Air Quality [all down-playing the effects of smoking in confined spaces]
Section 1 is headed
List of sources. Local and national experts you can call for quotes or background information. It promotes the services of three specialist lobbyists
- Lewis Solmon - an academic who discounts problems of workplace smoking
- Al Vogel - who claims to be an expert in public attitudes to smoking
- Mike Forscey, a labor lawyer/lobbyist who helped the tobacco industry keep the union movement on-side.
1986 May 16: Jim Savarese and Bob Tollison have reviewed the "Social Cost' (OTA) research proposals received and they suggest to the Tobacco Institute those that "Merit Consideration for Funding:"
Although these can be improved in some regards to ensure they are most useful to the industry, three proposals seem to have a good deal of merit.They also want some revised and re-submitted:
- "Is Absenteeism Related to Smoking? An Empirical Study" by Robert Ekelund, Richard Ault, and John Jackson. This is a solid, well thought out proposal. I think they could show that smokers are not more absent from work, other things equal.
- "The Relevance of Consumption Benefits from Smoking: An Empirical Assessment" by Dwight R. Lee and Phillip A. Cartwright. This is a good proposal to estimate the benefits of smoking, which, strangely enough, has never been done. This research will be quite useful.
- "Employment Effects of Smoking Bans in Public Accommodations" by CM. Lindsay and M. T. Maloney. This is an interesting proposal about smoking bans and the impact on restaurants.
They propose rejecting the Kurth-Coats proposal; the Lindsay-Maloney proposal; and one from Henry Butler.
- "Improving the Accuracy of the Assessment of Social Cost Associated with Smoking" by Barry W. Poulson.
[There is also a scathing criticism of the Kurth-Coats project and heavy criticism of one from economist Cotton Lindsay. They have gone back to Henry Butler to give him a chance to revise his proposals. Dennis Logue, Barry Poulson and the Cartwright & Lee proposal also aren't up to the standard required.
On the whole, the economist's network scored fairly low by their standards.]
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.He also lists 21 of the economist (including this one) and provides copies of many of their recent articles.
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.
1986 June 5: Susan Stuntz writes that she is interested in the absenteeism proposal by Ekelund, Ault and Jackson, and the food-service industry/smoking ban study by Lindsay-Maloney. She thinks the Cartwright-Lee and Poulson projects are worth reviewing.
Savarese's attached note says about two other proposals:
Ed Battison ads his own evaluation of this and the original Butler proposal:
- "An Estimation of the Social Cost of Smoking: A Research Proposal Submitted to James Savarese and Associates" by Michael M. Kurth and R. Morris Coats.
- . "A Correction of the OTA Death and Cost Estimation" by C. M. Lindsay and M. T. Maloney.
- . "Economic Impact of Smoking on the Relative Wages of Smokers versus Nonsmokers" by Henry N. Butler.
Henry Butler, U. of Chicago, Apr. 23. 1986: Butler's idea of comparing relative wages of smokers vs nonsmokers is an interesting and useful concept. He readily admits that new data would be needed, but sidesteps the problem by suggesting proxies from other published studies on wage differences and productivity differences.
To draw these analogies would be too indirect, lose some accuracy, and results would depend too much on remote inferences.
If his results show smokers get- lower wages, then this "internalization" of productivity losses will give adversaries some evidence they want, namely, that smokers are less productive.
If, on the other hand, smokers' wages are higher, prosmokers could gain an edge in the argument on productivity losses, but other factors may be at work that account for differences, (i.e. occupations, skills, education, and personality differences). Not much can be achieved here unless Butler is much more clear in his objectives/approach/method/ results/conclusion. [In effect, he is saying don't do this study because the results might not match our propaganda claims.]
April 1, 1986, (Butler)
A review of medical care cost studies behind the O.T.A. report would be of some value. We know that there are conceptual and <é, measurement errors. To document them in detail and rigorously would be of some value, provided that the research did achieve this objective.
Butler then outlines in more detail his proposal of April 23rd.He accounts for the possibility of lower wages for smokers , but if no significant differences occur, then productivity differences do not exist. O.K. But, in 2) his "markets don't work" statement is wrong. Instead, it would mean that other factors are determining the outcome. Bulter does not cover the case if smokers' wages are higher. Are they then more productive?
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
- Lynn Gillette
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 Oct 3: The State Directors for the Tobacco Institute have been reviewing all economics network witnesses in their territories, and culling those who are not actively participating. The Washington DC office is now circulating to its State Directors a list of the economists available who...
"...have been identified in several states by J. Savarese as available and hopefully capable to testify in our behalf, or aid in our defense against proposed state of local legislation, from an economic aspect.This list differs from others in providing a list of the economic specialities of each network economist, along with the Congresmen they were designated to influence. He is listed as specializing in:
TEXAS
(Rep, Pickle, Rep Archer, Sen Bentsen)
Professor Henry Butler
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
[Specializing in] (See op.ed.s); Public choice.
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 Butler's Austin American Statesman article on page 200 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,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.)
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.
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 = General (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:
Virginia [ Region VI ]
Professor Henry N. ButlerGeorge Mason University , School of Law , 3401 North Fairfax Drive , Fairfax, Virginia 22201 , 703-841-2665
Services rendered:
- original excise tax op-ed
- Chase [Econometrics study]
- brainstorming meeting with Kloepfer [PR at the Tobacco Institute]
- academic forum
- 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 Butler is still being listed as their main Virginia economist-for-hire.
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.[The invoice is missing, and he gives no details of the current project.]
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.
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 Henry Butler at George Mason University, 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:plus a few new ones.[
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
Greg Niehaus, Mario Rizzo, Roger Riefler, and Boon Yoon.]
1987 May 1: The Tobacco Institute has written to all its State and Regional Directors requesting that they personally check our and evaluate the academic economists who have signalled that they are willing (for a healthy commission) to provide personal witness statements at ordinance of legislative hearings.
George Minshew of the State Activities division has sent out this memo to prod them into action:
It has been several months since the original request was given to you. Some of the witnesses have testified and been in your territories during this time, therefore evaluation of those will be a simple matter of getting it done. As to the others, may I suggest that you talk with you lobbyist, pick up your telephone and talk with the economist, go to see the economist, talk with someone who has dealt with him....whatever it takes to get it done now.
This notice is not meant as a request or to ask what you thoughts are in this matter. It is direct instructions to get this project completed without any more delay. We will all pay one hell of a price should we end up without this resource and find that it was a plus factor that would win a battle or two in the future.
Butler's CV is attached to this evaluation memo.
1987 May 22: The Regional Director looking after Nebraska writes to George Minshew at the Washington office of the Tobacco institute on Economic Witness Evaluations
My recommendation, if we are to continue this economic witness program, a political orientation would be advisable in order to better equip these witnesses for potentially politicized circumstances.He reports on
- Professor Thomas Pogue (IOWA)
Including a C/V - Professor Raymond Raab (MINNESOTA)
Including a C/V - Professor Roger Riefler (NEBRASKA)
- Professor Cliff Dobitz (NORTH DAKOTA)
Including a C/V - Professor Dennis Hein (SOUTH DAKOTA)
Including a C/V - Professor William Hunter (WISCONSIN)
Including a C/V
1987 May 27: In this document, Michel Brozek, the Regional Director of the Tobacco Institute, has been in contact with Professor Henry N Butler, who must already be enlisted as an available witness, to evaluate his ongoing value to the tobacco industry. He writes:
[I]t is one thing to evaluate an economic witness over lunch, by telephone or over cocktails. But, it is quite another thing to evaluate these potential witnesses in the acrimonious, politically charged, circus-like disarray of a committee hearing. In essence, some of these guys (as in the case of Minnesota) fold under any unfriendly inquisition. The ivory tower is different from the political trenches.A tacked-on CV shows that Butler generally co-writes with Barry Baysinger on management economics. He gives as a personal reference, Robert Tollison of the Center for the Study of Public Choice, at George Mason University. [See Butler's C/V.]
My recommendation, if we are to continue this economic witness program, [is that] a political orientation would be advisable in order to better equip these witnesses for potentially politicized circumstances. [ie he only wants libertarian or neo-con partisan warriors.]
1988 Oct: 6-7 Dwight Lee sends the Tobacco Institute a formal report on Atlantic Economic Association meeting in Philadelphia which has tobacco industry economists as speakers:
- Dwight Lee, Uni of Georgia
- Richard Wagner, George Mason University
- Bruce Yandle, Clemson University
- Henry N Butler, George Mason Uni Law School
- Robert Staaf, Clemson University
1988 Nov: /E A Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) document lists WLF publications made during the year (there are dozens, many made by tobacco industry lobbyist and supporters). It explains:
In 1988, WLFs Legal Studies Division produced numerous public policy studies that applied "law and economics" theories to specific problems confronting business.
WLFs most important contribution in this area was the monograph Significant Business Decisions of the Supreme Court, 1986-1987 Term, by Dr Henry N. Butler and William E. Kovacic, Professors of Law at George Mason University, and Dr William A. Fischel, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, These scholars analyzed twenty recent Supreme Court rulings that affect business, in the areas of labor, antitrust, environmental law, and property rights.
1988 Nov 28: Debbie Schoonmaker at the Tobacco Institute writes to Savarese about Social Cost Research Papers.
Enclosed are drafts of the Wagner and Ekelund social cost papers.She also attaches three lists of cash-for-comments speakers who have been selected to talk at various meetings of local economic associations they wish to influence [See earlier list]:
Each has been reviewed and will not need further clearance provided the recommended changes are incorporated into the final versions of the papers.
The legal comments are fairly straight-forward. If you or the authors need an explanation or wish to discuss further, please call.
You'll also see that I've enclosed a copy of the California Health Department's "social cost" study. We can discuss this example in our "SWAT team" meeting.
- Atlantic Economic Assn., Philadelphia, Oct 6-9 , meeting on User Charges: has
- Dwight LeeChairman + paper, "Some Bureacratic Implications
- Richard Wagner"User Charges: Principles and Practice"
- Bruce Yandle, "User Charges: Evaluation and Critique.
- Discussant: Robert Staaf.
- Western Economic Association, Los Angeles, June 30 — July 3 meeting on Tax Earmarking and User Charges.
- Dwight R. Lee, "The Political Economy of Tax Earmarking"
- Richard Wagner, "The Fiscal Politics of Tax Earmarking"
- Paul Wilson,"User Charges and the Problem of Externalities"
- Discussants: Thomas Borcherding and Benjamin Zycher, Rand Corporation [unknown relationship]
- Southern Economic Association, San Antonio, Nov 20-22 on Excise Taxation
- Robert Ekelund, Chairman:
- Dwight R. Lee, "Political Economy of Corrective Taxation"
- Randall Holcombe, Auburn University. "Excise Taxes in Theory and Practice"
- Richard E. Wagner, "The Fiscal Politics of Excise Taxation"
- Discussants: Joseph Jadlow, and Henry Butler,
1988 Dec 8: Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute returns the corrected and processed op-ed articles opposing advertising restrictions to Jim Savarese.
Enclosed are Op-Ed pieces by [Allan] Parkman, [Henry] Butler, [Douglas] Whitman and [Lloyd] Cohen. They have been cleared by legal counsel with corrections.
Our lawyer said the pieces by [Paul] Lansing and [Ronald] Groeber are unsalvagable. I'll have more on this tomorrow when he returns for out of town.
Meantime go ahead with the four good ones.
1989 /E: spent one year as a John M. Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
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]
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.- 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."
VIRGINIA
Prof Henry Butler, George Mason Uni, School of Law
Prof Richard E Wagner, Center for Study of Public Choice, GMU
Prof Walter Williams, George Mason University, Department of Economics.
[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 Mar 14: James Savarese & Associates is billing the Tobacco Institute for
Tobacco Advertising Ban Project:Butler has now been enlisted to help Savarese and Tollison with their second network of academics — cash-for-comments business law professors — willing to support the industry by attacking advertising bans.Final of three payments $19,000
The attached list shows what each member of the cash-for-comments lawyers network has achieved with his op-ed articles. For this member it says:
Butler
Received by Savarese 11-30
Sent to Fred Panzer 11-30
Returned to Savarese 12-8
Returned to the Economist 12-9
Still trying to get published — Roanoke Times
However the April 25 Status Report shows that Butler's article had been rejected and resubmitted to the Lynchburgh News & Daily Advance 3-23
1989 Dec 5: James Savarese is sending a bill to the Tobacco Institute for his own fees ($18,500) and the detailed out-of-pocket expenses for his group of economists speaking at the "Southern Economic Association Meeting" Nov 19—22 in Orlando Florida.
- James Savarese — $1239
- Robert Ekelund — $1271
- John D Jackson — $1029
- Richard Saba — $843
- Richard Ault — $1002
- Mark Thornton — $428
- Henry Butler — $983
- Keith Watson — (will send later)
AlsoAssociate Dean and Director of the Law and Economics Center.
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 that the Institute and its allies must be prepared to present.
- "Tax" Hearing Readiness (as above, but for excise tax increases, State and Federal)
- List of cash-for-comment network economists in each State.
VIRGINIA
Professor Henry Butler
George Mason University School of Law
3401 North Fairfax Drive Fairfax, Virginia 22201 703-841-2665
Professor Richard E. Wagner
Center for Study of Public Choice, George's Hall
George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703-323-3773
Professor Walter Williams
Department of Economics, George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030 703-323-2631
1991 July 15: James Savarese is billing the Tobacco Institute for the services of his network economist at the Western Economic Association meeting in Seattle, Washington.
Dwight Lee; Henry Butler, Richard Wagner are charging a combined $18,500 for their professional services + $1,640; $912; $1,100 in expenses.
1992 May 22: Political Newsletter "The Rothenberg Political Report" says when discussing the primaries:
Virginia 11. (Open). A crowded Republican field, with the most important players being: former Michigan congressman Mark Siljander, Henry Butler (son of a former congressman), state Delegate John Rollinson and conservative Andy Schlafly.
1992 Jun 22: Roll Call reports
Virginia: The western 6th offers Republicans what is probably their best chance to pick up a Democratic seat in the Old Dominion. The GOP nominated 39-ycar-old attorney Bob Goodlatte, once the district office manager for former Rep. Caldwell Butler (R-Va), the last Republican to hold this seat.
Drawn to reflect booming population in Northern Virginia, the new 11th district includes affluent Washington suburbs and should offer a fairly level playing field for Democratic state Del. Leslie Byrne and George Mason University Law professor Henry Butler (R), the son of former Rep. Caldwell Butler (R).
1993–20: 01 Dr Butler was the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Distinguished Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Kansas from 1993 to 2001
| "By their friends, ye shall know them." | ||
| Cevantes | ||
1994 March 16: A group of academic economists including almost all the members of the Tobacco Institute's cash-for-comments network sent an "An Open Letter to President Clinton on Healthcare Reform." This had been organised by David J Theroux, the founder and operator of the Independent Institute apparently with the assistance of an academic network member, Simon Rottenberg. [The institute was well-funded by the tobacco industry]. They say:
In The Open Letter to President Clinton, 565 economists and 76 other scholars from all 50 states and the District of Columbia state their firm opposition to any form of direct and indirect price controls in any healthcare program.
Rationing Health Care: The New Threat of Price Controls, by Simon Rottenberg and David J. Theroux
They use the old straw-man scare techniques of the sky-falling.
In countries that have imposed these types of regulations, patients face delays of months and years for surgery, government bureaucrats decide treatment options instead of doctors or patients, and innovations in medical techniques and pharmaceuticals are dramatically reduced.Which, as anyone who has lived in England, Canada, Australia, etc. knows, is pure rubbish.
Along with Butler and his associates, also on this list of signatories were a number of think-tank lobbyists [including most of the Hoover Institute] and others who worked for the tobacco industry, and the Research Director of the Independent Institute, Robert Higgs, who was also a fill-in network economist.
1994 Nov 1: Victoria Hughes, Vice President for Development at the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, has written to Neal M Cohen, the Executive Vice President of APCO [& Associates] asking for a large donation to aid the CSE in tort-reform lobbying.[Cohen also ran American Tax Reform Association (ATRA) for Philip Morris]
She had been supported at their meeting by CSE executives Paul Beckner, James Gattuso, and Wayne Brough [A minor cash-for-comments economist from the Uni of Central Florida].
Following up on our discussion, I am writing to outline Phase One of our research and educational efforts and to formally request that APCO underwrite our work with a grant for $63,000.The CSE would also write op-eds and have their key executives appear on radio and TV — talk shows, etc. The letter sums up their hypocricy with the statement that the Foundation is tax exempt provided they don't engage in political or commercial activity.
['APCO' was a surrogate for 'Philip Morris' which effectively owned the PR company via Arnold & Porter, its boardroom lawfirm.]
As a first phase of CSE Foundation's efforts to educate citizens about abuses in the legal system, we would publish an economic analysis, as part of our Issues and Answers series. The study would frame the current rash of Medicaid litigation as part of an overall trend to redirect the judicial system from contract enforcement and property rights protection toward income redistribution or taxation. The study would also identify the relevant interest groups, assess the impact on taxpayers and consumers, and examine the potential adverse effects on economic activity.
With a working title of "Assaults on the Rule of Law," we would publish the study in late November or early December. Dr Wayne Brough, economist and Director of Research at CSE Foundation, would write the study, which we would distribute to nationally and in targeted states to policymakers, journalists, business and community leaders, and others.
To enhance the impact of this study, CSE Foundation would commission an academician with a law and economics background to author an Issue Analysis. We would commission the study potentially using an expert such as Henry Butler (University of Kansas), Thomas L DiLorenzo (Loyola College of Maryland), James Gwartney (Florida State University), or Richard Wagner (Center for the Study of Public Choice at George Mason University), as the author. [All cash-for-comments economists] We would distribute this analysis nationally and in targeted states to policymakers, journalists, business and community leaders, and others.
The donor shall receive no benefits (goods or services) from this contribution in order for it to be fully tax deductible
1999 Feb 3: Professor Henry Butler, Director, Law and Organizational Economics Center, University of Kansas, speaking at the Manhattan Institute
2010 Feb 12: A keynote speaker at Chapman University, Orange California.
CONTRIBUTORS:dlo2 gwf2 GWSG
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License