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 networks of academics in various disciplines who would be willing to write and sprout propaganda material ... always provided the payments for these services were not directly tracealble to the Institute or to any of the cigarette companies.

The idea was simply that these 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 of the acolyte academics because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear: so support of the cigarette companies could always be portrayed as support for free-market economics including the rights of individuals to make public choices ... small government ... or even the first Amendment to the Constitution.

The economist working for Savarese, always claim to be 'independent' 'professionals' and ' academics', and they exploited the fact that they came 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 imprecision) 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

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!

Unfortunately, it worked.

Some key documents

• Economist at Washington University, St Louis. [There are 79 documents in the tobacco archives which carry his name.]

1947 June 18: Born

1964–65: Californian Institute of Technology.

1965–70: At Arizona State University (Mathematics)

1965–70: Electrical Engineer with Motorola in Arizona

1971: MA in Economics from Washington University

1973–75: Resarch Associat at the Center for the Study of Public Choice, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

1973 Dec: PhD from Washington University in political economics

1976 Sep: - Aug 1977 National Fellow, Hoover Institute

    In this year he also co-edited (with JR Mackay) "Essays on Unorthodox Economic Strategies: Anarchy, Politics and Population" published by the Center for Study of Public Choice. This was a memorial volume of writings of Winston C Bush (died Dec 1973) — a guru in public choice economics who had also been at the GMU Center when it was at Virgina Polytechnic and a Fellow at the Hoover Institute.

1977–80: Associate Professor University of Arizona

1979–82: Visiting Associate Professor of Economics at Virginia Polyteehnic Institute

1981: Research Associate, Center for the Study of American Business, Washington State Uni.

1982: Associate Professor, Washington University at St Louis, Department of Economic

1983 June: He was working with Clifford M Hardin at the Center for the Study of American Business. [heavily funded by the tobacco industry]

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.

    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 Jan: He has sent his C/V along to the Tobacco Institute (via Savarese)

1985 Jan 31: Hurst Marshall has distributed this Tobacco Institute list of economists from the cash-for-comments network. It has been organise by State, and includes the names of Congressmen they wish to influence.

Attached for your information are the names of economists who have been identified by PR to assist TI on the federal cigarette excise tax issue.

These people are also available to testify at the state level.

    If you feel that this type of witness can be of assistance to you on state cigarette tax issues, please contact Fred Panzer for details and arrangements.

    Please notify your lobbyists as to the availability of these people. At the same time, you may wish to ask them for their ideas or suggestions for other economists within their states.

MISSOURI (Rep. Gephardt, Sen. Danforth)
  •   Professor Arthur Denzau
      Washington University., St. Louis, Missouri

1985 Jan 31: A Tobacco Institute list of about sixty economists from the cash-for-comments network. It has been organise by State, and includes the names of Congressmen they wish to influence. This economist will be detailed to make the contact [by sending him/them the published op-ed]:

    The details of the politicians the economist has been detailed to contact are:

MISSOURI (Rep. Gephardt, Sen. Danforth)
Professor Arthur Denzau, Washington University., St. Louis, Missouri

1985 Mar: Tobacco Institute document "Federal Markets" on the likely allies the industry has acquired to oppose the earmarking of cigarette excises for healthcare. It also includes a record of their successful activities in each state

Market: MISSOURI
Positive Actions by Local Allies:
Academics: Professor Arthur Denzau (Washington University) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Editor is considering for publication. Copies of the article were sent to Ways & Means Member Gephardt and Senate Finance Member Danforth.

See page 4
See Success List

1985 June 21: James Savarese submits his bill to the Tobacco Institute for the academics who have written articles or made speeches for the Tobacco Institute.

• Op Ed Project — $1000 each in 'professional fees'
  for Abrams, Alston, Armentano, Harper-Fender, T Anderson, Denzau, Bohanon, Jadlow, Wagner and Menchik.
• Southwest Social Science Meeting — Houston
  • Keith Watson ($1,000),
  • RB Ekelund Jr ($2,003)
  • Joseph Jadlow ($2,605),
  • Richard Wagner ($2,716)
  • Robert D Tollison ($5,000)
  • Henry N Butler ($2,070)
• Eastern Economic Assoc, Meeting — Pittsburgh
  
  • George E Hoffer ($1,431)
  • Gary M Anderson ($2,450)
  • Robert D Tollison ($6,375)
  • Bill Shurghart III ($2,529)
  • Michael D Pratt ($1,288)
  • John H Bowman ($1,000)

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]

    Professor Arthur Denzau (Washington University) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Editor is considering for publication. Copies of the article were sent to Ways & Means Member Gephardt and Senate Finance Member Danforth.

1986 Jan: Public Relations Resources Commitee of the Tobacco Institute lists him as an available witness:

Public Smoking/Witness: Local economists are available 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 an the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.

• Professor Arthur Denzau, Department of Economics, Washington University, St, Louis, MO

[He is also listed under the heading ]
Taxes/Witness: Local economists are available to provide economic testimony on excise taxes. The economist explain why excise taxes are regressive and unfair to consumers and unsuitable and unreliable as a means to increase the federal revenue.

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.

    The Tobacco Institute offered their Regional Directors the C/Vs of all of these economists, and said

"Requests for economists should be made ASAP. Allow at least one week. PR approval needed."

• Professor Arthur Denzau
  Department of Economics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO

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 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.

... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1986 June: RJ Reynolds Tobacco was obviously considering running its own propaganda operation in some selected states. Rogers & Cowan were pitching for the contract to run this operation. This is their draft outline of some proposed (possibly commissioned) activities to focus on local outlets:

• The regular supply of material to local newspapers
• Media Sourcebook and Editorial binder/packages.
  • Material on Sick Building Syndrome
  • Workplace smoking sureys, union material
  • Restaurant and public places smoking bans
• Advertising bans - studies and clippings of articles
• Economists and clippings of their articles
• Production of a "Courtesy and Smoking Book"
• production of video news clips and news segments

1986 Jul 8: Denzau's letter to the General Services Administration was circulated to a number of executives in the Tobacco Institute, and to the executives of most of the main tobacco companies. (7 copies in the archives.)

    It was then used with the labor unions and circulated to other industry friends who might be persuaded to write their own criticism.

    On July 17 Susan Stuntz at the Tobacco Institute boasted of the success of the operation to her superior William Kloepfer:

Included among the comments received thus far opposing the General Services Administration smoking rulemaking are letters from three labor unions representing federal employees, as well as letters from 19 economists and/or economics departments of major universities,

    The National Association of Government Employees calls upon GSA to withdraw the proposal, describing smoking as "an inalienable right upon which agency rules and regulations should not infringe."

    Copies of these letters are attached for your information. Also attached, copies of the letters GSA has received from economists across the country. The economists, from New York to Oregon, Texas to Idaho, unanimously oppose the GSA proposal for its potential cost to the government and its disruptiveness in the work environmen*^. Among their comments:

• "The GSA's proposal would impose significant costs on the U.S. taxpayer in an attempt to achieve objectives best realized through the influence of public opinion and individual courtesy. Economics Department of the University of Georgia, Athens.
• Since I believe the GSA's monetary estimate is in error, the agency is likely in non-compliance with EC12291. The new smoking regulations should not be put into effect until a competent RIP has been completed and its contents scrutinized." Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School.
• "It is simply silly to content that 'this rule is not a major rule for the purpose of EC12291...." William Shughart of George Mason University's Center for the Study of Public Choice.
• "One can readily do some back of the envelope calculations which suggest that the economic cost would exceed the stated $100 million." Washington University's Arthur T. Denzau.

1986 July 17: Susan Stuntz (Issues Manager) at the Tobacco Institute writes to PR head William Kloepfer giving him some useful quotes elicited from "Economic, Labor Submissions to GSA" [General Services Administration]. These were usable quotes culled from cash-for-comments letters opposing the proposed federal building smoking ban. The economists all claimed the cost projections of producing and installing "No Smoking" signs was a major reason for their gratuitous involvement. One of them was...

"One can readily do some back of the envelope calculations which suggest that the economic cost would exceed the stated $100 million." Washington University's Arthur T. Denzau.

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.

• 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 Oct: The Tobacco Institute is now contracting the economists in some states to support "18 county-level reports" from Chase Econmetrics. These have been done for MA, CT, NY, NJ, PA, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TX, TN, KY, OH, MI, WI, IL, and CA.

    They have hired Chase Econometrics to report on the so-called 'value' of the tobacco industry (retail, wholesale, manufacturing, warehousing,etc) on a county-by-county basis, so that pressure can be put on local councils, and on state and federal politicians who represent these areas.

1986 Oct 3: A Tobacco Institute report on the economists network. It lists the Congressmen they are expected to influence, and the various academic specialities of the economists.

    This early list is probably the most detailed of all and it is being sent to all State and Regional Directors. A later section of this 43 page document also runs through the 28 main states giving the names and details of witnesses willing to speak to legislators on Taxes (almost exclusively economists), and those available as witnesses for the tobacco industry on Public Smoking issues (economists and a range of others)

    A major effort had also been made recently to enlist fire officers and brigades to counter demands for a 'fire-safe' cigarette which had low ignition propensity.

MISSOURI, (Rep. Gephardt, Sen. Danforth)

[Economist:] Professor Arthur Denzau, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-889-5688
[Speciality:] State and local public finance.

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.

MISSOURI (Rep. Gephardt, Sen. Danforth)
Professor Arthur Denzau
    Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-889-5688
    [Specializing in] State and local public finance.

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.

• 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:

Missouri [ Region VIII ]

Professor Arthur Denzau

Department of Economics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, 314-889-5688

Services rendered:
• original excise tax op-ed
• GSA letter writing campaign

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

Greg Niehaus, Mario Rizzo, Roger Riefler, and Boon Yoon.]

1987 May 28: Economic Consultants in Region VIII — Recruitment document from TI regional staffer Stan Boman to his superior Hurst Marshall in State Activities at the Tobacco Institute in Washington DC.
[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 signalled a change to a formal retainer with 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.

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.

2001: He is listed as a Contributor to a book on Political Economics. He was then Professor at the Claremont Graduate School.

2007 Apr: (Spring) His C/V is online.
[A search for the words "tobacco" or "cigarettes" in this document failed to find any references.]

2010 /E: (undated) He is writing on "The Japanese Automobile Cartel" for the Koch brother's CATO Institute.

CONTRIBUTORS:samf sjc2 srs2