  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 3/18/2013 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
Ann Harper-Fender [Prof ](aka Anne and Anne Fender)— A cash-for-comments economist from Gettysburg College who agreed to work for the tobacco industry. —Ann Harper-Fender was a relatively minor member of the Tobacco Institute's cash-for-comments network — but not for lack of trying. She was keen to perform her tasks whenever asked. 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
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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:
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 Jan: Public Relations Resources Commitee of the Tobacco Institute lists her in their Resource Catalog as a witness for hire.
Anne Harper-Fender, Head, Department of Economics, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PAShe is avilable either as a "Public Smoking" or as a "Taxes" witness. As such she 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 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."He is listed [along with 50 other economists] as a contact in:
She is available on two weeks notice as a witness for hire.
- Professor Anne Harper-Fender
Head, Department of Economics, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg. PA
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: [She 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 March: to April: Ann Harper-Fender, using Gettysburg College letterhead writes a number of letters (enclosing her economic 'essay') in opposition to the Packwood Tax Plan, to:
[She must have been paid by the number of letters sent! Certainly not by the quality of the newspapers.]
- Senator Arlen Specter
- Senator H John Heinz III
- William Deibler, Managing Editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- Paul Golias, Managing Editor of the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader
- Edwin Rogers, Managing Editor of the Scranton Times
- Roy Heffelfinger, Managing Editor of the Allentown Morning Call
- Clement Sweet, Managing Editor of the Harrisburg Evening News
- Gene Foreman, Managing Editor of the Philadephia Inquirer
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 memberAnn Harper-Fender was one on the list of "Economists asked to write letters to Congressmen."
- 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.
[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 a package of 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:
PENNSYLVANIA
Prof Ann Harper-Fender
Submitted to Paper: 4/1/86, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Wilkes-Barre Times, Scranton Times, Allentown Morning Call, Harrisburg Evening News, Philadelphia Inquirer.
Current Status: [N/a]
Letter have been sent on 4/1/86 to Senators Heinz and Specter
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."
This became filed under "Mitchell project" — which suggests that the other economists were also required to write similar open letters.
1986 Apr: The Tobacco Institute was shopping for witnesses willing to appear before the Senate Finance Committee to testify against the Packwood tax plan. Along with industry people and a few professional lobbyists, they had managed to get
"some 17 economists in states with Members on the Senate Finance Committee are now in the process of requesting to be heard"
The Institute's list included the network economists
- Barry Poulson, Uni of Colorado
- Richard McKenzie, Washington Uni - St Louis
- Michael Crew, Rutgers Uni
- JJ Boddewyn, City Uni of NY
- Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State Uni
- William Mitchell, Uni of Oregon
- Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College
- Robert Tollison, George Mason Uni
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.
Ann Harper-Fender has written the article but not sent the letters to Senators. She has attached a copy of the article which has been 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.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. She is listed as one of the recipients of this letter on the "Brainstorming - Research Ideas" project.
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 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:
PENNSYLVANIA, Prof Ann Harper-Fender
[Submitted to] Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Wilkes-Barre Times, Scranton Times, Allentown Morning Call, Harrisburg Evening News, Philadelphia Inquirer. 4/1/86
[Letters sent to Senators] Heinz and Specter 4/1/86
1986 Apr 15: Jim Savarese advises Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute:
We have contacted the following people and have asked them to request to testify before the Senate Finance Committee on April 21, 1986. As of today, no one has been asked to testify, but here is the current status.
- J.J. Boddewyn, New York - called and wrote
- B. Poulson, Colorado - called and wrote
- Michael Crew, New Jersey - called and wrote
- William Mitchell, Oregon - called and wrote
- Richard McKenzie, Missouri - called and wrote
- Ann Harper-Fender, Pennsylvania - called and wrote
- Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma - called and wrote
- Robert Tollison, Virginia and D.C. - called and wrote
- John Howe, Kansas - previous commitment
- Terry Anderson, Montana - previous commitment
- Lee Anderson, Delaware - previous commitment
1986 Apr 17: Citizens requesting to testify (on April 21) before the Senate Finance Committee in opposition to excise tax provisions of the Draft (Packwood) Tax Reform Bill.
This long list of tobacco lobbyists, allies, unionists, and political think-tank players is divided by state and includes a number of economists from the cash-for-comments network.
- Barry Poulson, University of Colorado
- Richard McKenzie, Washington University at St Louis
- Michael Crew, Rutgers University
- JJ Boddewyn, City University of New York
- Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
- William Mitchell, University of Oregon
- Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College
- Robert Tollison, George Mason University
1986 Apr 21: /E Citizens Requesting to Testify before the Senate Finance Committee [aka The Packwood Committee hearings]
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]
Fender of Pennsylvania has been given the target of planting his article on the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and was due for payment of $900.
A later Schedule of Payments increases this amount by another $800.00
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.
[Note reference name at this time was to the name Fender not Harper-Fender. She was also paid the least of all the network academics.]
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 1: Ann Harper-Fender submitted a written statement to the Committee on Finance, using Gettysburg letterhead.
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.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.
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.
1986 May 23: Ann Harper-Fender writes on Gettysburg College letterhead to both the Honorable Richard T Schulze and William J Coyne of Philadelphia about the Packwood Tax Plan.
However, I am concerned about the extent to which two issues have became intertwined and also about the direction which the tax bill is taking.She doesn't mention that this was written under commission from the Tobacco Institute.
[R]eduction in top personal tax rates and elimination of various personal deductions move appropriately toward tax simplification, but I question the desirability of buying this sort of simplification with various selective excise and corporate taxes.
[But] who actually pays these taxes? I think that a major goal of tax reform should be to develop taxes for which the burden in terms of impact on resource use and effect on distribution of after tax incane is clear. Taxes on alcohol, gasoline, and cigarettes, for example, probably will not reduce consumption of those goods dramaticallv, but will raise the burden on the consumers of those goods.
I am enclosing a copy of an essay which I sent a few weeks ago to the PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE and also to Senators Heinz and Specter. It addresses some of my concerns as an economist about that bill.
Article as sent to the newspaper.
Coyne letter
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 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. She is listed as specializing in:
PENNSYLVANIA (Rep. Schulze, Rep. Coyne, Sen Heinz)
Professor Anne Harper-Pender
Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 717-334-3137
[Specializing in] General theory and economic history; industrial property rights.
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 Harper-Fender's article on page 196 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 = 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:
Pennsylvania [ Region II ]
Professor Ann Harper-FenderHead, Dept. of Economics, Gettysburg College , Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325, 717-334-3131
Services rendered:
- original excise tax op-ed
- Packwood
- Ways and Means 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 Anne Harper-Fender is still being listed as their main Pennsylvania 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 Harper-Fender 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 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:
PENNSYLVANIA
Prof Ann Harper-Fender
Head, Department of Economics, Gettysburg College,
Gettysburg, PA 17325, 717-337-6671
Mr. Jack Militello
Research Consultant, College of St. Thomas,
PO Box 6041, 2115 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 5520S, 612-647-5646
1987 Apr 17: Savarese to Panzer re Senate Finance Committee Testimony:
I have enclosed a copy of the letter that Bob Tollison received from the Senate Finance Committee in regard to his request to testify before the committee on April 21.
Most of our economists have received the same letter. Here's the way it looks now
- B. Poulson, Colorado — no word as yet
- R. McKenzie, Missouri — rejected
- M. Crew, New Jersey — rejected
- J.J. Boddewyn, New York — no word as yet
- J. Jadlow, Oklahoma — no word as yet
- W. Mitchell, Oregon — rejected
- A. Harper-Fender, Pennsylvania — rejected
- R. Tollison, Virginia and D.C. — rejected
1987 May 5: Cotton Mather ('Matt') Lindsay of Clemson University has written an article "Excise Taxes: Facist Finance" which is being circulated at the Tobacco Institute. He has discovered through his extensive research that:
it is difficult to achieve vertleal equity [equal burden on everyone] through excise taxes because the amount of the tax paid depends on purchases rather than income.This simplistic analysis is accompanied by a list of the cash-for-comments economist from the network [to whom it will presumably be sent as an example (See note "at last....")] together with handwritten notes as to the skills and value of each as witnesses at legislatures or local ordinance hearings.
Breweries and tobacco companies write checks to the government for the excise taxes on beer and cigarettes, but here economists agree; these companies pass these taxes on to consumers. One's share of the burden of the revenues raised by these taxes depends on how much beer one drinks and how much one smokes.
The unfairness of these excises is manifest; it is not merely another economists' debating point. The tobacco excise tax, for example, is the most regressive tax in the federal system. It is paid only by smokers who are today predominantly lower-middle income earners, lower income working women and blue collar workers.
Some have argued that these taxes are appropriate because the funds can be earmarked for expenditures like Medicare, environmental protection and even public employee pensions. Why beer drinkers and cigarette smokers ought to pay more for such things is far from clear, however. To the extent that these activities shorten life, they relieve the burdens of Medicare and pension funds by removing potential claimants from the eligibility roles.
Viewed from another perspective, smokers and beer drinkers not only bear a disproportionate share of taxes because they pay excises on these commodities, but they get less for their money, too. Because they live a shorter life span, they collect less in retirement benefits and receive fewer Medicare benefits.
This may be fine for Mussolini, but it is antithetical to tax principles in a free and open society.
Professor Ann Harper-Fender:
"No contact — out of the country — will contact in summer"
1987 May 22: Evaluation notes from the Regional Director of the Northern Sector about each of his cash-for-comment economists says about this academic:
No Contact — out of the country. Will contact in June.
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.
PENNSYLVANIA, Fender, The Evening News, [circ.] 58,000, [no pub date]
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 PENNSYLVANIAAlso 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)
Fender for Evening News —Owed $800 — Total to date $1700
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.[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.]
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.
The attached list showed who was considered reliable or unreliable:
| DEMOCRAT WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE PROJECT | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| STATE | Democrat Congressmen | Economist | Reliability |
| Illinois | Dan Rosenkowski Marty Russo | Fred McChesney | Unreliable |
| Florida | Sam 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 |
| Indiana | Andrew 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 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.
PENNSYLVANIA
Professor Ann Harper-Fender Gettysburg College Gettysburg, PA
Excise Tax Op Eds: None accepted for publication.
Economic Witness/Testimony: Gary Anderson (CA economist) prepared and presented testimony opposing Pittsburgh public smoking ordinance.
Field Staff Contact: None.
Field Staff Evaluation: None, but field staff recommended against using Harper-Fender in Pittsburgh because the council would not view a woman as credible.
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.[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.]
In the case of those who have not had an article accepted for publication I would like to know whether they submitted one.
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 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: 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.
PennsylvaniaTargeted paper: Gettysburg Times
Economist: Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College.
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."
PENNSYLVANIA
Prof Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College
Mr Jack Militello, College of St Thomas, St. Paul
[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 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.]
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 has Harper-Fender]
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.
PENNSYLVANIA
Prof Ann Harper-Fender
Head, Department of Economics, Gettysburg College
Gettysburg, PA 17325 717-337-6671
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 Aiaacher, Clemson University
SOUTH BikEOTA, Dennis lain, Augustana College
TENNESSEE, JR Clark, The University of Tennessee at Martin
TEXAS, S Charles Maurice, Texas ASM University
Michael Davis, Southern Methodist University
VIRGINIA, Richard B Wagner, George Mason University
WASHINGTON, Richard D. Zerbe, Jr., University of Washington
CONTRIBUTORS:dlo2 gwf2 rwm2
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License