US-Canada

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

Professor Michael Kurth was a relatively long-lasting and active member of a clandestine network of academics put together by tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University.

Tollison and Savarese collaborated in the 1980s and '90s to provide the tobacco industry [through the Tobacco Institute] with academics in each State of the USA 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 or local Assembly 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 simply support for extreme free-market economics — the rights of individuals to make choices (despite addiction) — the promotion of small government — or even protection of First Amendment rights in 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!

The 1985 Tobacco Institute document, "Federal Markets", which was sent to the Tobacco Institute's Regional and State Directors, provided a long list of the likely allies the industry had among academic economists in opposing the earmarking of cigarette excises for healthcare and for other purposes. The industry was particularly interested in attacking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which it always feared would attempt to regulate cigarettes as a drug.

The Tobacco Institute's contractors kept a registry of those academics available to write articles or letters on demand, provide witness services at legislative or local ordinance hearings, etc. or give lectures to various influential bodies — or have one-to-one meetings with legislators. They were never required to divulge the industry connections, and they were never required to make any outright statement in support of smoking ... in fact, the complete opposite. Those who could maintain proudly that they were non-smokers were seen to be more sensible, and to have more credibility with the gullible readers who thought that political influence involved brass-bands and flag waving zealots.

Writing economic and political op-ed pieces and letters to the editor were the easiest way for these academics to earn some quick cash without sticking their neck out enough to be noticed. In their articles they attacked the principle of cigarette taxes, not the taxes themselves. They attacked the idea of the FDA extending its mandate, rather than the question of whether nicotine was a drug.

Payments were laundered through a couple of channels linked to the George Mason University's Center for the Study of Public Choice and its director Robert Tollison, and also through a labor/economics lobbyist named James Savarese.

The purpose of the network was to provide propaganda and lobbying services to the tobacco industry in all 50 US States, utilizing trusted and prominent academics at the local universities, and the scam ran very successfully for a couple of decades. It was considered influential enough for the Tobacco Institute to continue its funding when other projects suffered budget cuts. As a result, hundreds of op-ed articles appeared in many dozens of influential newspapers across America.

Some key documents

• Professor of Economics, McNeese State Uni, Lake Charles, Louisiana. His targets were Representative Moore and Senator Long (in 1985)

    He also co-authored material with another cash-for-comments economist — R Morris Coats of Nicholls State Uni, LA. So Louisiana had two commissioned economists for some time.

• There are 196 documents in the tobacco archives with Kurth's name

• Michael M. Kurth is a professor of economics at McNeese State University.He earned his doctorate at Virginia Tech and taught at Emory and Henry College and California State University-Hayward before coming to McNeese in 1984

1984 July: Cigarette Excise Tax PlanThe Tobacco Institute's plan involving the recruitment of academic economists in each US State:

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

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

Tactics:

• Encourage economists to make the case against regressive taxation in meetings with potential coalition members and legislators.
• Retain public finance economists affiliated with non-profit organizations to research the subject and use their findings in forums such as:
  • Private meetings with state legislators or staff ;
  • formal testimony before government bodies ;
  • targeted media appearances;
  • speeches before business, civic, labor, and other groups ;
  • tax symposia in key states where the proceedings could be published for use in other states ; and
  • articles which raise the visibility of key arguments in the business, academic, and popular press.

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

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

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

1985 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.

LOUISIANA (Rep. Moore, Sen. Long)
  •   Professor Michael Kurth
      McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana

1985 Feb 7: Judy Wiedemeier of the Tobacco Institute is writing to the regional lobbyists.

Attached for your information, are the names of economists who have been identified by our Public Relation department to assist T.I. on the federal cigarette excise tax issue. These people are also available to testify at the state level.

    If you feel this type of witness can be of assistance to you, please contact me for details and arrangements. If you have any ideas or suggestions for other economists within your state, please let me know, as we are always expanding our resources.

LOUISIANA
(Rep. Moore, Sen. Long)

Professor Michael Kurth
McNeese State University Lake Charlesr Louisiana

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: LOUISIANA
Positive Actions by Local Allies:
Academics: Professor Michael Kurth (McNeese State University) wrote an

See page 4
See Success List

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

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

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

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

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 Michael Kurth (McNeese State University) wrote an op-ed article on tax reform and submitted to the Baton Rouge Advocate. Editor is considering for publication. Copies of the article were sent to Ways & Means Member Moore and Senate Finance Member Long.

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 Michael Kurth
  Department of Economics, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA

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 Jan: The Tobacco Institute's Public Relations Resource booklet 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, or write letters to the editor, or op-eds for the newspapers to counter the public smoking or excise tax threat.

    It lists him as:

• Professor Michael Kurth,
  Department of Economics, McNeese State University
  Lake Charles, LA

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents of your letter to the member

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

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

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

LOUISIANA
Prof Michael Kurth
Submitted to Papers: 4/1/86, Shreveport Times, Times Picayune, Baton Rouge Advocate
Current Status: [N/a]
Letter have been sent on 4/1/86 to Senators Long and Johnston

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

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

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

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

    The Tobacco Institute is interested in considering research proposals which would establish a much more realistic examination of the social cost issue as it relates to the smoking issue.

... 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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:

LOUSIANA, Prof Michael Kurth
[Submitted to] Shreveport Times, Times Picayune, Baton Rouge Advocate 4/1/86
[Letters sent to Senators] Long and Johnson 4/1//86

1986 Apr 28: In a quick reply to Savarese's request for research proposals to counter the anti-smoker's 'Social Cost' arguments, Michael Kurth (Ncese State University) and Morris Coats (Nicholls State Uni) put in a joint proposal. [Letter by Kurth]

If approved, the research would be done by myself and Dr Morrls Coats, Assistant Professor at Nicholls State University. Dr Coats and I both studied under Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner at Virginia Tech and we are familiar with the issues and methodology of the project.
[And with the industries they work for.]

    The research could be done this summer using the modern research facilities of McNeese State University. Dr Coats would devote his full attention to the project; I would work half-time with Dr Coats while teaching one summer course for McNeese. The cost would be $10,400: two-ninth's salary for Dr Coats ($6,000) and one-ninth's salary for myself ($4,000).

• "It is not clear that the OTA has calculated 'social cost' properly.
• Taxes and restrictions may have already internalized the external costs associated with smoking.

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]

    Kurth at Louisiana has been given the target of planting his article on the Baton Rouge Adv and was due for payment of $1025.00.
A later Schedule of Payments increases this amount by another "$500.00 — Paid in Full"

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

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

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

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

Contents of your letter to the member:

• Opposition to consumption taxes,
• Opposition to any tax increase as part of the budget reconciliation process;
• One tax bill per year is more than enough.

1986 May 23: Michael Kurth writes on McNeese State University letterhead to the Honorable W Hanson Moore about the Packwood Tax Plan. He has also written to Senator Long and Senator Johnston.

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:

• "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.

Kurth & Coats (McNeese State and Nicholls State)
This proposal to measure the lost welfare in terms of consumer and producer surpluses lost, is based on a common text book concept. To use it as a measure of lost utility from paying cigarette taxes provides a estimate of the distortion created in the market and the utility lost by consumers because the good is not available at a lower price because of taxes.

    To equate this to the estimates of "social costs" presents some problems: 1) there.is little agreement on the accurate amount of "social costs" from smoking at -present; 2)the industry and prosmokers contest the very existence of social costs of smoking; 3) the consumer and producer surpluses lost is relatively small by formula unless taxes of about 40c per pack or higher are considered; and 4) these losses in surplus utility are also inaccurate because of possible faulty demand and supply model structures, and assumptions. Finally, many adversaries will not accept the abstract concept of surpluses.

    The "reduced form" model provides statistically consistent estimates, but the relationship between reduced form coefficeints and the structural coefficients can be very complex.Identification problems may enter and results may not always be consistent, efficient, and unbiased in a statistical sense.

    The model suggested is similar to some of those existing in the literature, such as Bishop & Yu. But state binary (i.e.

    dummy) variables are not adequate to capture the accurate trends in public smoking bills, workplace bills, lifestyle changes, peer group influence, and the frequency in the publication of health-smoking reports and papers. The models to date have not yet contained the correct structure and data to represent satisfactorily all of these important factors. There is no real evidence in this proposal that the model will be adequate or that surpluses lost in utility can be accurately measured and compared to social costs.

1986 July 10: Kurth (one of a number of cash-for-comments economists) wrote to the General Services Administration objecting to their proposed smoking ban in government buildings. As with the other economists who also wrote, he managed to get some associates in the University to co-sign the letter of objection (written on McNee University letterhead)
[Co-signers Professors Stephanie Underhill (later a market strategist with Bear Stearns) and Willard Hohnstein don't appear to have been paid by the tobacco industry (they only have this one document in the archives) — but their letter to the GSA was well appreciated by the companies and many copies were circulated to the lobbying executives.]

See other letters also

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.

LOUISIANA (Rep. Moore, Sen. Long)
Professor Michael Kurth
    McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 318-437-5583
    [Specializing in] Trade unions, labor-management relations; public choice and labor unions in public sector; government spending and taxation.

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:

Louisiana

Professor Michael Kurth [ Region VII ]

Department of Economics , McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601 , 318-478-0740

Services rendered:
• original excise tax op-ed
• Packwood
• brainstorming/research proposal
• 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 Kurth is still being listed as their main Louisiana 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.

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

    The attached invoice covers the project of re-contacting the original 42 economists and coming up with the present 34 people.

The 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 Kurth still active)

1987 Feb 6: Jim Savarese, Bob Tollison and Henry Butler write to "Participants in advertising op-ed project"[These are the new academic economists on the Tollison/Savarese list].

We are finally ready to get this first op-ed project off the ground. I am asking you to review the attached materials and write an editorial for a major newspaper in your state. This article should support the basic right to advertise legal products and oppose attempts to restrict advertising either by outright bans or by punitive use of the tax code.

    Obviously, the point of this exercise is to support tobacco's right to advertise on basic constitutional grounds. Upon completion of a draft op-ed, please send it to me immediately via Federal Express. I will go over the article and return it to you for submission to a newspaper.

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 Feb 6: [Same day as above] another letter to "Economists" [the more experienced group] says:

We have received our first op-ed project of 1987 and for many of you it is a familiar one. The issue once again is opposition from any and all reasonable angles to an increase in cigarette excise taxes.

    We are attaching some materials which may be of help in formulating your argument and generating relevant data. Some of the more salient points are listed below:

    It is important that we generate a generalized opposition to the principle of earmarking revenues.

    Upon completion of a draft op-ed, please send it to me immediately via Federal Express. I will go over the article and return it to you for submission to a newspaper.

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:

LOUISIANA
Prof Michael Kurth

    Department of Economics, McNeese State University,
Lake Charles, LA 70601, 318-855-6732

1987 May 18: Because of "possible improprieties noted during the examination of the initial two-month period." the Tobacco Institute had James Savarese & Associates's accounts audited. The auditor found that:

1. It was a one-employee operation - Savarese billed at a rate of $150 per hour, or approximately $300,000 a year.
2. He only keeps rough accounts and has no contract with the Tobacco Institute.
3. He marks up the conveyed cost of all subcontracters by varying amounts up to 100%.
4. Often the name of the subcontractor is not disclosed or [their existence] establishable... because of concerns that disclosure of their remuneration by the Tobacco Indsitute could harm the credibility of the work they produce."

1987 May 18: The same day as the auditor's report [above], James Savarese & Associates were placed under contract with the Tobacco Institute for two years — and with their hourly rates and markups defined. Tollison was then earning $100 per hour for his contributions.

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]

LOUISIANA, Kurth, Baton Rouge Advocate, [circ.] 149,000, [pub date] 5/17/87

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

In LOUISIANA
Kurth for Baton Rouge Advocate —Owed $500, — Total to date $1525

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

• a general consumption tax (efficient but regressive)
• increased excise taxes (inefficient and regressive)
• a national lottery (regressive and competitive with State lotteries)
• increased income taxes (unpopular)

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.

LOUISIANA
Professor Michael Kurth McNeese State University Lake Charles, LA

Excise Tax Op Eds: Baton Rouge Advocate — 05/17/87
Economic Witness/Testimony:
Field Staff Contact: Telephone; meeting scheduled.
Field Staff Evaluation: None.

1987 Aug 31: William Kloepfer (VP of Public Affairs at Tobacco Institute) memoes his Issues Manager, Peter Sparber. They have obviously been evaluating the success of the cash-for-comments program.

Jeff [Ross] 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

LOUISIANA
Professor Michael Kurth McNeese State University Lake Charles, LA
  •   Excise Tax Op Eds: Baton Rouge Advocate —05/17/87
  •   Economic Witness/Testimony: [nil]
  •   Field Staff Contact: Telephone; meeting scheduled
  •   Field Staff Evaluation: None.

1988: Kurth received the Duncan Black Award from the Public Choice Society for co-authoring the best article in public choice that year.

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.

1988 April 25: NorthWest Airlines had just implemented the first ban on short domestic flights (formalised by the FAA on April 23rd), and the Tobacco Institute was turning out its lobbyists to convince the other airlines that smoking bans of any kind were a bad idea. The economists were central to this propaganda project.

• Michael Babcock (Kansas Uni) wrote "Good service, not gimmicks win fliers" for the Topeka Capital-Journal which suggested that Northwest was a dangerous and unreliable airline, and that it should concentrate on maintenance and safety rather than persecuting smokers.
• Michael Kurth (McNeese State) wrote "Market forces are the best way to guarantee freedom" for the Shreveport Journal. He saw it in personal freedom terms:

  The political remedy to social conflict is to ban "offensive" behavior. In a democracy, that usually means the behavior of a minority. That is what the Federal Aviation Administration did when it banned smoking on all airline flights lasting more than two hours. Some air travelers were offended by the smoking of other passengers, even though the smokers were isolated in the back of the plane.
  
      But by what criteria were their preferences elevated and satisfied over the preferences of smokers?

• Ryan Amacher (Clemson University) had "Eliminating choice failed marketplace test" He claims that the Northwest Airlines experience had been a disaster (in fact it was highly successful). He also suggests Northwest was a dangerous airline to fly.
• JR Clark (Uni of Tennessee) had "Focus on service would help airlines most" in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
• Michael Davis (Southern Methodist University) had "Smoking ban gets good test" in the Times Herald
• William Hunter (Marquette Uni) had "Airline smoking ban example of free-market conflice resolution" in the Capital Times.. He damns the Northwest policy for "failing the market test" and praises those airlines which were competing without smoking bans.

1988 Dec: At the beginning of 1988, Northwest Airlineshad successfully banned smoking on all US domestic flights. Then in April 1988 a two-year trial smoking ban on all domestic flights of less than two hours duration had been introduced by the FAA.

    The tobacco industry had flown into a panic since their own polling showed that a majority of airline passengers (smokers and non-smokers) were reasonably happy with such bans. They therefore instructed the cash-for-comments network economists to write articles attacking the financial stability of Northwest, attack its safety record, and preaching the need for smoking 'tolerance'.

    The resulting articles generally took the line that Northwest Airlines was suffering financially... when in fact, the ban had been generally successful. This was, in fact, a clear attempt at influencing the stock-market to put pressure on airline management.

    Involved in this disinformation exercise were

• Michael Babcock, Kansas State Uni (Topeka Capital-Journal) "Good service, not gimmicks win fliers"
• Michael Kurth McNeese State Uni, letters to the editor. (Shreveport Journal)
• Ryan Amacher, Clemson University (unknown) "Eliminating choice failed market test
• JR Clark, Uni of Tennessee, Martin (Memphis Commercial Appeal) "Focus on service would help airlines most.
• Michael Davis, Southern Methodist Uni (LA Times Syndicate/Times Herald) "Smoking ban gets good test."
• William Hunter, Marquette Uni (The Capital Times) "Airlines smoking ban example of free-market conflict resolution."

1989 Jan: The TI Communications division report dealt with

• Media and "Truth-squad" tours by consultants - Gray Robertson, David Weeks, Jack Peterson, Tollison and Wagner
• Legal Briefings by John Fox
• Third Party and Allied Activities - Bestype, HBI, John Fox
• Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC) - tobacco and ad agencies
• "Enough is Enough" campaign (attack on Surgeon General's report)
• Counter to AMA "Tobacco Use in America" conference (and JAMA article)
• Labor Management Committee and bribed unions
• Economists op-eds - Allen Parkman, Todd Sandler, David Gay, Lloyd Cohen, Robert Staaf, Michael Kurth

1989 Jan 4: The Tobacco Institute's James Savarese was responsible for attempts to co-opt both genuine and pseudo/astroturf type operations. He has been making contact with these organizations in order to construct some sort of collaborative effort. Savarese's report says:

Airline cabin Air Quality

• participated in strategy meetings of airline cabin air quality task force, including Labor Subcommittee
• worked with airline consultants on indoor air quality
• participated in meetings with pollster on airline smoking issue
• participated in follow-up to November 29 ASHA Board Meeting
• continued op-ed project on Northwest Airlines. As of January 3, three op-ed projects have been published:
  • Shreveport Journal — Michael Kurth — McNeese State Univ.
  • Commercial Appeal — JR Clark — University of Tenn.at Martin
  • The Greenville News — Ryan Amacher — Clemson Univ.

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

• Pages 3 to 23 begin with Witness Appearances in 1988 and 1989 involving both "Indoor Air Quality experts" who work for the Tobacco Institute, and three economists [Bob Tollison, Richard Wagner and Dwight Lee]
• Pages 24 to 31 Labor IAQ Presentations in 1988 and 1989 which involves key figures in the labor movement and a few "IAQ experts."
• Pages 32 to 39 IAQ/ETS conferences attended by tobacco industry disinformation experts in 1988 and 1989
• Pages 40 to 41 Academic and Unaffiliated Scientfic Witnesses
• Pages 43 to 53 Smokers Rights Legislation in various states.
• See page 54: Tobacco Institute "Confidential" memo on "Tax Hearing Readiness" which is their battle plan to counter earmaking of cigarette excise taxes to fund health programs. It lists a large number of organizations and a few congressmen who can be relied on to help. It also has both primary and secondary lists of economists from Tollison's "cash-for-comments" network willing to give testimony.

  Economists: [Primary]

  • Bill Orzechowski, Tobacco Institute
  • Robert Tollison, George Mason University
  • Richard Wagner, George Mason University
  • Dwight Lee, University of Georgia, Athens
  • Michael Davis, Southern Methodist University
  • Gary Anderson, California State at Northridge
  • William Prendergast (resource: Prendergast/Solmon papers)
  • Other Network economists [see Secondary attached list below]
    
        "Due by mid-year is a book examining earmarking and "user fees" from a public choice perspective. The treatise will contain 8-10 chapters written by respected economists, including, Henri LePage and Nobel laureate James Buchanan."

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

  LOUISIANA
  
  Prof Michel Kurth, McNeese State University

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

See page 5

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

• "Social Costs" Hearings Readiness (preparation for fielding witnesses at Congressional hearings.) They list here the arguments

  What TI and Its Allies Must Cover

  1. "Social cost" arguments used to justify excise tax increases, smoking restrictions and ad bans are not valid.
  2. Independent economists state that "social cost" calculations used by anti-smokers do not withstand credible economic scrutiny.
  3. There is no convincing economic evidence that smokers impose costs on society. Any supposed costs are "private costs" and are borne by the smoker.
  4. Other industries are vulnerable to social cost attacks. A "slippery slope" may exist as anti-smokers, using "social costs" arguments, seek legislation restricting smoking or increasing taxes. These efforts may signal lawmakers to regulate other products as well.

• "Tax" Hearing Readiness (as above, but for excise tax increases, State and Federal)

  What TI and Its Allies Must Cover

  1. Excise taxes are regressive and take away tax reform for low- and middle-income Americans. As a percentage of income, low income families pay as much as 27 times more in federal excises than high-income families.
  2. Cigarette excise taxes are discriminatory. They fall disproportionately on Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities.
  3. Excise taxes are unfair. Tobacco consumers are forced to pay more than others for government services benefitting everyone. Why should smokers pay more for national defense than nonsmokers?

• List of cash-for-comment network economists in each State.

LOUISIANA
Prof Michael Kurth
Department of Economics
McNeese State University
Lake Charles, LA 70601 318-855-6732

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

1995 Oct: /E The tobacco industry was fighting to block the FDA from regulating cigarettes as a drug-delivery system. Philip Morris has been sent a list of the Tobacco Instutute's network economists who had been commissioned, and had...

... prepared and submitted op-eds [attacking the FDA] for publication to major newspapers in select states — targetting key Congressional districts:

    Economists prepared and submitted op-eds for publication to major newspapers in select states:

• Dr William Boyes, Arizona State University
• Dr Barry Poulson, University of Colorado
• Dr Dominick Armentano, University of Hartford
• Dr Dwight Lee, University of Georgia, Athens
• Iowa economist tbd [To Be Determined]
• Dr Cecil Bohanan, Ball State University
• Dr Robert Pulsinelli, Western Kentucky University
• Dr Michael Kurth, McNeese State University (Louisiana)
• Dr Bill Shughart, II, University of Mississippi
• Dr Joe Bell, Southwest Missouri State University
• Dr Terry Ridgway, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Dr Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico
• Dr Lowell Gallaway, Ohio University
• Dr Ed Price, Oklahoma State University
• Dr William Mitchell, University of Oregon
• Dr J.R. Clark, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
• Dr Michael Davis, The University of Texas at Dallas
• Robert Higgs, Independent Institute, Edmonds, Washington
• Dr Charles Breeden, Marquette University

• While FDA claims their focus is on preventing youth smoking, the action is the first step to impose harsher regulations on tobacco;
• The FDA regs will have repercussions on not only the tobacco industry, but vending, confectionery and candy industries, distributors, advertisers and sponsors for sporting events; and
• The regs will have a devastating impact on jobs.

1995 Dec 8: The Savarese Status Report on the FDA Op-ed Program Keileigh Varnum has advised Caool Hycaj that

As reflected in the report, new developments have occurred in Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Washington and New Mexico.

    In addition, I have attached Bob Pulsinelli's (Western Kentucky University) article which ran In the Lexington Herald-Leader on December 1,1995. I will forward the original to you as soon as we receive it.

1995 Dec 21: Savarese & Associate's Status report to Carol Hyrcaj at the Tobacco Institute on the FDA op-editorial program [Dec 8th].

As reflected in the status report, we have replaced Iowa, Wisconsin, and the Houston congressional district with three new states (California, Massachusetts and West Virginia). As you know, we have already received Robert Sexton's (California) article, as well as confirmation that the economist in Massachusetts is able to participate.

At this time, we are asking those economists that have published, to forward a copy of their article to their congressman/congresswoman.

• Professor Cecil Bohanon — "Revised op-ed returned to economist 11/10"
• " Professor Pogue has been contacted. We are waiting to hear whether he will be able to particpate."
• Professor Kurth — "Will have op-ed to us by next week" [for checking]
• Professor Ridgway — "Will have op-ed to us in a week"
• Professor Gallaway — "Returned revised op-ed to economist 11/2"
• Professor Davis — "Returned revised op-ed 11/3"
• Clifford Fry, Resources Inc, Bryan Texas — "Had to identify new economist. Sent materials 11/14"
• Prof Charles Breeden, Marquette University, — "Had to identify new economist. Sent materials 11/14"

1996 Jan 5: This Status Report on FDA Op-ed Program is revealing about the master-servant relationship between the tobacco industry and their network economists. It lists 20 attempted newpaper plants of their anti-FDA propaganda and details about the 20 economists who wrote these articles on commission:

LOUISIANA
Professor Michael Kurth, Department of Economics, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA
  [No publication details]
  [Note says] "Spoke with 1/3. He apologizes for the delay and will have his article to us in a week. "[It will then need checking and 'improving' before being sent to the newspaper.]

1996 Jan 26: This Status report for the FDA Op-Ed Program shows that they were still planting articles and contacting Congressmen for the Tobacco Institute.

1996 Jan 31: Kelleigh Varnum of Savarese & Associates sent the Tobacco Institute re: FDA Op-ed Program

• Copy of Joe Bell's (Missouri letter to Senator Ashcroft and Congressman Hancock
• Michael Kurth's (Louisiana) op-editorial for your review.
• Lowell Gallaway (Ohio) informed us yesterday that his article was published January 27, 1996 in the Dayton Daily News. A copy of his op-ed is included in the enclosed packet.

1996 Feb: /E The Tobacco Institute's Media Relations report on the Economists:

Ongoing
• An extensive economist op-ed program was implemented to focus media attention on the FDA's agenda. The program attacks the FDA proposal from an anti-big government, anti-regulatory perspective. Targeting key Congressional districts:
• Economists prepared and submitted op-eds for publication to major
      newspapers in select states :
  • Dr William Boyes, Arizona State University
  • Dr Barry Poulson, University of Colorado
  • Dr Dominick Armentano, University of Hartford
  • Dr Dwight Lee, University of Georgia, Athens
  • Iowa economist tbd [To Be Determined]
  • Dr Cecil Bohanan, Ball State University
  • Dr Robert Pulsinelli, Western Kentucky University
  • Dr Michael Kurth, McNeese State University (Louisiana)
  • Dr Bill Shughart, II, University of Mississippi
  • Dr Joe Bell, Southwest Missouri State University
  • Dr Terry Ridgway, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
  • Dr Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico
  • Dr Lowell Gallaway, Ohio University
  • Dr Ed Price, Oklahoma State University
  • Dr William Mitchell, University of Oregon
  • Dr J.R. Clark, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
  • Dr Michael Davis, The University of Texas at Dallas
  • Robert Higgs, Independent Institute, Edmonds, Washington
  • Dr Charles Breeden, Marquette University

1996 Feb 21: Michael Kurth's article "the Bureaucracy Takes on Teenage Smoking is published in some obscure newspaper called Lagniappe. It is an attack on the FDA, as required by the commission. It makes the 'forbidden fruit" argument that when something is banned, it immediately becomes more desirable.

    And like most of the other anti-FDA article it attempts to portray FDA Commissioner David Kessler on some totalitarian power-grab like a cartoon villian.
[He uses the name "Dr Michael Kurth" here rather than "Professor" which lends itself to the interpretation that the author is a medical doctor.]

1996 Mar 1: The FDA Op-Ed Status Report shows that Kurth has drafted his article for the Shreveport Times; sent it to the Tobacco Institute for checking and legal clearnance, and it had been returned to him on the 14th Feb (no further information about submission or contacting Congressmen)

1996 Mar 8: Kelleigh Varnum, of Savarese & Associations advises Carol Hrycaj at the Tobacco Institute that:

We have located an economist to replace John David (WV). His name is Cliff Dobitz (ND). The status report reflects this addition.

    Also attached is Ed Price's (OK) letter to Congressman Largent.

1996 Apr 16: Kelleigh Varnum advises the Tobacco Institute on the progress of the FDA Op-ed Program.

To date, 14 of 20 articles have published.

• David Kurth (LA) informed us that his op-ed published on February 21, in Lagniappe. Apparently, there was a breakdown in communication with the editor and he did not realize that the article had published. Enclosed is a copy of the article. Unfortunately, it is of very poor quality. We will forward the original to you when we receive it.
  
  
• Although the Atlanta Constitution has promised for quite some time to publish Dwight Lee's op-editorial, there still have not been any developments. As a result, we have directed Dwight to pursue other outlets for submission.
  
  
• Cecil Bohanon (IN) is contacting the editor of the Journal Gazette. He will pursue other outlets for submission if they decide not to publish his article.
  
  
• Publication of Barry Poulson's (CO) and Cliff Dobitz's (ND) op-editorials is forthcoming.
  
  
• Both Mike Davis (TX) and Terry Ridgway (NV) are checking with their editors on the status of their articles.

• Shreveport Times - declined
• Lagniappe - Published February 21,1996

1996 May 16: Kurth, like many of the more productive of the network economists, was back working for Jim Savarese and the tobacco industry; this time they are attacking the Federal Drug Administration (FDA).

    In this Status Report listing he is shown to have sent an op-ed to the

Shreveport Times, which declined to publish it. It was then sent to Lagniappe (?) which published in on Feb 21 1996.

    He also Contacted Congressman Jimmy Hayes on 16th May

Enclosed is a copy of an editorial I wrote about the FDA's attempt to regulate the sale of tobacco products. I received a number of positive calls after its receny publication in Lagniappe.

    It seems that many people — regardless of their position on smoking — recognized that bringing in more federal regulators is not the answer and that it sets a dangerous precedent if a cigarette is ruled a "device" for delivering a drug, nicotine, then surely a bottle could be ruled a device for delivering a drug, alcohol.

1996 May 17: Kelleigh Varnum-Roffman of Savarese & Associates is reporting to Walter Woodson at the Tobacco Institute re the FDA Project. She includes:

• Updated status report on the FDA op-editorial program
• Original copy of Cliff Dobitz's (ND) published op-editorial
• Copy of Michael Kurth's (LA) letter to Congressman Hayes

To date, 15 of 20 articles have published. Please find below some brief notes regarding the status of the remaining op-editorials.

• Publication of Barry Poulson's (CO) op-ed is forthcoming.
• Although the Atlanta Constitution has promised for quite some time to publish Dwight Lee's op-editorial, there still have not been any developments. As a result, Lee is pursuing other outlets for submission.
• Cecil Bohanon (IN), Terry Ridgway (NV) and Mike Davis (TX) are checking with the editors of their papers. They will report back to me on the status of their articles. We will pursue other outlets for submission if any of the above are declined.

Professor Michael Kurth
      Sheveport Times declined
      Lagniappe published Feb 21
[Kurth] contacted Congressman Jimmy Hayes 5/16

1996 June 24: Status Report on FDA Op-Ed Program. It lists the various network economists and the articles they have planted with their newspapers. It also records publication dates and those newspapers which declined to use the propaganda, together with the Congressmen who have been contacted.

    About this network economist it says:

LOUISIANA
Professor Michael Kurth, Department of Economics, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA
Submitted to: Shreveport Times - declined: Lagniappe - Published February 21, 1996
Contacted Congressman Jimmy Hayes on 5/16/96

1998 Aug 15: The Florida "Press Journal" carried an article "Government assults success" by cash-for-comments economist DT Armentano which attacks the McCain tobacco bill and the FDA.

    The list of activities of the other economists shows that the network continued to be operated by the Tobacco Institute itself (under Walter Woodson, and Lance Morgan - both Public Affairs division). [Savarese is not now in the picture.] The op-eds are now being rejected by many newspapers, who are no longer willing to publish tobacco industry propaganda.

And, since legally discovered tobacco documents had already begun to appear on-line, the Tobacco Institute has carefully deleted the names of the Professor of Economics who wrote each op-ed piece.

Kurth is listed under the heading

LOUISIANA McNeese State University

• DECLINED: The Advocate
• PUBLISHED 6-17 Lagniappe

CONTRIBUTORS:KRS8 hrh2 GWSG