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 David Klingaman was one of the original cabal of economists who became the nation-wide network working for the Tobacco Institute. It was put together by tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University who collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry with academics 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 to counter attempts at Federal, State or local levels, 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 academic lobbyists to the tobacco industry because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear. Support for the cigarette companies could always be claimed as support for free-market economics — the rights of individuals to make public choices — the promotion of smaller government — or even the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The economist always claimed to be 'independent', 'professionals' and they wre recognised 'academics' from some credible university. They never revealed the source of their funding in their op-eds or letters-to-the-editor.

If ever put under cross-examination, they must be able to claim with weasel-word precision, that they had never received a penny from the tobacco industry. Therefore all payments were laundered, either through tobacco industry lawyers (usually Covington & Burling), the principle organisers, James Savarese & Associates, or through Bob Tollison's Center for the Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.

The aim was to have, in each State, at least one academic economist, one academic lawyer, and one academic from a business management, business law, marketing or advertising discipline willing to jump into action and write op-ed articles for their local newspaper, or to appear at local ordinance or legislative hearings. Copies of these articles were always to be sent to a local Congressman who sat on some important (to the tobacco industry) committee.

The academics were always expected to wave their own and their university's credentials vigorously, and loudly proclaim their "independence' from any crass-commercial motives. And those who could boast of being 'non-smokers' were especially prized — since without this addiction, their non-dependent-on-tobacco status was thought to be proved beyond any doubt!

The foundation document for the expanded Tobacco Institute network (still in the tobacco industry archives) is a draft dated 30 April 1984 "Cigarette Excise Tax Plan" which was aimed at countering the Reagan Administration's "Packwood Tax Plan". [See below]

Some key documents

• Professor of Economic, Ohio University.

The Buckeye Institute. David Klingaman appears to recruited Richard Vedder and Lowell E Gallaway who were both "Distinguished Professors" in economics at Ohio University who also became diligent workers for the tobacco network.

    This group also established (1994-95) their own think-tank, the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions., and there are 101 documents in the tobacco archives which refer to this organisation. It must have been of considerable value to the tobacco industry since they made regular donations and grants-in-aid (a euphemism for 'commissions').

    The 1995 Philip Morris regional report from Columbus Ohio records numerous 'donations' made to Ohio organisations, including $10,000 to the Buckeye Institute for 'Policy' in 1995. and in the 1996 Budget year they provided two further donations of $2,500 each to the Buckeye Center in Dayton. For what it is worth — they claimed that this was...

"To provide renewed general support for this public policy organization whose mission is to offer market-based solutions to issues effecting all Ohioans in the areas of regulation, education, state spending and taxation the environment and others."

The Tobacco Institute also gave the Buckeye Institute a grant of $1000 a year, which probably means that RJ Reynolds also gave them a regular donation.

1984 Apr 30: This 109 page DRAFT Tobacco Institute "Cigarette Excise Tax Plan" was aimed at the Reagan Administration which they suspected was about to extend the life of a temporary excise tax on cigarettes (16¢ per pack). They had an immediate requirement of

• One public finance economist for 10 days @ $1,000, [Total $ 10,000 ] including meetings with coalition members and/or the Governor's staff; research and preparation; and testimony.
• One economist for a union workshop on the tax issue, [Total $5,000] including 3 or 4 training sessions over the course of a convention.
• Six economists @ $5,000 and one senior economist @ $20,000 for a tax symposium, including publishing of the proceedings at $3,000. [Total $53,000] The senior economist would play an oversight/organizational role and would be responsible for editing the proceedings. Such a symposium would be staged for regional or national impact.
• One economist provided to a public employee union to do original research on the need for adequate services to be funded by broad-based taxes; this would include the final report and testimony. [Total $ 25,000]

Potential Economic Consultants
    Following is a list of economists in key states who might assist us as consultants. 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 speaking availability.

    As discussed in the body of this program, our intent is to have a group of individuals who we can call upon regularly to testify, conduct special research projects, and discuss their research and/or views on excise taxes with the media.

• California, Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
• Connecticut, William McEachern, University of Washington
• Florida, Richard Wagner, Florida State University
• Georgia, Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
• Illinois, James Heins, University of Illinois
• Massachusetts, Harlan Platt, Northeastern University
• Minnesota, Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota (St. Paul)
• New York, Harold Hochman, City University of New York
• Ohio, David Klingaman, Ohio University
• Pennsylvania, Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
• Texas, Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
• Washington, Yoram Barazel, University of Washington
• Washington, D.C. Robert D. Tollison, George Mason University
• Wisconsin, Burton Weisbrod, University of Wisconsin

Robert Tollison is the most active and influential person on this list; he was hired to consult on federal tax situations and to oversee efforts of the others throughout the country. His wife also became a network administrator.

See last page

1984 June: /E Tobacco Institute appendixes to some report. Page 5 is a list of "Potential Economic Consultants."

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 projects, and discuss their research and/or views on excise taxes with budget officials, potential coalition members, legislators, and the media.

1984 Jul: The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan.

The plan augments our basic lobbying efforts by relying on groups outside the industry — some not regularly associated with the industry — to argue against excise taxes for us.

    It is an ambitious program, based on the notion that many of the most effective protests against tobacco taxes will come from groups philosophically distant from The Institute. Many such groups agree with us on the excise issue, even though they disagree with us on other matters.

    At the federal level, supporting Congressional members from the tobacco states is essential to our lobbyists. The tobacco members consistently vote as a unified group — something that is rarely seen in Congress today. They are our lobbyists' most important resource.

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

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

Tactics:

• Stimulate reputable public finance economists at key state universities to determine the validity of state revenue forecasts, perhaps on behalf of state business organizations and present arguments against excise taxes in various forums; e.g., meetings with potential coalition members or budget officials.
• Encourage economists to make the case against regressive taxation in meetings with potential coalition members and legislators.
• Retain public finance economists affiliated with non-profit organizations to research the subject and use their findings in forums such as:
  • Private meetings with state legislators or staff ;
  • formal testimony before government bodies ;
  • targeted media appearances;
  • speeches before business, civic, labor, and other groups ;
  • tax symposia in key states where the proceedings could be published for use in other states ; and
  • articles which raise the visibility of key arguments in the business, academic, and popular press.

Strategies:

• Presenting specific members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees with arguments prepared by economists with whom they share some common interest; e.g college affiliation, service on the same commission.
• Gaining the support of Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), the most influential labor/liberal tax reform group in the country, in opposition to excise taxes.
• Relying on the AFL-CIO — via The Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers Union — to ensure that the labor/liberal tax package that emerges in the next session of Congress does not include tobacco.

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

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

Cash-for-Comment Economists
State	Economist
California	Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
Connecticut	William McEachern, University of Washington
Florida	Richard Wagner, Florida State University
Georgia	Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
Illinois	James Heins, University of Illinois
Mass.	Harlan Platt , Northeastern University
Minnesota	Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota (St.P)
New York	Harold Hockman, City University of New York
Ohio	David Klingaman, Ohio University
Penn.	Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
Texas	Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
Wash.DC.	Robert D Tollison, George Mason University.
Wisconsin	Burton Weisbord, University of Wisconsin
[This was the core group which established the cash-for-contents network. Over the years the numbers reached over 100.]

    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.

1986 July 9: In response to the Tobacco Institute request for the network economists to write objecting to the General Services Administration (GSA) attempts to ban workplace smoking in government buildings, four professors of economics at Ohio University penned this letter.

    They are all keen to proclaim the purity of their motives in writing the letter, saying:

At the outset, let us state that we are all non-smokers and non-Federal employees who are not personally directly impacted by the proposal, although we believe we are probably indirectly affected by the possible impact that the regulations have on federal productivity. Our concern arises from the blatant disregard of both the Executive Order 12291 (February 7, 1981) and basic principles of economic analysis.

See also letters by other network economists.

1986 Jul 21: Sam Chilcote of the Tobacco Institute writes to the members of the Executive Committee detailing their successes in generating objections to the proposed GSA [Government Services Administration] anti-smoking bans.

    They have persuaded the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to help having the rules amended, and have turned out their friends and associated companies to generate letters of objection.

Included among the comments received by GSA thus far are thousands generated as a result of contact with TAN [Tobacco Action Network] activists, other tobacco family organizations, key coalitions, organized labor and economists.

    The State Activities Division's alert of key contacts in the field, as well as TAN activists, has generated at least 3,100 letters of opposition. These are letters for which copies have been sent to division headquarters; there are no doubt many others.

    Among member companies, all have asked their employees to write letters of opposition. In addition, RJ Reynolds reports its phone bank efforts to reach Washington, DC, residents, may have resulted in up to 3,700 opposition letters. Reynolds also sought letters from respondents to an earlier mailing on the federal excise tax issue. Philip Morris initiated a program designed to generate up to 10,000 mailgrams to GSA by the comment deadline.

• 8th July — Arthur T Denzau, Washington University, St Louis, Mo
• 3rd July — Barry W Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder
• 10th July — Thomas E Borcherding, Claremont College/Graduate School, California
• 7th July — William F Shughart II, Center for the Study of Popular Choice, George Mason University, Washington DC
• Undated — (joint) Cecil E Bohanon, James E McClure, Stephan F Gohmann, Clarence R Deitsch, Lee C Spector — all PhDs in economics at Ball State University, Muscie, Ind.
• 7th July — John F Militello, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
• 7th July — Jean J Boddewyn, Baruch College, The City University of New York [Advertising lecturer]
• 5th July — Morgan Reynolds, Texas A&M University
• 8th July — Cliff P Dobitz, North Dakota State University
• 8th July — William C Mitchell, University of Oregon
• 11th July — Arthur C Mead, Economist, Newport RI
• 10th July — D Allen Dalton, Boise State University, Idaho
• 10th July — Henry N Butler, George Mason Univeristy
• 10th July — (joint) S Charles Maurice, Leonardo Auernheimer, Niccie L McKay, John R Hanson II, Lynn Gillette, Gregory Delemeester at Texas A&M University
• 9th July — (joint) Robert B Ekelund, Richard Ault, David Saurman, John Jackson, RG Hebert, JK Watson, Mark Thonton, at Auburn University, Alabama
• 9th July — (joint) Richard K Vedder, Lowell E Gallaway, Jan Palmer, David Klingaman at Ohio University

The Ohio Economists.
Richard Vedder was the main Ohio network economist in the October 1986 listings.

• The Buckeye Institute, [a consultancy front for Ohio University professors] probably with all three involved, was also obviously taking tobacco industry commissions.
• In 1987 both Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway were also doing work for Ronald Reagan's Joint Economics Committee,
• Vedder was also working for the
  • American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) [tobacco funded],
  • the National Chamber Foundation (NCF) [also tobacco funded] and
  • an Ohio organisation known as BOBCAT
    [BOBACAT was a tobacco controlled subsidiary of Citizens Against Regressive Taxation (CART) — yet another tobacco front].
  
  
  [Vedder appears to have continued to work for the tobacco network through the period 1987-92 and then handed the commissions back to Klingaman.]
• In November 1991, David Klingaman reappears in the archives, writing a study with Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway on excise taxes in Ohio
  
      This is one of the Tobacco Institute's bootlegging studies where they have their economists maintain that the loss of cigarette sales from towns close to the state borders, would cancel out any revenues from the raised taxes.

1991 Nov: The Economic Impact of Excise and Sales Taxation in Ohio by Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway and David Klingaman, all economics professors at Ohio University — and all well-paid members of the cash-for-comments network.

    They have join forces in writing a study "The Economic Impact of Excise and Sales Taxation in Ohio".

It has been proposed that major increases in excise taxes in the State of Ohio would help to solve a likely state budget deficit. What would be the impact of excise tax increases? That is a major question this study addresses. The authors conclude: The 27 counties along the Ohio border with other states would lose about $285 million in retail sales and about 2.000 jobs.

The authors arrive at their conclusions tbrough an extensive search of the tax literature and economic data, but even more from an extensive field investigation that took them to 12 border locations and over 80 retail outlets. They ascertained the residence of over 1,700 shoppers through license plate counts. They used econometric analysis, interviews with customers, store managers and others to help evaluate the sensitivity of Ohioans to tax changes.

    The authors conclude that "our evidence suggests that the proposed increases in excise taxes will have a significantly negative effect on the border counties of Ohio, counties that in general are somewhat poorer and have higher unemployment than the state average."

Executive Summary

    Newspaper report

1992 Nov 7: Delores Martin, Lowell Gallaway and Gary Anderson, all cash-for-comments economists from the network, are working for Dick Armey (R-TX) by contributing to the preparation of outright political material for the Republican's Joint Economic Committee: "Derailing the Small Business Job Express."

    Lowell Gallaway and Gary Anderson are listed as Visiting Scholars on the JEC Republican staff.They are all working under the notorious lobbyist Ed Gillespie.

1993 March: The Newsletter of the National Chamber Foundation (the NCF President was J Paul Sticht — Executive Chairman of RJ Reynolds)

    The NCF has published a free give-way report The Impact of Recent Federal Regulations on Small Business Job Creation by Lowell Gallaway and Gary M. Anderson (also a cash-for-comments economist).

1993 Mar 23: Jim Savarese is proposing to Cal George at the Tobacco Institute a new Op-ed program.

Outlined below is our proposed op-ed program in opposition to the use of excise taxes to finance health care.

1. Op-ed article by Robert Tollison to be submitted to Wall Street Journal $ 4,000.00
   
2. Rebuttal article by Bob Ekelund, Auburn University, to be submitted to the Birmingham News $ 3,000.00
   
3. "Monster" tax op-ed project using twenty economists (list attached) to submit articles in opposition to using excise taxes on cigarettes to finance health care reform - to be submitted to twenty newspapers in twenty different states $60,000.00
   TOTAL $67,000.00

1993 Mar 23: Savarese is now running a "Monster Tax Op-ed Project" along with other older projects. This package of files show that Klingaman had taken over the Ohio operations from Vedder and Gallaway, and his target newspaper was the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

1993 May 23: This listing shows that David Klingaman had written and submitted his op-ed to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

    By July it had been rejected and resubmitted to the Dayton Daily News

1993 Aug 3: This is a series of lists dated from March to August 1993. Savarese's staff have sent these to the Tobacco Institute to progressively report successes and failures with the economists writing op-ed pieces and having them published.

    Collectively they give us a good idea as to how the network worked and how litte they managed to plant on the major newspapers (the smaller local papers were obviously easy.) It's also interesting to observe the mechanical processes and the tight control the tobacco industry and its lawyers exerted over these academic lackies.

• The articles were either rejected, revised or passed by Jim Savarese and his staff
• They were then sent for checking and alteration by Calvin George [Cal] at the Tobacco Institute.
• The lawyer David Reemes who worked for the industry's main Washington lawfirm Covington & Burling then cleared them for publication.
• The economist then received the revised copies back for onward transmission to the selected newspapers.
• They would then send a copy to their local Congressmen without mentioning the tobacco industry's contractual arrangement.

OHIO
Prof David Klingaman, Dept of Economics, Ohio University, Athens
• Mar 23 — [TI designated newspaper/s] Cleveland Plain Dealer
• Apr 9 — Recieved 4/30/93 — Sent to Cal 4/30/93 — Sent to [David] Reemes [Covington & Burling lawyer] 5/3/93
• May 12 — Submitted to the Cleveland Plain Dealer
• May 18 — (as above)
• June 2 — Submitted to Cleveland Plain Dealer
• June 14— Submitted to Cleveland Plain Dealer
• Aug 3 — (as above - rejected)... Resubmitted to Dayton Daily News, Called 8/3 (no answer)

1994–95: Vedder, Gallaway, Klingaman and other Ohio University economists establish their own think-tank, the Buckeye Center for Public Policy in Dayton.
Philip Morris gave them two grants of $2,500 + $2,500 [$5,000 overall] because they are

"To provide renewed general support for this public policy organization whose mission is to offer market-based solutions to issues affecting all Ohians in the areas of regulation, education, state spending and taxation, the environment and others. "

See page 23

1994 March 16: A group of academic economists including almost all the members of the Tobacco Institute's cash-for-comments network sent an "An Open Letter to President Clinton on Healthcare Reform." This had been organised by David J Theroux, the founder and operator of the Independent Institute apparently with the assistance of an academic network member, Simon Rottenberg. [The institute was well-funded by the tobacco industry]. They say:

In the Open Letter to President Clinton, 565 economists and 76 other scholars from all 50 states and the District of Columbia state their firm opposition to any form of direct and indirect price controls in any healthcare program.

Rationing Health Care: The New Threat of Price Controls, by Simon Rottenberg and David J. Theroux

In countries that have imposed these types of regulations, patients face delays of months and years for surgery, government bureaucrats decide treatment options instead of doctors or patients, and innovations in medical techniques and pharmaceuticals are dramatically reduced.

1998: Richard Vedder has written a report attacking cigarette excise taxes using the tobacco industry line that these price increased boost inter-state smuggling: "Bordering on Chaos: The Cross-Border Impact of Cigarette Taxation.". He mentions the earlier Vedder/Klingham/Gallaway study on cigarette smuggling in Ohio, but fails to mention that these reports were customised to fit the commissioned-requirements of the Tobacco Institute.

    The draft (and TI 'edited') version is at Page 478 of this 626 page package.

CONTRIBUTORS:srs2 samf SHHS