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 Dennis Logue was one of the tobacco industry's more useful and enthusiastic supporters through their cash-for-comments network.

The network was set up in November 1982 by James Savarese (working through his own company and Ogilvy & Mather PR) with later expansion nationwide through Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University who ran the Center for Study of Public Choice and was the power behind the Public Choice Society.

Most of these network economists held extreme free-market/ Hayekian/ Randian positions. But that is not the problem ... many intellectually-honest and highly moral economists hold similar views. The problem was that these academics:

• allowed the Tobacco Institute to stipulate the subject matter for 'learned articles', and nominate both the media outlet and the Congressmen to influence, then
• agreed to the Tobacco Institute staff and lawyers editing, modifying and 'improving' articles published under their name (with university affiliations) while proclaiming "these views are my own."
• (Some) took commissions to produce and publish 'customised' or manipulated research, designed to mislead.
• They also collaborated and conspired with others on the network to promote what was clearly tobacco industry propaganda, and
• hid these commerical relationships from their universities, students and the general public — the people who paid their salaries and provided them with positions of trust.

Tollison and Savarese acted as contractors and cut-outs, using the Center for the Study of Public Choice at George Mason University ( GMU), which supplied the adminstration staff. They recruited ultra-libertarian economics professors at the major state universities through the Public Choice Society and various regional economics societies.

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 also through James Savarese & Associates. which acted for Ogilvy & Mather in the early years of the network.

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 at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College. Hanover, NH and a visiting Fellow at Georgetown University. [The Steven Roth Professor at the Amos Tuck School at Dartmouth College]

• Previously, he served as Dean and Fred E. Brown Chair at the Michael F. Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma.

• BA in English, Fordham University,
    • MBA Rutgers University,
    • PhD in Managerial Economics; Cornell University,

1984 Jul 11: The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

Tactics:

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

Strategies:

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

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

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

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

1985 Jan 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.

NEW HAMPSHIRE [No Rep. listed]
  •   Professor Dennis Logue
      Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire

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.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Professor Dennis Logue
Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire

1985 Feb 21: Roger Mozingo of the Tobacco Institute is sending his state directors a list of resources available to fight against excise taxes in their states. Dennis Logue heads their state list of available economic witnesses for New Hampshire.

• K Celese Gaspari (Uni of Vermont) — a cash-for-comment economist
• David N Laband (Uni of Maryland) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Fred McChesney (Emory Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Dean Tipps — nominally a union official — actually Citizens for Tax Justice lobbyist
• Allen M Parkman (Uni of New Mexico) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Richard Vedder (Ohio Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Roger Faith (Arkansas State Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Lee Alston (Williams college) — a cash-for-comment economist
• William Hunter (Marquette Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Dennis Logue (Dartmouth College) — a cash-for-comment economist
• William Shughart (George Mason Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Harold Hochman (City Uni of New York) — a cash-for-comment economist
• David Wilhelm (Citizens for Tax Justice) — think-tank lobbyist
• Joseph Jadlow (Oklahoma State Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Robert Ekelund (Auburn Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
• Thomas Borcherding (Claremont Grad. School) — a cash-for-comment economist

1986: At some time during this year Dennis Logue and Robert Tollison supposedly did a study which showed that the cure was worse than the smoking disease. This was claimed many years later in a Philip Morris pamphlet:

[The Claim:]
Studies have concluded that smoking restrictions reduce worker productivity because of time lost for smokers to leave their work areas in order to smoke outside or in a breakroom. Productivity losses can double or triple when nonsmokers are given similar breaks.

• Dennis Logue, Ph.D., and Robert D. Tollison, Ph.D., released a report in 1986 that analyzed the estimated economic impact of instituting smoking prohibitions (except in designated smoking areas) in private and public workplaces in the state of New Hampshire. According to the report, a major concern of private employers is the potential loss in productivity that would occur if employees were not allowed to smoke at their worksites. It would be necessary to institute breaks for employees that would result in significant lost work time and, therefore, lost production.
  
      Logue and Tollison evaluated the cost of instituting two 10-minute breaks/day based on average hourly compensation rates and concluded that productivity losses in private workplaces could range from $21.9 million to $65.1 million in New Hampshire.
  
      The study also pointed out concerns with instituting breaks for smokers that might not also be offered to nonsmokers, particularly among nonprofessional, clerical, and union workers. Expanding breaks to all workers would significantly increase costs by as much as double or triple the total costs.
  
• In another report released in 1986, James Savarese & Associates attempted to quantify the economic effects of extending smoking restrictions in effect in New York City to all "public places". Using similar assumptions for expanded break policies in workplaces to Logue/Tollison, the study conservatively estimated that productivity losses in private workplaces in New York City would total approximately $50.4 million.
  
• In 1988, James Savarese & Associates released a report analyzing the potential impact of instituting a total prohibition on indoor smoking in public places in Oregon. Under reasonable assumptions, the report showed, productivity losses could easily reach $34 million per year. The study also showed that 3,190 jobs could be lost under the smoking ban.

1986: This is the Tollison/Saverese network list for 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:

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Professor Dennis Logue
    Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 03755, 603-646-2830

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 Dennis Logue
  Tuck School Of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

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 Mar 11: Bill Kloepfer (Head of PR) reports to Sam Chilcote the president of the Tobacco Institute on a meeting he has had with "Consulting Economists" over "Tax Issue Advice"

As you suggested, I met March 5 in a hotel room with five economists to discuss approaches by the industry to tax issues. Pete Sparber participated. Attending were:

• James Savarese, Ogilvy & Mather
• Dennis Logue, Dartmouth
• Dolores Martin, University of Nebraska
• Dwight Lee, University of Georgia
• Henry Butler, University of Chicago

Consensus among the consultants emerged on four points:

1. Some types of earmarking of cigarette excises may be beneficial.
2. Plotting of a long-run demand curve for cigarettes is necessary.
3. Academic research on the "social costs" issue is needed.
4. Institute support of alternatives to excises as revenue sources is undesirable.

For background, I provided three documents to the consultants a week before the meeting: The executive summary of the Chase [Econometrics] study; the state activities division Feb. 10 memorandum on "Tax Revenue Earmarking Trends and Comments"; and the DeSeve [Economics Associates, Inc.] regressivity study.

• Earmarking: The advice we received was to consider carefully any earmarking proposals, perhaps accepting those which present a coalition probability and protesting those which do not.
• Demand Curve: The effect of price, including excises, on cigarette demand apparently is usually measured on an immediate basis. Most economists evidently find the demand for cigarettes to be relatively inelastic. [because they are addictive]
• Social Cost: While the so-called social costs issue affects public policy in many ways, it was recognized as one of the incentives for increased cigarette taxes. The group recognized the 1985 Office of Technologic Assessment memorandum as a landmark and its members indicated they would welcome an opportunity to study it as a basis for proposing research projects which could mitigate its unwarrented effects.
  
      They understand that The Institute does not have an economic research budget per se, but that we would welcome any suggestions which we might consider on their merits.

The discussion lasted for about five hours. It was quite worthwhile. We should take appropriate steps internally now to consider the major points which emerged.

1986 Mar 24: State Activities director Katherine Becker lists in her activities report:

Letter to Professor Dennis Logue in re transmittal of NH economic impact study.

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 May: A bundle of 72 pages of information is being circulated by the Tobacco Institute to its Regional Directors. The data is predominantly on the tobacco-industry beat-up known as Sick Building Syndrome and on the general problems of Indoor Air Quality [all down-playing the effects of smoking in confined spaces]

    Section 1 is headed

List of sources. Local and national experts you can call for quotes or background information. It promotes the services of three specialist lobbyists

• Lewis Solmon - an academic who discounts problems of workplace smoking
• Al Vogel - who claims to be an expert in public attitudes to smoking
• Mike Forscey, a labor lawyer/lobbyist who helped the tobacco industry keep the union movement on-side.

1986 May 16: Jim Savarese and Bob Tollison have reviewed the "Social Cost' (OTA) research proposals received and they suggest to the Tobacco Institute those that "Merit Consideration for Funding:"

Although these can be improved in some regards to ensure they are most useful to the industry, three proposals seem to have a good deal of merit.

1. "Is Absenteeism Related to Smoking? An Empirical Study" by Robert Ekelund, Richard Ault, and John Jackson. This is a solid, well thought out proposal. I think they could show that smokers are not more absent from work, other things equal.
2. "The Relevance of Consumption Benefits from Smoking: An Empirical Assessment" by Dwight R. Lee and Phillip A. Cartwright. This is a good proposal to estimate the benefits of smoking, which, strangely enough, has never been done. This research will be quite useful.
3. "Employment Effects of Smoking Bans in Public Accommodations" by CM. Lindsay and M. T. Maloney. This is an interesting proposal about smoking bans and the impact on restaurants.

• "Improving the Accuracy of the Assessment of Social Cost Associated with Smoking" by Barry W. Poulson.

1986 July 3: Ellen Quinn in TI accounting still has not received the required payment data for network economists Thomas Borcherding, Dennis Logue and Greg Niehaus [Although she manages to spell his name correctly]

When requesting a payment for services, an honorarium, or a political contribution, please include the social security or federal ID number and the address of the recipient.

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 and Ed Battison adds his own evaluation of Logue's proposal:

Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College
Logue present a few refreshing remarks on earmarking, advertising bans, and mainly on other reasons for days lost from work vs smoking related illness. He mentions drinking, drugs, violent exercise, and the communicable disease factor in the workplace, but these are difficult to measure as causes of absenteeism.

1986 Aug: The Regional Vice Presidents (RVPs) and Regional Directors (RDs) of the Tobacco Institute in charge of various areas have supplied comments on their Economic Witnesses. Six of the RVPs thought it important that the economist was a resident of the State, "Ideally associated with the State University", while three did not, provided they were "presented to the legislators by a 'credible... organization' (e.g. chambers of commerce, labour union)." [Provided they hid their tobacco industry backing behind a front organization.]

Comments on Witnesses
Region I: The local economists (eg, Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College), "while obviously good at their craft, " tend to be "good... ' supply-siders'." They lack a certain credibility with the region's more liberal legislators.

    The witnesses have not been "completely comfortable" with all the findings of the economic impact studies [Done by the Tobacco Institute] and have "some difficulty in articulating them."

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

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

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Economist:] Professor Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 603-646-2830
[Speciality:] Business finance and investment, balance of payments, corporate finance; international finance.

Tax Witnesses:	Materials available
Dennis Logue	N.H. data card "Excise Taxes: The Fairness Issue" "More Taxes on Tobacco...." Earmarking topic sheet Letter writing brochure.
Public Smoking Witnesses:	Materials available
Al Vogel (productivity) Steve Schlossberg (labor implications) Lew Solmon (economics) Bob Klotz (enforcement)	Voter survey Economic survey Labor assistance Response Analysis summaries Public Smoking topic sheet "Some Considerations" workplace kits "In Defense of Smokers" reprint "The Other Side of the Smoking Controversy" reprint Letter writing brochure Advertising.

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.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Professor Dennis Logue
    Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 603-646-2830
    [Specializing in] Business finance and investment, balance of payments, corporate finance; international finance.

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,

See pages 210 to 219 of the bundle which have multiple Letters-to-editor/commentary from 17 cash-for-comments economists — William Hunter, Dennis Logue, William Shugart, Harold Hochman. David Wilhelm, Joseph Jadlow, Robert Ekelund, Thomas Borcherding, K Celeste Gaspari, David Laband, Fred McChesney, Dean Tipps, Allen Parkman, Richard Vedder, Roger Faith, Lee Alson, and William Hunter,
      They had obviously managed to plant these multiple-author pieces on a number of newspapers.

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:

New Hampshire [ Region I ]

Professor Dennis Logue

Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, 603-646-2830

Services rendered:
• original excise tax op-ed
• brainstorming meeting with Kloepfer P[PR for TI]
• testimony: smoking restrictions - New Hampshire
• economic impact study

1987 Jan 6: and 12 Jim Savarese advises the Tobacco Institute that some economists were no longer working for his network. However Logue is still being listed as their main New Hampshire 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 Logue 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 plus a few new ones.[Greg Niehaus, Mario Rizzo, Roger Riefler, and Boon Yoon.]

Old faithfuls: Lee Anderson, Terry Anderson, Dom Armento, 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

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:

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Professor Dennis Logue
Tuck School of Business Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 603-646-2830

(on leave at Georgetown University this year)
School of Business Administration
Georgetown University
Washington, DC 20057

1987 Mar 24: Jim Savarese writes to Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute about the "Tobacco Excise Tax Op-ed Project".

Attached please find two more excise tax op-eds and a copy of the clipping from the Hartford Courant.

    As of today, 18 articles have been written and 2 articles have been published. As I mentioned earlier, the Des Moines Register has accepted an article and we have a good chance at the Houston Post.

1987 Feb 24: Dennis Dyer of the Tobacco Institute writes directly to Professor Logue at Dartmouth College.
[It is a form letter, also written to other academics on the network]

Dear Professor Logue:
Some time ago you were contacted by Jim Savarese with regard to the economic impact of the tobacco industry on New Hampshire. I assume you continue in your interest in the economics of tobacco.

    In anticipation of possible tax and smoking restriction legislation in New Hampshire in 1987, I would like to discuss some of your opinions on the economic arguments in each of these areas. For your consideration, I have enclosed the following materials:

• New York Smoking Prohibition Economic Impact Study.
• New York Summary of Cigarette Tax Trends and Impacts.
• New York Study of Cigarette Tax Sunset Provisions on Sales and Bootlegging.

These are typical of the type of materials sometimes prepared for Tobacco Institute use.
[They were virtually templates for use in any state... and being offered to Logue in New Hampshire as ready-made reports for customization.]

    I would appreciate your written candid comments on the substance of, presentation of, and ability to defend the materials. During the near future, I will be in Hanover area and would like to get together with you to discuss these materials and how they can be improved. In addition, I would like to discuss the potential for your active participation in their development and presentation to various publics within New Hampshire.

    Again, my thanks for your continued interest and help during the 1984 legislative session. I hope we can develop some believable materials for use in New Hampshire.

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.

    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 Dennis Logue:
"Yes, outstanding witness"

1987 Jun 3: Memo on "Economic Witness Evaluation" from Dennis Dyer of the New England division of Tobacco Institute to his superior, George Minshew.

The Public Relations Division has identified six economists in New England who appear willing to work with us on our tobacco-related issues. In April another economist was identified and subsequently contacted — Professor Simon Rottenberg, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

During the past three years, I have had an opportunity to meet and work with the designated economic witnesses in Maine (Professor Robert McMahon) and New Hampshire (Professor Dennis Logue).

• Professor McMahon reviewed and agreed to "author" [their quotes] an economic impact study on the effects of a public smoking bill in Maine. He presented testimony at two worksessions and conducted a limited number of one-on-one briefings. The bill was defeated.
• Professor Logue testified on a broad workplace bill. In conjunction with this testimony, he submitted an economic impact study prepared by Jim Savarese. The bill was enacted.

[This is an unequivocal statement that these academics allowed their names to be attached as 'authors' to propaganda and pseudo-research prepared by the tobacco industry in order to deceive legislators.]

    On February 24 I contacted each of the identified economists in the region by letter (Attachment B). In each instance I provided the economist with three examples of Tl-generated economic impact studies and asked for their initial impressions and recommendations.
[He was effectively asking them whether they would put their names to this pseudo-research]

    Three of the seven economists [in the New England region only] responded (Attachments C-l through C-3). With the exception of Professor Celeste Gaspari from Vermont, the other two seem to continue their interest. Only Professor Logue chose to give even the briefest of responses to my inquiry.

    Follow-up conversations with all of the identified economists indicate a general willingness to be involved but a lack of real understanding as to what our requirements might be.

• Attachment 1. Page 15 is a pro-industry article Armentano has written in the Hartford Courant, "Cigarette taxes flunk on fairness"
• Attachment 2. Page 16 is the resume of Robert C McMahon, who is an Associate Professor of Economics at the USM.
• Attachment 3. Page 19 is the resume of Lee J Alston, Assisant Professor of Economics at Williams College and a private consultant to an unnamed law firm. [He is in Australia on leave - see reply page 45]
• Attachment 4. Page 24 is the resume of Dennis E Logue of the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire. [He is at Georgetown University at this time, and he replies (Page 46) favourably reviewing the literature he has been sent, and suggesting lines of defense for the industry]
• Attachment 5 . Page 32 is the resume of Arthur C Mead, Assistant Professor at the University of Rhode Island. [He didn't reply to the TI request that he review their literature and comment on the economic case]
• Attachment 6 . Page 37 is the resume of K Celeste Gaspari, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Vermont. [She replies (Page 48) saying she is still waiting for the annual $1000 retainer she was promised, and is disappointed with the Tobacco Institute. She won't work with them if this is the way they do business.]

  I will reiterate my disappointment with the Tobacco Institute. It is true I never had a written agreement with the Institute —we only spoke over the phone. I did, however naively, trust that a verbal agreement with a prestigious institute was as good as a formal contract. I was evidently mistaken.
  
      In answer to your letter, I am not interested in working with your group at this time if this is the way you do business.

• Attachment 7 . Page 40 is the resume of William F Shughart II, ex Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Economics at the FTC, and now an Associate Professor at Clemson University. [He apparently didn't reply — but he was a long-term lackey anyway.]

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]

NEW HAMPSHIRE, Logue, Union Leader, [circ.] 71,000, [pub date] "This week"

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 NEW HAMPSHIRE
Logue for Union Leader —Owed $1500 — Total to date $1500

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.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Professor Dennis Logue Dartmouth College Hanover, NH

Excise Tax Op Eds: Manchester Union Leader — 06/16/87
Economic Witness/Testimony: nil
Field Staff Contact:. Yes
Field Staff Evaluation: Outstanding witness.

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.

    In the case of those who have not had an article accepted for publication I would like to know whether they submitted one.

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 Jan 15: Jim Savarese and Associates, joint subcontracts with Ogilvy & Mather, is outlining the arragements for handling the economists and the labor unions to the Tobacco Institute

Nineteen eighty-seven was a banner year for the Tobacco Institute in its fight against excise tax increases at the federal level.
    Through careful coalition building and effective message dissemination, the Institute was able to fight the battle on its own terms and secure a substantial victory.

    In reviewing your 1988 plans, we found many areas where Ogilvy & Mather and Savarese and Associates can continue to provide services. There are also new areas where we have expertise which have not been fully explored.

Our work with the network of forty-two economists should continue into 1988. In 1987, the network was effective in producing op-eds and submitting and presenting testimony. These activities should continue in 1988. In addition, the economists network can be used for editorial board briefings, presentations at conferences and the placement of articles on this issue with major media outlets.

    In order to make the most of the new opportunities for the economist network, several factors must be taken into consideration:

• only 7 or 8 of the economists within the network have the potential to make presentations to editorial boards and conferences.
  
  
• those economists selected to make presentations to editorial boards and conferences need a training program. This program may include media training through Michael Sheehan and briefings by Jim Savarese and Bob Tollison.
  
  
• the editorial board program is a limited strategy with applicability mainly at the federal level with some use at the state level.
  
  
• when implementing the editorial board program, Ogilvy & Mather can assist with pitch materials, press kits, and a placement program.

The opportunity exists to place economists on key economic programs, panels, and at national and regional tax policy conferences. As an addendum to this effort, it is possible to have their comments reprinted and distributed.

• Effects of an excise tax increase on the federal budget (and its fairness)
• on bootlegging "and come up with some strong conclusions" [predetermined!]
• In addition, Savarese and Associates can locate a conservative economist to make the argument that there is an acceleration of government spending when taxes are increased. The program will include placement in an economic journal.

New Hampshire
Targeted paper: Union Leader
Economist: Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College

[Why selected:] Commission members Sen. Patrick Moynihan and Felix Rohatyn are from New York. Because we have great difficulty in getting published in New York, we have decided to target the entire Northeast area.

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 Mar 31: Jim Savarese is writing to Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute re the National Economic Commission (NEC) and their Excise Tax Op-Ed Project using selected members of the cash-for-comments economists network.

I have listed below areas that we should target that would be beneficial in reaching members of the NEC. Also attached are the materials that we will send out to the authors.

New Hampshire
Targeted paper: Union Leader
Economist: Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College

1988 June 2: James Savarese has advised the Tobacco Institute on the current status of the "NEC Excise Tax" project. The cash-for-comments economists involved were Abrams, Armentano, Clark, Dalton, David, Davis, Howe, Logue, Maurice, Mitchell, Parkman, Sandler, Tuerck, Wyrick, and Miletello

As it now stands, 5 articles have been published, 2 articles (New Mexico and Missouri) are forthcoming, 6 articles have been submitted for publication, and 5 articles are in the revision stage. We have contacted the authors of the articles which are in the revision stage and those articles should be submitted by the end of next week.

1988 June 23: Debbie Schoonmaker at the Tobacco Institute receives a memo from contract organiser James Savarese with "an update status on the NEC Op-Ed Project: [NEC = National Economic Commission, the group they were trying to influence.]

As it now stands, 9 articles have been published, 4 articles (New Mexico, Missouri, Oregon, and Idaho) are forthcoming, 4 articles have been submitted for publication, and 2 articles are in the revision stage.

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.

  NEW HAMPSHIRE
  
  Prof Dennis Logue, Darmough College

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.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Professor Dennis Logue
Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 603-646-2830

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

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.

2001–20: 05 Dean and Fred E. Brown Chair at the Michael F. Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma

2005 Aug: Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ledyard Financial Group, the holding company for Ledyard National Bank,at Hanover, New Hampshire. Dr Logue is a founding director of Ledyard National Bank.

2013: He is a past president of the Financial Management Association and past director of the American Finance Association.

    A former member of ARCO's Pension Advisory Board, and a former director of Dartmouth National Bank, Condor Technology Solutions, and Sallie Mae (GSE). He is also a founding trustee of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy Research [New Hampshire's premier free-market think-tank... named, as you would expect, after yet another signer of the Declaration of Independence,]

    He currently serves on the boards of Waddell and Reed Financial, Duckwall ALCO Stores, Inc., and Abraxas Petroleum Corporation.

CONTRIBUTORS:samf TRMU ajw2