USA

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 Lanfvardt signed up to become a clandestine cash-for-comments network of academic business lawyers operated for the Tobacco Institute but he doesn't appear to have written anything. He was paid $1,500 however, either as a sign-up fee/retainer, or for some other unknown service.

This was a companion network to their much larger tobacco-industry network of academic economists (numbering over a hundred professors of economics, overall) which had representatives in each US State.

The economists network was run by Jim Savarese in partnership with Professor Robert Tollison, the Director of the Center for Study of Public Choice (CSPC) at the George Mason University, and it used the staff of the Center and Anna Tollison as administrators.

However, the business lawyer's network was run independently by Savarese — although it is obvious, from the selection of academics, that many of them were found with the aid of confirmed network economists working at the same university. Tollison's staff and some key economists at the CSPC were sometimes still used to edit and rewrite the material to make it acceptable to newspaper editors.

These university law professors were all contracted on a pay-for-service basis to react to requests circulated by the tobacco industry for help in defeating advertising bans in 1984 and again in 1986. Initially they were paid between $700 and $1000 per time for writing and planting an article.

They were required to expoit the public trust inherent in their academic status — and not to reveal that the tobacco industry paid them for services rendered.:

• Write op-ed articles for their main local newspapers. [chosen by the tobacco industry]
  
• Write to their local Senators and Representatives. [designated by the tobacco industry]
  
• Appear before local State Assemblies or at Congressional hearings in opposition to advertising bans
  
• Occasionally talk to journalists or appear in the broadcast media supporting some legal aspect of tobacco propaganda.

Usually a network project involved:

• an op-ed article or report written to order by the professor.
• it would then be sent to James Savarese
• Savarese's team might pass it on to Tollison and the CSPC for editing and a possible rewrite.
• It would then go the Tobacco Institute for their Issues Management and PR people for corrections and "improvements".
• The Tobacco Institute would then send it to their lawyers for legal checks,
• Finally, the doctored article was then returned to the professor for transmission to the designated newspaper.
• Clippings, and copies of letters to Congressmen, were then returned to the Tobacco Institute as "proof of service rendered."

See
• Cash-for-comments lawyers network

• Cash-for-comment economists network

Some key documents

  • Professor of Business Law at Indiana University

1986 Dec 1: An internal Tobacco Institute memo from Anne Duffin says that

The first of what could be multiple 1987 advertising hearings could occur as early as mid-January in the Senate, a week later in the House. Hearings in the House are more likely, however, in February or March, unlikely in the Senate in the near future. But we must explore options quickly and adopt an overall plan.

She anticipates a well-resourced attack on the industry from Reps Waxman and Synar

TI has neither manpower nor funds to develop and utilize all of the following resources. Nor do I recommend we try to do so.

    But all should be considered and preparations taken for action, depending on what sorts of restrictions are proposed in coming months,: and by whom:

• American Civil Liberties Union
• Freedom of Expression Foundation
  [founded by Senator Bob Packwood and run by UCLA Professor Craig Smith]
• Tobacco lawyers, Covington & Burling, and TI staff are working with a task force of AAAA, AAF and ANA Washington executives [all advertising agency groups] to head off the NYSBA resolution on its way to New Orleans [annual conference] in February and/or win affirmative action from ABA.
• Placement of op-ed page articles and letters to editor by law-oriented professors of business in target cities and states, with judicious distribution of reprints Statusé
        Twenty-plus such professionals have been identified and ready to start. Awaiting amunition on all-text regulation from Covington [& Burling], and draft copy from Ogilvy & Mather, due Dec 15.
• Jean Boddewyn [Baruch College, CUNY] is also working on another possible op-ed piece and [C&B's David] Remes will investigate editing down [Roger] Blackwell and/or [Scott] Ward's Aug 1 testimony [at Congressional hearing] for other articles.

---

1986 Dec 16: Jim Savarese writes to Anne Duffin at the Tobacco Institute:

Attached are three prototype Op-Editorials that address the advertising issue. I realize that some of the arguments made will not be acceptable, but I wanted to see exactly how far we could push.

    In-addition, these prototypes are too lengthy for most newspapers and need to be cutback.

    I have also attached a page of quotes from which excerpts can be drawn.

    Please let me know how you want to proceed.

Prototype articles:
• Advertising Ban On Tobacco: A Costly Economic Mistake
  
• Economics, Free Speech, and the Cigarette Ad Ban
  
• An Advertising Ban On Tobacco: A Threat To Freedom
  

CONTRIBUTORS:TRMU LR13 sjc2