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

John F Militello was an economics lecturer at the Wharton Centre, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (they gave him the 'Professor' title when needed) but he mainly worked as an economics consultant to any industry willing to pay. In his current role is as a professor of health care management — the Director of Health Care at the University of St Thomas, Minnesota.

He is usually listed in the tobacco archives as Mr. Jack Militello, Research Consultant, College of St. Thomas, PO Box 6041, 2115 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota

Militello was also a major figure in the conspiracy of cash-for-comments economists organized by lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University (GMU) on behalf of the tobacco industry.

The economists network had between 50 and a hundred economists at various US State and private universities who were signed up to work behind the scenes for the tobacco industry by Professor Robert D (Bob) Tollison and his partner James Savarese. Most did so with the proviso that their links to the industry were protected from discovery, and that payments were laundered by being passed through one or more corporate bank-accounts.

It worked this way:

• The economists were commissioned when needed.
• They passed drafted op-eds back to Savarese and Tollison for embellishment and checking,
• These were then cleared for legalities by tobacco industry lawyers.
• They were then returned to the economists with instructions to send them to newspapers designated by the Tobacco Institute,
• Copies were also to be sent on university letterhead to a list of Congressmen in their home State [usually those on key Congressional Committees].

This was a clear attempt to influencing Congressmen and the public via the media by utilising the special privileges and popular respect given to university academics entering into public discourse, on the understanding that they were not working on behalf of special interests. But these academics were.

A few of the more money-hungry of these economists were willing to provide witness statements prepared by the Tobacco Institute at Congressional or local ordinance hearings. Some were sent on two- or three-day media tours if some excuse would be found for them to be interviewed by regional print journalists, or to appear on various radio and TV shows. The Tobacco Institute retained a national PR company, Fleishman-Hillard to handle these tours — and.

In order to manage such a large and diverse group, Anna Tollison, the wife of Professor Robert Tollison, and two staffers from the Center for the Study of Popular Choice (George Mason University), began working part-time with James Savarese whose company James Savarese & Associates acted as the front and cut-out between the economists and the Tobacco Institute.

Some key documents

• Militello was one of two economists (also Prof. Raymond Raab) producing propaganda material in Minnesota. There are 172 documents in the tobacco archives which carry the Militello name, however some belong to Ralph Militello and possibly other members of the family.

• The archives need to be searched using both 'Jack' and 'John' and also without any first-name.

• MA University of Colorado


    • PhD Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

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."

• John F Militello
  Economic researcher, Wharton Center for Applied Research, Philadelphia. PA

Public Smoking/Witness: Local economists are available on two-weeks notice to provide economic testimony on the public smoking issue. Those economists who have testified or prepared op-ed pieces on the economic effects of public smoking are marked accordingly. The others may be briefed on the potential cost to government of implementing smoking restrictions.

Tax witness: [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 Feb 24:

1986 Feb 24: Craig Barnes (the Tobacco Institute's Media Relations department head) memo to William Kloepfer at the Tobacco Institute about the use of various Chase Econometrics studies [See below]. These have been commissioned by the TI in a number of states to produce data which is guaranteed to support the industry lobby.

    The Media Relations department had been enlisted to support the Issues Management division which normally ran the economists network. They were to make direct contact and conduct briefings with journalists and editors of most of the major newspaper and broadcasting outlets and feed them information derived from the relevant Chase study done in their area.

    These 'Chase' economic studies were customised to suit the tobacco industry's requirements and were conducted in the various states when legislation or local ordinances threatened. Sometimes one of the network economists would be included in the Chase team (certainly the following press briefing) to give it more credibility. Barnes advised Kloepfer that:

In an approved revision of the plan it was decided that including a state economist in the briefings created too large a briefing team and that we would counter subsequent anti's criticism more effectively by using the economists for op-ed pieces. The approved revision has been followed.
[They prefer to leave the economists underground so they can pretend to be 'independent commentators' and not raise suspicions that they are employed by the tobacco industry.]

    [Inclued] A list of the economic consultants who have completed and submitted Chase op-ed articles.

ACTION: Such op-ed pieces have been completed and pitched in each market we've entered so far.

• St. Louis — Richard McKenzie, Washington University
• Baltimore — David Laband, University of Maryland

The following drafts have been recieved and, with minor revisions, are ready to go.

• Chicago — Henry Butler, University of Chicago
• Houston — same
• New York — Michael Crew, Rutgers University
• Atlanta — Dwight Lee, University of Georgia
• Philadelphia — Jack Militello, Wharton

[Note that they were running the 'Chase Econometrics' project in parallel with the Packwood Excise Tax/Op-ed Project.]

1986 Feb 25: Jim Savarese writes to Craig Barnes at the Tobacco Institute RE: Chase Econometrics/Op-Eds.

[These are promoting a series of faux-economic impact studies on the effects of smoking bans which were done for the Tobacco Institute in specific cities, by Chase Econometrics.]

Attached is the op-ed by Jack Militello at the Wharton School for use in Philadelphia.

    Any comments or suggestions? If o.k., should he proceed immediately to try to place it?

"See my changes — looks like a good op-ed piece. FP."

Chase Econometrics = BULLSHIT

1986 Feb 26: Richard Wagner wrote a private note to his friend Robert Tollison. Here is a draft copy of my op-ed piece on the Chase bullshit.     There is some really wacko stuff in that model: increased employment increases wages, but wages have nothing to do with employment; higher wages increase inflation, but inflation has nothing-to do with wages, and money has nothing to do with inflation. Inflation has nothing to do with interest rates. And....     At any rate, I can live with the enclosed essay or some modestly revised version of it, but there is no way I can get any deeper into multiplier effects, interindustry flows, and the like

1986 Mar 13: Savarese writes to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute about the "Chase Study/Op-eds".

• The St Louis article has been approved and submitted to the St Louis Despatch.
• The Baltimore article has been approved, but not yet submitted.
• John Militello's Philadelphia article is awaiting approval
• Richard Wagner's Miami article is being discussed.
• Four new articles are enclosed
  • Maryland (by David Laband)
  • Chicago (by Henry Butler)
  • (Another by Butler) for either Dallas or Houston
  • New York (by Michael Crew)
  • Atlanta (by Dwight Lee)
• In writing stages are articles for
  • Los Angeles (by Thomas Borsherding)
  • Cleveland (by Richard Vedder)

Chase Econometrics Studies

1986 May 19: Scott Stapf at the Tobacco Institute sent to Peter Sparber a "Final report on the Chase Econometrics project." It detailed the successes of the 'Chase Campaign' Press promotion: City press tours of Sacramento, Columbus, Albany (failed in New York City) Florida still to come. Letters to the Editor being generated through field staff and TI media team members. Economists op-eds (using Chase data) through the Savarese network Smaller business publications Major industry trade releases (Doremus & Co) Labor publications (they have briefed Ms Jacobsen) Materials production - all printed and readied for distribution (including slide show)

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 July 7: The network economists have been commissioned to write to the General Services Administration objecting to their economic calculations for a ban on smoking in government buildings. The aim is to raise the cost estimate above the $100 million cut-off, which would then force the GSA to pass their new regulations through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) [Part of the Office of Management and Budget, under White House control] which was then being run by tobacco lobbyist, Jim Tozzi.

    Militello doesn't attack their figures directly (as do the other economists). And he appears to have missed the point. They had all been given a draft of Tollison's letter as a guide.
[About a dozen copies of Militello's GSA letter were circulated within the Tobacco Institute.]

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

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 expanded 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:

Pennsylvania [ Region II ]

Professor John F. Militello

Wharton Center for Applied Research, 3508 Market Street, Suite 100, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, 215-898-6199

Services rendered:
• Chase
• GSA letter writing campaign

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.

Philadelphia
Rep. Bill Gray, Commission member and Chairman of the House Budget Committee, is from Philadelphia.
  •   Targetted paper Philadelphia Inquirer
      Economist: John Militello
University of Philadelphia

1988 Jan 15: Jim Savarese, subcontracted to the tobacco industry via Ogilvy & Mather, is writing a proposal which was sent 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.

Philadelphia
Targeted paper: Philadelphia Inquirer
Economist: John Militello, University of Philadelphia

[Why selected:] Rep. Bill Gray, Commission member and Chairman of the House Budget Committee, is from Philadelphia.

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 Projects 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.

Philadelphia:
Rep. Bill Gray, Commission member and Chairman of the House Budget Committee, is from Philadelphia.

Targeted paper:
Philadelphia Inquirer

Economist: John Militello, University of Philadelphia

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.

1988 Jul 14: Savarese's list shows that Militello is still doing double duty for the NEC Op-Ed project.

MINNESOTA
submitted to Minneapolis Star & Tribune

PENNSYLVANIA
submitted to Philadelphia Inquirer

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.

  MINNESOTA
  
  Prof Rayond Raab, (affiliation) Uni of Minnesota
  
  Mr Jack Militello, College of St Thomas, St Paul

  
      Jack Militello is listed twice here, once as a backup to Ann Harpert-Fender in Pennsylvania:

  PENNSYLVANIA
  
  Prof Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College
  
  Mr Jack Militello, College of St Thomas, St. Paul

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

See page 5

1989 April 18: Susan Stuntz (Issues Manager) at the Tobacco Institute memoes her boss Sam Chilcote. She is sending him material previously used for a two-day "Gerry Long" presentation. He wants to use it in a shorter one-day (unspecified) briefing session.

[Gerald H Long was the CEO of RJ Reynolds who in 1988 had just taken over as Chairman of the Tobacco Institute's Executive Committee and wanted to make changes.]

Economists' Network 64 Strong [is] Targeted to Congressional Tax Writing Committees [and utilizing the] Production of Op-Eds on Federal Tax Policy.
[List of economists]

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.

MINNESOTA
Professor Raymond Raab
J P Consulting P.O. Box 3053
Duluth, MN 218-722-2602 (affiliation: University of Minnesota)


Mr. Jack Militello
College of St. Thomas
PO Box 6041 2115 Summit Avenue St. Paul, MN 612-647-5646

2013: He is listed by the University of St Thomas, Minnesota, as the Professor and Director of Health Care in the Opus College of Business.

    He doesn't appear to list any of this pro-tobacco papers in his bibliography.
    However he still runs Jack Militello Consulting in Minneapolis. He is also apparently the "Honorary German Consul in Minneapolis".

CONTRIBUTORS:ent2 samf hrh2