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 Mike Maloney was one of the cabal of academic economists who joined a network-of-influence put together for the tobacco industry by lobbyists working for the Tobacco Institute. Maloney was a useful, but never outstanding member of this clandestine network, and he mainly worked in the shadow of Robert Tollison (George Mason University) and the other cash-for-comments economists and associates from Clemson University.

Tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry, through the Tobacco Institute, with a number of different networks of academics in various disciplines who would be willing to write and sprout propaganda material ... always provided the payments for these services were not directly tracealble back to the Institute or to any of the cigarette companies.

The idea was simply that these academic 'sleepers' would be available on a cash-for-services basis when needed to counter attempts to increase excise taxes or to ban public smoking ... or just to appear as 'independent experts' at Congressional hearings and promote the industry causes.

Economist were by far the most useful of the acolyte academics because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear: so support of the cigarette companies could always be portrayed as support for free-market economics including the rights of individuals to make public choices ... the promotion of small government ... or even support for the first Amendment to the Constitution.

The economist working for Savarese, always claim to be 'independent' 'professionals' and ' academics', and they exploited the fact that they came from some credible university. They never revealed the source of their funding in their op-eds or letters-to-the-editor.

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

The aim was to have, in each State, at least

• one academic economist,
  
• one academic lawyer, and
  
• one academic from a business management, business law, marketing or advertising discipline

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

Unfortunately, it worked.

Some key documents

• Mike Maloney was very much a second-rank co-author with other more venal professors at Clemson University. He was regularly involved in writing articles with Bob Tollison, Cotton Mather Lindsay and Bruce Yandle, who were long network mainstays.

• PhD Louisiana State University

1984 Apr 26-27: Proceedings of a Conference on "Consumer Protection Economics" sponsored by the FTC's Bureau of Economics. [Note Ryan Amacher of Clemson had just left the FTC]

    This document contains a study by Richard S Higgins (then FTC) and Fred S McChesney (then at Emory University) "An Economic Analysis of the FTC's Ad Substatiation Program" which is an attack on the new principle that advertisers had to be able to prove that their claims were true — as against the FTC being required to prove that they were false. Cigarette filters and health claims were one of the FTC's main focusses at this time.

    The article carries the footnote

* The views expressed here are the authors'. They doubtless do not reflect the views of some Commissioners, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission itself.

    We received helpful comments on earlier drafts from Ronald Bond, Gerard Butters, David Haddock, Cotton Lindsay, Robert Mackay, Michael Maloney, the late Steven Marston, Robert McCormick, William Shughart, Robert Tollison and Bruce Yandle

1984 Apr 30: This 109 page DRAFT Tobacco Institute "Cigarette Excise Tax Plan" which was aimed at the Reagan Administration They had an immediate requirement of

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

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

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

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

    Tollison is the most influential and prestigious on this list; he would be hired to consult on federal tax situations and to oversee efforts of the others throughout the country.

See last page
Yoram Barazel is the only name on this list who appears to have resisted the Institute's overtures.

1984 Sep: A 1986-87 OMB article advocating Reagan Administration's policy of a reduction in market regulation [the second-term attempt to hamstring the main agencies], criticised the EPA's attempts to impose 'command-and-control' regulatory standard on air quality. The report footnotes a supporting study by Michael T. Maloney and Bruce Yandle (both network economists).

    Their study was titled, "Estimation of the Cost of Air Pollution Control Regulation," and published in Journal of Environmental Economies and Management, (Sept 1984)

1985–86: The Center for Policy Studies at Clemson University appeared to be publishing studies by the cash-for-comments economists, Robert McKenzie, Bill Shughart, Bob Tollison, Samson Kimenyi, Bruce Yandle, Matt Lindsay, Mike Maloney, Fred McChesney, Robert Staaf, David Laband — and others not apparently in the network.

1986 Apr 3: This is an approved copy of the letter on "New Research Proposals" that Jim Savarese sent to his long list of network economists. This letter leaves no doubt that these academic economist knew that they were being paid to protect the interests of the tobacco industry.

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

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

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

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

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

1986 Apr 23: Cotton Mather Lindsay writes back to Savarese on behalf of himself and Mike Maloney. They:

"... have concocted some ideas for work that we are convinced will have a real impact. The first concerns the methodology employed by the OTA in arriving at their $65 billion cost. The procedure is so transparently incorrect that one suspects them of intentionally overstating this estimate, though I'can't imagine why they would want to do such a thing.

    The second concerns tobacco banning in public accommodations such as restaurants. We believe that it is possible to measure the gains and losses that will occur from such legislation, and that it can be shown to be welfare decreasing for society as a whole.

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 June 5: Susan Stuntz writes that she is interested in the absenteeism proposal by Ekelund, Ault and Jackson, and the food-service industry/smoking ban study by Lindsay-Maloney. She thinks the Cartwright-Lee and Poulson projects are worth reviewing.

    Savarese's attached note says about two other proposals:

• "An Estimation of the Social Cost of Smoking: A Research Proposal Submitted to James Savarese and Associates" by Michael M. Kurth and R. Morris Coats.
• . "A Correction of the OTA Death and Cost Estimation" by C. M. Lindsay and M. T. Maloney.
• . "Economic Impact of Smoking on the Relative Wages of Smokers versus Nonsmokers" by Henry N. Butler.

1986 Sep 4: Lisa Osborne at the Tobacco Institute has written to Richard Crawford at the National Restaurant Association (they are planning joint action over public smoking bans). They have had a meeting and she is reporting on TI activities:

At the request of the Memphis Restaurant Association, we are sponsoring a study to assess the cost to restaurateurs of smoking restrictions. Mike Maloney, Chairman of the Economics Department at Clemson University, Cotton Mather Lindsay, and J. Wilson [??] — Professors of Managerial Economics, also at Clemson, are conducting the study for us.

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:

South Carolina [ Region VI ]

Professor Mike Maloney, Department of Economics, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29631, 803-656-3471

  • restaurant smoking restrictions,

Services rendered:

1996 June: Mike Maloney figures in some brochures put out by the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation [now known as FreedomWorks]. The organization was run at this time by lawyer C Boyden Gray, a Reagan/Bush legal counsel and aide, and heir to a significant part of the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (run by generations of the Bowman Gray family) fortune.

    Control of the CSE later passed to Texas Republican Congressman Dick Armey who had been both House Majority Leader and a professional lobbyist. [Now Tea Party organizer.]


    The CSE/FreedomWorks think-tank has always been available to support any industry that is willing to pay. In 1996, as well as lobbying for tobacco, it appears to be promoting privatization of the electric generation industry.

Electricity Restructuring
Since Texas CSE and Texas CSE Foundation first got involved in the growing effort to end government-protected monopolies' control over electricity generation, CSE has campaigned to help customers at the state and federal levels gain a choice of electricity service providers in an open marketplace.

    In 1995 and early 1996, even likely supporters of competition were holding back, asking how competition would affect consumers, producers, and the economy as a whole. CSE Foundation responded by commissioning Professors Michael Maloney, Robert McCormick and Raymond Sauer, all of Clemson University, to study the issue.

    The independent study Customer Choice, Consumer Value was released in June and immediately became the talk of the industry. The study has propelled CSE Foundation into the role of leading authority on the economic effects of electricity price deregulation, and cast CSE as the most influential grassroots organization advocating customer choice for residential ratepayers.

    CSE has been asked by members of Congress, state legislators, and fellow think tanks and advocacy groups to review legislation and educate officials and their staff on ways to ensure the freest, most efficient marketplace for electricity services.

During 1996, CSE and CSE Foundation began a long-term educational campaign to ensure market-based alternatives were included in the debates about high-profile environmental issues, such as global warming, clean air regulations, endangered species, and hazardous waste.
[They were equal-opportunity denial lobbyists]

    CSE Foundation launched a multi-faceted grassroots program to educate citizens that a clean environment and a sound economy can go hand-in-hand.

    Tax and budget issues kept CSE and CSE Foundation at the forefront of many battles in 1996. While our broad efforts were aimed at promoting reduced government spending and lower taxes for all Americans, our primary goal was to educate policymakers and the public about the need to simplify the tax code.

    With your support, we can continue to achieve greater economic freedom and prosperity for all Americans

2013: The Carbon Capture Report:

This profile page summarizes all known activity of the organization Clemson University Prof Michael Maloney related to Natural Gas. This organization may have appeared in articles supporting this topic, against it, or in a separate context: this biographical entry simply demarks this organization as appearing in content suggesting contextual association with Natural Gas.

• David Laband
• Cotton Matt Lindsay
• Robert McCormick
• Bruce Yandle

CONTRIBUTORS:rwm2 samf lrt3