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 Thomas Pogue became part of a network put together by tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University who collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry [through the Tobacco Institute] with a number of academics who would be willing to write propaganda material ... always provided their names were not linked to the industry or to any of the cigarette companies.

The idea was simply that the academic 'sleepers' would be available on a cash-for-services basis 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 academics to the tobacco industry because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear: so support of the cigarette companies could always be claimed as support for free-market economics ... the rights of individuals to make public choices ... small government ... or even the first Amendment to the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

Some key documents

• Economist University of Iowa, Iowa City.

• See his C/V sent to the Tobacco Institute May 1987

1984 April 30: The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan. This is a long with substantial material about the enlistment of economists to help them fight excise tax battles

    It notes that in August 1983, Governor Perpich of Minnesota had created a Tax Study Commission and that

It will release a final report this fall to "provide the Legislature with a data basis and policy guide
    for tax policy in the next 10-15 years." (Statement made by
    George Latimer, Chairman of the Commission).

    One chapter of the Commission's report is titled "Special Sales
    and Excise Taxation." This includes tobacco, alcoholic beverages,
    motor vehicles, and motor fuel. Tom Pogue, a public finance
    economist from the University of Iowa, is the author.

• 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 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

[Robert] Tollison is the most influential and prestigious on this list. He was hired to consult on federal tax situations, provide an administrative structure, and to oversee efforts of the others throughout the country.

See last page

1984 July: 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.

1984 July 11: The State Excise Plan - Strategy and overview for Iowa.

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.

IOWA (Sen. Grassley)
  •   Professor Thomas Pogue
      University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

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.

IOWA
(Sen. Grassley)
Professor Thomas Pogue
University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa

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. "Robert" (sic) Pogue of University of Iowa heads their state list of available economic witnesses for Iowa.

1985 May 1: Des Moines Register publishes a Thomas Pogue article "How to have a fair tax reform" which he copies to the Tobacco Institute where it is widely circulated among the cigarett companies. The cigarette excise message is hidden in the list:

Among the products singled out for federal excise taxation are fishing equipment, bows and: arrows, firearms, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, cigars, wagers, low-mileage (gas guzzler) automobiles, local and long-distance telephone calls, and motor- vehicle fuel, parts and tires.

1985 May 29: Fred Panzer writes to other issues-executives at the Tobacco Institute praising the success of the Op-ed Article Project on Excise Taxes.

So far, sixteen op-ed pieces of twenty-three submitted have either appeared or have been accepted for publication.That's a..700 batting average!

    We're looking for about 35 of our economists to participate. They're the ones in states represented on the two tax writing committees of Congress.

    Attached are clippings of ten of the articles:

Des Moines Register, Chicago Sun-Times, Muskegon Chronicle, Hartford Courant, Caspar Star-Tribune, Tulsa Tribune, Austin American-Statesman, Atlanta Journal, Greenville (S.C.) News, and Huntsville (Ala.) Times.

You may agree that it would be a natural follow-on to arrange for sending the article to the approriate member of the state legislative tax writing committee. This would help create the impression that we have more support "out there" than expected. If nothing else, the exercise would give our lobbyists more credible and positive material to leave behind with state legislators.

[This a variation in what became known as a 'Big Chill' tactic of letting legislators know that you had the money and power to challenge them in campaigns and Congress if they didn't fall into line.]

• 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

1985 Aug 1: "Background Information to the Excise Tax issue" is circulated. It includes an Editorial in the Newport Daily News (RI) with quotes from David Wilhelm, exec director of Citizens for Tax Justice, and a number of the network economists:

• Joseph Jadlow
• Robert Ekelund Jr
• Thomas Borcherding

• Todd Sandler
• Michael Crew
• Robert Ekelund
• Joseph Jadlow
• Ann Harper-Fender
• Thomas Pogue
• Lee Alston
• Paul Menchik
• Henry Butler
• Burton Abrams
• Ryan Amacher
• James Heins
• Dominick Armentano
• Fred McChesney
• William Hunter
• Dennis Logue
• William Shurgart
• Harold Hochman
• Celeste Gaspari
• David Laband,
• Dean Tipps
• Allen Parkman
• Richard Vedder
• Roger Faith
• Lee Alston

1985 Sep 6: Acey at the Tobacco Institute has sent a bundle of newspaper clippings along to their printer/copier.

Enclosed are 15 original newspaper clipings (don't lose them!) some in better shape than others.

    We'd like these articles on seperate sheets so the lobbiests (sp) can make up their own individual packets. They will also be including some publications too.

    This brings us back to the infamous Tax Folder... To hold all these clippings, publicatiosn and information on tax articles.

    Size should be a 9 x 12 folder to fit in a 9x 12 envelope. You know what I mean. Good looking folder, not too slick. Articles should be in black & white.

1985 Nov 6: Ken Arnold of Ogilvy & Mather PR writes to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute.

Fred, here is a summary of the Economist Op-ed and Economic News Service projects.

    With regard to the Economist Op-ed project, we have submitted a total of 34 op-ed articles, and 18 of them have been published. Recent articles appeared in the Huntsville Times on September 11, by Robert Ekelund and in the Providence Journal on October 25, by Arthur Mead (see attachments).

    Enclosed is a revised op-ed chart, indicating House Ways & Means and Senate Finance Committee Members impacted to date and the circulation of each newspaper publishing the articles. In most cases, the papers are the largest in the targeted district.

IOWA
Senator Grassley

Des Moines Register (c. 243,000) May 1
Professor Thomas Pogue
University of Iowa

1985 Dec: /E President Ronald Reagan asked Senator Bob Packwood, chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, to design a proposal for comprehensive tax reform

which would reduce the highest individual income tax rate down to 35% from its current 50% level, but retain adequate incentives for business investment, and avoid inclusion of any new taxes.

    In an attempt to do this without reducing the total amount of tax revenue that is currently collected, the Packwood plan proposes to offset reduced revenues from income taxes by what the Wall Street Journal has referred to as a "backdoor increase in excise taxes."

    The Packwood plan proposes to eliminate the income tax deductibility of excise taxes and import tariffs paid by businesses [and it] would increase federal excise tax receipts by an estimated $75 billion over five years. Approximately $13 billion of this would be a result of a direct increase in excise taxes on motor fuel, wine, distilled spirits, and tobacco.

1985 Dec 12: Annual Report of the Tobacco Institute's Public Relations division lists him as having:

We believe that the active and creative use of experts — our scientists in particular — gives us an edge. But without question, public smoking is our toughest challenge.

    A close second is taxation. In 1985, most of our resources in this area were focused on the federal situation.

    That being the case, we concentrated almost exclusively on the home districts and offices of the 56 members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.

    We identified and utilized economists from universities in 48 of those districts. Some testified at the four federal tax hearings in which had interest. Others participated in academic symposia attended by Congressional staffers. Others communicated directly with their Congressmen.

    And 34 of them wrote op-ed articles on the need to consider excises as part of tax reform. Many of these articles appeared in the principal newspaper in the targeted districts which have, by our estimation, a total circulation of nearly 4 million.

    The economists were of great help. [SNIP]

    Professor Thomas Pogue (University of Iowa) wrote an op-ed article that appeared in the Des Moines Register on May 1 (major newspaper in home state of Senate Finance Member Grassley). Copies were sent to Grassley.

1986 Jan: The Tobacco Institute's Public Relations Resource booklet 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, or write letters to the editor, or op-eds for the newspapers to counter the public smoking or excise tax threat. It lists him as the contact for:

• IOWA
  Professor Thomas Pogue
  Department of Economics, University of Iowa,
  Iowa City, IA

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 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 Thomas Pogue
  Department of Economics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

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 March: Copies of the letters that the cash-for-comments economists wrote to various newspapers editors, and also the ones they wrote to their Senators — none of which mentioned that they'd been paid by the Tobacco Institute to write both the op-eds and the Congressional letters. These were sent to the Tobacco Institute as proof of their activities:

    Thomas Pogue, University of Iowa, wrote to the editor of the Des Moines Register (with his op-ed), and a letter to Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Charles Grassley:

As an economist interested in federal tax policy, I have followed closely the tax revision proposals that Senator Packwood has brought forth for consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. Taken as a whole, these proposals would improve neither the equity nor the efficiency of our federal tax system. I am especially concerned about his proposal to end deductibility of federal excises and tariffs, which in my view is the most unsatisfactory element of the package.

See Pages 1 to 3

• Joseph Jadlow, Tax reform Hidden excise boost hurt consumers...
• Allen Dalton, Hidden taxes gut Reagan reform plan.
• Charles Maurice, Packwood proposal picks our pockets.
• Scott Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

• Allen Dalton, Tax Revision: Reform or Fraud.
• Thomas F Pogue, Senator Packwood's Proposal is Not Tax Reform.
• Richard B McKenzie, Excise Taxation: A Misguided Soultion to the Federal Governments Fiscal Woes.
• Terry Anderson, Tax Reform We Don't Need.
• Michael Crew, Tax Reform Hides Massive Excise Tax Increases: Senator Packwood Is Too Clever by Half.
• JJ Bodewyn, Taxwise, We are going to be had.
• Anne Harper-Fender, The Packwood Tax Plan: Reform or Expediency.
• Scot Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

1986 Mar 20: Tobacco Institute document: Background Update Of the Estimated Effect of the Packwood Tax Plan On the Price Increase Necessary For Cigarettes

If the deductibility of the excise taxes is eliminated, then most, if not all, of this tax increase will be passed on to tobacco consumers as price increases to cover the additional corporate taxes they will be required to pay, plus the indexed excise tax requirement.

    On the basis of 1985 sales, and the level of federal excise taxes paid on cigarettes, the level of taxable sales would be: $4.5 billion / $0.16 = 28.125 billion packs — the remainder are either sent overseas as exports or to armed services, or to government institutions.

    If the Packwood plan is adopted, and if the effective tax rate on tobacco corporations is 35 percent as in 1983, the increase in corporate income taxes would be about $1.83 billion.

    It must be assumed that this tax increase will be passed on to consumers in order to maintain net income. This will cause a decline in demand on the base level of 28.125 billion packs.

1986 Mar 21: Pogue has sent his article along to the editor of the Des Moines Register, along with a letter on University letterhead to emphasise his standing and independence.

    On the same day he sends a letter with a copy of the op-ed to Senator Tom Harkin, and another to Senator Charles Grassley. None of these mention that these articles and letters were written on commision from the Tobacco Institute. [The letters have been typed by 'baa' — presumably the Univesity-employed secretary]

1986 April: Professors Joseph M Jadlow (Oklahoma) and Charles Maurice (Texas A&M) have prepared draft articles attacking the Packwood Tax Plan. James Saverese has sent them, together with clippings of articles already published, along to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute for correction and clearance. (See page 10)

    It lists many dozens of articles which the cash-for-comment economist on the network have now written, including one:

IOWA
Prof Thomas Pogue
Submitted to Paper: 3/21/86, DesMoines Register
Current Status: [N/a}
Letters have been sent on to Senators Grassley and Harkin

1986 Apr 1: An Open Letter to Senator Robert Packwood (by Wm Mitchell) has been sent to the network economists to help them write their articles. This is a checklist of those in the 1) Writing Stage 2) Submitted to Newspapers 3) Letters Written to Senators.

    This cash-for-comments participant has written both the article and the letters to Senators, and has obediently attached copies of both, which are sent back to the Tobacco Institute.

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 Apr 6: A list of excerps from major newspaper editorials and op-eds about the Packwood tax plan.

Thomas F. Pogue, Professor of Economics, University of Iowa, in the Cedar Rapids Gazette. "Packwood Proposal is not tax reform"

"But for most low- and middle-bracket taxpayers, the benefits of lower tax rates and higher exemptions would be more than offset by the higher prices paid for products subject to excise taxes and tariffs."

1986 Apr 11: The Tobacco Institute plans for State-by-State actions to generate opposition to the Packwood Tax Plan.

1986 Apr 15: Jim Savarese is reporting to Fred Panzer at the TI about the [anti] Packwood Tax Plan project. He includes numerous letters sent to Senators, copies of published op-eds, and a revised op-ed for Maine and one for Minnesota, He lists the successes of the network economists, including:

IOWA, Prof Thomas Pogue
[Submitted to] Des Moines Register 3/21/86
[Letters sent to Senators] Grassley and Harking

1986 May: /E A Tobacco Institute list of "Schedule of Payments - Excise Tax Op-Ed project." (April-May 1986) This lists those academic economists who have already planted their article on a local newspaper, and the amount they are to be paid.

    They appear to have been paid $900 for each article, and $1025 if they had also made contact with their local Congressman. However a number of the cash-for-comments network members still have not completed their commission.

    The George Mason (Uni) production staff of Bob Tollison, Bill Shughart, and Gary Anderson were paid for "rewrites, editing and research, 18 articles", and Carol Robert for the "production of final product. " A total of $18,000 + $1067 expenses [or $1000 per article to make them into saleable propaganda for their local newspapers]

Pogue in Iowa has been given the target of planting his article on the Des Moines Register and was due for payment of $1025.00.

    A later Schedule of Payments increases this amount by another "$975.00 — Paid in Full"

    The GMU production staff were also being paid another $9,500 for rewrites, editing and research on 9 additional articles, while Savarese seems to have been charging $5,800 + $235 in expenses for recruiting replacement economists in California, Montana, New York, Ohio and Tennessee.

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 1: Pogue, along with dozens of other academic economists, has written an op-ed piece for his local newspaper (intended to influence local politicians and voters) "How to have a fair tax reform" published in the Des Moines Register.

    Like most of the Tobacco Institute funded op-eds published at this time, this article attack excised taxes in general while dealing only superficially or obliquely with tobacco. You wouldn't know this was tobacco-funded without access to the archives documents.

See Page 9

1986 May 30: Fred Panzer of the Tobacco Institute was contacting British-American Tobacco's PR executive, Tom Humber [also Burson-Marsteller and National Smoking Alliance] sending him some of the examples of the network economists.

Enclosed are: (1) The first wave of 27 op-ed reprints, (2) A second wave of 32 op-ed articles (21 published and 11 unpublished), sent out on Packwood's first tax reform proposal.

    I've also included one on the Chase [Economtrics] study. There are a few others being rounded up, as well as a syndicated excise tax feature series we developed. Out of all this should come something useful for your people.

1986 Jun: Tobacco Institute document "Federal Markets" on the likely allies the industry has acquired to oppose the earmarking of cigarette excises for healthcare. It also includes a record of their successful activities in each state

Market: IOWA
Positive Actions by Local Allies:
Academics: Professor Thomas Pogue (University of Iowa) wrote an op-ed article that appeared in the Des Moines Register, on May 1 (major newspaper in home state of Senate Finance Member Grassley). Copies were sent to Grassley.

See page 4
See Success List

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.

IOWA, (Sen. Grassley)

[Economist:] Professor Thomas Pogue, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 319-353-3068
[Speciality:] Fiscal policy; public finance; distribution effects of (state & fed.) government grants.

Tax Witnesses:	Materials available
Robert Pogue	Iowa data card "Excise Taxes: The Fairness Issue" "More Taxes on Tobacco...." Earmarking topic sheet Letter writing brochure.
Public Smoking:	Materials available
Applicable to both state and socal legislation
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.
Fire:
Fire Safety Education Grant to	City of Des Moines Fire Dept. Robert Conner
Sampling materials:	Materials available
Des Moines	Helping Youth Decide Ad reprints Letters of Commendation/Praise

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.

IOWA (Sen- Grassley)
Professor Thomas Pogue
    University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 319-353-3068
    [Specializing in]Fiscal policy; public finance; distribution effects of (state & fed.) government grants.

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, (including one from this source.)

See two of Pogue's articles on page 186 and 197 of the document bundle.

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:

Iowa

Professor Thomas Pogue [ Region IV ]

Department of Economics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, 319-353-3068

Services rendered:
• original excise tax op-ed
• Packwood

1987 Jan 6: and 12 Jim Savarese advises the Tobacco Institute that some economists were no longer working for his network. However Pogue is still being listed as their main Iowa 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 Pogue 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

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

Greg Niehaus, Mario Rizzo, Roger Riefler, and Boon Yoon.]

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:

IOWA
Professor Thomas Pogue
    Department of Economics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 52240, 319-353-3068

Professor Todd Sandler

    Department of Economics, Iowa State University,
Ames, Iowa 50011, 515-292-0745 (H) [/294-5783] (W)

1987 Mar 31: A list of 26 quotes excerpted from major newspaper editorials and op-eds from the TI's cash-for-comments economists about the Packwood tax plan.

The Des Moines Register, March '31, 1987.
"They tax each family according to how it chooses to spend its income and not according to its ability to pay: taxes."

Thomas F. Pogue, professor of economics, University of Iowa

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 Thomas Pogue:
"Yes, could be outstanding.."

1987 May 22: Michael Brozek the Regional Vice President for Region IV wrote to George Minshew at the Tobacco Institute presenting his Economic Witness Evaluation He writes:

Please convey to those in charge of the economic witness program; it is one thing to evaluate an economic witness over lunch, by telephone or over cocktails. But, it is quite another thing to evaluate these potential witnesses in the acrimonious, politically charged, circus-like disarray of a committee hearing. In essence, some of these guys (as in the case of Minnesota) fold under any unfriendly inquisition.

    The ivory tower is different from the political trenches.

    My recommendation, if we are to continue this economic witness program, a political orientation would be advisable in order to better equip these witnesses for potentially politicized circumstances.

IOWA: Professor Thomas Pogue
TI legislative counsel Chuck Wasker wishes to meet with Professor Pogue after the legislative session in Iowa.

    Due to the conference committee format during the successful defeat of a proposed 10 cent cigarette tax increase, Professor Pogue's testimony was not politically expedient. In short, Mr. Wasker and I will meet with Professor Pogue to prepare him for a potential special session.

1987 May 27: In this document, Michel Brozek, the Regional Director of the Tobacco Institute, has been in contact with Professor Thomas F Pogue, who must already be enlisted as an available witness, to evaluate his ongoing value to the tobacco industry. He writes:

[I]t is one thing to evaluate an economic witness over lunch, by telephone or over cocktails. But, it is quite another thing to evaluate these potential witnesses in the acrimonious, politically charged, circus-like disarray of a committee hearing. In essence, some of these guys (as in the case of Minnesota) fold under any unfriendly inquisition. The ivory tower is different from the political trenches.

    My recommendation, if we are to continue this economic witness program, [is that] a political orientation would be advisable in order to better equip these witnesses for potentially politicized circumstances. [ie he only wants libertarian or neo-con partisan warriors.]

    TI legislative counsel Chuck Wasker wishes to meet with Professor Pogue after the legislative session in Iowa. Due to the conference committee format during the successful defeat of a proposed 10 cent cigarette tax increase, Professor Pogue's testimony was not politically expedient: In short, Mr. Wasker and I will meet with Professor Pogue to prepare him for a potential special session.

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]

IOWA, Pogue, DesMoines Registe, [circ.] 243,000, [pub date] 3/31/87

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 IOWA
[Tom] Pogue for Des Moines Register —Owed $950 — Total to date $2000

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.

IOWA
Professor Thomas Pogue University of Iowa Iowa City, IA

Excise Tax Op Eds: Des Moines Register — 03/31/87
Economic Witness/Testimony: (nil)
Field Staff Contact: Meeting scheduled.
Field Staff Evaluation: None.

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.

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.

  IOWA
  
  Prof Thomas Pogue, University of Iowa
  
  Prof Todd Sandler, Iowa State University

[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 Jan 11: He was one of two economists still working for the tobacco industry in 1989 when the Tobacco Institute document of available economists, ordered by State, was distributed to their Regional and State Directors. It had him listed:

IOWA
Professor Thomas Pogue Department of Economics, University of Iowa
Iowa City,. Iowa 52240 319-353-3068

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 that the Institute and its allies must be prepared to present.
• "Tax" Hearing Readiness (as above, but for excise tax increases, State and Federal)
• List of cash-for-comment network economists in each State.

IOWA
Professor Thomas Pogue
Department of Economics, University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

Professor Todd Sandler
Department of Economics, Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011

1995 Dec 8: The Savarese Status Report on the FDA Op-ed Program says that

"Profesor Pogue has been contacted. We are waiting to hear whether he will be able to participate."

1995 Dec 21: Savarese & Associate's Status report to Carol Hyrcaj at the Tobacco Institute on the FDA op-editorial program [Dec 8th].

As reflected in the status report, we have replaced Iowa, Wisconsin, and the Houston congressional district with three new states (California, Massachusetts and West Virginia). As you know, we have already received Robert Sexton's (California) article, as well as confirmation that the economist in Massachusetts is able to participate.

At this time, we are asking those economists that have published, to forward a copy of their article to their congressman/congresswoman.

• Professor Cecil Bohanon — "Revised op-ed returned to economist 11/10"
• " Professor Pogue has been contacted. We are waiting to hear whether he will be able to particpate."
• Professor Kurth — "Will have op-ed to us by next week" [for checking]
• Professor Ridgway — "Will have op-ed to us in a week"
• Professor Gallaway — "Returned revised op-ed to economist 11/2"
• Professor Davis — "Returned revised op-ed 11/3"
• Clifford Fry, Resources Inc, Bryan Texas — "Had to identify new economist. Sent materials 11/14"
• Prof Charles Breeden, Marquette University, — "Had to identify new economist. Sent materials 11/14"

Excise Tax Forum

1996 Aug 14: Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds were trying to put together a coalition of tobacco and alcohol companies and organizations to run a three-day "Comprehensive Inter-industry Forum on Excise Taxes", to be held early January 1997 in Palm Beach, the Bahamas, or Nassau.     It would bring together "15 Leading Academics, 10 Industry Representatives, 5 Decision Makers, and 5 Representatives from the Public Policy Community [eg. think-tank operatives]."     It would be funded by the tobacco companies through the Coalition Against Regressive Taxation (CART) [a tobacco front], but officially run by the Tax Foundation [A subsidiary of Citizens for a Sound Economy which is now known as FreedomWorks.] Deliverables The Excise Tax Forum will produce two immediate deliverables: A special journal supplement, and related articles summarizing the proceedings of the meeting. It is anticipated that this will be published in a scholarly economic journal: Press materials and video summarizing the meeting, and its findings.     In addition, participants in each of the four workshops will determine at least one area for additional research. The result of each of these research projects will be an academic journal article and related press material. Estimated Cost. Provisions wIll be made to provide small honoraria to forum participants [those who attend, not just those who speak] and all expenses will be paid by the sponsors. These expenses include airfare, ground transportation, 2 hotel nights, and all food and sponsored entertainment.     As currently envisioned, the cost for the Excise Tax Forum will be approximately $195,000.[Plus the cost of future research committed.]     It is recommended that a small New York based boutique shop, Current Medical Directions (CMD), be hired to undertake this event. See also $205,000 version of document

CONTRIBUTORS:sjc2 samf in22