Trump-fake-news-yellow-bg-950x108px.jpg

Allen M Parkman

From SourceWatch
(Redirected from Allen Parkman)
Jump to: navigation, search

This stub is a work-in-progress by the ScienceCorruption.com journalists's group. We are indexing the millions of documents stored at the San Francisco Uni's Legacy Tobacco Archive [1] With some entries you'll need to go to this site and type into the Search panel a (multi-digit) Bates number. You can search on names for other documents also.     Send any corrections or additions to editor@sciencecorruption.com

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.

Allen Parkman was an Associate Professor of Economics at the Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico, Alburquerque. He worked for the tobacco industry from about August 1984 until at least 1995 writing propaganda material that he circulated to various newspapers without revealing that it was directed and funded by the tobacco industry.

Parkman was a valuable member of the tobacco industry's lobby force because he had been a member of the Council of Economic Advisors during the Reagan Administration, and therefore had good contacts in Republican political circles.

He was an important member of the Cash for Comments Economists Network in its middle and later phases. This surreptitious operation was run for the Tobacco Institute by Professor Robert D. Tollison and lobbyist James Savarese with the help of Tollison's wife Anna and the staff from the Center for Study of Public Choice which was located on the grounds of George Mason University. It later transpired that this was an arms-length operation of Ogilvy & Mather (later Ogilvy Adams & Rinehard)

The Cash for Comment Economists Network eventually split up (circa 1992) and most of the members transferred over to work for the tobacco industry under the cover of the Independent Institute, with William F Shughart taking a leading role. Savarese and Tollison then appeared to have formalised their partnership, with Tollison and his wife becoming part of James Savarese & Associates. Later Savarese turned up again as a key employee of Ogilvy Adams & Rinehart in charge of their extensive operations for the Tobacco Institute.

 

HOW THE NETWORK WORKED

The Cash-for-Comments Economists' Network was run by Savarese through a partnership with Professor Robert D Tollison who used the staff and facilities of the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University to prove cut-out and organisation services. They developed and maintained a network of Economics Professors with at least one on tap in virtually every US state. As one Professor transferred or dropped out (there was a regular turn-over) a new one would be recruited in that State. In all, about 130 university professors were involved in the period 1985-1995, and costs ran to $3 million/year at a time when professor's salaries were in the $30-40,000 pa range. An active network member at a State university could almost double his normal salary.

  The main focus of the group was to write commissioned op-ed articles on a subject determined by the Tobacco Institute. The draft article would then pass back through the network to TI staff, who were essentially public relations experts. Here they were 'improved' and refined; then sent to the Institute's outside lawyers for vetting. Modified articles then returned to the professor, who would then send them to a designated State newspaper as if they were his 'independent expert opinion'. The professors received a base amount for writing and bonuses for successfully planting the article on the newspaper. Some, but not all, received a small (eg.$1000) annual retainer.[2]]

  Published papers would also be copied by the professor and sent to his local Federal Representative and Senator (for a further bonus). Sometimes there were special commissions, but generally the work was writing op-eds and LTE's where they were paid just on results (varied from about $700 to $3000 over the years). Network members could also be called upon to provide witness services and promote the cigarette companies' political/economic line at local ordinance or State legislative hearings. An active professor of economics at a State University could almost double his salary with these activities and with some further appearances, for instance, speaking on the importance of cigarettes in economic terms at major economic conferences, etc.
      Cash for Comments Economists Network   &   Robert Tollison   &   James Savarese   &   Network Document Index

 

Documents & Timeline

1940 Aug 5: Born


1973: PhD in Economics. University of California, Los Angeles,


1973 Sep- June 1975: Assistant Professor, New College, Sarasota, FL,


1975: "Eventually he received a law degree from UNM in 1979"


1975 Aug-May 1981: Assistant Professor, School of Management, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM,


1980 Dec: Discussant, CATO Symposium on Property Rights and Natural

Resources, Big Sky, MT.      


1981 May: Associate Professor, School of Management, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM


1981 Aug - July 1982: Senior Staff Economist, President's Council of Economic Advisers, Washington, DC


1984 Apr-June 1984: Visiting Scholar, Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York(UK)


1984 Apr 30: This 109- page DRAFT Tobacco Institute Cigarette Excise Tax Plan' was being developed to covertly battle against a tax proposal being considered by the Reagan Administration; they were facing a budget crisis. The tobacco industry suspected that the Administration (under pressure to create tax cuts for the wealthy) was about to extend the life of a temporary excise tax which had been imposed on cigarettes (16¢ per pack).

They had an urgent requirement for some 'independent' experts to lobby on their behalf at the State level. Their lobbying budget specified the average cost per State worth lobbying:

  • 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 @ $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]

Also included in this bundle was draft copy and designs for a couple of different booklets aimed at different States, and others aimed at labor/union and racial groups. It also identifies the Congress Committeemen and state Assemblymen who should be targetted as most likely to be influenced, and it had an appendix which lists economists who can be enlisted to help.

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 industry; 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.

Tollison is the most influential and prestigious on this list; he was hired to consult on federal tax issues, to publish books promoting the cigarette industry's position, and to oversee efforts of the other cash-for-comments economists throughout the country. See last page
They are already designating key states for the economists to influence through op-eds and politicians, and allocating a recruited academic to perform their lobbying services. Yoram Barzel is the only name on the above list who appears to have had second thoughts. He resisted the Institute's overtures entirely -- although they quoted his papers extensively.

1984 Jul The following month the Tobacco Institute circulated a formal document to the cigarette company members:

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.
Cash-for-Comment Economists
State Economists   and their institutions
California Thomas Borcherding, 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
Mass. Harlan Platt, Northeastern University
Minnesota Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota (St.P)
New York Harold Hochman, City University of New York
Ohio David Klingaman, Ohio University
Penn. Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
Texas Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
Wash.DC. Robert D Tollison, George Mason University.
Wisconsin Burton Weisbord, University of Wisconsin
"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."[3]
[The only change here is that Yoram Barzel from the University of Washington, had dropped out. (There was always a regular turnover)
This was the core Cash for Comments Economists' Network. Over the years they recruited over 160 professors of economics.]

1985 June/1986 March-July The Cash for Comments Economists Network was commissioned by the Tobacco Institute to write economic opinion pieces opposing excise taxes on cigarettes in mid-year-1985. This propaganda requirment resurfaced as a major project for the economist in the peak of the Tobacco Industry's PR campaign against the Packwood tax plan (although the threat was obviously still a possibility until the end of 1986r).

The Tobacco institute (much later) put together a package of commissioned economics reports (see front section of document), followed by about thirty op-eds and composite pieces which were generated by the Tollison/Savarese Cash for Comments Economists Network in this 1985-86 time frame. It illustrates the propaganda value of this network -- and shows what it can accomplish in a very short time for just a few thousand dollars in academic bribes.

These op-eds attacking the Packwood tax plan were all published in local newspaper across the USA. (Copies needed to be sent in for payment to be made.) A few are from July 1985 and the rest appeared in local newspapers during March-July 1986. These spontaneous independent expressions of expert opinion all miraculously come from Professors of Economics attached to the Center for Study of Public Choice ...

Joseph M Jadlow, Oklahoma State Uni. (He had two op-eds in different papers.);   William C Mitchell Uni of Oregon, Eugene;   Lee G Anderson, Uni of Delaware;   John S Howe Uni of Kansas, Lawrence;   D. Allen Dalton, Boise State University;   Thomas F Pogue, Uni of Iowa, Iowa City (He had two.);   Scott Atkinson, Uni of Wyoming. (He had two in different papers.);   S. Charles Maurice, Texas A&M Uni;   Todd Sandler, Uni of Wyoming;   Michael A Crew, Rutgers Uni, Newark;   Robert B Ekelund Jr., Auburn Uni (He had two.) ;   Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College;   Lee Alston, Williams College;   Paul L Menchik, Michigan State Uni;   Henry N Butler, Texas A&M Uni;   Burton A Abrams, Uni of Delaware;   Ryan C Amacher, Clemson Uni (He had two.);   Dominick T Armentano, Uni of Hartford;   Fred McChesney, Emory Uni;   and a think-tanker David Wilhelm (Citizens for Tax Justice);

Also short extract pieces and letters-to-the-editor from A James Heins, Uni of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana;   William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Milwaukee;   Dennis E Logue, Dartmouth College;   William F Shughart, George Mason Uni;   Harold Hochman, Baruch College, City Uni of New York;

Also uncredited overviews in the Newport Daily News, the Times-Review in Texas, Herald PA, etc. which expresses the encapsulated wisdom of most of the above with the addition of Thomas Borcherding (Claremont Graduate School, Calif);   K. Celeste Gaspari, Uni of Vermont, Birmingham;   David N Laband, Uni of Maryland;   Dean Tipps (Service Employees Intl. Union);   Allen M Parkman, Uni of New Mexico, Alburquerque, NM;   Richard K Vedder, Ohio Uni, Athens;   Roger L Faith, Arizona State Uni, Tempe;   Lee Alston, Williams College Mass;   and William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Wisc.; (Some sections were published in multiple papers). [4]
This was a massive amount of propaganda coverage for a payment of less than $1000 each to these Professors at that time.



1986 June: The Anti-smoking Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) unexpectedly sprung some hearings on the tobacco industry with only a few week's notice. He planned to inquire into 'Smoking in Public Buildings'.

A major effort was then made to stall the hearings (led by Republican Thomas Bliley of Virginia). Jim Savarese at Ogilvy & Mather was also to recruit a network of academic lawyers in the constituency of the members of the Waxman Committee -- and set them to work writing op-ed articles for their local newspaper and making personal representations to their Congressmen, questioning the Constitutional legality, etc.


1986 June 13 Susan Stuntz, Director of Issues Management at the Tobacco Institute has written to Bob Lewis in charge of Federal Relations re: the Waxman Committee hearings, to restrict smoking in federal buildings. Californian Rep. Henry Waxman was also floating the idea of cigarette advertising bans.

Because of clearance problems, Bob Tollison's study and statement were not available for submission to the Waxman committee until Thursday afternoon, 6/12. Given the now "unofficial" nature of the hearing, should Tollison now go ahead and submit the statement? I query, because if Bliley's strategy is to continue to protest the hearing, he may not want us to submit additional information for an "official" record. Tollison is awaiting instructions from me.

[Thomas Bliley (R-VA) -- known as "Mr Tobacco" among Congressmen -- was demanding both new hearings, and the classification of Waxman's earlier June hearings as "unofficial". A new "official hearing" date had been set for June 27. [5]



1986 Aug James Savarese is now creating a cash-for-comments network of academic lawyers, which is integrated into the economists network. This group are being specifically recruited to combat the threat of the hearings being run in Congress by Rep. Henry Waxman into public smoking and advertising to children. The Senate was also set to hold hearings into second-hand smoke.

1986 Aug 12 James Savarese writes to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute who has complained that the tobacco industry needs more academic lawyers willing to provide comment in the media in support of the industry, especially on advertising issues. With this new Savarese/Tollison network of business lawyers, they are dealing with Panzer, rather than Peter Sparber and Susan Stuntz.

The idea is to have these academic lawyer promote the tobacco industry's causes by writing op-ed articles for their local newspapers, and acting as 'independent' witnesses at State legislature hearings or local government ordinarnce hearings, etc. Their academic [rather than crass-commercial] status is the important factor. Savarese writes:

There are 19 people on the list, 16 are lawyers and 3 are economists. The three economists are Bob Ekelund in Alabama, Bill Mitchell in Oregon, and James R Kearl in Utah.
  • Professor Ekelund is an expert on the economics of advertising and knows the law.
  • Professor Mitchell is a political scientist tuned into the constitution and an expert on first amendment arguments.
  • Professor Kearl is probably the only person in Utah who will make these arguments (He was a Mormon with a flexible conscience).
We have used both Ekelund and Mitchell on other projects with the Tobacco Institute. We are still having problems with New Jersey but have calls in to several people. I'll let you know as soon as we get someone there. As you can see, the majority of these people are new with the exception of Ekelund, Parkman, and Mitchell. They all understand the issue and will be on call should we need them. [6]

This is an extension of the Cash for Comments Economists Network and it uses some of the same resources provided by George Mason University. Savarese also attaches the annual report from the Public Choice Society and Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University. This was Tollison's money-laundry service.



1986 Aug 12 The cash-for-comments academic lawyer network was run by Savarese. It included three economists

enclosed is the academic lawyer list. There are 19 people on the list, 16 are lawyers and 3 are economists.

We are still having problems with New Jersey but have calls in to several people. I'll let you know as soon as we get someone there.

As you can see, the majority of these people are new with the exception of Ekelund, Parkman, and Mitchell. They all understand the issue and will be on call should we need them.

[The two copies of this list of cash-for-comments lawyers have minor differences, probably reflecting the date of recruitment of the academics. See both below.]

  • ALABAMA, Professor Robert Ekelund, Dept of Economics, Auburn University [Also economists network]
  • CALIFORNIA
    • Los Angeles/Southern California -- Professor Donald P Lyden (Woodland Hills, CA) Don is a business law professor at California State University at Northridge
    • San Diego -- Lloyd R Cohen, JD. PhD -- California Western School of Law, San Diego.
  • COLORADO, Professor John C Ruhnka, University of Colorado, Graduate School of Business Administration, Denver
  • FLORIDA, Professor Marvin E Newman -- Rollins College in Winter Park, Clearwater,FL
  • ILLINOIS, Professor Randy E Barnett, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago
  • IOWA, Professor Paul Lansing -- Department of Industrial Relations, Phillips Hall, University of Iowa
  • KANSAS, Professor Douglas Whitman -- University of Kansas School of Business, Lawrence KS
  • MARYLAND, Professor John A. Gray -- Loyola College, School of Business and Management, Baltimore,
    On vacation until 8/18/86
  • MICHIGAN, Professor Steven B Dow-- Michigan State University,Dept of Business Law, East Lansing/Detroit
  • MINNESOTA, Dr David A Reese, Gustavus Adoiphus College, St Peter, MN
  • NEW JERSEY/Camden/Rutgers, Professor William Clarritt -- Rutgers University, Department of Business and Accounting, Newark, NJ
  • NEW MEXICO, Professor Allen Parkman -- School of Management, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, [Also economists network]
  • NEW YORK
    • New York City, Anthony Wiener, Professor of Management, Polytechnic University of New York, Brooklyn
      Tony will be out of the country during August. He was very enthusiastic about the free speech arguments. Harvard J.D., with strong economic emphasis in his teaching and research.
    • Rochester, Professor George M Sullivan -- Rochester Institute of Technology, College of Business, Rochester, NY
      George would like to see a legal brief on the subject he is arguing.
  • OHIO/Cincinnati, Prof Richard Nathan, Ohio State University, Columbus ohio
  • OREGON, Professor William Mitchell -- Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, [An old recruit for the economists network]
    Bill will be in Washington in late August for the American Political Science Association meetings. He would like to go to lunch with us on August 28.
  • PENNSYLVANIA, Professor John Bagby, State College, PA
    John is a business law professor at Penn State, which is about halfway between Pittsburg and Philadelphia.
  • UTAH/Salt Lake City, Professor James R Kearl -- Department of Economics, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
    Jim is Mormon, so he has a problem with most Tobacco Institute issues; however, he says he would probably be comfortable with a 1st Amendment op-ed on the advertising ban.
  • TEXAS, D. Bruce Johnsen-- Department of Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX [7] [8]

1986 Aug 14 Savarese has recruited his latest academic lawyer in New Jersey, so he sends the complete list along to Fred Panzer -- who sends it to Anne Duffin. He writes a note to her:

Here's the full list of experts -- tailored to your issue -- lawyer/economist or lawyer/business-management. One for each State represented on Waxman committee. [9]


1986 Aug 14 Along with the list of new recruits, Savarese has included a "Fee for developing list of academic lawyers in states with Congressmen on Waxman's subcommittee.
Complete invoice, 18 states, 29 academicians. ...  $11,400.00 [10]


1986-87 Tobacco Advertising projects
This document explains the background to the hurried recruitment of academic lawyers.
1986 Sep 27: Out of the blue, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) enacted by overwhelming voice-vote a resolution to promote the idea that the Congress should ban any form of media advertising of tobacco products. This was the second serious attempt to ban tobacco advertising from the press (first two years earlier).

In the same month, columnist Jack Anderson reported that the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU had struck a secret deal with the tobacco industry where the tobacco industry was to pressure its ally, Sen Jesse Helms (R-NC), into dropping his planned amendment outlawing dial-a-porn phone calls in exchange for them offering support for tobacco advertising. The pornography measure which the ACLU opposed, would be attached to a privacy bill protecting citizens from electronic surveillance. In exchange the ACLU would then openly support the tobacco industry's 'Constitutional' right to retain advertising.

James Savarese was immediately asked to recruit a number of academic lawyers who would be willing to lend their support in opposition to any advertising bans on 'Constitutional' grounds. This is only one small part of a massive project funded by the tobacco, advertising and publishing interests. It was later developed into a consortium known as the Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC).

 

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

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

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

TI has neither manpower nor funds to develop and utilize all of the following resources. Nor do I recommend we try to do so. But all should be considered and preparations taken for action, depending on what sorts of restrictions are proposed in coming months,: and by whom:

  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Freedom of Expression Foundation
    [A think-tank founded by Senator Robert Packwood and run by UCLA Professor Craig Smith
  • Tobacco lawyers, Covington & Burling, and TI staff are working with a task force of AAAA, AAF and ANA Washington executives [all advertising agency groups] to head off the NYSBA resolution on its way to New Orleans [annual conference] in February and/or win affirmative action from ABA.
  • Placement of op-ed page articles and letters to editor by law-oriented professors of business in target cities and states, with judicious distribution of reprints.
    Status:
    Twenty-plus such professionals have been identified and ready to start. Awaiting ammunition on all-text regulation from Covington & Burling, and draft copy from Ogilvy & Mather, due Dec 15.
  • Jean Boddewyn, [Baruch College, CUNY] is also working on another possible op-ed piece and C&B's David Remes will investigate editing down Roger Blackwell and/or Scott Ward's Aug 1 testimony for other articles. [The testimony was given at Congressional hearing] [11]

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

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

In-addition, these prototypes are too lengthy for most newspapers and need to be cutback.
I have also attached a page of quotes from which excerpts can be drawn.

Please let me know how you want to proceed. [12]
Prototype articles:
  • Advertising Ban On Tobacco: A Costly Economic Mistake [13]
  • Economics, Free Speech, and the Cigarette Ad Ban [14]
  • An Advertising Ban On Tobacco: A Threat To Freedom [15]
PHANTOM THINK-TANKS -- The Independent Institute
The temptation is to treat all think-tanks as if they were real policy/advocate organisations with staff and participating members holding similar political and social ideas. This is probably true for some -- but for others, these organisations are ephemeral: they don't even have enough substance to be classed as an 'astroturf'.
David Theroux, the founder and 'President' of the Independent Institute in Oakland CA reveals this in his explanatory note to the Tobacco Institute, explaining how his phantom organisation was able to churn out "six to ten major books per year".

In contrast to traditional policy organizations, the Institute does not "house" its Research Fellows, but instead pays an honorarium on a performance basis only for work completed that passes the critical review of a special schloarly committee selected for the project.[16]

Translated: "We are only agents for publication, acting as a surreptitious link between the industry-selected authors and the tobacco industry. So we have no overheads. Our review panel will consist of like-minded academics who will support the project."

The chapters in the books were still sent to the Tobacco Institute for "improvements", checking and legal clearance, then returned for peer review by their fellow network associates. [17] [18] In fact the Independent Institute was linked to the Cato Institute, and they shared staff and 'fellows'.

Two of the Cash for Comment Economists Network who used the Independent Institute to construct a veneer of status and veracity to support their fabricated op-eds were:

  • Robert Higgs who styled himself "Research Director" of the Institute, even though there was no actual research to direct. He probably acted as administrator of publication and publicity when they produced books. David B Kopel became Research Director later - with an equal lack of qualifications and research to direct.
  • Barry W Poulson who became a "Senior Fellow" in an institute (which was devoid of actual fellow members) when he lost his prestigious position as Professor of Economics at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

In late 1993 Theroux's phantom Independent Institute received $56,750 from RJ Reynolds and $21,000 from Philip Morris. [19]


1994: The crucial year when the tobacco companies accepted they were losing: internal documents being exposed to public scrutiny. Hillary Clinton's health task-force focused on tobacco; the Waxman hearings and whistleblowers exposed them: class action suits were filed against the cigarette companies.


1994 Mar: Florida judge Robert P Kaye was over-ruled by his state appeal court. He was forced to allow 60,000 flight attendants to jointly sue US tobacco companies for health difficulties they claim were caused by inhaling passengers' cigarette smoke. (This was the first class-action against tobacco.) [20]


1994 Apr 18 Time Magazine asks "Is it all over for Smokers: The battle against tobacco is turning into a rout." Joycelyn Elders, Surgeon General, says:

America will be smoke-free, but not in my lifetime. We have 40 million people who are addicted to smoking, We've got to help them get over their addiction, and that's going to take a while.

  • Henry Waxman's House subcommittee will vote next week on the Smoke-Free Environment Act.
    • Any building entered by 10 or more people each day will have to become smoke-free.
    • One subcommittee wants to raise the cigarette tax by $1.25 for health care reform
    • Last month Congress signed a bill outlawing smoking in all public and some private schools.
    • Department of Defence now bans smoking in offices, even soldiers in their tanks.
  • Marylands, Washingon State will ban smoking in virtually all workplaces,
  • OSHA has proposed a ban on almost all indoor smoking in the workplace
  • FDA is taking a look at classifying nicotine as a drug
  • MacDonalds and other companies have banned smoking,
  • [A year ago] EPA said passive smoking was a Class A carcinogen which killed 3000 non-smokers a year
  • For the first time members of the antismoking Congressional Task Force on Tobacco and Health outnumber pro-tobacco House members, 53 to 42. The industry lost its virtual stranglehold on Congress.
  • CDC says cigarette smoke kills about 418,000 people a year. [21]

1994 May 23: Mike Moore, the Attorney-General of Mississippi, filed suit against the tobacco companies to recover medical costs for tobacco-related illnesses.

" The state of Mississippi didn't smoke cigarettes, but the state of Mississippi has had to pay about $100 million a year for the care of our residents who smoked after they were deceived by the cigarette companies about the addictive nature of their products, " said state Attorney General Mike Moore. [22]

The tobacco companies were anxious to get the federal law passed before the Mississippi case came to trial - further negotiations were now done on a state by state basis. So they settled Mississippi, then later Florida and Texas. A dozen other States lined up, and this formed the basis for Minnesota settlement.

1994 Aug 19: Hubert H Humphrey III, the Attorney-General of Minnesota also acted. The Minnesota court set a cut-off date: documents produced before this time must be produced by Philip Morris and placed in a public Depository in Minnesota . (They became generally available after the Master Settlement Agreement in1996) [23]

FROM THIS TIME ON THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY WAS MUCH MORE CAREFUL ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS IT CREATED. THE COMPANIES BEGAN TO SYSTEMATICALLY CULL THEIR FILES UNDER WHAT WAS EUPHEMISTICALLY CALLED THE "Document Retention Program". THEIR ASSOCIATED, HELPERS AND SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS WERE ALSO MUCH MORE WARY ABOUT BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY.


References