A James Heins

From SourceWatch
(Redirected from James Heins)
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.

Professor James Heins was an Economist at the University of Illinois, Urrbana and a member of the Cash for Comment Economists Network of public choice/libertarians who worked for the tobacco industry. He was also the Director of the University's office of Real Estate Research.

A puff piece says:

In recent years his research efforts have centered on the areas of public finance, urban economics, and the economy of Illinois. Because of his interest in government and the Illinois economy, Heins has consulted with many agencies of government in Springfield. He has worked for the Departments of Revenue and Finance, Appropriations Committees, and the Bureau of thc Budget; and he has served on the Illinois Fiscal Commission and the Governor's C.ouncil on Jobs and the Economy. He also served as economic consultant to the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce. [2]

{C4C Explanation}}

Documents & Timeline


1961 PhD in Economics from University of Wisconsin


1969 Jul 22 The US Senate hearings on Cigarette Advertising and Labeling bill HR 6543. This copy has been sent to the Tobacco Institute "With Compliments: Julian L Simons"
[Simons was from the Heartland Institute and a guru of libertarian think-tanks]
It includes a chapter from his forecoming book "Issues in the Economics of Advertising" due to be published in December 1969.

The chapter of interest is "Cigarette Advertising and the Nation's Welfare: A Case Study in Welfare Economics." It opposes any requirements for the cigarette companies to carry a "danger to health" warning.

However Simons recognises that with half the men in the USA being smokers, the cost of smoking through lost productive-years of life from cigarettes is worth about $3.6 billion to the economy.

Furthermore, deaths caused by smoking decrease consumption spending. In the hundred or so hours lost by each dollar of cigarette industry earnings a live person would spend more than $20. This consumption spending may be important to the economy. A. James Heins chided me for mentioning only the benefits of people living longer, and not mentioning that if people live longer beyond the time they stop working they consume what otherwise would be consumed by others." [3]

[This is the old 'death benefit' argument, that smokers die young and therefore cost the society less. Compulsory euthenesia of those older than 60 and generous encouragement of infanticide, would presumably save the nation even more.]

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."[4]
[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 Jan


There appears to be some confusion towards the end of 1985 as to whether Professor Kathy Hayes or Professor James Heins was in charge of economic lobbying in Illinois.



1985 Feb 6 Fred Panzer writes to Hurst Marsahll on "Change to List of Economists"

Please add the following names to the list of eoonomic experts:

Please delete from your list the following:
[The possible explanation for this temporary depletion of Hayes name is that one of the cigarette companies, or the Federal Relations division of the Tobacco Institute, had objected to Hayes working for two distinct entities. The network economists were to keep their involvement secret -- and so some smart academics (not this one) had worked out that they could charge two organisation (or two divisions) for the same op-ed.]

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. James Heins heads their state list of available economic witnesses for Illinois. [6]


1985 Mar Heins has written a draft op-ed "Tax Increases are not a good idea" which he has sent to the Tobacco Institute for editing, correction and legal clearance. This article later appears in the Chicago Sun-Times. [7] [8]


1985 Apr 17 The cutting of James Heins' short piece in the Chicago Sun-Times has been sent to the Tobacco Institute. He has written:

Gov. Thompson has called for an increase in the cigarette tax as one of the ways to finance increases in spending for education. It has become fashionable for politicians to call for increases in sin taxes as a way of financing such marvelous things as education. After all, who can oppose increasing taxes on smokers when the education of children is at stake?

Apparently James Heins can -- and he takes a few hundred words more to explain why. He summarises:

My objections to increasing the cigarette tax can be simply summarized: It would single out people in a way inconsistent with a free society; it would spread an increasing tax burden in a most unfair and inequitable way, it would come at a time when Illinois needs to concentrate more on spending current tax dollars wisely and less on increasing its tax burden. [9]

He doesn't include his main reason... that the tobacco industry has paid him to write this column.


1985 May/E 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: ILLIONOIS
Positive Actions by Local Allies:
Academics: Professor James Heins (University of Illinois) wrote op-ed article on tax reform which appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on April 17 (in home district of House Ways & Means Chairman Rostenkowski and Member Russo) and in the Moline Dispatch on March 24 (in home district of Ways & Means Member Crane).
Copies were sent to Rostenkowski, Russo, and Crane.
See page 4

See Success List [10]


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. [11]
[This a variation in what became known as a 'Chill' tactic of letting legislators know that you had the money and power to challenge them in primary campaigns and even in Congress if they didn't fall into line.] The authors of these clippings are Thomas Pogue; A James Heins; Paul Menchik; Domenick Armentano; Todd Sadler; Joseph Jadlow; Henry Butler; Fred McChesney; Ryan Amacher; Robert Ekelund Jr; who all parade their university credentials, and who all forget to mention that the Tobacco Institute paid them to write these columns.

1985 Jun 6 James Savarase & Associates has submitted its bill to Peter Sparber at the Tobacco Institute. The billing shows that some economists were paid via Robert Tollison, and that an Emory University Symposium had been held with Congressman Wyche Fowler.

                        TOTAL A/C was for $56.733.81 [12]
See also previous links to Congressman Fowler [13] and [14]

1985 Aug /E

Genuine opinion... or fabricated propaganda?
There should be no question that these were genuine expressions of economic opinions rather than confecting distortions. Membership of the network ensured that these economists were factional warriors of the 'unfettered free-market' type.

But we can question what prompted this sudden urge to express their views... and whether this was part of a well-paid outreach program aimed at supporting the tobacco industry?

The chanting of the mantra: "These opinions are my own", loses validity when commercial promotion of dangerous substances is the intent, and when payments for these services is concealed.

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 clippings (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.

[This economist's letter-to-the-editor is to be circulated.] http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sjf73b00/pdf


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.

This chart list all the important Congressmen they want their economists to influence, including:

ILLINOIS
Congressman Dan Rostenkowski
Congressman Marty Russo
Congressman Philip M. Crane
Chicago Sun-Times (c, 639,100) April 17
Moline Dispatch (c. 37,000) March 24
Professor A. James Heins
University of Illinois

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eox47b00/pdf

Economic News Service: Ogilvy & Mather appear to have organised a separate syndication system for economic articles which did not carry the names of the cash-for-comments academics, but which were simply distributed to these newspapers as if they were news. However, the titles show that they were carefully crafted to suit the local prejudices and interests -- so they were probably written anonymously by the same academics. .


1985 Dec 12 The Report of the Tobacco Institute's Public Relations division at the TI's annual meeting, lists the division head as saying:

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 James Heins (University of Illinois) wrote op-ed article on tax reform which appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on April 17 (in home district of House Ways & Means Chairman Rostenkowski and Member Russo) and in the Moline Dispatch on March 24 (in home district of Ways & Means Member Crane) Copies were sent to Ros.tenkowski, Russo, and Crane.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dng19a00/pdf


1986 This is the Tollison/Saverese network list for 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:

ILLINOIS
Professor Bill Bryan

Department of Finance, 1206 S. 6th Street, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820, 217-333-2110
Professor Fred McChesney School of Law, University of Chicago, 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois. 60637, 312-962-9590
Professor James Heins

University of Illinois, Department of Economics, 330 Commerce Building, West 1206 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois, 61820

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."

He is listed [along with 50 other economists] as a contact in:

  • Professor James Heins
    Department of Economics, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL

He is available on two weeks notice as a witness for hire.

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.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dhi04f00/pdf


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:

  • Professor James Heins, Department of Economics
    University of Illinois, Champaign, IL

He is available on two weeks notice as a witness for hire.

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.

[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.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dhi04f00/pdf


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.

He includes an OTA paper on the dangers of smoking and also...

... 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.

The scent of possible research money on top of the op-ed writing must have generated substantial academic enthusiasm. Heins is listed as one of the recipients of this letter on the "Brainstorming - Research Ideas" project. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ekt32f00/pdf


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.

This went out to the long list of cash-for-comments economist on the network. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/unz34b00/pdf


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.

They have also provided a list of the 52 Professors of Economics from various State Universities who can be called on to provide services for roughly $1000 a time: This economists name and address are included under "Tobacco & Taxation (listed by state, alphabetically)". http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gzq82b00/pdf


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.

He also lists 21 of the economist (including this one) and provides copies of many of their recent articles. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qwe38b00/pdf


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.

ILLINOIS, (Rep. Crane, Rep. Rostenkowski,, Rep. Russo)
[Economist:] Professor Kathy J. Hayes , Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois
[Speciality:] Tax specialist, urban economics, fiscal policy; public finance; forecasting personal income tax revenues.

[Note:Note: however, that James Heins is listed for Illinois below.]
<thead bgcolor=#dddddd> </thead> <tbody> </tbody> <thead bgcolor=#dddddd> </thead> <tbody> </tbody> <thead bgcolor=#dddddd> </thead> <tbody> </tbody> <thead bgcolor=#dddddd> </thead> <tbody> </tbody>
Tax Witnesses: Materials available
James Heins Illinois data card
"Excise Taxes: The Fairness Issue"
"More Taxes on Tobacco...."
Earmarking topic sheet
Letter writing brochure.
Public Smoking Witnesses: Materials available
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
  • Chicago Fire Prevention Comm -- Raymond R Morgan
  • Springfield Fire Department
  • Skokie Fire Chiefs' Ass. -- James E Clark
Media Relations:
Contacts are in place in Bloomington, Chicago, Decatur, Eanston and Skokie. Contact Bill Toohey for assistance.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dbl43b00/pdf


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 Hein's Letter to the Editor of the Chicago Sun-Times on page 205 of the document bundle. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ael13b00/pdf


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 revised 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.

There are now 62 names on the list (Some states have 4 or 5) not counting himself and Bob Tollison. The details given for each consist of State, Regional Division [of the TI], Name, Address and Telephone number. Added to this is a list of the 'Projects' they have completed (in later lists, also the names of Congressmen they have contacted.)

Virtually all of these cash-for-comment academics have been generating op-ed articles for newspapers, or have, in some unspecified way, opposed the Packwood Excise Tax plan -- or perhaps helped fake up one of the 'Chase' [Econometrics studies]. A few participants have attended Congressional or government inquiries ['Treasury I') or local ordinance hearings as 'independent witnesses' while secretly acting for the tobacco industry. Two of the 64 members (Ann Harper-Fender and Gary Anderson) were acting termporarily as advisors to Ronald Reagan's Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations-- which sought to bring pressure on the FDA, EPA and OSHA and stop them being pro-active with smoking bans.

Other participants have been promoting the industry line at various academic conferences and fora [mainly as keynote speakers at economic society meetings] , and a few of the core-team were involved in brianstorming sessions with members of the tobacco industry looking for new angles for their PR, and for possible research project which might generate some economic propaganda for the industry.

Many of them have joined in with the industry's orchestrated letter-writing campaigns opposing workplace smoking bans.

  • 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:


Professor James Heins

Department of Economics , University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, 217-333-2417
Services rendered:
  • regional hearings - Treasury I - Chicago
  • original excise tax op-ed

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qwf93b00/pdf


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.

    ILLINOIS
    Prof Bill Bryan, Dept Finance, Uni of Illinois
    Prof Fred McChesney, School of Law, Uni of Chicago
    Prof James Heins, Department of Economics, Uni of Illinois.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jdu35b00/pdf

[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 http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vqg09a00/pdf


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

ILLIONOIS
Professor James Heins,University of Illinois,Department of Economics
330 Commerce Building, West 1206 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820

The Tobacco Institute's list of cash-for-comments economists has now blown out to 64 -- not including Robert Tollison, the principle organizer of the economists network. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aur47b00/pdf


1989 Apr 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.] http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lli00g00/pdf

This document has the speaker's powerpoints, including a list of network economists divided on a State-by-State basis.       Note the document is 117 pages http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cfx69b00/pdf The outline for the Powerpoint slides is here in full, together with the names of the politicians they were required to influence. It boasts that the..

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 has James Heins]

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lgd78b00/pdf


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.

This is an updated list with the current locations of each, with phone numbers and addresses.

ILLINOIS
Professor Bill Bryan
Department of Finance, 1206 S. 6th Street, University of Illinois
Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-2110
Professor Fred McChesney
School of Law, University of Chicago
1111 East 60th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 312-962-9590
Professor James Heins
University of Illinois, Department of Economics
330 Commerce Building, West 1206 S. Sixth Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vej19a00/pdf0


1991 Jan /E Tobacco Institute draft plan for 1991 with emphasis on "Taxes." These are the economist-related paragraphs:

Objective
To discourage reliance on consumer excise taxes on cigarettes to meet social and economic objectives by demonstrating that excise taxes are regressive and inconsistent with fair taxation. Goals and Tactics:

  • Commission two op-ed articles in 1991 from consulting economists. As articles are published, provide to other Institute decisions for promotion and submission to appropriate policy makers.
  • Conduct at least 10 presentations by consulting economists on the excise tax issue before national, regional and state tax policy conferences.
  • Continue to utilize consulting economists for testimony and briefings. Expand appearances to include presentations to business clubs and the business press. Conduct media refresher courses for public speaking appearance and delivery of testimony.
  • Utilize the consulting economists for an op-ed program that addresses the national earmarking issue and state specific earmarking issues. As articles are published, provide to other Institute divisions and promote to appropriate public policymakers. Use field staff network to support distribution efforts.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cfj19a00/pdf


1991 Jan 8 Savarese has sent the current list of network economists to Carol Hyrcaj at the Tobacco Institute. It contains three new names, but otherwise is essentially the same as the old lists.

ALABAMA, Robert B. Ekelund, Jr., Auburn University ARIZONA, William J. Boyes, Arizona State University ARKANSAS, David E. R. Gay, University of Arkansas CALIFORNIA, Gary Anderson, California State at Northridge             Roger Arnold, California State Univ. - San Marcos COLORADO, Barry Poulson, University of Colorado CONNECTICUT, Dominick Armentano, University of Hartford DELAWARE, Burton Abrams, University of Delaware FLORIDA, Bruce Benson, Florida State University GEORGIA, Dwight R. Lee, University of Georgia IDAHO, Allan Dalton, Boise State University ILLINOIS, James Heins, University of Illinois INDIANA, Cecil Bohanon, Ball state University IOWA, Todd Sandler, Iowa State University KANSAS, Michael Babcock, Kansas State University KENTUCKY, Brian Goff, Western Kentucky University LOUISIANA, Michael Kurth, McNeese State University MAINE, Robert McMahon, University of Southern Maine MASSACHUSETTS, David Tuerck, Suffolk University MISSISSIPPI, Bill Shughart, University of Mississippi MISSOURI, Joe A Bell, Southwest Missouri State University             Thomas I. Wyrick, Southwest Missouri State University MONTANA, Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University NEBRASKA, Dee Martin, University of Nebraska NEVADA, John Dobra, University of Nevada Reno NEW HAMPSHIRE, Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College NEW MEXICO, Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico NORTH DAKOTA, Cliff Dobitz, North Dakota State University OHIO, Richard Vedder, Ohio University OKLAHOMA, Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University OREGON, William Mitchell, University of Oregon PENNSYLVANIA, Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College RHODE ISLAHD, Arthur Mead, Universityof Rhode Island SOUTH CAROLINA, Ryan Aiaacher, Clemson University SOUTH BikEOTA, Dennis lain, Augustana College TENNESSEE, JR Clark, The University of Tennessee at Martin TEXAS, S Charles Maurice, Texas ASM University             Michael Davis, Southern Methodist University VIRGINIA, Richard B Wagner, George Mason University

WASHINGTON, Richard D. Zerbe, Jr., University of Washington

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fik48b00/pdf


1992


The tobacco archive trail on James Heins ends at this point.



1993 Apr 1 The Chicago Sun-Times publishes a column written by Heins: "Don't Exchange Income Tax for Property Taxes." There is no indication which corporation or special-interest group commissioned this article, however it is now displayed by the Center for Cooperative Individualism (which sounds Randian). [15]


1994 Mar 16 A group of academic economists including almost all the then-current members of the Tobacco Institute's cash-for-comments network sent an "An Open Letter to President Clinton on Healthcare Reform." This had been organised by David J Theroux, the founder and operator of the Independent Institute apparently with the assistance of an academic network member, Simon Rottenberg.
[The institute was well-funded by the tobacco industry]

Their press release says that:

In The Open Letter to President Clinton, 565 economists and 76 other scholars from all 50 states and the District of Columbia state their firm opposition to any form of direct and indirect price controls in any healthcare program. Rationing Health Care: The New Threat of Price Controls, by Simon Rottenberg and David J Theroux

They use the old straw-man scare techniques of the sky-falling.

In countries that have imposed these types of regulations, patients face delays of months and years for surgery, government bureaucrats decide treatment options instead of doctors or patients, and innovations in medical techniques and pharmaceuticals are dramatically reduced.

Which, as anyone who has lived in England, Canada, Australia, etc. knows, is pure rubbish.

Along with Heins and his associates, this list also has signatories from a number of think-tank lobbyists [including most of the Hoover Institute] and others who worked for the tobacco industry. Also listed is the Research Director of the tobacco-funded Independent Institute, Robert Higgs, who also filled-in as a network economist. [16]


1998 Jul Joseph Bast, President of the tobacco-funded Heartland Institute writes an article "Five Lies about Tobacco: The Tobacco Bill wasn't about Kids." He trots out all the normal arguments which would have been distributed to their lobbyists by the Tobacco Institute.

The publication also has a tribute piece to Julian Simon, the libertarian thin-tank guru of the University of Maryland.

Heartland director and emcee Jim Johnston welcomed testimonials from A. James Heins of the University of Illinois; Lincoln Legal Foundation president Joseph A. Morris; businessman Carl Barnes; journalist Harold Henderson; American Farm Bureau Federation chief economist John Hosemann; the Hon. Pete duPont, former Delaware governor and publisher of the online magazine, Intellectual Capital ; and Simon family friend and confidante John Schultz. [17]


2000 Heins has self-published his biography "Perfect Heins' Sight: Memoirs of an Imperfect Man"

[Comments welcome from anyone who has read the book. It would be interesting to read how much detail this book goes into as to his role as a cash-for-comments academic with the tobacco industry.]

2008 James Heins is now "Professor Emeritus of Economics" at the University of Illinois.


2013 Jan 17 Article on American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) reveals that a 1995 letter sent to the US Senate calling for the states to hold a Consitutional Convention to get a Balanced Budget Amendment in the Constitution.

Despite ALEC being prohibited from lobbying, they gathered signatures from 219 economists who...

"as so happened to come from schools [or organizations] the Koch Brothers founded or either have made donations to over the years, such as the Cato Institute."

The article quotes from the ALEC letter:

Included in the list are such prominent economists as Dr Richard Vedder of Ohio University, Dr William Niskanen of the CATO Institute, and Dr Gordon Tullock of the University of Arizona.

Tullock was co-founder of the Center for the Study of Popular Choice

The list was solicited by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in response to news reports that many economists are opposed to the BBA [Balanced Budget Amendment]. ALEC, the nation's largest bipartisan membership organization of state legislators, instead believes economists recognize the harm in an annual spending deficit that has hit $200 billion and is growing.

With support from roughly 3,000 member state legislators, ALEC has been at the forefront of the Balanced Budget Amendment issue for 20 years. One of the primary arguments against the BBA is the prospect that states will be forced to bear an inequitable financial burden if costs are shifted in balancing the budget, making them unwilling to ratify the measure. ALEC, however, has addressed that problem in its recently published Issue Analysis: Up to the Challenge: Why State and Local Governments Can Flourish Under the Balanced Budget Amendment.

The paper exposes the cost-shifting argument as groundless and goes on to outline a number of ways states can actually save money if the BBA were enacted. As a membership organization that is closely associated with state lawmakers, ALEC believes there is enough support among the states to ratify the BBA.

The list of economists who co-signed this letter closely matches the list of cash-for-comment network academics on the left together with a smattering of lobbyists from think-tanks. [18]