George Bush and Tobacco [10/22/99]
People Concerned About Smoking and Nonsmokers' Rights
Action on Smoking and Health
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization
Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
Info About ASH
ash.org
George Bush and Tobacco [10/22-3]Excerpts from Calling for Philip Morris
by ROBERT DREYFUSS, THE NATION [11/8/99]
An article to be published in THE NATION magazine sets out George Bush's alleged ties to the tobacco industry. It suggests that he has taken several pro-tobacco positions, that the tobacco industry is supporting him and hoping for his victory, and that he might be vulnerable on this issue.
Twenty-six thousand Texans will die this year from smoking-related illnesses. That's a fact that seems lost on Governor George W. Bush, whose presidential bid is being greatly assisted by money and manpower intimately associated with the tobacco industry. And if Bush's record in Texas is any indication, should he make it to the White House the industry can feel certain that it will have a friend in the Oval Office.
Money, in the form of campaign contributions to Bush's $60 million war chest, is part of the story, beginning with the $1,000 check given to Bush in June by Geoffrey Bible, president and CEO of Philip Morris. Even more important, the tobacco industry is poised once again to provide the Republican Party with millions of dollars in unregulated "soft" money, offering a significant boost to the Bush 2000 drive. But Bush's tobacco ties reach far deeper than money; they go to the very heart of his campaign organization--a story that so far has been largely ignored in the national media's bubbly coverage of W.'s campaign.
Some of Bush's closest aides are allies of Philip Morris, including Karl Rove, the leading Republican Party campaign strategist in Texas. A close friend of Bush's since the early seventies and Bush's chief political adviser since the late eighties, Rove--who's been called "the governor's Svengali" by National Review--was formally on the payroll of Philip Morris from 1991 to 1996 as a paid political intelligence operative. Another close friend and adviser is James Francis Jr., whose brother has been a key figure behind several Philip Morris-backed front groups and who himself has flirted with the National Smokers Alliance, an industry-funded smokers' rights group. And then there is former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour, one of the party's most wily and influential kingmakers, who is both an important player in Bush 2000 and arguably the number-one lobbyist for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in Washington.
Just how much influence these men have had on Bush is impossible to measure. But Bush's record on tobacco certainly doesn't displease the industry: opposition to the federal lawsuit against Big Tobacco and to increased taxes on cigarettes, plus vigorous support for tort reform that limits consumers' rights to sue makers of dangerous products--like tobacco. In Texas, Bush refused to support a lawsuit against Big Tobacco that eventually won $17 billion for the state's treasury. Taken together, Bush's friendships and his stance on tobacco-related issues are causing cigarette makers to salivate over the possibility of a Bush victory next year. "The prospect of Bill Clinton gone and a George Bush presidency makes the industry almost giddy," said Martin Feldman, a tobacco industry analyst at Salomon Smith Barney, in September.
Whether it's a result of the people he surrounds himself with, the money that the Republicans get from the industry or some natural proclivity to defend a pariah industry, Bush has compiled a significant string of actions on tobacco's behalf. In September, after President Clinton and the Justice Department announced a federal lawsuit against the industry seeking to recover billions of dollars in government expenditures to care for the health-related effects of tobacco, Bush was quick to announce his opposition. Bush was, he said, "troubled by the Justice Department's apparent reversal of its earlier position that there was no merit for a federal lawsuit," adding that he hopes the "era of big government is not replaced with the era of big lawsuits." But Bush's worries about big government apparently don't include any concern about the federal tobacco price-support program, since a few weeks earlier the Texas Governor gave it his blessing. And, for good measure, in an appearance in North Carolina he slammed the idea of increasing federal taxes on cigarettes, widely viewed by antitobacco activists as a crucial tool in reducing the prevalence of teenage smoking. "We have recognized that there are some adults, once properly warned, who choose to smoke," said Bush, according to the Raleigh News & Observer.
In Texas, too, Bush has coddled the industry. When Texas's then-Attorney General Morales and a team of lawyers forced the industry to agree to pay Texas $17 billion in damages, allowing the state to recover some of what it has spent over the years caring for sick and dying smokers, Bush--who refused to back Morales's lawsuit--actually sued the Attorney General to block the payment of more than $2 billion in legal fees due to the private attorneys who handled the case. All by itself, Bush's action, if successful, could unravel the entire agreement, saving Philip Morris billions of dollars--and costing taxpayers in Texas an equal amount in lost revenue. (At the time, Morales said that Bush's lawsuit "is about one thing and one thing only: a Republican presidential campaign and political contributions from big tobacco.")
Then, earlier this year, a coalition of health groups, including the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, pressed Bush to support a $60-million-a-year smoking prevention program aimed at children, using money from the tobacco settlement. But Bush ignored the calls, which included a personal appeal from former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, with the result that the Texas legislature agreed to spend just $10 million. Matt Myers, executive vice president and general counsel of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, says that $10 million is about what the tiny state of Vermont spends on such programs. "It would be a tragedy if the children in Texas don't get the benefit of state prevention programs," he says. And, he adds, "I think it's unfortunate that so much focus [in Texas] has been put on lawyers and so little focus on using the settlement to reduce tobacco use among kids."
There's no question that Bush's tobacco ties make him vulnerable to attack. And it's conceivable that under criticism, Bush could abandon the industry: With his lead in the polls, his fundraising juggernaut and most of America's corporate elite lining up behind him, he can afford to write it off. But as with smoking itself, Bush and the Republicans may find that kicking the habit is beyond their ability, leaving them and Big Tobacco to enter the new millennium together.
click here to return to ASH's Home Web Page: http://ash.org
click here for more information about Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) exact link missing
click here to learn the many benefits of joining ASH on-line, over the Internet
Presented as a public service by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),
2013 H Street, N.W., Wash., DC 20006, USA, (202) 659-4310.
ASH is a 31-year-old national legal-action antismoking and nonsmokers' rights organization which is entirely supported by tax-deductible contributions.
Please credit ASH, and include ASH's web address:http://ash.org
Big Tobacco Lied to Public, Judge Says
Industry Avoids Huge Penalties but Is Ordered to Correct False Advertising
By Henri E. Cauvin and Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A01
A federal judge ruled yesterday that tobacco companies have violated civil racketeering laws, concluding that cigarette makers conspired for decades to deceive the public about the dangers of their product and ordering the companies to make landmark changes in the way cigarettes are marketed.
But U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said that under a 2005 appellate court ruling, she could not impose billions of dollars in penalties that had been sought by the Justice Department in its civil racketeering suit against the eight defendant tobacco companies. All she could do, she said, was try to deter future illegal acts by the companies, and to that end, she ordered them to stop using terms such as "low tar," "light" and "mild" and to undertake a massive media campaign in an effort to correct years of misrepresentations.
It is a penalty that will cost the industry millions of dollars -- a fraction of the cost of sanctions the companies faced at the outset of the case, when the Justice Department sought $280 billion from the industry.
In the opinion, which runs 1,742 pages and was more than a year in the drafting, Kessler wrote that there is "overwhelming evidence" of most of the charges leveled at the industry -- that it conspired to violate, and indeed violated, federal racketeering laws.
"In short," she wrote, "defendants have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted."
Tobacco company officials indicated that they will appeal at least parts of the decision. David Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., said the judge was wrong. "We are disappointed and disagree with the judge's ruling," he said.
At the same time, Howard said, the firm is "gratified that the court did not award any unjustified and extraordinarily expensive monetary penalties that had been sought by the government."
Long-awaited, the ruling was a significant, if incomplete, victory for the government and for anti-smoking advocates.
"It's an historic decision of major importance," said David A. Kessler of the University of California at San Francisco, who as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during the Clinton administration led an unprecedented effort to regulate tobacco in the same way that agency places controls on some drugs.
"It ends any debate about what the industry knew and what they did for decades," said Kessler, who is not related to the judge. "This was the greatest conspiracy to put the public's health at risk, and this decision makes that exceptionally clear."
In a statement, the Justice Department said officials were "pleased" with the decision to find the industry liable, but "disappointed that the Court did not impose all of the remedies sought by the government. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the remedies that were imposed by the Court can have a significant, positive impact on the health of the American public."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081700791.html?nav=rss_email/components