ABOUT         CONTACT     CONTRIBUTION     OVERVIEW       TUTORIALS   LEGAL/COPYRIGHT

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |     Dates
CREATED 3/16/2013

WARNING: This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
    There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
    Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.




TOBACCO INDUSTRY EXPLANATORY

ABBREVIATIONS
JARGON
SPIN-MEISTERS
INITIALS
FIRST & NICKNAMES
Misc.RESEARCH HELP
Smoking-Gun docs.

RELEVANT LINKS

NETWORK OPERATIONS
Cash-for-comment economists' network
General TI networks
James E Long
George Berman
James Savarese
Ctr.Study Pub.Choice
James Buchanan
Robert Tollison
Anna Tollison
Richard Wagner
James C Miller III
Carol M Robert
Elizabeth A Masaitis
Committee on Tax & Economic Growth
Harold Hochman
Fred McChesney
Thomas Borcherding
Delores T Martin
Dennis Dyer
George Minshew
Fred Panzer
Susan Stuntz
Peter Sparber
Carol Hrycaj
Debra Schoonmaker
Jeff Ross
Cal George
William Prendergast
Bill Orzechowski
CASH-FOR-COMMENT
NETWORK MEMBERS

Dominick Armentano
Burton A Abrams
Lee Alston
Ryan C Amacher
Gary Anderson
Lee Anderson
William Anderson
Terry Anderson
Scott E Atkinson
Roger Arnold
Richard W Ault
Michael Babcock
Joe A Bell
Bruce L Benson
Jean J Boddewyn
Peter Boettke
Thomas Borcherding
William J Boyes
Charles Breeden
Lawrence Brunner
Henry N Butler
Bill Bryan
Cecil Bohanon
John H Bowman
Dennis L Chinn
Morris Coates
Roger Congleton
Jeffrey R Clark
Michael Crew
Allan Dalton
John David
Michael Davis
Arthur T Denzau
Clifford Dobitz
John Dobra
Robert Ebel
Randall Eberts
Robert B Ekelund
Roger L Faith
David Fand
Susan Feigenbaum
Clifford Fry
Lowell Gallaway
Celeste Gaspari
David ER Gay
Kenneth V Greene
Kevin B Grier
Brian Goff
Sherman Hanna
Anne Harper-Fender
Kathy Hayes
Dennis Hein
James Heins
Robert Higgs
Richard Higgins
F Steb Hipple
Harold M Hochman
George E Hoffer
John Howe
Randall G Holcombe
William Hunter
Stephen Huxley
John D Jackson
Joseph M Jadlow
Cecil Johnson
Samson Kimenyi
David Klingaman
Roger Kormendi
Michael Kurth
David Laband
Suuner Lacroix
Dwight R Lee
Dennis Logue
James E Long
C. Matt Lindsay
Donald P Lyden
Craig MacPhee
Mike Maloney
Delores Martin
Chuck Mason
Charles Maurice
Fred McChesney
James E McClure
William McEachern
Richard McKenzie
Robert McMahon
Arthur Mead
Paul L Menchik
John F Militello
William C Mitchell
Greg Neihaus
James A Papke
Allen Parkman
Mark Pauly
William Peterson
Harlan Platt
Michael D Pratt
Thomas Pogue
Barry W Poulson
Edward Price
Robert Pulsinelli
Raymond Raab
Roger Riefler
Terry Ridgeway
Mario Rizzo
Morgan Reynolds
Simon Rottenberg
Randy Rucker
Richard Saba
Todd Sandler
David Saurman
Mark Schmitz
Robert Sexton
Gordon O Shuford
William Shughart
Robert J Staaf
Thomas Stimson
Wendell Sweetser
Mark Thornton
Mark Toma
David G Tuerck
Richard Vedder
Bruce Vermeullen
Richard Wagner
J Keith Watson
Burton Weisbrod
Walter E Williams
Paul W Wilson
Thomas L Wyrick
Bruce Yandle
Boon Yoon
Richard O Zerbe

 

 

OPINION ONLY

Harold M ('Hal') Hochman     [Prof ]    

(misspelled Hockman)

— City University of New York cash-for-comment economist who worked secretly for the tobacco industry. He was one of the core group when the network was established. —  


Professor Harold Hochman was one of the original cabal of economists who became the nationwide network of university academics working for the Tobacco Institute. It was put together by tobacco lobbyist James Savarese and Professor Robert Tollison of George Mason University who collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry with academics willing to write propaganda material ... always provided their names were not linked to the industry or to any of the cigarette companies.

Hochman and Kenneth Greene were consultants to the Savarese lobbying company (working for Ogilvy & Mather PR) and so can be considered two of the original four (with Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner) to agree to establish the group.

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

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

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

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

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

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



Network beginnings:
  • 1979 Jan: Academic economists Professor Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner have been recruited by George Berman of Devon Management Resources to provide material supporting the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI... later INFOTAB)
  • 1980: Tollison and Wagner had been commissioned by ICOSI's Social Acceptability Working Party (SAWP) to write a monograph "Consumer Protection, Public Policy and Cost-Benefit Analysis"
  • 1982: Under Tollison and Public Choice guru James Buchanan, the team of Public Choice economists at Virginia Polytechnic/State University resign en masse and migrate over to the break-away, corporate funded, George Mason University (including their think-tank Center) — thus providing the tobacco industry with a Washington DC pool of unfettered free-market Randian-political economists who are all looking for outside commissions.
  • 1982 Nov: A labor economic lobbyist working for his own company (through via Ogilvy & Mather PR), James Savarese, proposes to the Tobacco Institute that they use academic economists (mainly Kenneth Greene of SUNY and Harold Hochman of CUNY) to prepare papers opposing cigarette tax excise increases in New York State.
  • 1983: The Tobacco Instittue puts the Tollison/Wagner team (which has the resources of the Center for Study of Public Choice, together with Savarese and Ogilvy & Mather PR to prepare a book "Free to Smoke" and later a propaganda booklet Smoking & Society
  • 1984 Jan /E. The Tobacco Institute is now expanding the Savarese-run network of economist to other States — mainly recruiting academic economists to write op-eds for their local newspapers. Tollison is able to provide the recruitment services through his Center for the Study of Public Choice and the Public Choice Society.
  • 1984 April: The Tobacco Institute has again put Tollison together with Savarese and his associates to prepare a pseudo-study which will become their economic defence against proposed smoking bans in New York resturants. The TI's Excise Tax Plan for this month lists 14 Public Choice economists in other States who have been recruited to help in the fight against excise increases.
  • 1984 Jun: The network has now been formalised under the name Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth. with Savarese as administrator. They have about 15 members overall and 10 active op-ed writers.

The foundation document for the network still in the tobacco industry archives is the Draft plan (below) dated 30 April 1984

This 109 page DRAFT Tobacco Institute "Cigarette Excise Tax Plan" was aimed at countering the Reagan Administration's "Packwood Tax Plan" and the list of economist involved includes Harold Hochman.

DISAMBIGUATION

Note the frequence misspelling of the name with a 'k' as in 'Hockman'

Some key documents

• Economist at Baruch College, the City University of New York (CUNY) The Baruch College also housed the notorious Jean J Boddewyn, another network economist.

    Note the tobacco archives have about 140 references to variations on the Hochman name.

• Hochman's CV as sent to the Tobacco Institute in mid 1982.


1982 Nov 18: James Savarese is writing to Michael J Kerrigan at the Tobacco Institute. This is obviously very early in their relationship. He is proposing a new way to counter state excise taxes:

Dear Mike:
It was good meeting with you again last week. Per your request, I will attempt to lay out a strategy for "dealing with the cigarette excise tax problem in the state of New York.

    As we discussed, the potential for increased bootlegging activities as a result of self-extinguishing cigarette legislation — and its implications for reduced excise tax collection may present the TI with an opportunity to take the offensive in both of these battles.

    The mission is to target groups that are intensely interested both in the staters revenue-raising capacity and in the overall "fairness" of the state!s tax structure.

    It seems obvious that government employee unions in New York State uniquely fit this description: teachers, firefighters, police, state workers, and employees of local government jurisdictions.
New York state was having financial problems at that time, as was New York City under Mayor Koch. Both Koch and the Governor-elect Mario Cuomo were likely to support increases in cigarette excises.

    Savarese had been an organiser with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (ARSCME) which...
... has 400,000 members in New York state and is a legislative and political powerhouse in Albany. We are on retainer with AFSCME to work on state and local government.finance problems.
Savarese suggests that the Tobacco Institute should promote the "recessive" tax line — that such taxes fall most heavily on blue-collar workers. He also suggests targetting liberals ('fairness') and labor-union communities as potential allies.

    His friend Richard Pomp is in charge of the New York commission studying the tax structure, and he will assist the TI in establishing working relationships with the union movement.
Marcia McGill, our firm's vice-president, served as AFSCME's director of economic affairs and has worked extensively with nearly all of the ad hoc coalitions that have been set up since the mid-1970s to deal with state revenue questions.

    Two of our firm's associates are based in universities in New York state.
  • Ken Greene, a public finance specialist, is Chairman of the Economics Department at SUNY, Binghamton
  • Harold Hochman is Director of the Center for Business and Government at Baruch College, CUNY


The Painful Thruth: The TI must reach out to these labor-oriented groups and engage in meaningful vote-trading. At the present time the TI is viewed as unreliable among these groups and as notorious "takers" without being "givers." (This came through very clear during the federal excise tax battle).

    To counter this perception, it is important for the TI to assist some of these potential allies on votes that are of no concern to the TI, but are of vital importance to these other groups.

[This appears to be the foundation document for the cash-for-comments economists network, before Robert Tollison and his Center for the Study of Public Choice at GMU was enlisted to help them develop it nationally.

    James Savarese & Associates had a close relationship (later a merger) with Ogilvy & Mather PR.]


1983 Jan 3: Jim Savarese outlines his plans in a further letter to Michael Kerrigan at the Tobacco Institute. The focus at this time is still on the State of New York which is under Democrat control and likely to increase cigarette excise taxes. He offers a three-element plan using his own consultant economists [ Hochman and Greene both work for him]

Our customary method of billing is at an hourly rate of $90 per hour for senior associates with a sliding scale to $70 per hour for work performed by staff economists. We expect the project defined above will take roughly two months with an estimate of between 200 and 250 billable hours.




1984 Jan: Although the documentation is scarce, it is quite clear from that available that the Cash-for-Comments Economists Network had begun to operate by this time.

Kenneth Greene and Harold Hochman had originally joined forces with James Savarese to help the Tobacco Institute lobby in New York State. Then Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner, who had been working for the international ICOSI organisation, had then transfered over Tobacco Institute control to expand the network to other US States.


1984 Feb: /E Remnants of a Tobacco Institute report with information about the Savarese cash-for-comments economists network. [Dated by other documents].

First, the scorecard cn the project to get our economic consultants pitching op-ed letters on tax policy, including low-rating of excises: — 31 drafts completed; nine delivered to editors; six published or accepted for publication.
They have also been writing material for Sam Howard, Vice President of the Hopital Corpororation which was published by the US Chamber of Commerce (or National Chamber Foundation)
Back to our economists, some ten of them have started running economic seminars and pitching the resulting papers for publication in professional journals.



1984 Apr 18: The New York Restaurant Association (funded by the Tobacco Institute) has organised 'a coalition' to fight smoking bans in private workplaces and restaurants. They claim that just in Suffolk County it will cost businesses $15 million per year.

The coalition has retained the services of James Savarese and Associates, Inc., to produce the study which is attached. The principal authors of the study arc Professor Harold M. Hochman and Professor Robert D.Tollison. Professor Hochman is Director of the Center for Business and Govcrnment at the City University of New York. Professor Tollison, formerly a senior staff member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors and Director of the Bureau of Economics at the Federal Trade Commission, is currently on the economics faculty at Clemson University.



1984 Apr 30: This 109 page DRAFT Tobacco Institute "Cigarette Excise Tax Plan" was aimed at the Reagan Administration which they suspected was about to extend the life of a temporary excise tax on cigarettes (16 per pack). They had an immediate requirement of

  • One public finance economist for 10 days @ $1,000, [Total $ 10,000 ] including meetings with coalition members and/or the Governor's staff; research and preparation; and testimony.
  • One economist for a union workshop on the tax issue, [Total $5,000] including 3 or 4 training sessions over the course of a convention.
  • Six economists @ $5,000 and one senior economist @ $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]
It also had 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 Assembleymen who should be targetted as most likely to be influenced, and adds 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.
  • California, Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
  • Connecticut, William McEachern, University of Washington
  • Florida, Richard Wagner, Florida State University
  • Georgia, Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
  • Illinois, James Heins, University of Illinois
  • Massachusetts, Harlan Platt, Northeastern University
  • Minnesota, Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota (St. Paul Campus)
  • New York, Harold Hochman, City University of New York
  • Ohio, David Klingaman, Ohio University
  • Pennsylvania, Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
  • Texas, Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
  • Washington, Yoram Barazel, University of Washington
  • Washington, D.C. Robert D. Tollison, George Mason University
  • Wisconsin, Burton Weisbrod, University of Wisconsin

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

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


1984 June: /E In 1984 Robert D. Tollison [of George Mason University] joined forces with four other economists: Harold M. Hochman [CUNY], Thomas E. Borcherding [Claremont College LA], Fred McChesney [Emory Uni] and Dolores T. Martin [Uni of Nebraska], to start the Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth. This very quickly became

"an informal committee of economists from 42 states who have collectively and individually participated in activities on behalf of the tobacco industry in the areas of excise taxation and public smoking."
This committee was funded by the Tobacco Institute (TI) through Ogilvy & Mather Public Relations (O&M) and James Savarese and Associates. Tollison and James Saverese were old associates.

(SourceWatch)
    The Tobacco Institute paid to publish a booklet promoting the new organisaton and the five leaders (complete with cute portraits of each) propounding the new philosophy (but without any mention of the Tobacco Institute and only peripheral mention of 'cigarettes'):


1984 June: /E Tobacco Institute appendixes to some report. Page 5 is a list of "Potential Economic Consultants."

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

    Our intent is to have a group of individuals whom we can call upon as needed to testify, conduct special research projects, and discuss their research and/or views on excise taxes with budget officials, potential coalition members, legislators, and the media.
Thirteen consultants are ordered by State.
STATEECONOMIST
California Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
Connecticut William McEachern, University of Washington
Florida Richard Wagner, Florida State University
Georgia Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
Illinois James Heins, University of Illinois
Massachusetts Harlan Piatt, Northeastern University
Minnesota Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
New York Harold Hockman, City University of New York
Ohio David Klingaman, Ohio University
Pennsylvania Mark Pauly, University of Pennsylvania
Texas Charles Maurice, Texas A&M University
Washington, DC. Robert D. Tollison, George Mason University
Wisconsin Burton Weisbord, University of Wisconsin


    Using these economists the Tobacco Institute issued a booklet attacking Federal Excise Taxes (in general) under the name of
"The Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth" [which] opposes excise taxes and believes government should seek other ways to raise revenue.

    The following excerpts, taken from public testimony before the U.S. Treasury Department, present some of the strongest arguments against excises. [Five are quoted, with Hochman saying:]
    "The best way to reform and simplify these levies is to abolish them... fundamental tax reform and simplification should include elimination of federal excise taxes.

        Although some of these taxes are imposed on goods that one may think of as luxuries consumed by the well-to-do... many are levied on products purchased at proportionately higher rates by individuals at the lower end of the income distribution. For goods falling in this latter category... the burden falls most heavily on those least able to pay. Moreover, excise taxes, wherever levied, misallocate resources; they cost the economy production and jobs...
There is no specific mention of cigarettes and, of course, no mention that this booklet was funded and circulated by the Tobacco Institute.


1984 June 20: Patricia Milita of Ogilvy & Mather PR writes to Michael Kerrigan at the Tobacco Institute.

Following is the information you requested on The Tobacco Institute's involvement in the U.S. Department of Treasury's tax simplification hearings in your region.
  • So far, one hearing has been held in the Northern Sector: in Minneapolis on Tuesday, June 19. Dolores Martin, an economics professor at the University of Nebraska, presented testimony at that hearing. We arranged interviews for her with KSTP-AM (radio) and KSTP-TV (both are St. Paul stations). A copy of her testimony and a biographical sketch are attached.
  • The next hearing [June 25] in your region will be in New York on Monday, June 25. Harold Hochman, an economics professor at Baruch College of the City University of New York, will testify. Hochman's testimony (subject to his revision) and biographical information are attached. We are seeking media coverage for him.
  • The final hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 28 in Springfield, Illinois. We are now preparing testimony and seeking both an academician and a small business spokesperson to present testimony at that hearing.

            Hochman hearing report


1984 July 2: O&M PR reports to Peter Sparber about the Treasury Department Hearings in New York, Washington and Springfield:

  • New York: Harold Hochman, Economics Professor at Baruch College of the City University of New York, testified Monday, July 25 at the U.S. Treasury hearing in New York.

        We arranged an interview with Meredith Hollas of WNBC-AM. It lasted 10 minutes and Hochman concentrated on the excise issue.

        During his testimony, Hochman was photographed by the Berton County Record (Hackensack, NJ Daily) and Cable News Network. We supplied reporters from these outlets with copies of his testimony as well as several other reporters in attendance. Hochman was very relaxed and animated in his testimony, but was slightly nervous during his interview.
  • Washington: Robert Tollison, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, testified Tuesday, July 26 at the Washington tax reform hearing

        Tollison's testimony concentrated solely on cigarette excises.

        Several reporters attended the hearing and we distributed testimony to each. Fortune and Nation's Business did not attend the event but were interested in receiving Tollison's testimony.

        We also taped a Q&A with Tollison regarding excise taxes, an interview with a "man-in-the-street" on the issue, and Tollison's testimony for use in a wrap-up news story on the hearings to be released via satellite.
  • Springfield: Roger Kormendi, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, testified at the final tax reform hearing on Thursday, July 28 in Springfield, IL.

        Kormendi was a very effective speaker and impressed the Treasury Department officials. Both officials asked him numerous questions concerning his testimony and [Dep.Ass.Sec.]Pearlman wanted to get in touch with him over the telephone to further discuss Kormendi's views.

        Kormendi was very articulate and relaxed with the press. We arranged an interview with WNNS-AM of Springfield that took place at the hearing. The interview lasted 10 minutes and Kormendi concentrated on the unfairness of "hidden taxes."

        He was also interviewed by:
    • The Chicago Tribune — Kormendi is a friend of the reporter who covered the hearing.
    • TV 31, Peoria, IL — Five minute interview covering his views on excises and consumption taxes.
    • Bureau of National Affairs —Reporter talked to him briefly about the main points of his testimony. She took his phone number for further information.
    • USA Today — Reporter had received information from O&M and wanted to know if TI had funded Kormendi's speech. Kormendi adamantly told him that although TI funded him, his views.were his own.
  • Attached is a tape of Tom Borcherding's interview on the Michael
        Jackson Show (Los Angeles).



1984 July 16: A summary report of the Tobacco Institute notes that they had managed to plant economist witnesses at six of the eight Treasury Department regional hearings.

  • Thomas Borsherding at Los Angelos on June 12
  • Delores Martin at Minneapolist on June 19
  • Fred McChesney at Atlanta on June 20
  • Harold Hochman at New York on July 25 (sic...June?)
  • Robert Tollison at Washington on June 26
  • Roger Kormendi at Springfield June 28

    Kormendi was the only one not formally a member of their network at this time.


1984 Jul: The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan.

The plan augments our basic lobbying efforts by relying on groups outside the industry — some not regularly associated with the industry — to argue against excise taxes for us.

    It is an ambitious program, based on the notion that many of the most effective protests against tobacco taxes will come from groups philosophically distant from The Institute. Many such groups agree with us on the excise issue, even though they disagree with us on other matters.

    At the federal level, supporting Congressional members from the tobacco states is essential to our lobbyists. The tobacco members consistently vote as a unified group — something that is rarely seen in Congress today. They are our lobbyists' most important resource.

    The program recommends that economic and other consultants assist us in developing, "packaging," and presenting our anti-excise arguments in legislative testimony or meetings with coalition members.

Resources:
Economic consultants with different areas of expertise will conduct research and act as spokespersons for The Institute and organizations supported by The Institute. Specific activities with economists are discussed throughout the tactics.

Tactics:
  • Stimulate reputable public finance economists at key state universities to determine the validity of state revenue forecasts, perhaps on behalf of state business organizations and present arguments against excise taxes in various forums; e.g., meetings with potential coalition members or budget officials.
  • Encourage economists to make the case against regressive taxation in meetings with potential coalition members and legislators.
  • Retain public finance economists affiliated with non-profit organizations to research the subject and use their findings in forums such as:
    • Private meetings with state legislators or staff ;
    • formal testimony before government bodies ;
    • targeted media appearances;
    • speeches before business, civic, labor, and other groups ;
    • tax symposia in key states where the proceedings could be published for use in other states ; and
    • articles which raise the visibility of key arguments in the business, academic, and popular press.
Strategies:
  • Presenting specific members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees with arguments prepared by economists with whom they share some common interest; e.g college affiliation, service on the same commission.
  • Gaining the support of Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), the most influential labor/liberal tax reform group in the country, in opposition to excise taxes.
  • Relying on the AFL-CIO — via The Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers Union — to ensure that the labor/liberal tax package that emerges in the next session of Congress does not include tobacco.

Appendix: A list of economists in key states who may be willing to act as industry and third-party spokespersons on the tax issue.

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

Cash-for-Comment Economists
StateEconomist
California Thomas Borsherding, Claremont College
Connecticut William McEachern, University of Washington
Florida Richard Wagner, Florida State University
Georgia Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School
Illinois James Heins, University of Illinois
Mass. Harlan Platt , Northeastern University
Minnesota Thomas Stimson, University of Minnesota (St.P)
New York Harold Hockman, 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
[This was the core group which established the cash-for-contents network. Over the years the numbers reached over 100.]


    Our intent is to have a group of individuals whom we can call upon as needed to testify, conduct special research and discuss their research projects and/or views on excise taxes with budget officials, potential coalition members, legislators and the media.



1984 July 11: The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan, It says:

The program will become an integral part of managing the tax issue — guiding our training of lobbyists, strategy development,. and communications efforts. It is not a plan with a timeline for implementation, but a resource book which puts forth strategies and tactics for dealing with various excise situations that the industry must face. Our lobbyists will decide, on a case-by-case basis, how to use those strategies and tactics.

    The industry's most important resource is its lobbyists. In recent years, considerable efforts have been made to retain the best lobbyists available in the states and at the federal level; to ensure lobbyists' access to senior Institute management; and to adequately equip lobbyists with information and other forms of support.

    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.

    Traditionally, at the federal and state levels, we have augmented our lobbyists' efforts by working with business coalitions made up of other industries whose products are potential tax targets, local businesses concerned about corporate income taxes, and business associations.

Materials and Resources

    Like effective lobbying, coalitions are an important tool in fighting excises, not a panacea. Having plausible, well-supported arguments, and qualified people to express those arguments, is yet another important tool.

    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. These consultants will also help in producing materials for coalition members' use with their own membership (e.g., an anti-excise tax brochure for a union's use with its rank-and-file)

Materials and Resources

    Like effective lobbying, coalitions are an important tool in fighting excises, not a panacea. Having plausible, well-supported arguments, and qualified people to express those arguments, is yet another important tool.

    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. These consultants will also help in producing materials for coalition members' use with their own membership (e.g., an anti-excise tax brochure for a union's use with its rank-and-file).

Tactics:[See long section]
  • Sponsor a paper written by the American Federation of Teachers which discusses the union's opposition to funding education with excise taxes and calls for the use of broader revenue sources. Distribute the paper to budget officials and legislators.
  • Encourage economists to make the case against regressive taxation in meetings with potential coalition members and legislators.
  • 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. (Also see Appendix.)

    The Appendix lists POTENTIAL ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS on a state-by-state basis.
  • New York — Harold Hockman (sic) of the City University of New York,



1984 Nov 9: The economists have suggested to Savarese that the Tobacco Institute should attempt to use economic forums to spread their propaganda in 1985. The TI should pay the network economists to attend and give papers at these forums. They have suggested:

  • Public Choice Society, New Orleans, LA, February 21-23
  • Eastern Economic Association, Pittsburgh, PA, March 21-23
  • Southwestern Social Science Association, Houston, TX, March 20-23
  • Western Economic Association, Anaheim, CA, June 25-29
  • Southern Economic Association, Dallas, TX, November
These become projects for the network economists.
It is important to bear in mind that these papers must be a cut above the testimony we produced for the Treasury hearings, but they do not have to be of professional journal quality.

    This is not to say that we wouldn't want to get several of these published independently in academic journals, but rather that this is not necessary in the majority of cases.

    Again, unlike the Treasury hearings, the authors would have to do a good deal of the research themselves. We would work with them to insure that the main points are made, but we do need them to commit some of their time to the production side. [Note how this is being spelled out. Clearly most of the research data in previous papers had been handed to the economists, with their papers or testimonials already written.]

    In order to get on the program of these meetings , we will need to rely heavily on Bob Tollison, who has just been elected President of the Southern Economic Association for 1985.

    With the help of Tollison, Tom Borcherding, and Hal Hochman; we can probably appear before each of these groups.

    If The Institute is interested in pursuing their idea, I am available to work with Tollison to draw up a brief one page outline for programs for each of these forums. I will check.with the economists we have used to ascertain their availability ahd interest — and any ideas they might have concerning specific papers.



1984 Nov 20: O&M is organising the first economists forum at the Public Choice Society meeting in New Orleans, Feb 21-23.

The topic would be "Public Choices About Tax Reform."

W.F. Shugart II, an economist from Clemson University, would chair the panel. Those who would present papers would be:
  • Thomas Borcherding, from Claremont Graduate School. Subject: "Tax Reform and Simplification: A Public Choice Perspective."
  • Harold Hochman, from City University of New York. Subject: "The Value-Added Tax: Do We Need Another Excise Tax?"
  • Fred McChesney, Emory University Law School. Subject: "Tax Reform in a Rent-Seeking Perspective: The Role of Interests."
  • Gary Anderson, an economist from George Mason University, would be the discussant.
Bob Tollison would be responsible for getting us on the program. He and Jim Savarese would work with each of the people to ensure that each paper contained a clear anti-excise tax message.

    Shughart and Anderson would also mention excises in their presentations. We will be obtaining CV s from Anderson and Shugart, who Jim and Bob Tollison know well. The other economists have all worked with us before.
Savarese's estimate of the costs for running this Economists' Forum project with the three papers at $2,000 each and Gary Anderson with $1000, plus travel, hotel, administration, etc. was $16,000.


1984 Dec: /E Robert D. Tollison of George Mason University, joined forces with four other economists: Harold M. Hochman, Thomas E. Borcherding, Fred McChesney and Dolores T. Martin, to start the Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth,

"an informal committee of economists from 42 states who have collectively and individually participated in activities on behalf of the tobacco industry in the areas of excise taxation and public smoking."[8] This committee was supported by the Tobacco Institute (TI) through Ogilvy & Mather Public Relations (O&M) and James Savarese and Associates.
Tollison and James Saverese were old associates.

See sourcewatch [This confuses the starting date of later nation-wide cash-for-comments network with the original CTEG (group of six).]


1985 Jan 17: Hochman is also working with Joseph W Katz and Company [New Jersey PR] and Ogilvy & Mather on the Tobacco Institute's restraurant bill problems along with Richard Scanlan from the Tobacco Institute.
    Katz writes:

I have tried to turn the restaurant bill developments to our advantage. Perhaps you could use these arguments in your own efforts.
He then copies them a letter about the withdrawal of objections by the New Jersey Restaurant Association following a modification of the bill's wording. This is pure PR — with no element of economics.


1985 Jan 22: Richard Scanlan has sent Hochman a letter changing his appearance dates at a hearing in New Jersey.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for taking time out of your schedule in our efforts to oppose the smoking restriction legislation in New Jersey. While we have enacted the assistance of higher beings and therefore had a snow delay in the public hearing, this will request your assistance in appearing before the Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee on January 28th at 10:30 A.M.

    Should you have any problems with schedule, please let me know.


    They have also briefed Ed Beder from the major tobacco law firm, Covington & Burling, and they've organised a coalition and are doing phone bank lobbying.


1985 Jan 29: The Star Ledger reported that "Anti-smoking bills go to Senate floor." The New Jersey bills would ban or limit smoking in public places.

Joseph Katz, a lobbyist for the Tobacco Institute, waged an unsuccessful campaign to stop the bills.

    [Chairman] Graves repeatedly cited these health problems in response to contentions by Harold Hochman, an economist preofessor at Baruch College of the City University of New York, that the bills could cost $290 million a hear.

    Hochman said there will be a cost because unions will demand additonal breaks for smoking"



1985 Jan 31: Hurst Marshall has distributed this Tobacco Institute list of economists from the cash-for-comments network. It has been organise by State, and includes the names of Congressmen they wish to influence.

Attached for your information are the names of economists who have been identified by PR to assist TI on the federal cigarette excise tax issue.

These people are also available to testify at the state level.

    If you feel that this type of witness can be of assistance to you on state cigarette tax issues, please contact Fred Panzer for details and arrangements.

    Please notify your lobbyists as to the availability of these people. At the same time, you may wish to ask them for their ideas or suggestions for other economists within their states.
This economist will be detailed to make the contact with Congressmen [by sending him/them the published op-ed]:
NEW YORK [No Rep listed]
  •   Professor Kenneth V. Greene
      SUNY, Binghampton, New York


  •   Professor Harold M. Hochman
      City University of New York, New York, New York



1985 Feb 12: Richard Scanlan is updating Kloepfer at the Tobacco Institute on the New Jersey bills. It appears that the material Hochman presented was actually the work of James Savarese.

As you know, Jim Savarese prepared a economic impact study for use in New Jersey at the request of legislative counsel Joseph Katz. The study was used before the Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee at a public hearing on January 28th.

Professor Harold M. Hochman testified before the committee and presented the material. As you may have heard, the audience was extremely hostile but it was our desire to present this material to the committee so that it could also be used during our upcoming Senate floor debate. I thank you for your assistance in providing this material and expert witness for our use in New Jersey.
[The draft of Savarese's 'study' is included. ]


1985 Feb 21: Roger Mozingo {State Division of the Tobacco Institute] is sending his state directors a list of resources available to fight against excise taxes in their states. Kenneth Greene of SUNY heads their state list of available economic witnesses for New York, followed by Harold Hochman of City University of New York.


1985 Apr 24: Hochman has written to Ric Scanlon on his university's Baruch Collete letterhead.

Dear Ric:
Apparently the Hyatt Regency charged me directly despite your instructions to charge the TI directly. Do you reimburse or do you send this to Jim Savarese?

    Are things as quiet as they seem? Hope all is well.

[On May 15 he receives his expenses check for $110.22 soon after]


1985 May 20: Ogilvy & Mather have lined up witnesses for another hearing on workplace smoking bans:

  • David Wilhelm of Citizens for Tax Justice [who also works for the AFL-CIO]
  • The AFL-CIO's tax specialist Vince Trevelli
  • Hal Hochman of CUNY who is "available on June 6 and will work with O&M to prepare testimony. TI will be billed for his time and expenses."



1985 May 29: William Kloepfer (PR) to Sam Chilcote (Pres.) at the Tobacco Institute: They have lined witnesses for the

  • Rangel Hearing (June 6) on tax burdens for low income wage earners
    • David Wilhelm of Citizens for Tax Justice
    • Vince Trevelli, of AFL-CIO
    • Hal Hochman economist of City Uni of New York (a network economist)
    • Jose Trevino, Exec Director of LULAC (Hispanic lobby)
  • Stark Hearing (cigarette excise)
    1. Cotton Mather Lindsay, a Clemson economics professor, has received extensive briefing and material, including OTA draft. He is now preparing to collaborate with O&M on a statement. We expect it to run about 10 pages and be completed in approximately seven working days from go-ahead signal. We'll ask him to proceed this week. Lindsay is available for dress rehearsal session in Washington.
    2. Robert Mclntyre, director of federal tax programs, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), will testify from liberal-labor perspective. Again, drafting can begin immediately with a seven-day turnaround. We will try this week to get him started on a draft.
    3. Others including labor movement, LULAC, Veterans, etc. [See]
  • OP-ED ARTICLES
    This project has proven to be more successful than expected — and popular with both the media and the authors.

        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 almost all of our 42 economists to participate.

        In addition to sending the article to the major newspaper in their region, the economists also copy their Member of the House and/or Senate tax writing committee, as appropriate.

        Attached is a tabulation of media and Congressional coverage, as well as clippings and copies of Hill response. We are providing these to Federal Relations now for possible Congressional Record inserts.



1985 June 6: He is listed as a witness to appear before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways And Means on The Tax Burdens of Low-Income Wage-Earners Remarks by Harold M. Hochman Professor of Economics Baruch College The City University of New York.

    He says that his (admiral) concern is that...

the incidence of federal taxes, while mildly progressive, has become less so over the past twenty years.

    Moreover, when the burdens of state and local taxes are added, what progressivity there is disappears. Though the differences are small, a recent study of tax incidence suggests that some groups of low-income wage-earners appear to pay a larger share of their income' in tax than the wealthy, and that the tax burdens appear to have been rising over time.

[He forgets to mention the funding he received from the Tobacco Institute.]

1985 June 10: Maureen Delanty (O&M)'s May Monthly Report lists her activities.

  • Participated in luncheon meeting with Steve Schlossberg and Mike Forsey to discuss labor relations opportunities for TI. We are trying to confirm Schlossberg's recommendation of Forsey with other sources.
    [Both were later widely used by Labor Management Committee.]
  • Briefly discussed with Pete Sparber use of economic consultants to promote Chase Econometrics' study of the tobacco industry. Once study is available, we would like to review and prepare recommendations for this project.
    [Chase did both a general and numerous State-specific studies, custom-designed to produce the results the tobacco industry wanted.]
  • Briefly discussed with you use of economic consultants on public smoking issue. We should discuss some target states so we can make recommendations and get started on this project.
  • Delivered brochure on health care financing. We also printed stationery for Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth for cover letter signed by Bob Tollison. Distribution list is being compiled and brochure will be mailed as soon as possible.
  • Continued to prepare op-ed articles on tax reform and work with area economists to place in newspapers in home districts of members of House Ways & Means and Senate Finance Committees.
  • With Fred Panzer and Jim Savarese, coordinated Bob Tollison and Richard Wagner's responses to OTA on the earmarking of cigarette excises for health care financing.
  • Arranged for Citizens for Tax Justice and Hal Hochman, professor at City University of New York, to testify before Representative Rangel on the taxation of low-income wage earners. This involved coordination of testimony with the subcommittee and making final revisions on Hochman's statement.



1985 June 12: The formal "Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth" put together by the tobacco industry to support its propaganda, now has its own letterhead to write to Congressional politicians and aides. It claims to be a

"bi-partisan organization of public policy experts and public finance economists founded in 1984 to examine ways of creating a federal tax system which will provide adequate revenue in an efficient, equitable manner.
The letterhead shows that:
  • Robert Tollison of George Mason Institute is Chairman,
and the Executive Board consists of:
  • Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School
  • Harold Hochman, Baruch College, CUNY
  • Cotton M Lindsay, Clemson university
  • Fred McChesney, Emory university,
  • Dwight Lee, University of Georgia
  • Richard Wagner, Florida State Uni.
[Note Delores Martin's name is not on the letterhead, even though she was involved initially, and later with the network.]



1985 June 30 to Sep 6: The Tobacco Institute have arranged the weekly syndication of a series of Opinion pieces, comparing the statements of four economists (varied weekly) on various subjects. These have been picked up and run by newspapers; presumably in the belief that they are worthy articles of economic opinion.

    This is called a "matte operation" and it is used by small give-away newspapers that don't have the staff to write, edit and lay-out substantial articles. The economists being quoted here are:
  • K Celese Gaspari (Uni of Vermont) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • David N Laband (Uni of Maryland) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Fred McChesney (Emory Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Dean Tipps — nominally a union official — actually Citizens for Tax Justice lobbyist who also works for the AFL-CIO.
  • Allen M Parkman (Uni of New Mexico) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Richard Vedder (Ohio Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Roger Faith (Arkansas State Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Lee Alston (Williams college) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • William Hunter (Marquette Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Dennis Logue (Dartmouth College) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • William Shughart (George Mason Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Harold Hochman (City Uni of New York) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • David Wilhelm (Citizens for Tax Justice) — think-tank lobbyist (and AFL-CIO employee).
  • Joseph Jadlow (Oklahoma State Uni) — a cash-for-comment economist
  • Robert Ekelund (Auburn Uni) — a major cash-for-comment economist and sub-network organizer.
  • Thomas Borcherding (Claremont Grad. School) — a cash-for-comment economist
[Isn't it great to see small newspapers publishing such a diversity of economic opinion!]


1986 Jan: Public Relations Resources Commitee Catalogue of the Tobacco Institute lists Hochman as an available witness.


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 Harold M. Hochman
    Public Policy Program, School of Business, City University of New York, New York, NY
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.



1986 Apr: Field Staff of the Tobacco Institute have evaluated their available economists and other cash-for-comment consultants.

Hal Hochman had "limited knowledge, a poor presentation and poor persuasiveness." (It was noted that Hochman appeared before a "belligerent committee chairman." ).

    "Given the right issue in the right circumstances," the Regional VP would use the witnesses in future legislative hearings



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. Hochman is listed as one of the recipients of this letter on the "Brainstorming - Research Ideas" project.


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.


1986 May: A bundle of information predominantly on Sick Building Syndrome and Indoor Air Quality is being circulated by the Tobacco Institute to its Regional Directors. However, Section 1 is headed

List of sources. Local and national experts you can call for quotes or background information.
This economists name and address are included under "Tobacco & Taxation (listed by state, alphabetically)".


1986 Aug: The Regional Vice Presidents (RVPs) and Regional Directors (RDs) of the Tobacco Institute in charge of various areas have supplied comments on their Economic Witnesses. Six of the RVPs thought it important that the economist was a resident of the State, "Ideally associated with the State University", while three did not, provided they were "presented to the legislators by a 'credible... organization' (e.g. chambers of commerce, labour union)." [Provided they hid their tobacco industry backing behind a front organization.]

Comments on Witnesses
Region I: The local economists (eg, Dennis Logue, Dartmouth College), "while obviously good at their craft, " tend to be "good 'supply-siders'." They lack a certain credibility with the region's more liberal legislators.

    The witnesses have not been "completely comfortable" with all the findings of the economic impact studies [Done by the Tobacco Institute] and have "some difficulty in articulating them."

Region II
"Jim Savarese and his associates knowledge presentation and persuasiveness were excellent."

    Hal Hochman had "limited knowledge, a poor presentation and poor persuasiveness." (It was noted that Hochman appeared before a "belliqerent committee chairman.")

    "[G]iven the right issue in the right circumstances," the RVP would use the witnesses in future legislative hearings.



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.

NEW YORK

[Economist:] Professor Kenneth V. Greene, SUNY, Binghamton, New York
[Speciality:] N/A

[Economist:] Professor Harold M. Hochman, City University of New York, New York, New York
[Speciality:] Regional accounts; urban economics; models of public and private choice; deregulation, public finance.


Tax Witnesses: Materials available
Kenneth Greene
&
Harold HM Hochman
Note: Public Smoking bills under consideration in Eire, Buffalo, Nassau and Catteraugus Counties
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: N.Y. State professional Fightfighters Assn: Robert Gollnick.
Media Relations:
Contacts are in place in Buffalo, Kingston, New York City and Rochester. Contact Bill Toohey for assistance.



1986 Oct 3: The State Directors for the Tobacco Institute have been reviewing all economics network witnesses in their territories, and culling those who are not actively participating. The Washington DC office is now circulating to its State Directors a list of the economists available who...

"...have been identified in several states by J. Savarese as available and hopefully capable to testify in our behalf, or aid in our defense against proposed state of local legislation, from an economic aspect.
This list differs from others in providing a list of the economic specialities of each network economist, along with the Congresmen they were designated to influence. Two economists are listed for this state:
NEW YORK
Professor Kenneth V. Greene
    State University of New York (SUNY), Binghamton, New York
    [No specilization listed]

Professor Harold M. Hochman
    City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York
    [Specializing in:] Regional accounts; urban economics; models of public and private choice; deregulation, public finance.



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,
See pages 210 to 219 of the bundle which have multiple Letters-to-editor/commentary from 17 cash-for-comments economists — William Hunter, Dennis Logue, William Shugart, Harold Hochman. David Wilhelm, Joseph Jadlow, Robert Ekelund, Thomas Borcherding, K Celeste Gaspari, David Laband, Fred McChesney, Dean Tipps, Allen Parkman, Richard Vedder, Roger Faith, Lee Alson, and William Hunter,
      They had obviously managed to plant these multiple-author pieces on a number of newspapers.



1986 Dec 11: James Savarese sends Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute a summary of the activities of his network of economists. This is effectively the beginning of the main cash-for-comments economists network.

Dear Fred,
    I have attached a list of all the economists we have used along with the projects they have worked on in behalf of the Tobacco Institute.
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:
New York [ Region II ]

Professor Harold Hochman

    Public Policy Program, School of Business, City University of New York , New York, New York 10021, 212-725-3106

    Services rendered:
    • testimony: federal taxes
    • smoking restrictions - New Jersey
    • academic forum
    • regional hearings, Treasury I - New York




Hochman appears to ahve dropped out as the New York representative on the cash-for-comments network at about this time. He still figures in the tobacco archives, but not in this formal network.



1988 Jan: Economic Inquiry paper on alcoholics and price inelacticity. Mentioned in Borcherding paper on cigarette addiction.

    Hochman and Barthold's paper treated "addiction as pathological or clinically severe" — which destroyed the tobacco industry's main arguments against regulation and restrictive measures.



In the early 1990s Hochman moved to Lafayette College to occupy the "William E Simon" chair in Economics. He also appears to have suffereed an extreme (for economists) case of intellectual honesty, and so lost the trust of the tobacco industry.



1993 Aug 23: Institute of Public Finance meeting in Berlin had a paper by Hochman and Susan L Averett, both of Lafayette College. "Addictive Behavior and Public Policy"

Addictive behavior not only damages individuals, but causes or reinforces a wide range ot social problems. A number of economists (among them Becker and Murphy, Barthold and Hochman, Michael, and Winston) have developed models of addictive behavior in recent years. Our intention is to use empirically test the approach taken by Barthold and Hocbinaa. The Harthold-Hochman model distinguishes, conceptually, between individuals who are extreme-seekers and those who are, as in the standard model of consumer choicc, continuous adjusters.
Hochman is now, apparently, an authority on the economics on addiction. However he seems to have suffered a Damascian conversion from his previous Public Choice convictions that all economic behavior is rational.
Addictive behavior, our subject in this essay, raises doubts about the universal validity of this conventional description of consumer choice, in part because such behavior tends to be self-destructive (can it thus be rational?) and in part because it often seems impervious to economic incentives, or for that matter to any incentives at all.

WORTH READING


















CONTRIBUTORS:qdr2 srs2 samf


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License