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 4/1/2013


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.


Smoking-Gun docs.

Michael Marlow

James Savarese
Robert Tollison
Anna Tollison
Richard Wagner
James C Miller III
economists networks
Carol M Robert
Elizabeth A Masaitis
Committee on Taxation and Economic Growth
Harold Hochman
Fred McChesney
Thomas E Borcherding
Delores T Martin
Dennis Dyer
George Minshew
Ctr.Study Pub.Choice
James Buchanan
William Prendergast
Bill Orzechowski

Dominick Armentano
Burton A Abrams
Lee Alston
Ryan C Amacher
Gary Anderson
Lee Anderson
William Anderson
Terry Anderson
Roger Arnold
Richard W Ault
Michael Babcock
Joe A Bell
Bruce L Benson
Peter Boettke
Thomas Borcherding
William J Boyes
Charles Breeden
Lawrence Brunner
Henry N Butler
Bill Bryan
Cecil Bohanon
Morris Coates
Roger Congleton
Jeffrey R Clark
Michael Crew
Allan Dalton
John David
Michael Davis
Arthur T Denzau
Clifford Dobitz
John Dobra
Randall Eberts
Robert B Ekelund
Roger L Faith
David Fand
Clifford Fry
Celeste Gaspari
David ER Gay
Kenneth V Greene
Kevin B Grier
Brian Goff
Sherman Hanna
Anne Harper-Fender
Kathy Hayes
Dennis Hein
James Heins
F Steb Hipple
Harold M Hochman
George E Hoffer
John Howe
William Hunter
John D Jackson
Joseph M Jadlow
Cecil Johnson
Samson Kimenyi
David Klingaman
Michael Kurth
David Laband
Suuner Lacroix
Dwight R Lee
Dennis Logue
C. Matt Lindsay
Donald P Lyden
Craig MacPhee
Delores Martin
Chuck Mason
Charles Maurice
Fred McChesney
James E McClure
William McEachern
Robert McMahon
Arthur Mead
Paul L Menchik
John F Militello
William C Mitchell
Greg Neihaus
Allen Parkman
Mark Pauly
William Peterson
Harlan Platt
Michael D Pratt
Thomas Pogue
Barry W Poulson
Edward ('Ed') Price
Robert Pulsinelli
Raymond Raab
Roger Riefler
Mario Rizzo
Morgan Reynolds
Simon Rottenberg
Randy Rucker
Richard Saba
Todd Sandler
David Saurman
Mark Schmitz
Robert Sexton
William Shughart
Thomas Stimson
Wendell Sweetser
Mark Thornton
Mark Toma
David G Tuerck
Richard Vedder
Richard Wagner
J Keith Watson
Burton Weisbord
Walter E Williams
Thomas L Wyrick
Bruce Yandle
Boon Yoon
Richard D Zerbe




William J Boyes     [Prof]    

(aka Boyers and Boyse)

— A late-comer to the economists cash-for-comments network, who began to work for the tobacco industry in 1993, but who diligently wrote op-eds for many years. He came from Arizona State University. —  

The cash-for-comments economists network was set up by Professor Robert Tollison with lobbyist and consultant to the Tobacco Institute, James Savarese. It's purpose was to provide propaganda and lobbying services to the tobacco industry in all 50 US States, utilizing trusted and prominent academics at the local universities. It was:

  • Funded and controlled by the Tobacco Institute.
  • Organised and influenced by the Center for the Study of Public Choice at George Mason University, and the Public Choice Society (neo-con economists).
  • Operated on a day-to-day basis through Ogilvy & Mather, and then by James Savarese & Associates a lobby firm based in Washington.
The principle organisers included the:
  • Tobacco Institute staffPeter Sparber, Susan Stuntz, Carol Hyrcaj, Fred Panzer, Jeff Ross and Calvin George.
  • Economist organizersRobert Tollison, William Shughart, Dwight Lee, Richard Wagner, Gary Anderson, Robert Ekelund, Henry Butler
  • Organizers from the GMU CenterAnna Tollison (wife of Robert), Elizabeth Masaitis, Carol Robert
  • Organizers from Savarese & Assoc. — Jim Savarese, Leslie Dalton, Kelleigh Varnum
  • Organisers from Ogilvy & MatherRichard Marcus, Marcia Silverman, Patricia Milita

It employed only Professors of economics at well-known State universities, and secretly commissioned them to:
  • Write op-ed articles for their local newspapers (after they had first been sub-edited and legally cleared by the Tobacco Institute). This earned them $2—3,000.
  • Appear as 'independent' witnesses at local ordinance hearings, or at State or Federal legislative hearings.
  • Make public statements to the broadcast or print media, or write letters to the editor supporting the tobacco industry's position [but concealing their connections]
  • Make submissions to academic/scientific conferences. This could earn them $5,000.
  • Write letters to their Congressmen; these letters had often been rough-drafted by the tobacco industry.
If they could claim to be a disinterested 'non-smoker' or even 'anti-smoking' — and " just a concerned citizen" expressing an expert academic opinion — this was seen as further enhancing their value in promoting the industry's positions and policies.

Some payments were laundered through Savarese & Associates, and some seem to have passed through the Center for the Study of Public Choice. Other means of hiding the sources of payment were probably via tobacco industry lawyers.

Boyes area of expertise appears to be Banking and Business Administration, but by the 1990s the network was getting pretty thin, and they were keen to get almost anyone with the necessary status and willingness to provide lobbying services to a much discredited industry.

What were they selling?
It is a mistake to think that these economists were peddling outright lies. Public relations and persuasive propaganda doesn't work that way; it is too easy to get caught out.

What they wrote were simplistic and selective versions of a disputed economic doctrine resting on esoteric assumptions not understood by readers. The tobacco industry did the selecting and often doctored up the words.

Most of these second-rate ivory-tower economists had little personal credibility as political commentators: they were unknown outside the range of their university campus. So the tobacco industry wasn't buying their reputations or expertise. It was buying the university's reputation for integrity and independent scholarship built up over decades by honest academics acting for the public good.

It was this reputational plagerism that made such articles appear convincing to local newspaper readers. And this is why the Tobacco Institute paid $1,000 — $3,000 for a slanted Economics 101 essay planted in a local paper with a 'Professor' by-line.

If, in their papers the 'Professors' could also claim to be 'non-smokers', then their reputation as disinterested independent expert commentators was even further enhanced.


Don't confuse with Dr William Boyes (HERL) who is a toxicologist.

Some key documents

See also the document labled economists network which treats the historical development of this network by Ogilvy & Mather, and then by James Savarese and Robert Tollison.

    The idea began in 1979 and ran through the 1980s under the direction of Savarese and Tollison.

• Department of Economics, Arizona State University.

See his C/V

    Boyes was an associate of another cash-for-comments economist, Roger Faith.

1947 Feb 14: Born

1974: PhD in Economics from the Claremont Graduate School

1982: became Professor of Economics at Arizona State University

1989 Sep: On the editorial board of "Managerial and Decision Economics"

1990 May: This is a list of the newspapers designated to certain economists on the network. They are to attempt to plant an op-ed article on "Excise Taxes" on this local newspapers.

William J. Boyers,
Arizona State University
He has been given the The Arizona Republic as his propaganda target.

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

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.

The Cost of Poor Health Habits (1991)
By the Rand Corporation, published by Harvard University Press.
Despite all these signals that health awareness has improved [in the last two decades}, statistics indicate that we are not yet on the high road to health. In 1986, the national tab was $24 billion for tobacco products and $18 billion for alcoholic drinks.
[Cigarettes were $1 per pack in 1991]

    Between 1977 and 1983, the proportion of the population who smoked dropped by 18 percent, bul the fraction of people who were "less active than their contemporaries," and the fraction of heavy drinkers rose by 12 percent and 28 percent, respectively. People with poor health habits can impose costs on others in various ways, not all of them financial. But the financial costs of health care are among the most obvious and significant.

    According to the Office of' Technology Assessment (1985), cigarette smoking may account annually for 5.3 million person-years of life lost, $22 billion of medical care costs, and $43 billion in lost productivity.
[Other estimates of annual costs range from $50 bn to $66 bn (in 1986 dollars)]

    Because smoking shortens life expectancy, the internal costs to smokers and their families are high. Smoking reduces the (undiscounted) life expectancy of a 20-year-old by 4.3 years. (in the productive tax-paying years)

    Alcohol abuse may account annually for 22,400 traffic deaths [another study says 42% of all fatal accidents], 15,400 other deaths, $11.9 billion of medical care costs, and $20.6 billion in lost productivity. The lifetinre external costs of excess drinking amount to $42,000 per heavy drinker. (in 1991 dollars)

    People with these unhealthy habits, and their families, certainly bear some of the costs directly. They lose wages, pay a portion of their medical costs, and suffer from disability and premature death. These are what we define as internal costs.

    The magnitude of external costs can be used to gauge the appropriate level of excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

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.

The Cash-for-Comment Economists Network as of 1991
ALABAMARobert B. Ekelund, Jr. Auburn University
ARIZONAWilliam J. Boyes Arizona State University
ARKANSASDavid E. R. Gay University of Arkansas
Roger Arnold
California State at Northridge
California State U. - San Marcos
COLORADOBarry Poulson University of Colorado
CONNECTICUTDominick Armentano University of Hartford
DELAWAREBurton Abrams University of Delaware
FLORIDABruce Benson Florida State University
GEORGIADwight R. Lee University of Georgia
IDAHOAllan Dalton Boise State University
ILLINOISJames Heins University of Illinois
INDIANACecil Bohanon Ball State University
IOWATodd Sandler Iowa State University
KANSASMichael Babcock Kansas State University
KENTUCKY Brian Goff Western Kentucky University
LOUISIANA Michael Kurth McNeese State University
MAINERobert McMahon University of Southern Maine
MASSACHUSETTSDavid Tuerck Suffolk University
MISSISSIPPIBill Shughart University of Mississippi
Thomas I.Wyrick
Southwest Missouri State
Southwest Missouri State
MONTANATerry L. Anderson Montana State University
NEBRASKA Dee Martin University of Nebraska
NEVADAJohn Dobra University of Nevada Reno
NEW HAMPSHIREDennis Logue Dartmouth College
NEW MEXICOAllen Parkman University of New Mexico
NORTH DAKOTACliff Dobitz North Dakota State University
OHIORichard Vedder Ohio University
OKLAHOMAJoseph Jadlow Oklahoma State University
OREGONWilliam Mitchell University of Oregon
PENNSYLVANIAAnn Harper-Fender Gettysburg College
RHODE ISLANDArthur Mead University of Rhode Island
SOUTH CAROLINA Ryan Amacher Clemson University
SOUTH DAKOTADennis Hein Augustana College
TENNESSEEJ. R. Clark The Uni of Tennessee at Martin
TEXASS Charles Maurice
Michael Davis
Texas A&M University
Southern Methodist University
VIRGINIARichard B Wagner George Mason University
WASHINGTONRichard D. Zerbe, Jr. University of Washington

1992 June 15: William J Boyes and Michael L Marlow have conducted a preliminary study into "The Economics of Smoking Bans" and they want the funding to turn this into a book. Their study has all the appearances of being genuine research (unlike most of the funding proposals the tobacco industry received from its regular supporters).

The empirical focus of our study, in the sense of the original data collection, is on the City of San Luis Obispo, California, the first city to impose and then maintain an outright ban on smoking in all public places.

    The City imposed a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places late in the summer of 1990. Since then several communities ranging from Los Angeles to San Francisco have taken similar action. There are several distinguishing advantages to empirically investigating the experience of San Luis Obispo.
Among other expressions of disapproval, someone from the Tobacco Institute has written in the margins of the section dealing with the "illegality of smoking until age 18"
We wouldn't want to touch this, would we?
and they've heavily underlined
"Because non-smokers no longer must breathe second-hand smoke they experience gains in well being."

[There's something delightfully naive about academic economists thinking that the tobacco industry wanted genuine research of this kind]

    A few weeks later a memo to Jim Savarese from the Tobacco Institute, says:
This is in response to the proposal on "The Economics of Smoking Bans," submitted last June by William Boyes and Michael Marlow via Bob Tollison.

    In consultation with our State Activities Division, we have decided not to pursue this proposal. The preliminary data do not seem compelling enough from our point of view, and the proposal places what we believe is an inappropriate focus on health-related issues

    If you believe it would be worth continuing to pursue — that there may be some way to modify the Boyes/Marlow proposal or develop a proposal for a different study that would provide data that would be useful to us — I suggest that we sit down with the State Activities folks to get a better idea of what they're looking for.

1993 Apr 8: The economist's network is still functioning, but Savarese and Tollison have negotiated a different deal for the participants. Savarese now bills the Tobacco Institute for economist network op-ed commissions, half-down and half on delivery. They are being paid for preparing the articles rather than only when they succeeded in getting their articles published. This bill is for $37,000.

  • Op-ed article by Robert Tollison to be submitted to Wall Street Journal — $4,000.00

  • Rebuttal article by Bob Ekelund, Auburn Univeristy, to be submitted to the Birmingham News — $3,000.00

  • "Monster" tax op-ed project using twenty economists to submit articles in opposition to using excise taxes on cigarettes to finance health care reform — to be submitted to twenty newspapers in twenty different states. FIRST HALF = $30,000.00

[They now get $3,000 each per article — half on commission and half on delivery — while Tollison gets $4,000]

    This economist is listed as one of the proposed lucky recipients of $3,000 in largess from the Tobacco Institute for slashing out a quick op-ed. He was to submit the article to Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette

1993 Apr 13: Calvin George writes to his Tobacco Industry boss Susan Stuntz asking for permission to spend the $67,000 for the 22 op-eds listed by Savarese.

As previously discussed, the 20 economists proposed for the comprehensive op-ed program in opposition to excise taxes for health care reform have been selected with two primary criteria in mind:
  • first, capacity to reach major media markets in states and Congressional Districts represented by key members of the Senate and House Leadership, as well as the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees; and

  • second, the previous track record of the economists in being able to place successfully op-eds in the major dailies identified.
The cost of this project would be $67,000, which is consistent with previous experience for similar efforts. I am recommending approval of this proposal. Funds are available for this purpose in #1305-7301 under the line items for "Economists to deliver briefings, testimony, and write articles..." ($45,000) and "Op-eds on...health care costs" ($25,000).

    The list of these 20 economic network participants, and the newspapers that published their articles include this economist:

1993 July 7: Boyes has written an attack on President Clinton and his economic policies ("Clinton's 'sin taxes' would hit low-, middle-income classes" The Arizona Republic, July 7 1993) which raises the fear of run-away-government spending by a "new Democrat" president.

    An outstanding feature of the article is Boyse's choice of examples in what he believes are 'average familes'. On the regressive nature of excises, for instance, he says that "those who will bear the brunt of the Clinton tax juggernaut" are the lowest income households who will pay proportionally 15-times that of a "two-smoker family earning $250,000 a year."

Of course he could also have compared his 'average family' to one earning... 30-times the amount — say half-a-million — or to Warren Buffet and got even more impressive figures. Why be conservative in your assumptions when your purpose is to sensationalize?

Clinton has become the focus of these attacks because the industry feared that changes in health care were likely to be funded by higher cigarette exise taxes.
Of course Boyes makes no mention that the attack was funded by the tobacco industry — but he does remember to tell us that he doesn't smoke.

"The author is a non-smoker"
This statement reveals more about the ethics of the author than the remainder of the article. Just as lies can be told by 'commission' or 'omission', lobbyists and PR people include words which are crafted to mislead.

    The only reason for the 'non-smoker' statement is to con the reader into believing that the author had no bias towards cigarettes (by reason of addiction) or support for the cigarettes companies (by implication). His status as a university professor itself suggests he is above crass commercialism, while implying a professional concern for the health and well-being of everyone... and this is the lie.

    The fact that he has cynically included this 'non-smoker' claim while omitting to tell his readers that the tobacco industry paid him to write and promote this article, shows that public trust in him was not justified.

1993 July 7: Boyes has supplied a quote the Tobacco Institute wishes to use. It is from an article published in The Arizona Republic 7/7/93

"The tax on cigarettes seems to go against all promises made by candidate Clinton to reduce the burden on low- and middle-income households. Why, then, have cigarettes been singled out for such dubious attention? The justification is that smoking raises the costs of health care to everyone. But this is simply not valid if one examines studies based on such assumptions.

    For example, a 1989 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association calculates that 'medical care costs' of smoking ranged from 18 cents to 38 cents per pack. Because these estimates are all lower than even the present combined federal and average state tax of 52 cents per pack, the case for a tax increase vanishes."

[Note this document comprises highly selected comments made by their cash-for-comment network economists.]

1993 Aug 3: This is a series of lists dated from March to August 1993. Savarese's staff have sent these to the Tobacco Institute to progressively report successes and failures with the economists writing op-ed pieces and having them published.

    Collectively they give us a good idea as to how the network worked and how litte they managed to plant on the major newspapers (the smaller local papers were obviously easy.) It's also interesting to observe the mechanical processes and the tight control the tobacco industry and its lawyers exerted over these academic lackies.

  • The articles were either rejected, revised or passed by Jim Savarese and his staff
  • They were then sent for checking and alteration by Calvin George [Cal] at the Tobacco Institute.
  • The lawyer David Reemes who worked for the industry's main Washington lawfirm, Covington & Burling then cleared them for publication.
  • The economist then received the revised copies for onward transmission to the selected newspapers.
  • They would then send a copy to their local Congressmen without mentioning the tobacco industry's contractual arrangement.
Clearly by 1993 many of the original network members were dropping out, and the Tobacco Institute also appears to have been having problems getting even those academics who stayed loyal to write articles that justified their $2000 to $3000 payments

    Despite the protestations, these are not 'independent' opinion articles. They are industry-shaped, manipulated propaganda pieces designed as advocacy vehicles to promote tobacco interests in political, media and public circles — even when they don't directly mention or promote cigarettes or smoking.

    These lists are all headed 'MONSTER' Tax Op-Ed Project:
    William J. Boyes, Department of Economics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
    • Mar 23 — [Designated newspaper/s] Arizona Republic, Phoenix Gazette
    • Apr 9 — (No details)
    • May 12 — Submitted to The Arizona Republic
    • May 18 — (as above)
    • June 2 — (as above)
    • June 14— Submitted to the Arizona Republic
    • Aug 3 — Published in the Arizona Republic 7/7/93

1995 Feb: Clippings of Economists's Network op-ed articles sent to the Tobacco Institute.

  • The FDA's Quest for Power, by Gary M Galles and Robert L Sexton

  • Ever-expanding federal government stealthily constricting individual freedoms, by William J Boyes

  • Smoking ad ban by FDA appears to be self-serving, by Joe Bell

  • President can't hid political vanity behind a smoke screen, by Robert Higgs

  • FDA Shouldn't take the Role of Parents, by Ed Price

  • Teen-smoking crisis is really overblown, by Lowell Gallaway

1995 Oct: /E Philip Morris has been sent a list of the Tobacco Instutute's network economists who had been commissioned, and had...

... prepared and submitted op-eds [attacking the FDA] for publication to major newspapers in select states — targetting key Congressional districts:

    Economists prepared and submitted op-eds for publication to major newspapers in select states:
  • Dr William Boyes, Arizona State University
  • Dr Barry Poulson, University of Colorado
  • Dr Dominick Armentano, University of Hartford
  • Dr Dwight Lee, University of Georgia, Athens
  • Iowa economist tbd [To Be Determined]
  • Dr Cecil Bohanan, Ball State University
  • Dr Robert Pulsinelli, Western Kentucky University
  • Dr Michael Kurth, McNeese State University (Louisiana)
  • Dr Bill Shughart, II, University of Mississippi
  • Dr Joe Bell, Southwest Missouri State University
  • Dr Terry Ridgway, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
  • Dr Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico
  • Dr Lowell Gallaway, Ohio University
  • Dr Ed Price, Oklahoma State University
  • Dr William Mitchell, University of Oregon
  • Dr J.R. Clark, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
  • Dr Michael Davis, The University of Texas at Dallas
  • Robert Higgs, Independent Institute, Edmonds, Washington
  • Dr Charles Breeden, Marquette University
They had been told to "attack the FDA proposal from an anti-big government, anti-regulatory perspective" with a number of pre-determined themes
  • While FDA claims their focus is on preventing youth smoking, the action is the first step to impose harsher regulations on tobacco;
  • The FDA regs will have repercussions on not only the tobacco industry, but vending, confectionery and candy industries, distributors, advertisers and sponsors for sporting events; and
  • The regs will have a devastating impact on jobs.

[This memo demonstrates just how compliant these academic tobacco lackeys had become — and how much they were willing to follow tobacco industry instructions in writing their op-ed pieces.]

1995 Dec 8: The Savarese Status Report on the FDA Op-ed Program says that Boyes's draft op-ed had been declined by the Arizona Republic but would be published by the Mesa Tribune newspaper.

1995 Dec 12: The Tempe Daily News Tribune unexpectedly published Boyes article "Ever-expanding federal government stealthily constricting individual freedoms" attacking the FDA.

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

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

At this time, we are asking those economists that have published, to forward a copy of their article to their congressman/congresswoman.
Clearly some of their draft articles were not entirely satisfactory and required rewrites by Savarese's staff. The notes include some additional revealing items such as:
  • Professor Cecil Bohanon — "Revised op-ed returned to economist 11/10"
  • "Professor Pogue has been contacted. We are waiting to hear whether he will be able to particpate."
  • Professor Kurth — "Will have op-ed to us by next week" [for checking]
  • Professor Ridgway — "Will have op-ed to us in a week"
  • Professor Gallaway — "Returned revised op-ed to economist 11/2"
  • Professor Davis — "Returned revised op-ed 11/3"
  • Clifford Fry, Resources Inc, Bryan Texas — "Had to identify new economist. Sent materials 11/14"
  • Prof Charles Breeden, Marquette University, — "Had to identify new economist. Sent materials 11/14"
[These last two were obviously a fill-in for Texas and Wisconsin economists who had dropped out or the network.]

1996 Jan 5: Status Report on FDA Op-ed Program. It lists 20 successful newpaper plants of their anti-FDA propaganda and the 20 economists who wrote these articles on commission:

Attached in front of this document is a sample letter to be used by the economic professors when sending a copy of their article to a local Congressman.

Of course it makes no mention of the fact that the Tobacco Institute paid $3,000 to have it written.

1996 Jan 5: The last of Savarese's Status Reports which used the names of the economists.

    This Status Report on FDA Op-ed Program is revealing about the master-servant relationship between the tobacco industry and their network economists. It lists 20 attempted newpaper plants of their anti-FDA propaganda and details about the 20 economists who wrote these articles on commission:

William J. Boyes,
Department of Economics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
      Arizona Republic- declined:
      Mesa Tribune - declined:
      Tempe Tribune
[He was successful in planting the article in his third attempt. But there is no information on congressmen contacted]
Attached in front of this document is a model letter to be used by the professors when sending a copy of their article to a local Congressman. Of course the cover letter to the Congressman makes no mention of the fact that the Tobacco Institute paid $3,000 to have the op-ed written.

See also the earlier version of this report which notes which op-eds have been sent for revision before being submitted to the newspaper.

1996 Feb 5: The economist's network went into a period of decline around this date — the economists were obviously fearful of having their names exposed, and so the Status Reports made to the Tobacco Institute began to carry only the names of their institutions, not the economists themselves. [A policy not always adhered to.]

    This economist was listed under

Arizona State University
— Published December 12 1995 — Tempe Tribune

1996 Feb: /E The Tobacco Institute's Media Relations report on the Economists:

  • An extensive economist op-ed program was implemented to focus media attention on the FDA's agenda. The program attacks the FDA proposal from an anti-big government, anti-regulatory perspective. Targeting key Congressional districts:
  • Economists prepared and submitted op-eds for publication to major
        newspapers in select states :
    • Dr William Boyes, Arizona State University
    • Dr Barry Poulson, University of Colorado
    • Dr Dominick Armentano, University of Hartford
    • Dr Dwight Lee, University of Georgia, Athens
    • Iowa economist tbd [To Be Determined]
    • Dr Cecil Bohanan, Ball State University
    • Dr Robert Pulsinelli, Western Kentucky University
    • Dr Michael Kurth, McNeese State University (Louisiana)
    • Dr Bill Shughart, II, University of Mississippi
    • Dr Joe Bell, Southwest Missouri State University
    • Dr Terry Ridgway, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
    • Dr Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico
    • Dr Lowell Gallaway, Ohio University
    • Dr Ed Price, Oklahoma State University
    • Dr William Mitchell, University of Oregon
    • Dr J.R. Clark, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
    • Dr Michael Davis, The University of Texas at Dallas
    • Robert Higgs, Independent Institute, Edmonds, Washington
    • Dr Charles Breeden, Marquette University
[Along with the core group of Tollison, Wagner, Ekelund, etc. these are mostly the 'stayers'.]

1996 Mar 8: Kelleigh Varnum, of Savarese & Associates advises Carol Hrycaj at the Tobacco Institute that:

We have located an economist to replace John David (WV). His name is Cliff Dobitz (ND). The status report reflects this addition.

    Also attached is Ed Price's (OK) letter to Congressman Largent.
Professor Cliff Doblitz was an old network contributor from North Dakota. Presumably he had not then been contracted to attack the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) which was the then-current project for both op-ed writing and contacting Congressmen.

    The Status Report for this FDA Op-ed Program records Boyes's involvement. [see below]

1996 Apr 16: Kelleigh Varnum advises the Tobacco Institute on the progress of the FDA Op-ed Program.

To date, 14 of 20 articles have published.
  • David Kurth (LA) informed us that his op-ed published on February 21, in Lagniappe. Apparently, there was a breakdown in communication with the editor and he did not realize that the article had published. Enclosed is a copy of the article. Unfortunately, it is of very poor quality. We will forward the original to you when we receive it.

  • Although the Atlanta Constitution has promised for quite some time to publish Dwight Lee's op-editorial, there still have not been any developments. As a result, we have directed Dwight to pursue other outlets for submission.

  • Cecil Bohanon (IN) is contacting the editor of the Journal Gazette. He will pursue other outlets for submission if they decide not to publish his article.

  • Publication of Barry Poulson's (CO) and Cliff Dobitz's (ND) op-editorials is forthcoming.

  • Both Mike Davis (TX) and Terry Ridgway (NV) are checking with their editors on the status of their articles.
The general list also records Professor Boyes succcess and failures:
      Arizona Republic — declined
      Mesa Tribune — declined
      Tempe Tribune — Published December 12,1995

      Contacted Congressman Salmon 1/11/96

1996 June 24: Status Report on the FDA Op-Ed Program. It lists the various network economists and the articles they have planted with their newspapers. It also records publication dates and those newspapers which declined to use the propaganda, together with the Congressmen who have been contacted.

    About this network economist it says:

William J. Boyes, Department of Economics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287
Submitted to:
      Arizona Republic — declined:
      Mesa Tribune — declined:
      Tempe Tribune — Published December 12,1995

Contacted Congressman Salmon on 1/11/96

1998 June 18: In this year the network was revived with an extra layer of protection included against discovery. The communications links between the economist and the Tobacco Industry now passed through:
  • James Savarese & Associates, to the
  • BSMG public relations company (James Morgan), and then to
  • Walter Woodson at the Tobacco Institute
  • And after checking and improvement by the Public Affairs and legal staff
  • back through Morgan and Saverese to the economist.

    Tollison appears no longer to have been a partner with Savarese in the venture. Savarese's company had been re-absorbed into Ogilvy & Mather (now called Ogilvy Adams & Reinhart), which itself had become part of Cassidy & Associates [Along with Powell Tate]

    The Names of the economists were no longer used on lists sent by Savarese to the Institute — only their Institutions.

1998 July 31: The Arizona Daily Star publishes one of Boyes tobacco op-eds. "Tobacco's still smoldering: McCain's bill is terrible policy"

1998 Aug 15: The Florida "Press Journal" carries an article "Government assults success" by cash-for-comments economist DT Armentano which also attacks the McCain tobacco bill and the FDA.

    The list of the activities of the other economists shows that the network continued to be operated by the Tobacco Institute itself under Walter Woodson, and Lance Morgan (BSMG public releations). Savarese is still in the picture as the prime handler of the network. but now they have two cut-outs between the Institute and the economists.

However, since legally discovered tobacco documents had already begun to appear on-line, they have carefully deleted the names of the Professor of Economics who wrote each op-ed piece.

Boyes is listed under the camouflage heading:

Arizona State University

PUBLISHED: Arizona Daily Star

The Savarese network of economists continues behind the scenes until at least early 1999. However, after the Cipollone Case (when thousands of tobacco documents were released to the public) and following the Master Settlement Agreement (1997-98) when millions of documents were put on-line, the evidence of later activities disappears from the tobacco archives.

This doesn't mean that these economists stopped working for the tobacco industry — just that they kept their communications to the telephone — and Savarese didn't send their material on to the Tobacco Institute for vetting and legal checks.

Smoking costs imposed on the society (1991)
The calculations Public Choice Economists ignored.
The Public Choice economists network was created to counter the "Social Cost" arguments — that smokers imposed a cost on the society in terms of health, welfare, lower-productivity, cleaning and hygiene costs, increased building ventilation and temperature control costs, fires and associated deaths, etc. The tobacco industry employed these economists to argue that 'smokers paid their way' through
  • excise taxes on each pack
  • the 'death benefit' of smokers, who died young and so weren't a social burden in old age
This second argument was one that they couldn't put themselves without admitting that their produces caused lung-cancer and heart-disease. So the network economists stressed both economic and political factors:
  • the retrogressive nature of cigarette excise taxes (a proportionally higher burden on poor households).
  • the lower costs on health and welfare created by dying early
  • the number of people employed in the production and sale of cigarettes
  • denial that smokers had increased sick leave or were less productive.
  • opposition to limiting the rights of smokers (without considering the rights to clean-air of non-smokers)
  • self-sufficiency and the need for smaller government that did less
  • lower taxes to boost personal productivity incentives
Non-smokers subsidise smokers through premiums and pricing of collective services and public/workplace premises, as well as by way of taxation.

    Generally the Public Choice network economists simply ignored the imposition of collective costs — insurance (group premiums), sick leave, nursing homes, disability and retirement pensions, and similar private and corporate costs in their calculations. They also ignored the costs of house, warehouse and bush-fires, building cleaning, ventilation, office heating/cooling, passive smoking and 'sick-building effects', and other inconsiderate factors.

    On the 'social cost' argument and the so-called social benefit of early death, they were simply asking the wrong question It was not: "What are the social costs when the death benefits are included in the calculations," but rather "What would the social benefit be to health and welfare cost if no one had ever smoked?"



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