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 3/14/2013

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.

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 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
Jean J Boddewyn
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
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
F Steb Hipple
Harold M Hochman
George E Hoffer
John Howe
William Hunter
Stephen Huxley
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
Richard McKenzie
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 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
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
Thomas L Wyrick
Bruce Yandle
Boon Yoon
Richard D Zerbe




D Allen Dalton     [Prof ]    

(misspelled Allan — Doesn't always use the initial "D")

— A serial cash-for-comment economist from Boise State University, Idaho who worked extensively, and secretly, for the tobacco industry over many years. —  

Professor Allen Dalton was one of the more 'productive' members of the surrepticious network of cash-for-comments economists run by the Tobacco Institute.

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 tobaco industry lawyers.


  • Allen/Allan Dalton had his first name spelled various ways in the tobacco archives.
      • There is also an Alan Dalton, of the Smoke, Fire and Water Aid Company in California.
      • There's another D Allen Dalton who is a coauthor in numerous papers in the field of physics, mainly to do with argon lasers. This appears to be a younger man, Douglas Allen Dalton who is a Fellow at the Carnegie Instituttion's Geophysics Laboratory (2009-2010).

    Also don't confuse Dalton's Center for the Study of Market Alternatives in Boise Idaho with the Center for the Study of Market Processes, at George Mason University ... or maybe we should ? They are both linked to the Atlas Group.

Some key documents

• Economist (Assistant Professor) Boise State University, Idaho

See his C/V

• He later took over a think-tank in Boise called the "Center for the Study of Market Alternatives. This was linked through the Atlas Research Group with the Atlas Network.

• There are 104 documents with his name in the tobacco archives.

1954 Jan 11: Born

1976 April 23: The Center for the Study of Market Alternatives Inc, gives either 1976 or 1977 as the Year Founded (by Ralph Smeed) Dalton later became the Director.

1979: MA Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Uni

1980 Aug: Assistant Professor of Economics, Arizona State Uni

1982 Aug: Assistant Professor of Economics, Boise State University.

1984 June:

Packwood Tax Plan
After having promised to reduce taxes and cut budgets, President Ronald Reagan was forced to ask Senator Bob Packwood, chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, to design a proposal for comprehensive tax reform
which would reduce the highest individual income tax rate down to 35% from its current 50% level, but retain adequate incentives for business investment, and avoid inclusion of any new taxes.

    In an attempt to do this without reducing the total amount of tax revenue that is currently collected, the Packwood plan proposes to offset reduced revenues from income taxes by what the Wall Street Journal has referred to as a "backdoor increase in excise taxes."

    The Packwood plan proposes to eliminate the income tax deductibility of excise taxes and import tariffs paid by businesses [and it] would increase federal excise tax receipts by an estimated $75 billion over five years. Approximately $13 billion of this would be a result of a direct increase in excise taxes on motor fuel, wine, distilled spirits, and tobacco.

    See also in this document James Savarese's report to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute on the progress of his Packwood Excise Tax/Op-Ed project. This economist and 18 others are writing opinion pieces for their local newspapers, and sending letters to their congressmen.

    The Packwood Plan triggered a substantial increase in the activities of the cash-for-comments economists already employed by the tobacco industry and led to the creation of the very substantial network of academic economists in every state who could be called upon to help fight tax increases on cigarettes — and later public smoking bans.

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.

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.

  • 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.
  • 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.

    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.
The initial list didn't include Dalton:
  • 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.

Dalton must have been recruited towards the end of 1984.

1985 Jan 1: A draft of his article "Tax Revision: Reform of Fraud?" has been sent to the Tobacco Institute along with a number of articles written for the TI by other academic economists.

    President Reagan, at the beginning of his second term, had asked Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR) to devise a plan to increase taxes without changing the income tax laws. This essentially meant an increase in excises on such products as cigarettes — and so the tobacco industry mounted a full-scale attack on the 'Packwood Plan'.

    They enlisted a new set of op-ed economist authors:

  • Allen Dalton (Boise State Uni);
  • Thomas Pogue (Uni of Iowa);
  • Richard McKenzie (Washington Uni, St Louis);
  • Terry Anderson (Montana State Uni);
  • Michael Crew (Rutgers Uni);
  • Jean J Boddewyn (CUNY);
  • Ann Harper-Fender (Gettysburg College);
  • Scot Atkinson (Uni of Wyoming)
>[All of the articles written by this new batch of economists attack the Packwood Tax Plan, and all have been carefully retyped by Tobacco Institute secretaries ready for distribution to appropriate local newspapers.

    This is the first indication in the archives that Allen Dalton is working on commission for the tobacco industry.]

Allen Dalton writes:
What began as a noble attempt by the Reagan Administration to affect fundamental tax reform in the United States appears about to become a massive exercise in politics as usual.

    In January, 1985 President Reagan called for tax reform that would reduce rates, close special-interest loopholes, increase fairness, expand economic growth and increase American international competitiveness. Reagan's proposals, in the words of Treasury Secretary Baker, were based on the simple premise that "the tax system must not be used to favor one taxpayer over another, to favor one industry over another, to favor one form of consumption over another, or to favor one investment over another."
This was an attack on the Packwood Proposal because it involves the removal of deductability of advertising costs, and use of excise taxes to discourage unhealthy products like cigarettes.
In order to finance this multi-billion dollar giveaway and remain faithful to the President's call for revenue-neutral tax reform, the Packwood plan seeks to increase the most regressive, most inefficient, most anti-production, most anti-competitive, most anti-democratic tax in the tax code: federal excise taxes.
[He manages to write the article without mentioning cigarettes — or that he was paid by the tobacco industry.]

This is one of eight draft articles from network economists here.

1985 Jan 31: Hurst Marshall has distributed the Tobacco Institute's list of economists who were part of the cash-for-comments network. The selection of economic lobbyists 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]:
IDAHO — (Sen. Symms)
  •   Professor Allan Dalton,
      Boise State University, Boise, Idaho

1985 Feb 21: Roger Mozingo of the Tobacco Institute is sending his state directors a list of resources available to fight against excise taxes in their states. Allan Dalton heads their state list of available economic witnesses for Idaho.

1985 Nov 11: Dalton has his "Guest opinion" published in the Idaho Daily Statesmsn "US, state tax system need revision" It is a general attack on the use of excise taxes, despite the need for higher taxes.

1986 Jan: The Tobacco Institute's Public Relations Resource booklet for their Regional Directors, lists documents, booklets, article, posters and people who can help them fight local public smoking ordinances and threats to raise the excise taxes on cigarettes.

    It provides a long list of economists who are willing to speak at hearings, or write letters to the editor, or op-eds for the newspapers to counter the public smoking or excise tax threat.

    It lists him as:

  • Professor Allan Dalton,
    Economics Department
    Boise State University, Boise, ID
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 March: Professors Joseph M Jadlow (Oklahoma) and Charles Maurice (Texas A&M) have prepared draft articles attacking the Packwood Tax Plan. James Saverese has sent them, together with clippings of articles already published, along to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute for correction and clearance. (See page 10)

    It lists many dozens of articles which the cash-for-comment economist on the network have now written, including one:

IDAHO: Prof. Alan Dalton Submitted to Paper: 3/21/86Idaho Daily Stateman,
Current Status:[pending]
Letters to Senators: Symms & McClure on 3/21/86 The Idaho Daily Statesman will publish Professor Dalton's op-ed on April 18, 1986. He will send a copy as soon as it is published.

    The Tobacco Institute also keeps a record of his submissions and letters to his State Senators, which is circulated to the tobacco companies (here Lorillard).

    One of the network economists, William Mitchell, has also written an "Open Letter to Senator Packwood" attacking his plan, and this is being circulated along with a letter from "Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc."

    A cutting of the published Idaho Statemean aricle is here for comparison

1986 March: Copies of the letters that the cash-for-comments economists wrote to various newspapers editors, and also the ones they wrote to their Senators — none of which mentioned that they'd been paid by the Tobacco Institute to write both the op-eds and the Congressional letters. These were sent to the Tobacco Institute as proof of their commissioned activities:

D Allen Dalton of Boise State University in Idaho wrote to the editorial page editor of the Idaho Daily Statesman in support of his op-ed. Ironically, he attacks Packwood's support for "special interests" while accepting tobacco industry payments for his hypocritical article, saying

Dear Mary
As I noted to you when we spoke on the phone today, the Packwood provisional tax "reform" plan is a massive cave-in to special interests and an attack on economic efficiency, economic growth, and fundamental notions of fairness and democracy.

The attached op-ed article explains, as briefly as possible, this assault, and I would hope that you could see fit to run it as soon as possible, since the Senate Finance Committee is currently in the process of considering the Packwood proposals.

Remembering the difficult time we had pareing down my initial submission on the topic of tax reform last summer, I have taken great care to minimize this currently submitted op-ed contribution. It is just a little over 540 words; only about two or three lines longer than the op-ed you printed late last summer.

I know that asking you to run this as soon as possible may be asking too much, but given the importance of this topic, and its current nature, I would hope that you could.
He also wrote to Senators James McClure and Steven Symm.

See Pages 13 to 15.

Newspaper clippings of some of the network members' published articles for this project are grouped here:

[Printed versions]
  • Joseph Jadlow, Tax reform Hidden excise boost hurt consumers...
  • Allen Dalton, Hidden taxes gut Reagan reform plan.
  • Charles Maurice, Packwood proposal picks our pockets.
  • Scott Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

[Typewritten draft versions]
  • Allen Dalton, Tax Revision: Reform or Fraud.
  • Thomas F Pogue, Senator Packwood's Proposal is Not Tax Reform.
  • Richard B McKenzie, Excise Taxation: A Misguided Soultion to the Federal Governments Fiscal Woes.
  • Terry Anderson, Tax Reform We Don't Need.
  • Michael Crew, Tax Reform Hides Massive Excise Tax Increases: Senator Packwood Is Too Clever by Half.
  • JJ Bodewyn, Taxwise, We are going to be had.
  • Anne Harper-Fender, The Packwood Tax Plan: Reform or Expediency.
  • Scot Atkinson, Packwood Tax Reform Bill Threatens Wyoming Economy.

These draft articles have all been freshly retyped on two different typewriters. This confirms that they are the final output after they've passed the Tobacco Institute's vetting, clearance, and 'improvement' stages.

1986 Mar 20: Tobacco Institute document: Background Update Of the Estimated Effect of the Packwood Tax Plan On the Price Increase Necessary For Cigarettes

If the deductibility of the excise taxes is eliminated, then most, if not all, of this tax increase will be passed on to tobacco consumers as price increases to cover the additional corporate taxes they will be required to pay, plus the indexed excise tax requirement.

    On the basis of 1985 sales, and the level of federal excise taxes paid on cigarettes, the level of taxable sales would be: $4.5 billion / $0.16 = 28.125 billion packs — the remainder are either sent overseas as exports or to armed services, or to government institutions.

    If the Packwood plan is adopted, and if the effective tax rate on tobacco corporations is 35 percent as in 1983, the increase in corporate income taxes would be about $1.83 billion.

    It must be assumed that this tax increase will be passed on to consumers in order to maintain net income. This will cause a decline in demand on the base level of 28.125 billion packs.

1986 Mar 21: [Simultaneously with other network economicsts — and using exactly the same terms and format] Dalton has sent a letter to Senator James A McClure enclosing his op-ed article...

...which I am submitting to the Idaho Statesman,

    Knowing the high respect which your Republican colleagues hold you in, I hope that you may use your influence to deter this attack on the efficiency of free enterprise and the growth prospects for America's and Idaho's future. Of particular importance are the Packwood proposals for excise taxation, since such taxes, by hiding the true costs of government to taxpayers, increase the demand for government programs and undercut both of our desires for a smaller government society.

    He sends a similar letter to Senator Steven Symms (and copies to the Tobacco Institute, of course).

This lists all the cash-for-comments economist and shows the newspaper and senators that they have lobbied.
The Idaho Daily Statesman will publish Professor Dalton's op-ed on April 18, 1986. He will send a copy as soon as it is published.

1986 Apr 1: An Open Letter to Senator Robert Packwood (by Wm Mitchell) has been sent to the network economists to help them write their articles. This is a checklist of those in the 1) Writing Stage 2) Submitted to Newspapers 3) Letters Written to Senators.

    This cash-for-comments participant has written both the article and the letters to Senators, and has obediently attached copies of both, which are sent back to the Tobacco Institute.

    Copies of the letters that the cash-for-comments economists wrote to the newspapers editors, and also the ones they wrote to their Senators were sent to the Tobacco Institute as proof of their activities

Page 14

    The published articles are grouped here.

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. Dalton 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 Apr 11: The Tobacco Institute plans for State-by-State actions to generate opposition to the Packwood Tax Plan.

Allen Dalton, assistant professor of economics at Boise State University, in the Idaho Statesman
"Hidden taxes gut Reagan reform plan"

"His proposal is a direct assault on the premises of tax reform, and includes massive political payoffs to special interest and a massive hidden tax hike."

1986 Apr 15: Jim Savarese is reporting to Fred Panzer at the TI about the [anti] Packwood Tax Plan project. He includes numerous letters sent to Senators, copies of published op-eds, and a revised op-ed for Maine and one for Minnesota, He lists the successes of the network economists, including:

IDAHO, Prof Allan Dalton
[Submitted to] Idaho Daily Stateman 3/21/86
[Letters sent to Senators] Symms and McClure 3/21/86
To be published 4/18/86

1986 Apr 18: A list of excerps from major newspaper editorials and op-eds about the Packwood tax plan. Dalton is one quoted (along with many journlists and non-economic commentators):

    His original piece was published in the Idaho Statesman "Hidden taxes gut Reagan reform plan"

"His proposal is a direct assault on the premises of tax reform, and includes massive political payoffs to special interest and a massive hidden tax hike."


1986 May: GSA Project: 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 May 30: Fred Panzer of the Tobacco Institute was contacting British-American Tobacco's PR executive, Tom Humber [also Burson-Marsteller and National Smoking Alliance] sending him some of the examples of the network economists.

Enclosed are: (1) The first wave of 27 op-ed reprints,
(2) A second wave of 32 op-ed articles (21 published and 11 unpublished), sent out on Packwood's first tax reform proposal.

    I've also included one on the Chase [Economtrics] study. There are a few others being rounded up, as well as a syndicated excise tax feature series we developed. Out of all this should come something useful for your people.
He also lists 21 of the economist in the network and provides copies of many of their recent articles.

General Services Administration
The General Services Administration had proposed regulating smoking in government buildings. They had done this in defiance of a clear attempt by President Reagan to pay off major industry groups through an executive order which prohibited regulations of this kind where the likely economic effect was potentially over $100 million.

    The GSA said that its new rules would cost less than this amount, so the network economists were turned out to write letters objecting to the GSA's rule-making on the grounds of cost.

1986 July 9: Robert Ekelund's sub-network at Auburn University has attacked the decision of the General Service Administration to ban smoking by writing a joint letter at the request of the Tobacco Institute.

    They say they are bothered by economic considerations only:
  • Our general concern is that the costs of such a regulation will ultimately fall on taxpayers.
  • The most obvious costs of the regulation are those for physical alterations to the several thousand buildings that will be effected by the regulation. We would imagine that No Smoking Except in Designated Areas" would have to be placed at all entrances, and that "Smoking" and 'No Smokirrg" signs would have to be posted throughout GSA-controlled buildings.
  • A major cost of this regulation would result from a loss in productivity of federal workers.
  • Implementation of this regulation would require a great deal of time by administrative personnel. The regulation would of course lead to disputes which would also involve valuable time of both employees and administrative personnel.
  • In addition the regulation will be disruptive and lead to discrimination against minorities and low income employees.

[For some reason, this 'cost-benefit analysis' ignored all the benefits of a non-smoking environment — both for the workers and the building maintenance]

The signatories were Richard B Ekelund, Richard Ault, David Saurman, John D Jackson, Robert F Hebert, John K Watson, and Mark Thornton — all from the Economics Department, and all paid via Savarese.

1986 Jul 10: Cash-for-comments economist Charles Maurice, at Texas A&M University, copied the pattern of the Ekelund/GSA letter and has his Economics Department write one similar to that from Auburn University.

    Five Texas A&M economists got embroiled in this scam... but unlike the signatories at Auburn University, this appears to be their single indiscretion.

    Sixteen copies of this letter were circulated around the tobacco industry. Clearly the tobacco industry was absolutely delighted to find a group of suckers willing to add their names to Maurice's letter,

Henry Butler from George Mason University and Arthur Mead from Rhode Island Uni also wrote GSA letter, and collected their payments from the Tobacco Institute.

1986 July 10: GSA Project: Allen Dalton writes to the General Services Administation attacking their proposed regulation of smoking in GSA-controlled buidlings. He remembers to list all the faux-points outlined by the tobacco industry, but forgets to inform the GSA that his letter was written at the request of, and financed by, the Tobacco Institute.

    He claims that

In writing this letter, my primary concern is the attempt by the General Services Administration to evade Executive Order 12291 of February 17, 1981.
He believes that anti-smoking rules will cost "more than $100 million."

He bases this ridiculous figure on the loss of both productivity and amenity to smokers among the 887,000 federal workers...
... whose smoking would either be curtailed or allowed only at specified break-times (as is common in private enterprises with such rules).

    The cost of this regulation in terms of productivity losses occurs because while smoking employees are taking smoklng-breaks at identified smoking areas, services and output are not being produced.

    [Also amenity costs] Under the conservative assumptions that 25% of the affected workforce smokes (221,750 smokers), that the regulation will reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per day by 10, and that the average price of a pack of cigarettes is $1.00, the loss in welfare suffered by smokers will amount to over $27 million per year
[The Tobacco Institute made multiple copies of this "To Whom It May Concern" document ready for mailing out.

    Can you imagine Dalton's apoplexy if he based his calculations on the current cost per packet. Of course, like all lobbyists, he forgets to calculate the amount saved by not smoking — both the costs of cigarettes, and the health, mortality and welfare costs.

    Public Choice economists only ever calculate one side of the accounting ledger — either Profit OR Loss... or vice-versa... depending on what they want to prove.]

1986 Jul 21: GSA Project: Sam Chilcote of the Tobacco Institute writes to the members of the Executive Committee detailing their successes in generating objections to the proposed GSA {Government Services Administration] anti-smoking bans.

    They have persuaded the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to help having the rules amended, and have turned out their friends and associated companies to generate letters of objection.

Included among the comments received by GSA thus far are thousands generated as a result of contact with TAN [Tobacco Action Network] activists, other tobacco family organizations, key coalitions, organized labor and economists.

    The State Activities Division's alert of key contacts in the field, as well as TAN activists, has generated at least 3,100 letters of opposition. These are letters for which copies have been sent to division headquarters; there are no doubt many others.

    Among member companies, all have asked their employees to write letters of opposition. In addition, RJ Reynolds reports its phone bank efforts to reach Washington, DC, residents, may have resulted in up to 3,700 opposition letters. Reynolds also sought letters from respondents to an earlier mailing on the federal excise tax issue. Philip Morris initiated a program designed to generate up to 10,000 mailgrams to GSA by the comment deadline.

    Letters of objection (all remarkably similar in content) from numerous academic economists were also attached. They all seemed to focus on one extraordinary aspect: the cost of implementating the ban.

    They all attacked the GSA's calculation "that the costs of NO-SMOKING signs in government buildings would cost less than $100 million annually." Robert Tollison had circulated a much higher estimate of costs (which some of the letter-writers mentioned)... and all of the economists' letters completely ignored any cost savings, such as lower cleaning and painting costs in government buildings; reduced sick days; higher productivity, etc.

    These letters, were all written within a few days of each other by university professors spread across the country, and they came from:
  • 8th July — Arthur T Denzau, Washington University, St Louis, Mo
  • 3rd July — Barry W Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder
  • 10th July — Thomas E Borcherding, Claremont College/Graduate School, California
  • 7th July — William F Shughart II, Center for the Study of Popular Choice, George Mason University, Washington DC
  • Undated — (joint) Cecil E Bohanon, James E McClure, Stephan F Gohmann, Clarence R Deitsch, Lee C Spector — all PhDs in economics at Ball State University, Muscie, Ind.
  • 7th July — John F Militello, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
  • 7th July — Jean J Boddewyn, Baruch College, The City University of New York [Advertising lecturer]
  • 5th July — Morgan Reynolds, Texas A&M University
  • 8th July — Cliff P Dobitz, North Dakota State University
  • 8th July — William C Mitchell, University of Oregon
  • 11th July — Arthur C Mead, Economist, Newport RI
  • 10th July — D Allen Dalton, Boise State University, Idaho
  • 10th July — Henry N Butler, George Mason Univeristy
  • 10th July — (joint) S Charles Maurice, Leonardo Auernheimer, Niccie L McKay, John R Hanson II, Lynn Gillette, Gregory Delemeester at Texas A&M University
  • 9th July — (joint) Robert B Ekelund, Richard Ault, David Saurman, John Jackson, RG Hebert, JK Watson, Mark Thonton, at Auburn University, Alabama
  • 9th July — (joint) Richard K Vedder, Lowell E Gallaway, Jan Palmer, David Klingaman at Ohio University

[The tobacco archives have dozens of copies of Dalton's "To Whom It May Concern" letter. Clearly they found it useful propaganda.

Public Choice & Hayek Libertarianism
Most of these network economists held extreme free-market/ Hayekian/ Randian positions. But that is not the problem... many intellectually-honest and highly moral economists hold similar views.

The objection is that these academics:
  • allowed the Tobacco Institute to stipulate the subject matter for 'learned articles', and nominate both the media outlet and the Congressmen to influence, then
  • agreed to the Tobacco Institute staff and lawyers editing, modifying and 'improving' articles published under their name (with university affiliations) while proclaiming "these views are my own."
  • (Some) took commissions to produce and publish 'customised' or manipulated research, designed to mislead.
  • They also collaborated and conspired with others on the network to promote what was clearly tobacco industry propaganda, and
  • hid these commerical relationships from their universities, students and the general public — the people who paid their salaries and provided them with positions of trust.
This is not a question of academic freedom, but of trusted academics engaged surrepticiously in commerical lobbying.

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.

IDAHO, (Sen Symms)

[Economist:] Professor Allan Dalton, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho
[Speciality:] N/A

Tax Witnesses: Materials available
Allen Dalton Idaho data card
"Excise Taxes: The Fairness Issue"
"More Taxes on Tobacco...."
Earmarking topic sheet
Letter writing brochure.
Public Smoking Witnesses: Materials available
Al Vogel (productivity)
Steve Schlossberg (labor implications)
Lew Solmon (economics)
Bob Klotz (enforcement)
Voter survey
Economic survey
Labor assistance
Response Analysis summaries
Public Smoking topic sheet
"Some Considerations" workplace kits
"In Defense of Smokers" reprint
"The Other Side of the Smoking Controversy" reprint
Letter writing brochure
Fire Safety Education Grant to:
    • Department of Insurance, Bill Wallis, State Fire Marshal
New Tools for Volunteer Fire Fighters
Media Relations:
Contacts are in place in Pocatello. 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. He is listed as specializing in:
IDAHO (Sen Symms)
  •   Professor Allan Dalton
      Boise State University Boise, Idaho
      [No specialization listed]

1986 Dec 8: Sam Chilcote is summing up the Tobacco Institute's activities in fighting the Packwood Tax Plan which attempted to impose special excise taxes on tobacco, alcohol and fuel (in the oil crisis years) to reduce use. Packwood also wanted to make these taxes and tarffs non-deducatable for federal income tax purposes.

    The document bundle (219 pages) includes:

  • Pages 2 to 34: A major study done for the TI by Policy Economics Group
  • Pages 35 to 50: Another major study commissioned from DeSeve Economics for the Coalition Against Regressive Taxation (CART) [funded by tobacco to act as a front]
  • Pages 51 to 57: A couple of papers done for Covington & Burling
  • Pages 58 to 100: A long document which has deliberately NOT included the name of the organisation which produced it within the document itself. (But done by deSeve Economics Associates Inc).
  • Pages 101 to 129 : A paper on the "Burden of Tobacco Taxes on Selected Demographic Groups"
  • Pages 130 to 144: Some booklet trying to rabble-rouse the Hispanic and Black communities and make them believe Packwood is attacking them racially.
  • Page 145 to 177: A Citizens for Tax Justice 'poll' on attitudes. and Coalition Against Regressive Taxation document
  • From Page 178 on: many of the op-eds they have had published in newspapers by the cash-for-comment academic economists, (including one from this source.)

See Dalton's article on page 185 of the document bundle.

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:
IDAHO[ Region V ]
  •   Professor Allan Dalton
      Economics Department , Boise State University , Boise, Idaho
      Services rendered:
    •   original excise tax op-ed
    •   Packwood
    •   GSA letter writing campaign

1987 /E: He has drafted another article for the Tobacco Institute: "Towards a More Discriminatory and Inequitiable Tax Code.". He now signes himself as "Senior Economist, Center for Study of Market Alternatives, Caldwell, Idaho. Predictably, it is an attack on excise taxes.

Excise taxation is an exercise in discrimination, inequity, inefficiency. Is this what we wish from our tax system?

1987 Jan 6: and 12 Jim Savarese advises the Tobacco Institute that some economists were no longer working for his network. However Dalton is still being listed as their main Idaho economist-for-hire.

In order to keep this project straight with respect to the economists, we were specifically assigned to go back to all 42 names on the original list to check to see if the economists were still interested in working for us, still in the same state, and available to meet with representatives from state activities.

    We have 34 who fit this criteria and have been contacted. The list is attached. The states that we once had that are currently missing are Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

    The attached invoice covers the project of re-contacting the original 42 economists and coming up with the present 34 people.
[The invoice is missing, and he gives no details of the current project.]

    An internal memo within the Tobacco Institute explains to Regional Directors why they had needed Savarese to check on availability:
The primary purpose of this contact is to determine if a given economist is capable of testifying effectively before a legislative body.

    They have been informed that someone from TI will be in contact with them.

    We request that an initial contact be made by telephone immediately. Please let me know when this initial contact has been made. Personal meetings should be arranged and completed no later than May 1, 1987.

1987 Feb 6: James Savarese has finalised his list of compliant economists, and sends them to Susan Stuntz at the Tobacco Institute. It lists all the familiar cash-for-comment economists

Old faithfuls:
Lee Anderson, Terry Anderson, Dom Armentano, Cecil Bohanon, Thomas Borcherding, Henry Butler, JR Clark, John David, Allan Dalton, Arthur Denzau, Clifford Dobitz, Robert Ekelund, David Gay, Anne Harper-Fender, Dennis Hein, John Howe, Wm Hunter, Joe Jadlow, Michael Kurth, Suuner LaCroix, Dwight Lee, C Matt Lindsay, Dennis Logue, Chuck Mason [Masen], Charles Maurice, Fred McChesney, Robert McMahon, Arthur Mead, Wm Mitchell, Allen Parkman, Wm Peterson, Thomas Pogue, Barry Poulson, Raymond Raab, Simon Rottenberg, Mark Schmitz, Richard Vedder, Richard Wagner
plus a few new ones.[
Greg Niehaus, Mario Rizzo, Roger Riefler, and Boon Yoon.]

1987 Feb 6: This is the Tollison/Saverese network list of economists recruited until the end of 1986. It has 64 names, but it still doesn't cover all 50 States. Some States have two or three network members, so newspapers [and sometimes Congressmen] need to be specified for each member to ensure there is no accidental duplication.

    Telephone numbers (office and home) are often included in case an urgent op-ed or ordinance hearing is needed. These are grouped by State:

Professor Allan Dalton
    Economics Department, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, 83707, 208-385-1486

1987 May:

1987 May: The Tobacco Institute has instructed its Regional Directors to meet
and evaluate each Economist in their area.
They then cull the unproductive and those proving not to be good witnesses.

1987 May 5: Cotton Mather ('Matt') Lindsay of Clemson University has written an article "Excise Taxes: Facist Finance" which is being circulated at the Tobacco Institute.

    He has discovered through his extensive research that 'vertical equity' means either everyone paying the same in cash value, or alternately it means that the burden is felt equally by both rich and poor. He chooses to assume the first definition:

It is difficult to achieve vertical equity [equal cash burden on everyone] through excise taxes because the amount of the tax paid depends on purchases rather than income. [The implication being that it would be more equitable if taxes were highest on those with the higher income]

    Breweries and tobacco companies write checks to the government for the excise taxes on beer and cigarettes, but here economists agree; these companies pass these taxes on to consumers. One's share of the burden of the revenues raised by these taxes depends on how much beer one drinks and how much one smokes.
[It takes a PhD to delve into economics in such depth.]

    The unfairness of these excises is manifest; it is not merely another economists' debating point. [In fact, it is a central and primary debating point among economists.] The tobacco excise tax, for example, is the most regressive tax in the federal system. It is paid only by smokers who are today predominantly lower-middle income earners, lower income working women and blue collar workers.

    Some have argued that these taxes are appropriate because the funds can be earmarked for expenditures like Medicare, environmental protection and even public employee pensions. [Medicare and environmental costs are higher with those who smoke and drink to excess.]

    Why beer drinkers and cigarette smokers ought to pay more for such things is far from clear, however. To the extent that these activities shorten life, they relieve the burdens of Medicare and pension funds by removing potential claimants from the eligibility roles. [This is the old 'death-benefits' answer to the social cost arguments. While arguing that cigarettes don't cause lung-cancer, they also get their economists to maintain that since "smokers die young" they have no adverse health budget effects. This also ignores the burden on relatives and welfare services.]

    Viewed from another perspective, smokers and beer drinkers not only bear a disproportionate share of taxes because they pay excises on these commodities, but they get less for their money, too. Because they live a shorter life span, they collect less in retirement benefits and receive fewer Medicare benefits.

[One could also suggest that they get short-changed by the tobacco companies, and
  • by the academic economists who take a State salary to help educate their children — but who also work on the side to promote tobacco industry disinformation.]

    This may be fine for Mussolini, but it is antithetical to tax principles in a free and open society. [And if anyone knows anything about the origins of fascism, it is Public Choice economists.]
  • This simplistic, one-sided, paid-for analysis is accompanied by a list of the cash-for-comments economist from the network... to whom it will presumably be sent as an example (See note "at last....").

        This rubbish is accompanied by a handnote between two Tobacco Institute organisers (Bill Orzechowski, and Roger Mozingo) and an evaluation list of the Economic Witnesses, Northern Sector (States). The area director/s have made contact with each, and these are their notes about the potential of the cash-for-comments economists as witnesses at legislative and ordinance hearings, etc.
    • Prof Dominick Armento — "Yes: Contacted, make good witness"
    • Prof Summer LaCroix — "Yes: if needed in Hawaii"
    • Prof Allan Dalton — "Yes: Good Witness"
    • Prof Fred McChesney — "No Contact. Reported to be OK and could be used in future.
    • Prof Cecil Bohanon — "Should be replaced by listed Indiana Economist, Pro. James A Dayher (or Payher)"
    • Prof Thomas Pogue — "Yes, Could be outstanding."
    • Prof Robert McMahon — "Yes: Creditable witness and one-on-one contact."
    • Pro Greg Neihaus — "Yes, outstanding witness"
    • Prof Raymond Raab — "Yes: Outstanding"
    • Prof Terry Anderson — "Yes, Good Witness"
    • Prof Terry Logue — "Yes: Outstanding witness"
    • Prof Kenneth Greene — "Yes: Only in particular situations with controlled information."
    • Prof Cliff Dobitz — "No contact: State not lend itself to Economic witness use."
    • Prof Richard Vedder — "No - Conflict minimises effectiveness"
    • Prof William Mitchell — "Yes, Good witness"
    • Prof Ann Harper-Fender — "No contact - out of country, will contact in June.
    • Prof Arthur Mead — "Yes: Good witness"
    • Prof Dennis Hein — "Contact somtimes back; will probably be good witness and usable in 1988.
    • Dr Mark Schmitz — "Washington — No"
    • Dr Dennis Chinn — "Washington — Yes, Excellent"

    1987 May 28: George Minshew at the Tobacco Institute receives and email from his Regional Director "Economic Witness Evaluations - Region V"

    I've talked with eaoh of the lobbyists in Region V coneerning the list of economic witnesses provided by Public Affairs.

        Each of the lobbyists felt strongly that the program could be effective; especially if TI was to develop a method to throughly brief potential witnesses "pre-Iegislative crisis". Following is a brief evaluation of each economist provided by the appropriate lobbyist.
    • Professor Suuner LaCroix,
      Department of Economies, University of Hawaii, Honolulu
            Counsel Suzuki has not had an opportunity to utilize Professor LaCroix in past legislative sessions. However, he does feel that he could be an important asset in future legislative battles.
    • Professor Allan Dalton,
      Economics Department, Boise State University
            Counsel Bill Roden has met and talked with Professor Dalton on several occasions, however they have never discussed excise taxes. Professor Dalton's professional reputation is excellent and Bill feels that he would be an articulate witness for a legislative hearing. Counsel Roden has not asked Professor Dalton to testify in the past, but will discuss possible future testimony with the Professor before the start of the next legislative session.
    • Professor Terry Anderson
      Department of Economics, Montana State University, Bozeraan, MT TI
            Counsel Jerry Anderson reports that Professor Anderson testified during the 1985 legislative session regarding an excise tax increase. The testimony which he provided was well received as being credible and authoritative. Counsel Anderson also retains Professor Anderson to testify on behalf of his oil industry clients. When it is appropriate during future legislative sessions, Counsel Anderson intends to continue utilizing this resource.
    • Professor William Mitchell Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene
            Professor Mitchell expressed his Interest in the excise tax issue and demonstrated his expertise in a recent guest editorial for The Oregonian. TI Counsel Hank Crawford feels that Professor Mitchell's reputation is excellent and his testimony at future legislative hearings would be crucial.
    • Dr Mark Schmitz,
      Seattle WA
            Counsel Bill Fritz does not feel that Dr Schmitz would be an appropriate witness for TI at this time.
    • Dr Dennis L. Chinn, PhD
      Consulting Economist, Bellevue, WA
            Dr Chinn has provided extensive writing, consulting, and expert testimony on behalf of TI during past legislative sessions. Counsel Fritz feels that Dr Chinn is an effective consultant and his services will definitely be utilized again in future tax fights

    1987 June 9: The Tobacco Institute's Phase II - Excise Tax Op-Ed project involved an article-writing campaign by cash-for-comment economists was run by James Savarese & Associates. Robert Tollison at George Mason University ran this network secretly with Savarese as the front.

        In the mid 1987 period, the project was under control of Jeff Rose [under Peter Sparber] at the Tobacco Institute and it focussed on defeating cigarette excise tax increases — and especially the threat of such taxes being 'earmarked' to bolster health care budgets.

    Anna Tollison, the wife of Bob Tollison, was employed by James Savarese Associates to keep a record of the articles generated by the large contingent of academic economists, and to organise payment. She reported that

    "In sum, 41 economists were solicited to write editorials. We have publications in 20 states, 14 articles have been written and submitted, and 7 articles are still outstanding." [Others were in the offing]
    [She included a long list of the economists who wrote the articles, the newspapers in which they were published, together with their circulation figures.]

    1987 June 22: The Tobacco Institute has been sent by Savarese a "Schedule of Payments — Excise Tax Op-Ed Project." It details the name of the cash-for-comment economist, the State, the targetted newspaper, and both past and current payments — with a separate column labled "Total Earned to Date".

    In IDAHO
    [Allen[ Dalton for Boise Sttesman —Owed $1200, — Total to date $1200
    Also there were payments to George Mason production staff ( Bob Tollison, Bill Shughart and Gary Anderson) for rewrites ($27,500) and a $5,800 payment for replacement of five economists (presumably because they were unproductive or unsatisfactoy). Carol Roberts was also paid for the final production. ($5,000)

        Total here with expenses was $33,810 on top of the $40,525 paid to the network economists.

    1987 Aug 21: Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute has prepared a consolidated summary of "Field Staff Evaluation of Economists" for his superiors, William Kloepfer and Peter Sparber. They have been asked to look at 34 of these academics. This includes an outline of their recent achievements.

    Professor Allan Dalton
    Boise State University Boise, ID

    Excise Tax Op Eds: None accepted for publication.
    Economic Witness/Testimony:(nil)
    Field Staff Contact: Yes.
    Field Staff Evaluation: Excellent reputation; would be an articulate legislative witness.

    1988 Jan 15: Jim Savarese and Associates, joint subcontracts with Ogilvy & Mather, is outlining the arragements for handling the economists and the labor unions to the Tobacco Institute.

    Nineteen eighty-seven was a banner year for the Tobacco Institute in its fight against excise tax increases at the federal level.
        Through careful coalition building and effective message dissemination, the Institute was able to fight the battle on its own terms and secure a substantial victory.

        In reviewing your 1988 plans, we found many areas where Ogilvy & Mather and Savarese and Associates can continue to provide services. There are also new areas where we have expertise which have not been fully explored.
    He then outlines a couple of problem areas before dealing with the "Economists Program." [No full list for these 42 network economists appears to exist]
    Our work with the network of forty-two economists should continue into 1988. In 1987, the network was effective in producing op-eds and submitting and presenting testimony. These activities should continue in 1988. In addition, the economists network can be used for editorial board briefings, presentations at conferences and the placement of articles on this issue with major media outlets.

        In order to make the most of the new opportunities for the economist network, several factors must be taken into consideration:
    • only 7 or 8 of the economists within the network have the potential to make presentations to editorial boards and conferences.

    • those economists selected to make presentations to editorial boards and conferences need a training program. This program may include media training through Michael Sheehan and briefings by Jim Savarese and Bob Tollison.

    • the editorial board program is a limited strategy with applicability mainly at the federal level with some use at the state level.

    • when implementing the editorial board program, Ogilvy & Mather can assist with pitch materials, press kits, and a placement program.
    The opportunity exists to place economists on key economic programs, panels, and at national and regional tax policy conferences. As an addendum to this effort, it is possible to have their comments reprinted and distributed.
    They also want to commission studies. They suggest:
    • Effects of an excise tax increase on the federal budget (and its fairness)
    • on bootlegging "and come up with some strong conclusions" [predetermined!]
    • In addition, Savarese and Associates can locate a conservative economist to make the argument that there is an acceleration of government spending when taxes are increased. The program will include placement in an economic journal.
    They also propose to work with a number of right-wing tax groups, some left-wing labor groups, minority groups, senior citizens, agricultural groups, and advertising companies. They propose to sponsor conferences, and make a video on excise taxes.

        A national Excise Tax Op-ed Program will target various important members of the Congress and big businessmen (e.g. Lee Iaococca) on the National Economic Commission (NEC). The network economists will be required to target specific newspapers, and a few key political figures. The target for this member of the network is:
    Targeted paper: Boise Idaho Statesman
    Economist: Allan Dalton, Boise State University

    [Why selected:] Dean Kleckner of the American Farm Bureau can be reached through agricultural states such as Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Idaho. Senate Leader, Bob Dole, is from Kansas.

    1988 Mar 31: Jim Savarese is writing to Jeff Ross at the Tobacco Institute re the National Economic Commission (NEC) and their Excise Tax Op-Ed Project using selected members of the cash-for-comments economists network.

    I have listed below areas that we should target that would be beneficial in reaching members of the NEC. Also attached are the materials that we will send out to the authors.

        Dean Kleckner of the American Farm Bureau can be reached through agricultural states such as Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Idaho. Senate Leader, Bob Dole, is from Kansas.

    Targeted paper: Boise Idaho Statesman
    Economist: Allan Dalton, Boise State University

    1988 May: - June Savarese has sent the Tobacco Institute a bundle of clippings of the articles planted by this and other economists in their newpapers. This is proof of service, required for payment.

        Allen Dalton has managed to plant an article "Federal tax hike destined in 1989" on the Idaho Press-Tribune. The gullible editor has added a note:

    The following gues opinion was written by a senior economist affiliated with the Center for the Study of Market Alternatives, Caldwell. His concern is what he sees as a federal tax increase coming in 1989. He believes it will be some sort of consumption tax and he is opposed to it. [So he managed to plant a story about a tax that he only imagined might, in the future, be imposed on cigarettes — which must be a world first....!]

    1988 June 2: James Savarese has advised the Tobacco Institute on the current status of the "NEC Excise Tax" project. The cash-for-comments economists involved were Abrams, Armentano, Clark, Dalton, David, Davis, Howe, Logue, Maurice, Mitchell, Parkman, Sandler, Tuerck, Wyrick, and Miletello

    As it now stands, 5 articles have been published, 2 articles (New Mexico and Missouri) are forthcoming, 6 articles have been submitted for publication, and 5 articles are in the revision stage. We have contacted the authors of the articles which are in the revision stage and those articles should be submitted by the end of next week.

    1988 June 23: Debbie Schoonmaker at the Tobacco Institute receives a memo from contract organiser James Savarese with "an update status on the NEC Op-Ed Project: [NEC = National Economic Commission, the group they were trying to influence.]

    As it now stands, 9 articles have been published, 4 articles (New Mexico, Missouri, Oregon, and Idaho) are forthcoming, 4 articles have been submitted for publication, and 2 articles are in the revision stage.
    It lists the network economists by the state in which they operate together with their successes in planting articles on their principle state newspapers..
    Professor Alan Dalton Economics Department
    Boise State University, Boise, Idaho
    [His article is listed as] FORTHCOMING Idaho Press-Tribune

    1988 July 5: A Savarese update on the NEC Op-Ed project shows that three more articles have been published by:

    • Professor Thomas Wyrick
      in Springfield Leader-Press on Sunday June 26 1988
    • Professor Allan Dalton
      in the Idaho Press-Tribune on Tuesday June 21 1988
    • Professor John David
      in the Charleston Gazette, Wednesday June 26 1988
    Clipped copies of a number of articles are included.

    1988 July 6: /E Jim Savarese has sent the newspaper clippings of the National Economic Commission (NEC) Excise Tax Op-ed Program along to the Tobacco Institute. Following the second term of the Reagan Administration, the budget deficit had blown out to such an extent that it was obvious that the next President would need to find new revenue streams — and cigarettes were the obvious target. NEC was charged with making recommendations for deficit reduction.

        The Tobacco Institute instructed their tame network economists to write op-eds for their designated local newspapers attacking the idea of increased excise taxes. These are newspaper clippings:

    • Dom Armentano, Uni of Hartford (New Haven Register) "Reagan's successor must resist temptation to raise taxes."
    • Burton Abrams, Uni of Delaware (Sunday News Journal) "Equitable and efficient ways to raise taxes."
    • Dwight Lee, Uni of Georgia (The Atlanta Journal) "Tax increase won't cut budget deficit."
    • Allen Dalton, Uni of Idaho (Idaho Press-Tribune) "Federal tax hike destined in 1989."
    • Todd Sandler, Iowa State Uni (Cedar Rapids Gazette) "The Shape of Taxes to Come"
    • John Howe, Uni of Kansas (The Capital-Journal) "Less spending, not more taxes, is the only real budget solution."
    • David Tuerck, Suffolk University (The Boston Globe) "A sinful proposal".
    • Thomas Wyrick, Southwest Missouri State (The News-Leader) "Higher taxes can't solve budget crisis."
    • JR Clark, Fairleigh Dickinson Uni (Daily Record NJ) "Excise tax: Bitter medicine for economy."
    • William Mitchell, Uni of Oregon (Register-Guard) "Tax increases not solution to reducing deficit."
    • Michael Davis, Southern Methodist Uni (Dallas Times Herald) "Excise taxes are far from painless remedy."
    • Charles Maurice, Texas A&M Uni (Houston Post) "Economic panel lets officials dodge the deficit bullet."
    • John David, West Virginia Tech (Charleston Gazette) "Taxes will target the poor."

    1988 Aug 11: Walter Woodson (Public Relations Tobacco Institute) writes to the Regional Vice Presidents and Directors.

    Enclosed are several op-eds which, in one way or another, touch on the subject of excise taxes. While these articles were generated to counter federal tax increases, most of the arguments are applicable in the states.

        Feel free to share the clips with your legislative counsel and others as appropriate.
    [These are the clippings from the NEC Excise Tax Project]

    1989 Jan 11: The Tobacco Institute's Scientific Consultancy Activity 1988-89 This is an 80 page mixed bag of files dumped together. [First is from 1990]

    • Pages 3 to 23 It begins with Witness Appearances in 1988 and 1989 involving both "Indoor Air Quality experts" who work for the Tobacco Institute, and three economists [Bob Tollison, Richard Wagner and Dwight Lee]
    • Pages 24 to 31 Labor IAQ Presentations in 1988 and 1989 which involves key figures in the labor movement and a few "IAQ experts."
    • Pages 32 to 39 IAQ/ETS conferences attended by tobacco industry disinformation experts in 1988 and 1989
    • Pages 40 to 41 Academic and Unaffiliated Scientfic Witnesses
    • Pages 43 to 53 Smokers Rights Legislation in various states.
    • See page 54: Tobacco Institute "Confidential" memo on "Tax Hearing Readiness" which is their battle plan to counter earmaking of cigarette excise taxes to fund health programs. It lists a large number of organizations and a few congressmen who can be relied on to help. It also has both primary and secondary lists of economists from Tollison's "cash-for-comments" network willing to give testimony.
      Economists: [Primary]
      • Bill Orzechowski, Tobacco Institute
      • Robert Tollison, George Mason University
      • Richard Wagner, George Mason University
      • Dwight Lee, University of Georgia, Athens
      • Michael Davis, Southern Methodist University
      • Gary Anderson, California State at Northridge
      • William Prendergast (resource: Prendergast/Solmon papers)
      • Other Network economists [see Secondary attached list below]

            "Due by mid-year is a book examining earmarking and "user fees" from a public choice perspective. The treatise will contain 8-10 chapters written by respected economists, including, Henri LePage and Nobel laureate James Buchanan."
      The Tobacco Institute's list of cash-for-comments professors and senior academics who were available to write op-eds and give evidence at Congressional hearings, etc. had grown extensively.
      Idaho only had one:
      Professor Allan Dalton, Economics Department,
      Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, 83707, 208-385-1486

    [TI budget papers show that each op-ed now earned the economists $3,000. Presentations to conferences earned them $5,000. Savarese was paid $70 to $100,000 pa for this project, and Ogilvy & Mather $250,000.]

    ... See page 5

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

    Professor Allan Dalton Economics Department
    Boise State University Boise, Idaho 83707 208-385-1486
    The Tobacco Institute's list of cash-for-comments economists has now blown out to 64 — not including Robert Tollison, the principle organizer of the economists network.

    Records of Dalton's further dealings with the cash-for-contents network in 1989 have obviously been culled.
    However he was still working for them in 1990 and he was one their list in Jan 1991.

    1990 May 7: The Tobacco Institute's "1991 Tax and Social Cost Plans" have sections on

    • "Social Costs" Hearings Readiness (preparation for fielding witnesses at Congressional hearings.) They list here the arguments that the Institute and its allies must be prepared to present.
    • "Tax" Hearing Readiness (as above, but for excise tax increases, State and Federal)
    • List of cash-for-comment network economists in each State.
    This is an updated list with the current locations of each, with phone numbers and addresses.
    Professor Allan Dalton
    Economics Department, Boise State University
    Boise, Idaho 83707 208-385-1486

    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.

    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 Death Watch Squad still working in 1991
    ALABAMARobert B. Ekelund, Jr. Auburn University
    ARIZONAWilliam J. Boyes Arizona State University
    ARKANSASDavid E. R. Gay University of Arkansas
    CALIFORNIAGary Anderson
    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
    IDAHO Allan 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
    MISSOURIJoe A Bell
    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

    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.

    D Allen Dalton's name disappears from the record at about this time (although he seems to have remained on their list of potential helpers).

    1991 April 7: Ralph Smeed writing in the Idaho Press Tribune discusses a "war of words' between Phil Batt, the state chairman on the Republican Party, and...

    ... Professor Allen Dalton, director of the Center for the Study of Market Alternatives (CSMA), a Caldwell-based free enterprise think tank.

        Dalton is an economist. Teaching economics at Boise State University for many years and having been an important functionary in the Idaho state Libertarian Party (he resigned from the latter post to assume the directorship of CSMA but still has a class at BSU), he is particularly well positioned to exchange ideas, principles, economic and civil rights and the general area of politics and public policy with Batt.
    [Smeed heaps praise on Dalton. But what Smeed forgets to mention in this article, is that he [Smeed] was the founder and (supposedly) the primary funder of the Center for the Study of Market Alternatives.

        He also established the Ralph Smeed Foundation which funded 'Swift Boat" and "Tea-Party-type" political campaigns.

        His and Dalton's think-tank was a foundation member of the Atlas Network of extreme libertarian, free-market organizations funded initially mainly by Scaife and Coors and big corporations in the early days, and later by the Koch Brothers.]

    1994: Advocates for Self Government have published ths list of libertarian organisations.

    P.O.Box 15749, Boise, ID 83717
    Conducts free market seminars for teachers and the general public, and debate seminars for high schools. Publishes CSMA Newsletter. (Allan Dalton) 208-368-7811

    1996 June 24: Status Report on FDA Op-Ed Program lists the various network economists and the articles they have planted with their newspapers, together with the Congressmen who have been contacted.

        They only have twenty on their list and one of these is not from academic backgrounds [Bob Higgs from the tobacco-funded think-tank, The Independent Institute]

        There is no entry for Idaho or for Dalton.

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

        The list of activities of the other economists shows that the network continued to be operated by the Tobacco Institute itself (under Walter Woodson, and Lance Morgan - both Public Affairs division). [However Savarese is still in the picture.] The op-eds are now being rejected by many newspapers, who are no longer willing to publish tobacco industry propaganda.

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

    Dalton is listed under the heading

    IDAHO, Boise State University
    PUBLISHED - 6-21 The Idaho Statesmen

    2000 /E: The Koch-funded, Dallas based, National Center for Policy Analysis has an Environmental Task Force with all the names you'd expect listed (Bruce Ames, Dennis Avery, Joseph Bast, etc.) including D Allen Dalton, who is now credited with being Director, Center for the Study of Market Alternatives, Caldwell, Idaho.

    [The old web-page at http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s162/s162i.html has disappeared, and the NCPA search engine no longer turns up the Dalton name.]

    2007: My 26 Dalton donated $500 to Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign Committee

    2011: He is still listed as teaching "Post-Keynesian Economics" a Boise State University. [part-time]

    2012: Reference to the Center for the Study of Market Alternatives say that it:

    Conducts free-market seminars for teachers and the general public, and debate seminars for high schools. Publishes CSMA Newsletter.

    Ralph Smeed Foundation
    Ralph Smeed established and funded the Center for the Study of Market Alternatives. D Allen Dalton took over from him as the Director. Smeed became notorious for questioning President Obama's birth certificate.

        During the Presidential elections of 2012 the Ralph Smeed Foundation established a billboard in Caldwell (near Boise) Idaho which compared President Obama ["Kills thousands with his foreign policy — Wins Nobel Peace Prize"] unfavourably with the mass murder maniac who killed 12 people in the movie theatre with an assault rifle.


    CONTRIBUTORS:LR13 sjc2 in22

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