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 5/21/2013


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.


Cash-for-comment economists' network
General TI networks
Robert ('Bob') Ekelund
George Berman
James Savarese
Ctr.Study Pub.Choice
James Buchanan
Robert Tollison
Anna Tollison
Richard Wagner
James C Miller III
Carol M Robert
Elizabeth A Masaitis
Committee on Tax & Economic Growth
Harold Hochman
Fred McChesney
Thomas Borcherding
Delores T Martin
Dennis Dyer
George Minshew
William Prendergast
Bill Orzechowski

Dominick Armentano
Burton A Abrams
Lee Alston
Ryan C Amacher
Gary Anderson
Lee Anderson
William Anderson
Terry Anderson
Scott E Atkinson
Roger Arnold
Richard W Ault
Michael Babcock
Joe A Bell
Bruce L Benson
Jean J Boddewyn
Peter Boettke
Thomas Borcherding
William J Boyes
Charles Breeden
Lawrence Brunner
Henry N Butler
Bill Bryan
Cecil Bohanon
John H Bowman
Dennis L Chinn
Morris Coates
Roger Congleton
Jeffrey R Clark
Michael Crew
Allan Dalton
John David
Michael Davis
Arthur T Denzau
Clifford Dobitz
John Dobra
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
Randall G Holcombe
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
Mike Maloney
Delores Martin
Chuck Mason
Charles Maurice
Fred McChesney
James E McClure
William McEachern
Richard McKenzie
Robert McMahon
Arthur Mead
Paul L Menchik
John F Militello
William C Mitchell
Greg Neihaus
James A Papke
Allen Parkman
Mark Pauly
William Peterson
Harlan Platt
Michael D Pratt
Thomas Pogue
Barry W Poulson
Edward Price
Robert Pulsinelli
Raymond Raab
Roger Riefler
Terry Ridgeway
Mario Rizzo
Morgan Reynolds
Simon Rottenberg
Randy Rucker
Richard Saba
Todd Sandler
David Saurman
Mark Schmitz
Robert Sexton
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 O Zerbe




James E Long     [Prof]    

— He worked with Robert Ekelund, one of the main cash-for-comments economists on the Savarese network. —  

Long as a minor cash-for-comments economist from Auburn University who worked for the tobacco industry through Robert Ekelund.

James E Long was a professor of economics at Auburn University, alongside Robert B Ekelund who organised and ran a sub-section of the cash-for-comments economists network which sometimes acted independently of the main Savarese/Tollison group.

Long worked with Ekelund in preparing two reports on the effect of cigarette tax hikes on smokers in rural areas — one in May 1989 and another in 1993 — both purporting to be just studies on general taxes. Supposedly both wer commissioned by the American Agricultural Movement (AAM), which was run by David Senter, a consultant to the tobacco industry; in fact they were paid for and controlled by the Tobacco Institute.

Long himself was never listed as a member of the cash-for-comments economists network which was set up by Professor Robert Tollison with the lobbyist and consultant to the Tobacco Institute, James Savarese. The network's purpose was to provide propaganda and lobbying services to the tobacco industry in all 50 US States, utilizing trusted and prominent academic economists 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.


There are dozens of James Longs in the tobacco archives.
      • James E Long, at Auburn University, Alabama
      • James E Long is also a Commissioner for Insurance, North Carolina [Also in archives - and obviously not the same person.]
      • James Long is executive director of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union
      • James E Long is Executive Director Illinois Alcoholism & Drug Dependence Association.
      • Another James E Long was conducting cancer studies on mice

James E. Long received a Ph.D. in Economics from Florida State University in 1974 and has been a Professor of Economics at Auburn University for the past fifteen years.[in 1989]
    His areas of specialization are the economics of discrimination, labor economics, and public finance. In 1984 he worked as the Senior Research Economist for Economic Services, Inc. of Tallahassee, Florida. After a year he returned to Auburn University, where he was named a Liberty National Professor of Economics in 1987.
    He has written articles for several publications, including the Southern Economic Journal, the National Tax Journal, the Journal of Human Resources, the Journal ofPoliti' cal Economy, Social Science Quarterly, and The Birmingham News.
    Mr. Long is also a member of the Governor's Tax Reform Advisory Committee for the State of Alabama.

Some key documents

• Co-author and associate of Robert B Ekelund at Auburn University
    The other members of the Ekelund sub-network of cash-for-comments economists were Richard Ault, David Saurman, John Jackson, RF Hebert, JK Watson, and Mark Thonton — all from the Economics Department at Auburn University

1989 Jan 23: Ms Joan Senter [Note name!], the Director of the American Family Farm Foundation has written to Susan [Stuntz] and Debbie [Schoonmaker] at the Tobacco Institute with...

a proposed budget for your consideration to cover the costs associated with the preparation and distribution of the study entitled "The Impact of Excise Taxes on Rural America"

    Based on our previous discussions, we have asked James Savarese and Associates to outline the methodology for this study and to identify the appropriate economists to undertake the study. Enclosed is the outline for the study prepared by Robert Ekelund and James Long from Auburn University, along with Mr. Long's resume.

    Results demonstrating the damaging nature of excise taxes to rural America could best be made public through the creation of a brochure for targeted distribution

1989 Mar 21: The Ekelund-Long study was actually being done through the American Agricultural Movement (AAM) — run by a David Senter [Note name] — which James Savarese serviced on behalf of the Tobacco Institute.

Federal Relations [division of the TI] and AAM will meet with the Congressional Rural Caucus to explore the possibility that the Caucus endorse or adopt the study, thus increasing its impact on the Hill and nationally.

    A press conference sponsored by the Rural Caucus or AAM would be a good opportunity to get the details of the study to a targeted audience of tax, economic and agricultural reporters, including those from the Washington bureaus of farm state newspapers. in any case, copies of the study — along with an executive summary — will be.distributed to Members of Congress, farm organizations, organized labor and the general public.

    If the Rural Caucus does not take the lead, David Senter and other selected AAM representatives will visit key Congressional Members and their staffs to discuss the results of the study.

    Total costs for the project are now estimated at $77,900. The cost for the economic research for the AAM study itself is $32,500 [The amount to be paid to Ekelund and Long]. Production, promotion and administration costs are presently estimated at $45,400.

    As the results will directly support and strengthen our position on the regressive nature of excise taxes, I recommend that we authorize payment for this AAM project.
[It's always nice to know the results before you commission such an expensive study.]

1989 May: "The Impact of Excise Taxes on Rural Americas" , prepared for American Agriculture Movement by Robert B. Ekelund, Jr and James E. Long of Auburn University. It pushes the regressivity line (poor people pay more proportionally) and exploits the rural-city divide.

Rural communities also bear a disproportionate share of the excise tax burden. Not only are they predominantly low and middle income, but also, their income will fall directly as a result of lower demand for their products. [The growing of tobacco.]

    A May 1989 study prepared for the American Agriculture Movement concluded that "in all, the excise burden on rural farm and other families is 49 percent higher on gasoline and motor oil, 41 percent higher on tobacco products, and 21 percent higher on utilities, fuels, and public services when compared to urban families....

    Overall, our statistics show an aggregate 33 percent higher burden when all items are considered. We conclude that any attempts to reduce the deficit by increases in excise taxes would contradict the goals of policies designed to aid farmers and the rural poor".

1989 May: The final "Impact of Excise Taxes on Rural Americans" study of Ekelund and Long.

Euphemisms and masquerade have clearly found their way into the contemporary political environment. Until they become overused, terms like "revenue enhancement" are employed to reassure the naive that policies that really are tax increases do not sound like tax increases. Such sleight-of-hand is reaching new heights in the Bush administration.

    A number of tax increases are being discussed by Congress and the Administration under such subterfuge. Chief among these are excise tax increases on gasoline, alcohol and tobacco, which are taxes, not "user fees" if used to reduce the deficit, and oil import fees, which are special kind of taxes called tariffs.

    We have established that rural consumers (including farmers) bear a disproportionate burden of excise taxes and would most certainly be even more disadvantaged by increases in excise taxes or "user fees."

[There was no mention of Tobacco Institute funding, naturally! Nor that the cigarette company profit margins are also regressive on poor rural smokers. Nor that health care costs for sick smoking farmers are also regressive.

    The archives have dozens of cuttings of successful placements of this story with newspapers, and also one mention of it in Georgia Legislation.]

1989 May 16: Ogilvy & Mather write to the Tobacco Institute about the AAM Tax Study Press Conference.

This morning we met with David Senter and Keith Stroup of AAM to put together the general scope of the event. (for May 24). David and Keith are working with some of their contacts to find an appropriate site. This afternoon we will be looking at room 1732 in the Longworth Building, which appears available.

    To date, our known participants will be David Senter, Bob Tollison, and James Long, one of the economists who wrote the study. Congressman Ike Skelton may be available to make a statement, We have decided that AAM should create a list of a dozen or so of their strongest congressional supporters that they would like to invite to speak at the event. They will then send this list on to us so that it can be reviewed to make sure that each member is on the right side of the excise tax issue.

    We are still toying with what kind of visual we may want to create for the event, but we do know that we will have some of the charts from the study blown up for display.

    The Video News Release is under production; we have attached a draft copy of the script.

[Note Tollison's inclusion suggests that this was an economists' network operation.

    They managed to get Rep Glenn English (D-OK) to provide some input, and Rep Ike Skelton (D-MO) wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter to members of Congress for them.]

1989 Aug: Carol Hrycaj & Debbie Schoonmaker's monthly report to the Tobacco Institute on their "Excise Taxes" and "Social Cost" projects.

Activity level on American Agriculture Movement (AAM) projects also was intense in August, as fairs got underway in several states.

AAM's 1989 state fair program got underway with state affiliates hosting information booths at agricultural events in Louisiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado and Idaho. TI staff traveled with AAM representatives to events in Sedalia, Missouri, and Pueblo, Colorado. More than 150,000 pieces of anti-excise tax material was distributed during the six events.

    We continued to make progress with our effort to take the findings of AAM's excise tax study to the states. An executive summary of the rural America study, which will be mailed to legislators nationwide, was forwarded for final approval.

    Next month's issue of AAM's Reporter will feature an article discussing the group's tax study its promotion. In addition, we were instrumental in finalizing the AAM op-ed that will be distributed by a matte service to weekly and daily newspapers. Distribution will be increased in FRD [Federal Regional] and SAD [State Activities] priority states.

    To further promote their study, AAM representatives will travel to Atlantic City, NJ, next month for the annual State Agriculture Commissioners meeting. They will brief ag commissioners from several states on the impact of excise taxes on rural Americans.
Under "Social Costs" it also lists:
Robert Ekelund's social cost research paper, "Some Economic Consequences of the Koop Doctrine: National and State Revenue Shortfalls from Smoking Regulation," was sent out for legal clearance. This is the last of the four papers commissioned this year.

    In advance of the scheduled August media tours, we provided background information to consultants on California and Alaska tobacco legislation. Tollison traveled to Sacramento and San Francisco; Wagner's Anchorage tour was cancelled at SAD's [State Activities Div] request.

    We worked closely with Media Relations on an op-ed to be submitted by Bob Tollison to the Los Angeles Times in conjunction with next month's media tour.

Next Month's Goals:
    Get legal clearance of Ekelund research
    Work with Prendergast and legal counsel to complete monograph

Likely name confusion
1988 Feb 29 James E Long is also a Commissioner of Insurance, State of North Carolina. His aide is writing to Philip Schaenman, President of TriData. [This is a different James Long]

    The Tobacco Institute was interested in these Insurance Commissioners because of the lower rates being offered to non-smokers. They had a project to discourage 'Health Industry Insurance Discrimination' against smokers.

    Another James E Long received consultancy fees for Toxicology ($1,625 + $330 + $374 + other small amounts for phone advice) from tobacco lawyers Shook Hardy & Bacon in 1991-92 period and is listed in "Medical Witness Maintenance and Development"

1990 Dec 14: Lobby firm Powell Adams and Rinehart writes to Carol Hrycaj at the Tobacco Institute re the AAM 1991 Programs
[Powell Tate had merged with Ogilvy, Mather, Rinehart (the PR arm of the advertising agency)]

As requested, we met with David Senter to discuss his program ideas for 1991. David has mentioned several ideas to you including a rural summit, media tours and a new rural excise tax study. According to David, the mral summit, is at the top of his priority list for 1991.
Senter apparently coordinates numerous rural organisation.
At the [Nov 1990] summit in Kansas City, David engineered the passage of a resolution opposing all consumer excise taxes (see attached).

    Following the summit, participants issued a press release that mentioned the resolution opposing excise taxes.

    Rural summit participants chose early March for the timing of the Washington, D.C, Summit [in 1991]. AAM believes that the D.C. summit will be important in setting the tone for discussions of farm issues in Congress next year. David is asking for strong financial support to ensure that AAM can "drive the train" and have a large degree of control over the issue agenda at the summit.
He wanted $75,000 for a program of op-eds, radio and TV interviews, etc. to accompany the Washington meeting

    In addition to this, media tours should be a priority, and also a second AAM Rural Excise Tax Study
AAM is willing to re-release the study with more of a state-by-state emphasis, and then participate in state-specific as well as national media outreach. We believe a new AAM excise tax study would give AAM a fresh anti-excise tax message and a vehicle for opposing excise taxes at the state level, where much of the excise tax battle will take place in 1991.

1991 July 1: Savarese now has a new executive at the Tobacco Institute in Calvin George. He writes to him with yet another Ekelund research proposal.

Excise Taxes and Excise Tax Increases: Effects on Rural Americans.
In research conducted in 1989 Ekelund and Long (May 1989) uncovered a significant bias in the distributional impact of excise taxes. Specifically, a disproportionate burden of such taxes fall on rural consumers, including farmers.
They want to update the old study for a fee of $28,000.

1992 May 22: Ekelund and Long appear to have followed up their 1989 success with a second study done for the American Agricultural Movement "Excise Taxes and the Rural Taxpayer: Losing Ground in the 80's and 90s?". it makes an even more dramatic case for cutting cigarette and other excise taxes.

    Ogilvy & Mather are suggesting to Cal George at the Tobacco Institute, a promotional program which includes:

  • Press Conference at the National Press Club with Ekelund, Long and David Senter. ($9,500)
  • Senter's Media tours of rural states to meet with TV, radio and newspapers. ($6,000 each tour)
  • Satellite News Interviews ($3,500)
  • Video News Release for country TVs ($16,000)
  • Op-eds for newspapers to be signed by David Senter. ($4,000)
  • Matte Service article (for very cheap small-market publications) ($3,500)
  • Mailings to Agricultural nespapers/publications ($1000)
  • AAM Support - they recommend a $20,000 grant — which will include AAM expenses for one media tour.

1992 Dec 9: David Senter is now offering his lobbying services directly to Susan Stuntz at the Tobacco Institute. However he is still dealing [now as a subsidiary David Senter & Associates] through Ogilvy & Mather PR which had become Ogilvy Adams & Rinehart, and was morphing into Powell Tate & Rinehart.

I can provide a valuable service to you because I am identified as AAM and the study carries AAM's name. I signed the letter to all open seat members, therefore it would mean a consistent message and messenger.

    I am available to provide you with access to several national grassroots groups. Because of my work for the last 12 years many consider me as one of the national leaders of the farm movement. My high profile position with Willie Nelson & Farm Aid provides me a platform to reach out to many new groups.

    I propose the following program and budget for 1993:
  • $6,000 per month retainer for David Senter & Associates. I will provide from 40 to 60 hours per month for work on TI's projects.
  • $1,500 per month grant to AAM for general operating purposes. This will allow continued access to the nationwide group for issue work.
  • $20,000 grant immediately to cover AAM's intensive activity surrounding the release of the updated excise tax study.
    [This is the Ekelund/Long repeat study]
  • $20,000 grant for AAM for an additional project in the second half of the year.
    [They must have been planning a third.]
  • $2,500 per month to the American Family Farm Foundation for general operating expenses. Attached you will find a list of the grass roots network and a brief description of the foundation work.
    [AFFF was run by Joan Senter]
I believe as we develop programs together, I can provide a grass roots outreach program that is second to none

1993 Jan: The Tobacco Institute has been sent an "Advance Copy" of Ekelund/Long paper "Excise Taxes and the Rural Taxpayer: Losing Ground in the '80s and '90s?"

    It is a typeset proof which is circulated for last-minute checks.

    It also has a reference to their previous paper:

Ekelund, Robert B. Jr. and James E. Long, The Impact of Excise Taxes on Rural Americans (Washington, DC: American Agriculture Movement, May 1989), 32 pp.

1993 Feb 23: A memo sent to Cal George (who ran the cash-for-comments network at the Tobacco Institute) say about the Rural Tax Study/AAM Promotional Program:

The study, Excise Taxes and the Rural Taxgayer: Losing Ground in the 80s and 90s?, has recently been completed by Auburn University's Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. and James E. Long on behalf of the American Agriculture Movement (AAM).

    As you know, the study supports the case that rural Americans, including farmers, bear a disproportionate burden of state and federal excise taxes compared to urban households. The study shows that the burden worsened in the 1980s and will continue to grow over the 1990s unless changes are made in state and federal tax policy.

OA&R [Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart - the new name for Ogilvy & Mather] views the promotion of this study as an important priority.

    The following promotional plan has been developed for the release of this study:   • Given the academic nature of the study, a press conference in Washington, D.C. has the potential of generating strong media coverage. The event could be held on Capitol Hill with David Senter and AAM Executive Vice President Harvey Joe Sanner on hand as spokespersons.
  • OA&R would handle the development of materials including the media advisory, press release and press kit. Additionally, OA&R would coordinate logistics and contact the media for the event. Both national and regional reporters will be contacted.
  • Based on discussions with AAM, David Senter has suggested that the report be released on March 2 when AAM hosts its annual fish fry on Capitol Hill.
  • Satellite News Interviews will be available for rural TV stations in targetted states.
  • OA&R would develop an op-ed signed by AAM President Johnny Porch that would detail the findings in the tax study. The piece would highlight the regressivity of excise taxes and discuss the negative impact on farmers and low-income families. It would be distributed nationally to publications in rural states and their capitols.
  • OA&R suggests distributing a one-column matte service article authored by Porch discussing the results of the tax study. The article would be distributed nationally and would include a photo of Porch.
  • Media tours to rural states would be an effective vehicle to promote the study after the D.C. press conference. David Senter or AAM's Wayne Cryts could meet with television, radio and print media to discuss the findings of the study.
  • Embargoed press releases sent to farming magazines and trades.
  • Creation of a brochure sent to AAM members and other rural groups.
  • Media training for David Senter and AAM staffer, Roy Chancey.

    Costs would be $1000 for the fish-fry conference; $6,000 for Satellite News Interviews; $500 for the op-ed; $2,800 for the matte service; Media tour $12,000 plus AAM travel expenses; press-released $500; Brochure $7,000; Media training $1,600. [Total to OA&R about $33,000]
This was also ccd to James Savarese.

    See press release
Copies of successful planting of news stories

1993 March 8: Savarese and Associates has billed the Tobacco Institute for:

AAM Press Conference: March 2 1993
Professional Services for James E Long       $ 3,000.00
Expenses for Dr Long (airfare, taxi, etc)           $ 733.63

1993 Mar 23: The Reporter, a newspaper of the American Agriculture Movement (AAM), lies to its readers in a front-page story "AAM sees Clinton economic package as a "step in the right direction"

Economic burden on rural Americans and family farmers worsened in the 1980s largely due to regressive federal and state tax policies

    The study, entitled "Excise Taxes and the Rural Taxpayer: Losing Ground in the 80s and 90s?" was commissioned by the AAM and authorized by economists Robert B Ekelund, Jr. and James E Long of Auburn University. It reveals that rural Americans — including family farmers —bear a disproportionate burden of federal and state" excise taxes compared with urban households.

1993 July 13: Ogilvy Adams & Rinehart have memoed Cal George at the Tobacco Institute.

Per your request, OA&R has begun the process of reprinting the American Agriculture Movement (AAM) brochure, "Excise Tax: Rural America Feels the Bite."

    Attached is a laser print of the revised brochure. Copy changes reflect new income levels and updated percentages of the excise tax burden on rural Americans. Graphics will be inserted in the appropriate spaces. If there are no problems with the laser print, the process will proceed and the brochure should be completed within two weeks.

    Based on conversations with TI, Senter and Associates and AAM Executive Vice President Harvey Joe Sanner, OA&R recommends scheduling media tours in Austin, Texas and Omaha, Nebraska during the first week in August. Harvey Joe Sanner will act as spokesperson. The completed brochure will be used in the press kits, and distributed at AAM membership meetings scheduled to take place at the same time as the tours.

1993 Sept 28: OA&M have sent copies of the revised brochure to the Tobacco Institute. They plan to print 10,000 copies.

1993 Sep 8: Tobacco Institute Accounts "Check Requests, Oct 1989 to Sept 1993" (127 pages) Those possibly related to Long are:

  • Savarese & Associates operations payment Sept 8 1993       $20,000 (Stuntz Excise Taxes and Public Smoking projects)
  • David Senter & Associates payment Jun 11 1993       $1,000
  • Paul Dunn payment May 10 1993       $289 expenses (Labor Management Committee)

    Cal George at the Tobacco Institute has put through a request for a check of $99,966.84 to be paid to Savarese & Associates for services rendered in connection with the Massachusetts tax initiative.

1996 Jan: /E An advisory on handling "Tax Arguments." is being circulating by the Tobacco Institute. It contains many admissions about their underhand dealings and their exploitation of ethnicity, class and discrimination to flog their propaganda:

  • Economic Impact Study - The American Economics Group (AEG) has recently published a large study on the economic impact of the tobacco industry entitled "The US Tobacco Industry in 1994: its economic impact in the states." Economic losses due to any federal cigarette tax increase can be quickly estimated and enumerated for all states and the nation. AEG on fast notice can generate economic loss statements for all states. We currently have on hand the loss projections for a $1.00 tax increase.
  • Regressivity: Key Studies - A variety of studies have been used to illustrate that cigarette taxes take a bigger chunk out of low income budgets compared to higher income budgets. A variety of studies by Peat Marwick for CART [Coalition Against Regressive Taxation] were done to portray the regressive impact of excise taxes.
          CTJ [Citizens for Tax Justice] also developed studies on regressvity. One study entitled "Nickels and Dimes" listed the regressive impact of major excise taxes by state and was used to a fair degree. The study is now dated and use has dwindled over the years.
          The most recent large effort was by Peat Marwick in 1993 that attempted to show the impact of higher excise taxes by listing the median household incomes by congressional districts. Median income is very low in a variety of key districts - often well below $30,000. The idea was to couple this finding with the fact that cigarette taxes would hurt the poor the most.
  • Minority Groups - We have often used arguments that since blacks, Hispanics and women make lower incomes that excise taxes are especially harmful to such families. A variety of labor union and public interest groups make this argument on our behalf. The general approach is to compute excise taxes as a percentage of income paid by such groups compared to the "rich". The minority groups often pay 7 to 12 times higher than the rich.
  • Rural America - We have used a study by Eckelund and Long [sic Robert Ekelund & James Long of Auburn Uni] to show that excise taxes hurt rural America more since average income of rural people is less than urban workers. Farm groups have carried this message for us.
  • Blue Collar Discrimination - We have used the argument that raising cigarette taxes to fund deficits is often a way for the rich to dodge the deficit reduction bullet by passing the tax on the blue collar worker who spends more on these items as a percent of income.
  • Earmarking - [Much more here] In 1991, we financed the publication of an academic readings book on the earmarking issue entitled "Charging, For Government: Earmarked taxes in Principle and Practice" edited by Richard Wagner.
  • Tax Resources - Outside Groups
    • The Economist Program - We have a core group of approximately 7 to 12 economists who will write op-eds and testify for us at all levels of government.
    • Tax Foundation - This group is working on the cross border and smuggling issue. they will soon release a major study on cigarette tax evasion and smuggling. We hope to utilize them with op-eds, news releases and cross border studies.
    • AEG - This group will continue to work on our economic impact studies and will develop cross border studies at the state level.
    • [Alexis] De Tocqueville Institute - This group is on retainer to do work on tax issues. They were helpful in defeating federal tax increases releasing studies on Canada's cigarette smuggling problems. They were also quite helpful on the ETS issue releasing a major study in 1994.
[Note that the core group of cash-for-comments economists was shrinking fast. It had been almost one in each state, but was now down to a dozen or so.

The tobacco industry virtually ran and controlled the CART and CTJ (both coalitions).
The Tax Foundation was a subsidiary of Citizens for a Sound Economy.]



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