Tobacco.org

• ARMSTRONG: The Tobacco Wars, Continued  

But a campaign funded by tobacco companies is spending millions on ads to mislead Californians about this life-saving initiative. Why? Prop 29 will add $1 to the cost of every pack of cigarettes sold in California, a state that currently ranks 33rd in the nation on the tobacco tax scale. So great is the power of the lobbyists and so deep are the campaign coffers that every bill or ballot initiative seeking to raise the cost of tobacco has been defeated since the last successful hike in 1988. Even though only 12 percent of Californians smoke. . . .

I also support Prop 29 because I resent the tobacco industry’s ability to influence public policy in their favor – to the detriment of Californians and their state economy – over and over again. . . .

we believe that California voters will see through the tobacco industry interference being doled out in 30-second increments on their televisions day and night between now and June 5th.

Jump to full article »

• Why is tobacco control still a problem in Europe? 

Tobacco control in the EU is at a crossroads. Ideally, politicians and civil servants will clearly delineate and make transparent all contacts with the tobacco industry and those in their pay, as per Article 5.3 in the FCTC. We also call on European governments and the EU to take a more robust stance and legislate more effectively to protect European citizens. The first test of the EC’s willingness to do so will be the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive. We await the outcome of that process.

Jump to full article »

Table of Contents - February 2012, 22 (suppl 1): Progress on Tobacco Control in Europe: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Europe Project  

• Decree good for Fiji, says minister  

FIJI continues to make progress in implementing the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), says Health Minister Dr Neil Sharma.

Speaking at the presentation of licences to representatives of tobacco importers and manufacturers in Suva yesterday, Dr Sharma said Fiji was the third country to ratify the WHO FCTC in October 2003 and the first developing country to do so. He said the government was committed to decreasing tobacco-related harm in Fiji and meeting Fiji's obligations under the convention.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco bill proponents push back  

Proponents of a bill to allow exemptions to the state smoking ban for over-21 establishments are pushing back against American Cancer Society claims that Big Tobacco is behind the effort.

Sheila Martin, an advocate of the bill who owns a Hutchinson club that is already exempt from the ban, took great exception to a ACS email encouraging supporters to "Help Turn Back New Assaults from Big Tobacco."

"Not one penny has been given to us from RJ Reynolds or Phillip Morris," she said. "This is a bald-faced lie."

Martin said she approached an RJ Reynolds official about supporting the bill, but he declined.

Christopher Masoner, the cancer society's chief lobbyist in Kansas, said RJ Reynolds testified at the same hearing in favor of another tobacco bill that would direct the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to explore whether smokeless tobacco is safer than cigarettes.

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Big Tobacco wants you to think doctors oppose cigarette tax  

• Big Tobacco backs Australian law opposers ($$) 

- FT.com PMI said the company was openly supporting governments that challenged Australia on plain packaging.

“We have been in contact with many of these countries, including on the trade and legal issues associated with the [plain packaging] policy,” it said. “It is commonplace for affected industries to support countries in WTO disputes and we are open to supporting governments that challenge Australia on plain packaging.”

BAT said the company was happy to provide legal support to member states, but it was “up to them” to accept it.

However, the news drew a sharp response from anti-tobacco campaigners.

“It is very concerning that tobacco companies are using legal action as a delaying tactic against a government that is trying to protect the health of its citizens,” said Robin Hewings, tobacco control manager for Cancer Research UK.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the London-based Action on Smoking and Health, accused the tobacco companies of “getting others to do their dirty work”.

Jump to full article »

Pro-smoking group brands Reilly plans “unnecessary”  

• Tobacco industry gearing up to take down California cigarette tax initiative 

In what is quickly turning into another high-stakes policy battle to be decided by California voters, tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds are forking over tens of millions of dollars to defeat a new tobacco tax on the June ballot.

Proposition 29, which would boost taxes by $1 a pack of cigarettes to $1.87, would raise about $735 million annually, most of which would go toward cancer research.

It would also mean a $1 billion annual loss in California sales to the tobacco industry because the extra buck a pack will cause more people to quit smoking or not start in the first place, experts say. But tobacco companies plan to keep a low profile during the no-on-29 campaign, hoping their anti-tax allies can win the battle for them by appealing to anti-tax sentiments -- rather than trying to garner sympathy for an unpopular industry.

"I don't think it's a secret that tobacco is funding this," said Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee and a member of the coalition opposing Proposition 29, Californians Against Out of Control Taxes and Spending. "But if the tobacco folks are out there, everybody wants to say the evil tobacco companies are behind this. But there are important policy issues that have to be discussed, and it's not surprising that taxpayer groups are out front talking about this."

What does the tobacco industry have to say?

Apparently nothing. When this newspaper asked the no-on-29 campaign for a tobacco industry representative to give the industry's take on the issue, the anti-tax coalition wouldn't provide one.

Jump to full article »

IRS Whistleblower Letter on ALEC  

Submission to the Internal Revenue Service under the Tax Whistleblower Act, 26 U.S.c. § 7623(b) regarding underreporting of lobbying and operation in furtherance of private corporate interests in contravention of 26 U.S.c. § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable status . . .

INTRODUCTION

This submission is made pursuant to the whistleblower provisions of 26 U.S.C. 7623 et seq. (the "Tax Whistleblower Act"). This matter concerns the massive underreporting of lobbying by the American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC"). While ostensibly a nonprofit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, ALEC's primary purpose is to provide a vehicle for its corporate members to lobby state legislators and to deduct the costs of such efforts as charitable contributions. ALEC drafts "model" legislation provided by its corporate and legislative members, and lobbies for the adoption of that legislation. These goals are fundamentally inconsistent with ALEC's claimed tax-exempt status as a charitable organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), because (i) "no substantial part" of a charity's activity can be "attempting to influence legislation," and (ii) ALEC's activities do not qualify under any of the enumerated purposes of Section 501(c)(3).

This scheme causes harm to taxpayers in two distinct ways. First, ALEC's activities constitute an abuse of its 501(c)(3) tax exemption, which is reserved for organizations "operated exclusively " for a limited number of purposes, such as "religious, charitable, scientific ... or educational purposes ...." 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Second, ALEC's corporate members improperly deduct from their taxable income the dues and other contributions made to ALEC; such expenditures are non-deductible lobbying expenses under Section 162(e). In fact, because ALEC solicits very few contributions from individuals, its false claims of tax-exempt status appear driven by the desire of ALEC corporate members to deduct lobbying expenses as charitable contributions. . . .

Conferences are attended by both ALEC's public and private sector members. The agenda consists of large plenary sessions, Task Force meetings, evening events and receptions. Private sector members co-organize numerous sponsored events with ALEC staff, including the National Rifle Association's annual clay pigeon shooting event. Other events at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting included a Cigar Reception sponsored by Reynolds Tobacco and the Cigar Association of America, and an evening of dancing with food and refreshments sponsored by Cox. [Exhibit 17] These events are promoted ahead of the conference by ALEC staff via email to legislators. It is likely that the corporations that pay for such lavish lobbying junkets deduct the expenses as charitable contributions to a 501(c)(3) organization.

Jump to full article »

• ALEC attacks shareholders  

Should shareholders have a say in how much money corporations give to candidates, super PACs and dark money groups? The American Legislative Exchange Committee, or ALEC, doesn’t think so.

ALEC is best known for giving moneyed special interests a hand in crafting “model legislation,” including the NRA-backed “stand your ground” laws that have touched off a furor in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. But a trove of internal documents obtained by the advocacy group Common Cause shows that the group’s activities are far more varied than was previously known; it does everything from issuing boilerplate press releases to flagging how lawmakers should vote on given pieces of legislation.

It also lobbies actively to scuttle shareholders’ rights – specifically to limit their ability to weigh in on political giving. Last year, for instance, New York state lawmakers introduced a pair of bills requiring corporations to get shareholder approval before making donations to politicians or outside groups, such as super PACs. Backers argue the measure would provide crucial safeguards for investors. “Giving shareholders a voice ensures that their money isn’t used for political purposes they don’t agree with or that are detrimental to the corporation,” explains Adam Skaggs, a senior counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school.

Jump to full article »

• US trade opposes total FDI ban in India's tobacco sector  

Five American trade bodies, including USIBC, have joined hands to oppose efforts of the Indian government to further restrict participation of foreign companies in India's tobacco market.

According to reports, the India's Commerce Ministry, on the request of Health Ministry, has proposed to put a complete FDI ban in the sector.

Currently, foreign direct investment (FDI) is completely prohibited in manufacturing of tobacco and its substitutes, while such investments are allowed up to 100 per cent in wholesale trading of cigarettes through the approval route.

In a letter to the Indian Ambassador to the US, Nirupama Rao, the US industry organisations said: "Some proponents of further restrictions have apparently cited public health as a justification, but since there is absolutely no difference in the health effects from consuming Indian or foreign tobacco products, that argument cannot be taken seriously".

Jump to full article »

LETTERS: Text your say : The missing tobacco clause  

It is an astonishing fact that a clause already agreed upon and decided by the House committee deliberating the Health Bill went missing when the final draft was presented to the plenary session for approval.

The missing clause, which listed tobacco as an addictive substance, is of course detrimental to the tobacco industry. However, it has never been proven that Ribka deliberately omitted or ordered to scrap the clause from the final draft.

She has been held responsible for the missing clause in the Health Law because of her position as chairperson of the said Committee. The punishment by the House’s ethics council, therefore, is harsh enough.

Jump to full article »

• U.S. Business Groups Threaten New Zealand over Its Efforts to Reduce Tobacco Use 

It is appalling that several prominent U.S. business organizations have threatened retaliation against New Zealand if it pursues innovative proposals to reduce tobacco use. It sends the wrong message to the world about the priorities of American business when these organizations oppose legitimate measures designed to save lives and fight for the interests of an industry whose products will kill one billion people worldwide this century unless governments take effective action.

On Friday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and five other business organizations issued a statement threatening retaliation against New Zealand if it requires that cigarettes be sold in plain packaging, without colorful logos and other brand imagery. The letter stated, "We hope the New Zealand government will consider the concerns we have raised for the possible impact on New Zealand exports, such as dairy and wine, should other governments feel emboldened to take similar measures." Other organizations on the statement are the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Council for International Business and the National Foreign Trade Council.

These U.S. organizations last year also opposed Australia's successful effort to enact the world's first law requiring plain cigarette packaging, which takes effect December 1. The United Kingdom is also considering a plain packaging requirement. Countries are proposing plain packaging to reduce the appeal of tobacco products to children, increase the effectiveness of health warnings and prevent tobacco companies from using package colors and imagery to imply that some cigarettes are less harmful, as they have often done. These efforts will prevent kids from smoking and save lives.

These countries are exercising their sovereign right to protect the health of their citizens from tobacco use, the world's number one cause of preventable death. We would be outraged if foreign businesses threatened the U.S. government when it acts to protect our citizens. We applaud New Zealand Prime Minister John Key for rejecting the U.S. organizations' arguments and defending his country's authority to act.

The statement from the U.S. business groups is part of a growing effort by the tobacco industry and its allies to bully countries and prevent them from implementing strong measures to reduce tobacco use.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco chief admitted smoking is harmful in an internal memo 

The former president of Imperial Tobacco Limited admitted in a confidential internal document that it is an unrefuted and accepted fact that smoking is a serious health issue - but a few months later told a federal legislative committee that there is not proof that tobacco causes disease.

In a 1987 memo, Jean-Louis Mercier, along with Wilmat Tennyson, Imperial's marketing man at the time, conceded that the tobacco industry had lost the battle "on four critical fronts": health, social cost, social acceptance and secondhand smoke. The memo concluded the industry should shift the blame to the federal government.

Testifying Thursday at the trial in which Quebec smokers are claiming $27 billion in damages from Canada's big three tobacco companies, Mercier repeated that the government, not the tobacco companies, was at fault.

"Personally, I said that if it's true that it kills 32,000 people a year, I don't understand why we sell cigarettes," Mercier said in a large courtroom filled with lawyers on the top floor of Montreal's courthouse. "Why does the government permit it?

"It should have taken the leadership."

Mercier also noted that the government, which has made billions of dollars over the years from tobacco sales tax, should have put some of that money into researching how the negative effects of smoking could be reduced.

The tobacco industry lost the health debate, the memo says, because it was "clearly constrained by the basic flaw that it could not argue smoking is good for you."

It was also hamstrung by the fear of liability and handcuffed by its own lawyers.

"Smoking is a serious health hazard; it is an accepted fact and there is no longer any possibility of refutation," the memo says.

But according to the transcripts from the legislative committee on Bill C-204 to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and common carriers, Mercier, just months after writing his internal memo, denied smoking caused disease.

Jump to full article »