This is Chapter 12 of my new book, working title “The Industry Playbook: Corporate Cartels, Corruption and Crimes Against Humanity” that is being published online chapter by chapter.
Public relations are not just about the public but about professionals. Seeing as politicians have influence over laws that could either benefit or cripple industry aims, a huge part of the playbook is to influence the politicians and thus, the laws they create.
In the USA, there are three branches of government, the executive, legislative and judicial. These checks and balances were meant to keep government honest. In this chapter most of the focus is on the legislative branch, however influence is not exclusive to that branch.
Back around the turn of the 20th century, well before the dangers of cigarettes were known, there was discussion of laws prohibiting sales of tobacco. Brandt writes, “As dozens of states debated such laws [prohibiting sales of cigarettes], rumors flew that Tobacco Trust representatives were liberally dispensing bribes among state legislators to fight the restrictions.”
It is one of the monopoly or cartel powers, to be able to influence those who make the laws.
There are illegal bribes and then there are legal bribes. Big Tobacco were some of the biggest spenders when it came to political campaigns, something that is legal to do.
Most of the spending went to politicians of the south where tobacco was grown. As such 80% of funding went to Republican candidates.
This led to statements such as this among politicians. “The Surgeon General is entitled to draw his own conclusions,” said Senator Sam J. Evans, Jr. in 1965. “He is treading on questionable ground, however, when he begins to impose these opinions on the public, without acknowledging the fact that this matter is in controversy among scientists.” This was the PR line of the tobacco companies used inside the Senate.
In 1965, the Federal Trade Commission required a label on packages saying “Caution: cigarette smoking is dangerous to health and may cause death from cancer and other diseases.” This was a result of the passage of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965.
Brandt writes, “[T]he industry sought legislation that would explicitly preempt any state and local regulations about labeling and advertising in favor of a congressional mandated—and heavily lobbied—federal act…The legislation was aggressively regulatory in this one respect: it clipped the wings of the FTC, which was legally banned from taking regulatory actions against tobacco for four years.”
Despite the warning, passage of this act was actually in Big Tobacco’s favor. This is because with the warning, they would argue in court repeatedly, and successfully for decades, that people were made aware of the dangers and thus the companies were not responsible. This warning label would also help them in tort litigation over the coming decades, as the consumers were now warned of the dangers.
Not every politician is influenced by money, though this unfortunately seems to be a minority. Before the passage of the act, Congressman John Blatnik and seven other congressmen and senators wrote to President Johnson asking him to veto the bill saying it “protects only the cigarette industry.”
Behind most of this was the Tobacco Institute. Public Relations Journal described the Institute as one of the “most formidable public relations/lobbying machines in history.”
Former state legislator Ron Faucheux said, “In the modern world, few major issues are merely lobbied anymore. Most of them are now managed, using a triad of public relations, grassroots mobilization and lobbyists.” Because of these strategies we would see examples of favorable legislation being enacted over and over again in the following years.
In 1966, The Fair Labeling and Packaging Act was passed. It explicitly did not cover tobacco thanks to the Tobacco Institute’s lobbying.
The “Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act marks one of American history’s most impressive examples of the power of special interests to shape congressional action,” wrote Brandt. “The industry increasingly utilized legitimate antitobacco legislation as a ‘vehicle’ for inserting preemptive clauses. Given that such bills often originated with public health advocates and their allies, the addition of preemption clauses sometimes had the effect of dividing antitobacco coalitions, as they found themselves forced to decide whether to accept valuable public health interventions at the cost of conceding preemption of local controls.”
In 1969, The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act passed, mandating the warning on cigarette packages read, “Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous To Your Health.” Note that this did not change much of anything.
In 1970, The Controlled Substances Act was passed. It explicitly did not cover tobacco thanks to Tobacco’s lobbying efforts.
In 1972, The Consumer Product Safety Act was passed. Guess what products it didn’t cover once again? This led the Wall Street Journal to say that the Tobacco Institute had shown its power in “turning a series of imminent disasters into near victories.”
In 1974, Senator Frank Moss of Utah submitted a petition to Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban high-tar cigarettes. The next year in October of 1975, Congress passed HR 644, the CPSC Amendments Bill. This specifically excluded tobacco products from the jurisdiction of the CPSC.
In 1981, the FTC conceded that it’s warning labels on ads and packages were ineffective. Yet three years later, Congress passed the Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Education Act. A part of the bill changed the cigarette package labels to four in rotation, still active today.
Senator John McCain led a bill in 1998 to curtail Big Tobacco. As a result, they spent $40 million on radio and television ads within a two-month period talking about how the bill would increase taxes. One such ad stated, “Washington wants to raise the price of cigarettes so high there’ll be a black market in cigarettes with unregulated access to kids.”
In addition, tobacco lobbyists loaded it up with amendments that had nothing to do with tobacco. Then they opposed it on the grounds that it is was no longer a tobacco bill. This was another tactic in the political game. The bill was killed.
Understand that legislation could have been passed in these years that actually would have affected Big Tobacco’s impact on human health. But since they had the money to fund lobbyists, astroturfers, front organizations and the politicians themselves, they would be able to steer the laws in their favor.
Looking at the results of this legislation we can confidently say that Congress was effectively bought on the subject of tobacco for decades.
Yet the battleground wasn’t only there. It also existed in the states.
In 1973 we saw campaigning by a real grassroots organization Arizonans Concerned About Smoking, founded by Betty Carnes. This led to Arizona being the first state within the USA to pass a law restricting smoking in public places.
In 1975, Minnesota passed the Clean Indoor Air Act, banning smoking in most public places unless specifically allowed.
Big Tobacco aimed to curtail these laws too. For example, in 1978, they spent $6.5 million to kill a referendum in California, Proposition 5, which aimed at statewide restrictions on smoking. This proposition was effectively defeated.
Still, in this case with the tide of public opinion turning especially regarding secondhand smoke, by
1981, thirty-six states had some form of restriction on smoking in public.
The deceptive tactics used only grew over time. In 1994, Philip Morris hired PR agency Dolphin, who setup a front group called “Californians for Statewide Smoking Restrictions.” Along with the National Smokers Alliance, they were able to gather enough signatures to put Proposition 188 on the ballot. Billboards promoted “Yes on 188—Tough Statewide Smoking Restrictions—The Right Choice.”
The facts were that this referendum would aid Big Tobacco, despite the anti-tobacco messaging they advertised it with. It would have undermined 270 local restrictions and state-wide smoke free work laws. The funding and the ploy came to light and this referendum was not passed by the public.
Total lobbying has decline in recent years, but it hasn’t gone away. “In 1998, the tobacco industry spent a total of almost $73 million on federal lobbying and employed over 200 lobbyists who advocated on its behalf. In 2014, total lobbying expenditures from the industry had dropped to around $22.2 million, with fewer lobbyists as well,” writes Alex Lazar of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Key Takeaways on Lobbying and Buying Politicians
- There are illegal bribes and legal bribes. Contributing to the campaigns of politicians is an effective way to influence how politicians will vote. Most funding went to Republicans, due to tobacco being grown in red states and their affinity for bigger businesses and less government.
- If we look at the track record it is clear that Big Tobacco was effectively ably to buy Congress on the topic of tobacco for decades.
- Any legislation that was passed did not cover tobacco, or when it did, was actually in favor of the tobacco companies.
- This came despite people and other legislators aiming to constrain the power of the tobacco companies. Bills were altered or amended. Bills were stuff full of other things.
- Any truly detrimental legislation would have the full power of the playbook thrown against it. Not just lobbying, but astroturf, front organizations, calling in favors, advertising, PR campaigns, smears and more.
- The biggest fights happened on the Federal level. But these fights also took place on the state and local levels too.
- Big Tobacco and their PR firm allies were not above deception such as the case of Proposition 188 in California shows. This pro-tobacco bill advertised anti-tobacco messaging to attempt to sway people to mistakenly vote for it.
- While the power of Big Tobacco has gone in recent year they still are active in the lobbying game today.
Please leave any comments or questions below. Feel free to share it with anyone you’d like.
Links to all published chapters of The Industry Playbook can be found here.
You can also support this project with a tip.
Once again, government shows its true purpose, which is to be a choke point for all corruption. If you want to do something heinous, you just need to pay to play. Unless you rule yourself, you are not only not free; you are a slave.