Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Tobacco Control logoLink to Tobacco Control
. 2002 Mar;11(Suppl 1):i102–i109. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i102

Tobacco Institute lobbying at the state and local levels of government in the 1990s

C Morley, K Cummings, A Hyland, G Giovino, J Horan
PMCID: PMC1766063  PMID: 11893820

Abstract

Independent variable: Data for this study came from the TI's State Activities Division (SAD) annual budgets for the years 1991-97, excluding 1993. These data include budgetary information pertaining to state and local lobbying activity and special projects reported by state.

Dependent variables: The following measures of state tobacco control activity during the period 1991 to 1997 were considered: (1) American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST) funding; (2) voter initiatives to raise cigarette taxes; (3) cigarette excise tax level; (4) workplace smoking restrictions; (5) the intensification of smoke-free air laws covering private worksites, government worksites, and restaurants; (6) the intensification of strength of sales to minors laws; (7) the intensification of strength of laws that punish minors for possessing, purchasing, and/or using cigarettes; (8) state status as a major grower of tobacco; (9) partisan control of state government, 1996; and (10) an overall composite index reflecting a state's strength of tobacco control, combining cigarette prices with workplace and home smoking bans.

Results: The overall annual budget for the TI declined steadily during the 1990s, from $47.7 million in 1991 to $28.1 million by 1996. The proportion of the TI's budget allocated to the SAD remained relatively stable at about 30%. TI expenditures for lobbyists were highest in California where tobacco control activity has been strong for the past decade. We found significant associations between TI SAD expenditures and cigarette excise tax levels, the status of a state as a recipient of federal ASSIST funds, and changes in the strength of statewide laws that penalise minors for possessing, purchasing, and/or using cigarettes. We found little or no association between state and local lobbying budgets of the TI and changes in statewide smoke-free air laws, although we did find evidence of TI special project expenditures earmarked to specific states and localities to resist clean indoor air legislation/regulations (that is, Maryland and New York City). We found no significant correlation between TI lobbying expenditures and sales to minors' laws, status as a major producer of tobacco, or partisan control of state government.

Conclusions: The findings from this study support the hypothesis that in the 1990s tobacco control activities such as raising cigarette excise taxes and participation in ASSIST attracted TI resources to undermine these efforts.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (172.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Aguinaga Bialous S., Glantz S. A. Arizona's tobacco control initiative illustrates the need for continuing oversight by tobacco control advocates. Tob Control. 1999 Summer;8(2):141–151. doi: 10.1136/tc.8.2.141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alciati M. H., Frosh M., Green S. B., Brownson R. C., Fisher P. H., Hobart R., Roman A., Sciandra R. C., Shelton D. M. State laws on youth access to tobacco in the United States: measuring their extensiveness with a new rating system. Tob Control. 1998 Winter;7(4):345–352. doi: 10.1136/tc.7.4.345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clarke H., Wilson M. P., Cummings K. M., Hyland A. The campaign to enact New York City's Smoke-Free Air Act. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1999 Jan;5(1):1–13. doi: 10.1097/00124784-199901000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. DiFranza J. R. Are the federal and state governments complying with the Synar Amendment? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Oct;153(10):1089–1097. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.153.10.1089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. DiFranza J. R., Brown L. J. The Tobacco Institute's "It's the Law" campaign: has it halted illegal sales of tobacco to children? Am J Public Health. 1992 Sep;82(9):1271–1273. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.9.1271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. DiFranza J. R., McAfee T. The Tobacco Institute: helping youth say "yes" to tobacco. J Fam Pract. 1992 Jun;34(6):694–696. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ellis G. A., Hobart R. L., Reed D. F. Overcoming a powerful tobacco lobby in enacting local smoking ordinances: the Contra Costa County experience. J Public Health Policy. 1996;17(1):28–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gilpin E. A., Stillman F. A., Hartman A. M., Gibson J. T., Pierce J. P. Index for US state tobacco control initial outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Oct 15;152(8):727–738. doi: 10.1093/aje/152.8.727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Givel M. S., Glantz S. A. Tobacco lobby political influence on US state legislatures in the 1990s. Tob Control. 2001 Jun;10(2):124–134. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.2.124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldman L. K., Glantz S. A. The passage and initial implementation of Oregon's Measure 44. Tob Control. 1999 Autumn;8(3):311–322. doi: 10.1136/tc.8.3.311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldstein A. O., Bearman N. S. State tobacco lobbyists and organizations in the United States: crossed lines. Am J Public Health. 1996 Aug;86(8):1137–1142. doi: 10.2105/ajph.86.8_pt_1.1137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Heiser P. F., Begay M. E. The campaign to raise the tobacco tax in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 1997 Jun;87(6):968–973. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.6.968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Luke D. A., Stamatakis K. A., Brownson R. C. State youth-access tobacco control policies and youth smoking behavior in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 2000 Oct;19(3):180–187. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00196-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Malone R. E., Balbach E. D. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000 Sep;9(3):334–338. doi: 10.1136/tc.9.3.334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mosher J. F. The merchants, not the customers: resisting the alcohol and tobacco industries' strategy to blame young people for illegal alcohol and tobacco sales. J Public Health Policy. 1995;16(4):412–432. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shopland D. R., Hartman A. M., Repace J. L., Lynn W. R. Smoking behavior, workplace policies, and public opinion regarding smoking restrictions in Maryland. Md Med J. 1995 Feb;44(2):99–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Stillman F., Hartman A., Graubard B., Gilpin E., Chavis D., Garcia J., Wun L. M., Lynn L., Manley M. The American Stop Smoking Intervention Study. Conceptual framework and evaluation design. Eval Rev. 1999 Jun;23(3):259–280. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9902300301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Traynor M. P., Begay M. E., Glantz S. A. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA. 1993 Jul 28;270(4):479–486. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wolfson M., Hourigan M. Unintended consequences and professional ethics: criminalization of alcohol and tobacco use by youth and young adults. Addiction. 1997 Sep;92(9):1159–1164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tobacco Control are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES