Abstract
Aims
The tobacco and alcohol industries share common policy goals when facing regulation, opposing policies such as tax increases and advertising restrictions. The collaboration between these two industries in the tobacco policy arena is unknown. This study explored if tobacco and alcohol companies built alliances to influence tobacco legislation, and if so, how those alliances worked.
Methods
Analysis of previously secret tobacco industry documents.
Findings
In the early 1980s, tobacco companies started efforts to build coalitions with alcohol and other industries to oppose cigarette excise taxes, clean indoor air policies, and tobacco advertising and promotion constraints. Alcohol companies were often identified as a key partner and source of financial support for the coalitions. These coalitions had variable success interfering with tobacco control policymaking.
Conclusions
The combined resources of tobacco and alcohol companies may have affected tobacco control legislation. These alliances helped to create the perception that there is a broader base of opposition to tobacco control. Advocates should be aware of the covert alliances between tobacco, alcohol, and other industries and expose them to correct this misperception.
INTRODUCTION
Tobacco and alcohol products have many similar promotional strategies,1 including specifically targeting minority populations.2 Both products face product-specific taxes3 and are subject to expert recommendations on health warning labels. Tobacco taxes, clean indoor air laws, and restrictions on tobacco advertising have been key tobacco control policies in the US,4–14 and internationally for many years. Alcohol companies often propose similar arguments to those made by the tobacco industry opposing tax increases and marketing constraints.3
Tobacco and alcohol companies coordinated their marketing efforts, including event co-sponsorship and joint promotion,15 and tobacco companies may own or hold economic interests in alcohol companies. For example, R.J. Reynolds (RJR) owned the Heublein Spirits and Wine Company from 1982 to 1987,16–20 and Philip Morris owned Miller Brewing Company between 1969 and 2002.21–24 Altria Group, Inc. (“Altria”), the current parent company of Philip Morris USA, US Smokeless Tobacco Company, and John Middleton Company,25–28 also owns Ste. Michelle Wine Estates, and as of 2010, retained 27.1% economic and voting interests in SABMiller plc (“SABMiller”), the world’s second largest beer company.25–28
While tobacco and alcohol industries may share a policy agenda, it is not known if coordination between the two industries has influenced tobacco legislation. The Tobacco Institute (TI), the principal tobacco industry trade association representing the US tobacco manufacturers,29, 30 developed coalitions with labor unions, minority groups, and hospitality organizations during the 1980s and 1990s, and succeeded in opposing cigarette tax increases31–33 and smoking restrictions.34–38 For this study, we used internal tobacco industry documents to explore (1) if there has been any alliance between the tobacco and alcohol industries to affect policy and if so, (2) how these industries worked together to influence tobacco legislation. The term “alcohol industry” refers to the many groups involved in the production and sale of alcoholic beverages, including producers, wholesalers and distributors, point-of-sale operators, and hospitality providers that sell alcohol.
METHODS
We systematically searched internal tobacco industry document electronic archives using the Legacy Tobacco Document Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/) between December, 2009 and April, 2012. Tobacco industry document research includes unique methodological challenges,39 and we followed standard techniques combining traditional qualitative methods40 with iterative search strategies tailored for this data set.41 Initial keyword searches combined terms related to tobacco and alcohol policies (e.g., “excise tax”, “advertising restriction”), (b) tobacco companies and organizations (“Tobacco Institute”), and (c) alcohol companies and organizations (“Miller”, “Beer Institute”). Initial searches yielded thousands of documents. Documents were reviewed by both authors to discern the themes and context, such as the time line or objectives of alliances. We wrote summary memoranda and proposed additional search terms based on related information (e.g., key individuals, organizations, third parties, meeting dates or locations).
Snowball searches were used to find related documents using reference (Bates) numbers, file locations, dates, and associates. Additional questions were resolved by triangulating data from the documents library and from other sources, such as online search engines or news coverage (e.g., Google News or Lexis-Nexus) to validate and contextualize activities discussed. Triangulation is a previously described standard method used to check for validity and consistency of information across sources.42 We repeated iterative searches until we reached saturation of keywords and documents. This analysis is based on a final collection of 193 documents related to cigarette excise taxes, 135 documents related to clean indoor air laws, and 127 related to advertising restrictions, ranging in date from 1981 to 1999, and limited to policy activities in the United States. We wrote memos including all relevant documents and direct quotes to build a comprehensive picture of how activities were related to each other historically and conceptually.
RESULTS
Alliances between the tobacco and alcohol industries were identified in three policy arenas: tobacco taxes, clean indoor air laws, and advertising/marketing restrictions (Table 1).
Table 1.
Type of Policy | Year(s) | Name of Alliance | Scope of Policy | Tobacco Industry Representative | Alcohol Industry Representative | Other (proposed) industry allies |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tax increases | 1983 | Consumer Tax Alliance43 | California | Tobacco Institute |
|
|
1983 | Consumer Tax Forum44 | National | Tobacco Institute |
|
|
|
1989 | Consumer Tax Alliance45, 46 | National | Tobacco Institute |
|
Alliance membership was limited to labor unions and public interest groups. But corporations financially supported the alliance Supporting corporations: Philip Morris, American Truckers Association, Coalition Against Regressive Taxation |
|
Clean indoor air law | 1986 | Partisan Project47–50 | National | R. J. Reynolds |
|
|
Advertising restrictions | 1980s and 1990s | NA | National | Tobacco Institute | Tobacco and alcohol organizations were affiliated through a third party, the American Advertising Federation’s Inter-Association Council51, 52, 56 |
Anti-tax Coalitions
Throughout the 1980s, cigarette tax increase bills were introduced at the federal, state and local levels.6, 7, 13, 14, 57–60
Consumer Tax Alliance (January, 1983)
In California, a 5–10 cents per pack cigarette tax increase was proposed in 1982 and 1983.6, 7, 57, 61–66 In early 1983, the TI hired Nelson-Padberg Consulting to start building an organization called the Consumer Tax Alliance (CTA) to oppose this tax. Nelson-Padberg mentioned that “A vital part of the beer industry’s potential contribution to the cause is the 250 member California Beer Wholesalers Association. They are politically active and very savvy.”67 To bring alcohol and other industries on board, the issue was framed broadly for taxes on “consumer goods”:
The Consumer Tax Alliance is being formed to address the growing tax threat on consumer goods. CTA is an alliance of business leaders and California consumers. The organization’s purpose is to gather data about the abuses and affects of excise taxes and provide this information to legislators, the news media, community and taxpayer organizations, and other opinion leaders.68
The fact that the proposed tax was limited to cigarettes decreased alcohol industry enthusiasm for the CTA: “with beer, wine, and liquor not included in the proposed [tax increase] legislative package, a ‘no excise tax’ coalition is difficult to initiate.”61 The TI expected the alcohol industry to pay 50% of the total budget of $228,000, three times the tobacco industry contribution.43 Other industries such as oil, video games, soft drinks, candy and gum were proposed to pay 8.3% of the budget. The TI failed to establish the CTA primarily because the alcohol companies were not interested.69
Consumer Tax Forum (May, 1983)
In May 1983, the TI started building a national anti-tax coalition called the Consumer Tax Forum (CTF) to oppose cigarette taxes. The CTF was defined as a non-profit corporation44 and “a broad-based coalition of trade associations, corporations, and nonbusiness organizations which will oppose the general concept of excise taxes.”70 Gray and Company, the consulting firm hired by the TI, suggested nine industries for the CTF board, including tobacco, beer, distilled spirits, wine, small business organizations, heavy-duty trucks, jewelry, oil, and sporting goods/firearms.44 Gray and Company recognized the alcohol industry as “the greatest opportunity for a favorable response”:
Because this [alcohol] industry is so crucial to the success of the [CTF] project, you may want to consider the active use of the Tobacco Institute and its members in soliciting participation. If there are tobacco industry contacts with corporate CEO’s and other senior level management in the alcoholic beverage group, they could be very helpful in generating support for the [CTF] project.71
Similar to the prior CTA plan, the alcohol industry was expected to contribute substantial funds to CTF, with $255,000 of the total proposed budget of $885,000 paid by the beer, distilled spirits, and wine industries (each industry paying $85,000). The tobacco industry (represented by the TI) would pay $85,000, and the other five board members (e.g., trucks, jewelry, oil) would pay $85,000 each.44 The proposal also included plans to “bolster the credibility of the Forum” by inviting, “non-business organizations, (e.g., senior citizens and veterans groups)” to join for free. The TI failed again to establish the coalition. Samuel Chilcote, President of the TI reflected on why efforts failed in a letter to Gene Knorr, Vice President of Philip Morris:72
1. Cost. …. Other organizations were unwilling to make the financial commitment or were waiting to see if others would make the commitment first…
2. Trust. In many instances, business coalitions have been formed to fight tax packages. These coalitions are strong only as long as the tax package holds together…
3. Timing. We wanted to get ahead of the curve by forming a coalition before it was needed. Most organizations respond only to emergencies…73
Consumer Tax Alliance (1989)
Between 1983 and 1989, numerous proposals to increase the federal cigarette excise tax were put forward.74, 75 In1989, the TI started another national coalition, also named the Consumer Tax Alliance (CTA), described as “a coalition of public interest groups and labor unions with business support, dedicated to fighting increases in consumer excise taxes.”45, 46 The CTA included a broader base of members (Table 1),45, 46, 76 and its goal was to persuade “members of Congress that the American public, when educated about the range of alternatives for deficit reduction, will oppose excise taxes.”77, 78 The TI planned a television advertising campaign to oppose federal excise taxes on gasoline, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco77, 79 in order to “complicate leadership’s efforts to obtain within their party caucuses a majority vote for any budget package that includes consumer excise taxes.”80
The TI claimed that CTA’s membership was limited to labor unions and public interest groups with no corporate members, but corporations financially supported the CTA.45, 46 Four of the seven supporting corporations were alcoholic beverage companies (i.e., Seagrams, Miller Beer, Guinness, and Sazerek). Unlike the previous two anti-tax coalition plans, tobacco companies were by far the biggest financial contributors to the CTA. In 1989–1990, the TI and groups established by the TI34, 35 contributed 82.6% ($4.009 million) of the CTA budget, and alcohol organizations contributed 12.5% ($0.607 million).81
The TI aired anti-excise tax advertising,82–85, 86 that claimed that working class people were disproportionately affected by excise taxes and suggested that taxes on the wealthy or eliminating government waste were preferable.87 No advertisement showed tobacco use images – instead, people drinking beer or pumping gas were shown. This CTA succeeded in mobilizing public opposition to increased consumer excise taxes.84, 87–89 On November 5, 1990, President Bush signed a law which included a total increase of eight cents per pack in the federal cigarette tax,60, 90–94 half of what the tobacco companies had originally anticipated.95, 96
Coalition to Oppose Clean Indoor Air Laws
Between 1980 and 1986, the number of clean indoor air policies proposed increased from 98 to 140 at the state level, and increased from 60 to 255 at the local level.4–8, 13, 14 The number of approved clean indoor air laws also increased dramatically between 1980 and 1986 at the state and local level.4–8, 13, 14
The Partisan Project (1986)
In 1986, RJR developed a program called the Partisan Project “to foster an informed and visible ‘public voice’ comprised of individuals nationwide speaking out on an ongoing basis and on their own volition in opposition to biased and emotional rhetoric and unfair discriminatory harassment of smokers.[emphasis in the original]”49, 97–99 To recruit partisans, RJR started the newsletter, “Choice” in December 1986 and the newsletter, “Regulatory Watch” in March 1987,100 and distributed the newsletters using their marketing database of smokers who used coupons or completed surveys in the past.97, 101–106 Through Choice, RJR publicized company views on secondhand smoke, smoking restrictions, and tax increases.100, 107 Regulatory Watch alerted smokers about pending antismoking legislation, and how to contact government officials and newspapers to express their opinion.100, 107 Both newsletters included surveys on attitudes toward clean indoor air laws, tax increases on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, cigarette advertising bans, and the respondent’s propensity to take action.97, 101–106 RJR defined partisans as individuals who agreed with RJR on at least one of the three key issues (i.e., clean indoor air laws, tax increases, and cigarette advertising bans) and stated that they would like to speak out.97, 98, 100, 107–109 RJR saw the role of the partisans as:
A deterrent to discriminatory actions before they gain momentum – particularly at the local level.
Communication to legislators that they have a vocal constituency opposed to unfair anti-smoking measures.
Communication to the media and other opinion makers of rising vocal opposition to the current environment…
Communication to employers and providers of goods and services that smokers want their rights protected and that they are a significant economic force.
Encouragement to millions of other smokers to openly speak out to protect their rights.97
RJR planned to reach 50 states and develop five million partisans by December 31, 1989,47, 49, 97, 99 and fostered the formation of “independent, local grass roots groups/organizations [emphasis in the original]” to push for the protection of smokers’ rights.47, 49, 97, 108–110 RJR planned to build coalitions with the distilled spirits industry, including the National Licensed Beverage Association (NLBA, the largest trade association in the alcoholic beverage industry47–49, 111, 112), the National Liquor Store Association (NLSA),47, 48 Club Managers Association of America (CMAA),48 and hospitality organizations like the American Hotel and Motel Association47, 49 and National Restaurant Association,50 with a total membership from these groups of over 60,000.49, 108, 109, 113, 114
To build a coalition with the distilled spirits industry for the Partisan Project, RJR hired Frank Cascio, the Trade Relations Vice President of Heublein Spirits and Wine Company, which had been owned by RJR from 1982–1987.16–20 RJR utilized Cascio’s contacts to create opportunities for TI representatives to speak at alcohol industry gatherings, develop relationships, and to distribute communications materials to their constituencies.115
These efforts were successful. In 1987, John Burcham, executive director of NLSA, mentioned his willingness to make the NLSA membership list available for inclusion in the Partisan Project,48 and RJR secured approval to mail booklets on responding to smoking restrictions to NLBA’s 25,000 members.111, 116–118 From 1988 to 1990, RJR presented three times at NLSA’s annual conventions,119–126 and presented at NLBA’s125, 127, 128 and CMAA’s national conventions.129–132 At these meetings, RJR emphasized that (1) tobacco and alcohol industries share the same customers because “close to half of all people who are high volume buyers of distilled spirits are smokers”,122, 133 (2) they share similar challenges in the political arena because public smoking restrictions affect alcohol customers129–132 and “today tobacco is the focus of prohibitionists. Alcohol follows close behind”,127 and (3) RJR’s Partisan Project could help distilled spirits industry members preserve their customers’ rights.127 RJR documents stated they “greatly enhanced the hospitality industry’s influence in 1989, evolving from leaders learning about issues to actively supporting smokers’ rights,” and “secured their [NLSA and NLBA] executive leadership’s endorsement of RJR’s Partisan smokers’ rights program.”134
Coalitions to Oppose Advertising and Promotion Restrictions
In the 1980s, US cigarette advertising and promotion expenditures grew,135 while legislation limiting tobacco advertising increased at the state and local level between 1981 to 1990.5–14 Bill proposals included (1) bans on tobacco advertising and promotion, (2) elimination of tax deductions for tobacco advertising expenses, (3) limiting tobacco to tombstone advertising, (4) enactment an industry advertising code, (5) enacting counter-advertising programs, (6) elimination of federal preemption of state regulation of tobacco advertising, (7) mandating warning labels, and (8) authorization of FDA to regulate tobacco advertising.135
In May 1987, Samuel D. Chilcote, the President of the TI, discussed strategies to oppose these proposals, including:
to position the advertising and publishing industries in front on this issue; to emphasize the First Amendment considerations; to demonstrate that advertising restrictions are ineffective; and to show that the industry is acting responsibly by not promoting products to youth.136
The free speech argument (that emphasized First Amendment considerations) was regarded as the most effective and important to attack advertising bans.137 The tobacco industry reached out to advertising trade associations such as the American Advertising Federation (AAF).136, 138, 139 The AAF’s Inter-Association Council (IAC) included over 20 trade associations,140 including advertising trade groups (e.g., Association of National Advertisers, American Association of Advertising Agencies, Outdoor Advertising Association of America), and tobacco and alcohol trade groups such as the TI,51–56, 140–144 Smokeless Tobacco Council,52, 54, 56 Distilled Spirits Council of United States (DISCUS),51–56 and the Beer Institute.51, 52 The TI was one of the nine largest affiliated associations in the IAC.145 The AAF continued to oppose legislation limiting tobacco and alcohol advertising from the 1970’s through at least the 1990s.51, 146–165 The AAF argued that the bills were an advertising issue instead of a tobacco issue, and that selective tax policies were unconstitutional and discriminatory.51 In June 1986, Congressman Mike Synar introduced a bill prohibiting all consumer sales promotion of tobacco products.166 As an IAC member, DISCUS opposed these bills,167–169 and the bills died in the 99th Congress committee.169
DISCUSSION
The tobacco industry has repeatedly sought to build direct or indirect alliances with the alcohol industry and to use their financial resources and lobbying power in the policy arena. To oppose cigarette tax increases, which the public generally supports,170 the tobacco industry broadened the cigarette tax issue to include alcoholic beverages and other consumer goods. The tobacco industry consistently identified the alcohol industry as a key partner and often the largest financial source for the anti-excise tax coalitions they created. In addition to alcohol, the tobacco industry also built alliances with groups representing low income and working class people, and anti-tax organizations to broaden the issue to consumer excise taxes in general.84, 87–89 Balbach and Campbell31 have also described how the tobacco industry combined cigarette taxes with those on gasoline, beer, wine, liquor, airfare, telephone calls, and “more than 10 other products” between 1987 and 1997, and built partnerships with labor unions to oppose tobacco taxes. Tobacco taxes should be separated from combined consumer goods tax packages, and tobacco control advocates should communicate with labor unions and minority groups about the benefits they would gain from tobacco taxes.
For clean indoor air laws, RJR argued that the tobacco and alcohol industries share the same customers and challenges in governmental regulation. RJR built connections with alcoholic beverage groups and broadened opposition to clean indoor air laws. Previous research has described how the tobacco industry allied with hospitality associations to oppose smokefree environments.36 The coordination of tobacco and alcohol interests also helps to explain why bar venues continue to be a key battleground for smoke-free policies.
For tobacco advertising and promotion restrictions, the tobacco industry framed the restrictions as a violation of the First Amendment to make them relevant to the alcohol industry and advertising industries. The tobacco and alcohol industries were able to work in concert by affiliating with a powerful third party, the advertising and publishing industry, which took the lead in opposition to advertising restrictions. Although it is hard to conclude if the alcohol industry’s specific efforts in opposing tobacco advertising bans were associated with the failure of such bills in the Congress, the lobbying efforts around this legislation were elaborately planned. Advocates for tobacco advertising restrictions should be prepared to face the tobacco industry acting through the advertising and publishing industries and their other affiliates.
For all the three cases, the tobacco industry broadened the tobacco issues to include other industries to create the perception that there is a broader “public” base to oppose tobacco control policies. Efforts to denormalize tobacco use and the tobacco industry may impair this process, and could limit the tobacco industry’s ability to build coalitions with other organizations.
Historically, tobacco companies have owned alcohol companies, and these relationships enhanced their alliances. Co-ownership of tobacco and alcohol companies still exists today, and allows the two industries to share resources and lobbying power. Both previous ownership of alcohol companies and alcohol and tobacco membership in third party organizations, such as the AAF’s IAC may be used to oppose tobacco control policies.
This study is limited in that the documents we located were primarily from the 1980s and 1990s. However, it is likely that the relationships formed decades ago continue today, and the strategy to broaden tobacco issues to include other industries continues to have an important influence on tobacco policy. The analysis was also limited to describing policy activities in the US because the Legacy tobacco documents collection primarily consists of documents from US tobacco companies. Based on these findings, we recommend that, first, tobacco control advocates be aware of and oppose alliances between tobacco and alcohol industries, including via third parties. Second, advocates need to separate tobacco control policies from comprehensive legislation packages. Third, organizations that appear to be alliances of trade unions, employees, and groups representing minorities opposing tobacco control policies may in fact be largely financed by tobacco and alcohol companies serving their own interests, and these financial relationships should be disclosed.
Acknowledgments
Sources of funding: This work was funded by National Cancer Institute (R01 CA-87472).
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Contributor Information
Nan Jiang, Email: nan.jiang@ucsf.edu, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Avenue, Suite 366, Box 1390, San Francisco, CA 94143, Phone: (415) 476-0140, Fax: (415) 514-9345.
Pamela Ling, Email: pling@medicine.ucsf.edu, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Division of General Internal Medicine, Dept of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Avenue, Suite 366, Box 1390, San Francisco, CA 94143, Phone: (415) 476-0139, Fax: (415) 514-9345.
References
- 1.Hackbarth DP, Schnopp-Wyatt D, Katz D, Williams J, Silvestri B, Pfleger M. Collaborative research and action to control the geographic placement of outdoor advertising of alcohol and tobacco products in Chicago. Public Health Rep. 2001;116(6):558–67. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50088-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Moore DJ, Williams JD, Qualls WJ. Target marketing of tobacco and alcohol-related products to ethnic minority groups in the United States. Ethnicity and Disease. 1996;6(1–2):83–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bond L, Daube M, Chikritzhs T. Selling addictions: similarities in approaches between big tobacco and big booze. Australasian Medical Journal. 2010;3(6):325–32. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed December 1, 2011];Legislative report: 1980 final summary. 1980 Bates no. TI35930144/0585. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/weh45a00.
- 5.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed December 1, 2011];Legislative report: 1981 final summary. 1981 Bates no. TI25820717/1040. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gfh45a00.
- 6.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed December 1, 2011];Legislative report: 1982 final summary. 1982 Bates no. TI25823147/3518. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/efh45a00.
- 7.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 18, 2012];Legislative report: 1983 final summary. 1983 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25820389/0716. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hfh45a00.
- 8.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 7, 2012];Legislative report: 1986 final summary volume II local legislation. 1986 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25821041/2482. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ffh45a00.
- 9.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 7, 2012];Legislative report: 1987 final summary volume I state legislation. 1987 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25810001/1679. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jfh45a00.
- 10.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 7, 2012];Legislative report: 1988 final summary volume III state tort reform legislation. 1988 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25800001/1561. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kfh45a00.
- 11.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 7, 2012];Legislative report: 1989 final summary volume III state tort reform legislation. 1989 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25790001/1894. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lfh45a00.
- 12.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 7, 2012];Legislative report: 1990 final summary volume I state tobacco legislation. 1990 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25780001/2139. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mfh45a00.
- 13.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 8, 2012];Legislative report: 1985 final summary volume II local legislation. 1985 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25820001/3146. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ifh45a00.
- 14.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 8, 2012];Legislative report: 1984 final summary. 1984 Dec 31; Bates no. TI25823519/4230. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dfh45a00.
- 15.Jiang N, Ling PM. Reinforcement of smoking and drinking: tobacco marketing strategies linked with alcohol in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(10):1942–54. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Long GH RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 4, 2010];Heublein - trade relations. 1982 Nov 19; Bates no. 503862655. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tcx75d00.
- 17.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 13, 2012];Timeline. 1995 Bates no. 522609451/9456. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vrj50d00.
- 18.Long GH RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 13, 2012]; Bates no. 500625533. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yfu69d00.
- 19.Abely JF, Jr, Hagan JA RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 15, 2012];Quarterly report under section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 1982 Nov 15; Bates no. 525604065/4078. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ybv50d00.
- 20.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 15, 2012];RJR report. 1982 Bates no. 503487296/7338. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rxd95d00.
- 21.Philip Morris. [Accessed November 14, 2012];1969 Bates no. 2048011632/1633. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/usr65e00.
- 22.Philip Morris. [Accessed November 14, 2012];Philip Morris annual report. 1969 Bates no. 0000000760/0806. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ydg12a00.
- 23.Philip Morris. [Accessed November 14, 2012];US tobacco weekly. 2002 Jul 3; Bates no. 5001036480/92. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nuy07a00.
- 24.Philip Morris. [Accessed November 14, 2012];INFODOC press summary. 2002 Jul 2; Bates no. 2067455225/5227. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zxj34a00.
- 25.Altria Group Inc. [accessed March 6, 2012];About Altria: our history. http://www.altria.com/en/cms/About_Altria/At_A_Glance/Our_History/default.aspx?src=top_nav.
- 26.Altria Group Inc. Altria Group, Inc. 2008 annual report. Philip Morris; 2008. [Accessed March 7, 2012]. Bates no. 3990087235/340. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ugu82i00. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Altria Group Inc. Altria Group, Inc. 2009 annual report. Philip Morris; 2009. [Accessed March 7, 2012]. Bates no. 3990214613/726. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jer82i00. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Altria Group Inc. Altria Group, Inc. (MO) 10 - K. Philip Morris; Feb 25, 2011. [Accessed March 7, 2012]. Bates no. 3990229650/941. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fms82i00. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 18, 2012];The Tobacco Institute: a brief history. Bates no. TIMN0066564/6567. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zyx92f00.
- 30.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 18, 2012];The allies. Bates no. TNJB0000373/0378. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tay96d00.
- 31.Balbach ED, Campbell RB. Union women, the tobacco industry, and excise taxes: a lesson in unintended consequences. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(Suppl 2 ):S121–S5. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.05.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Campbell R, Balbach ED. Mobilising public opinion for the tobacco industry: the consumer tax alliance and excise taxes. Tob Control. 2008;17(5):351–6. doi: 10.1136/tc.2008.025338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Campbell RB, Balbach ED. Building alliances in unlikely places: progressive allies and the Tobacco Institute’s coalition strategy on cigarette excise taxes. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(7):1188–96. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Balbach ED, Barbeau EM, Manteufel V, Pan J. Political coalitions for mutual advantage: the case of the Tobacco Institute’s labor management committee. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(6):985–93. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.052126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Balbach ED, Herzberg A, Barbeau EM. Political coalitions and working women: how the tobacco industry built a relationship with the Coalition of Labor Union Women. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2006;60(Suppl II):ii27–ii32. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.046276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Dearlove JV, Bialous SA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places. Tob Control. 2002;11(2):94–104. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.2.94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Dearlove JV, Glantz SA. Boards of health as venues for clean indoor air policy making. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(2):257–65. doi: 10.2105/ajph.92.2.257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Zelnick J, Campbell R, Levenstein C, Balbach E. Clearing the air: the evolution of organized labor’s role in tobacco control in the United States. Int J Health Serv. 2008;38(2):313–31. doi: 10.2190/HS.38.2.f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000;9(3):334–8. doi: 10.1136/tc.9.3.334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Bero L. Implications of the tobacco industry documents for public health and policy. Annu Rev Publ Health. 2003;24(1):267–88. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.140813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Anderson SJ, Dewhirst T, Ling PM. Every document and picture tells a story: using internal corporate document reviews, semiotics, and content analysis to assess tobacco advertising. Tob Control. 2006;15(3):254–61. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.013854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Nelson-Padberg Consulting. Tobacco Institute; Mar 31, 1983. [Accessed April 14, 2011]. Bates no. TCAL0181142/1194. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xpq69b00. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Gray and Company. A proposal for the establishment of the Consumer Tax Forum. Philip Morris; May 20, 1983. [Accessed January 29, 2010]. Bates no. 2023023353/3410. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ets24e00. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Wilhelm D. Consumer Tax Alliance. Tobacco Institute; Jan 17, 1990. [Accessed April 7, 2011]. Bates no. TCAL0140021/0023. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ptq04b00. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Ogilvy & Mather Public Affairs. CTA talking points for media inquiries. Tobacco Institute; Jan 17, 1990. [Accessed April 21, 2011]. Bates no. TI50540974/0978. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yku28b00. [Google Scholar]
- 47.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 21, 2010];1987 Bates no. 506628830/8845. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ogx44d00.
- 48.Ogburn TL., Jr . Public issues weekly status report. RJ Reynolds; Jul 24, 1987. [Accessed January 28, 2010]. Bates no. 513960660/0661. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zvx87c00. [Google Scholar]
- 49.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed March 31, 2010];PI presentation -- marketing assistant training program. 1988 Mar 14; Bates no. 506777560/7599. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cei44d00.
- 50.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 30, 2010];Targeted programs objectives. 1989 Feb 27; Bates no. 507687255/7264. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zfb71d00.
- 51.American Advertising Federation pending government issues. RJ Reynolds; Mar, 1986. [Accessed July 6, 2011]. Bates no. 504988436/8451. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nxo35d00. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Grosche M. Tobacco Institute; Sep 21, 1992. [Accessed July 14, 2011]. Bates no. TI11430703/0706. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fnq84b00. [Google Scholar]
- 53.American Advertising Federation. American Advertising Federation Inter-Association Council meeting calendar. Tobacco Institute; Jan, 1987. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI12732142/2156. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zyt35b00. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Bell HH. Tobacco Institute; Apr 22, 1987. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI18250335/0336. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/swt97b00. [Google Scholar]
- 55.American Advertising Federation. Tobacco Institute; Jul 5, 1990. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800608. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xvd29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Snyder W Amerian Advertising Federation. Tobacco Institute; Jan 5, 1989. [Accessed July 22, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800546/0551. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yud29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 57.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 17, 2012];Say “no” to increased cigarette excise tax in California. 1984 Dec 20; Bates no. TCAL0317669/7700. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iuu04b00.
- 58.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 17, 2012];State tax guide. 1982 Sep 14; Bates no. TI19705101/5108. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vlr09a00.
- 59.Talley LA. Federal excise taxes on tobacco products: rates and revenues. [Accessed January 12, 2012];CRS report for Congress [serial on the Internet] 2002 Available from: http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/3314.pdf.
- 60.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed February 7, 2012];A timetable of federal-state regulation of the tobacco industry. 1991 Feb; Bates no. TI31809330/9331. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fem50c00.
- 61.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed December 16, 2010];Cigarette excise tax: California. 1982 Jan 6; Bates no. TI12461224/1227. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hlp29b00.
- 62.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 19, 2012];Assembly bill: introduced by assemblyman Vasconcellos. 1982 Mar 8; Bates no. TCAL0413810/3814. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tmc96d00.
- 63.Tobacco Institute. A state tax plan: California. Philip Morris; Jun 13, 1983. [Accessed January 11, 2012]. Bates no. 2023023240/3348. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cft24e00. [Google Scholar]
- 64.Philip Morris. Legislative update. Brown & Williamson; Apr 8, 1982. [Accessed January 19, 2012]. Bates no. 680576443/6456. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qmg04f00. [Google Scholar]
- 65.Robinson B. California S.B. 490, cigarette tax increse. Tobacco Institute; Jan 22, 1982. [Accessed January 19, 2012]. Bates no. TCAL0342850/2851. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/scw04b00. [Google Scholar]
- 66.Bewley L. California. RJ Reynolds; Jun 17, 1982. [Accessed January 19, 2012]. Bates no. 504024020/4022. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gcb66a00. [Google Scholar]
- 67.Nelson-Padberg Consulting. Tobacco Institute; Jan 13, 1983. [Accessed October 1, 2010]. Bates no. TCAL0181113/1118. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zpq69b00. [Google Scholar]
- 68.Nelson-Padberg Consulting. Consumer Tax Alliance: a proposal. Philip Morris; 1983. [Accessed October 3, 2010]. Bates no. 2024730553/0601. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/poo14e00. [Google Scholar]
- 69.Nelson-Padberg Consulting. Consumer Tax Alliance. Philip Morris; May 4, 1983. [Accessed January 31, 2010]. Bates no. 2024730793/0794. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wvm85e00. [Google Scholar]
- 70.Gray and Company. Philip Morris; May 20, 1983. [Accessed January 18, 2010]. Bates no. 2023023351/3352. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fft24e00. [Google Scholar]
- 71.Gray and Company. Tobacco Institute; Nov 17, 1983. [Accessed January 30, 2010]. Bates no. TI12441410/1427. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aqw25b00. [Google Scholar]
- 72.Philip Morris. [Accessed January 19, 2012];Washington relations 1987–1991 five year plan summary. 1987 Bates no. 2046874871/4874. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lus92e00.
- 73.Chilcote SD., Jr . Tobacco Institute; Mar 14, 1986. [Accessed January 15, 2010]. Bates no. TI11922611/2667. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ick03b00. [Google Scholar]
- 74.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed April 26, 2012];Federal relations report: federal legislation 100th Congress final report. 1988 Dec; Bates no. TI40911777/1950. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jgf97b00.
- 75.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed April 26, 2012];Federal relations report: federal legislation 101st Congress first session final report. 1989 Dec; Bates no. TI29841099/1254. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vcf05b00.
- 76.Stuntz SM. Memorandum. Tobacco Institute; May 23, 1990. [Accessed April 8, 2011]. Bates no. TCAL0139947/9959. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/usq04b00. [Google Scholar]
- 77.Stuntz SM. Tobacco Institute; Jan 5, 1989. [Accessed April 22, 2011]. Bates no. TI31886799/6800. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xna59b00. [Google Scholar]
- 78.Chilcote SD., Jr . Tobacco Institute; Dec 20, 1989. [Accessed April 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI09461497/1502. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vqt92b00. [Google Scholar]
- 79.Stuntz SM. Memorandum. Tobacco Institute; Oct 31, 1989. [Accessed April 20, 2011]. Bates no. TI17681689/1691. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kpg13b00. [Google Scholar]
- 80.Chilcote SD., Jr . Tobacco Institute; Jun 21, 1990. [Accessed April 8, 2011]. Bates no. TCAL0140514. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwq04b00. [Google Scholar]
- 81.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed April 20, 2011];The Consumer Tax Alliance receipts and disbursements. 1991 Jan; Bates no. TI31340249/0250. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sjk45b00.
- 82.Wilhelm D. Memorandum. Tobacco Institute; Jan 17, 1990. [Accessed April 21, 2011]. Bates no. TI50540979/0980. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zku28b00. [Google Scholar]
- 83.Chilcote SD., Jr . Memorandum. Tobacco Institute; Feb 6, 1990. [Accessed April 21, 2011]. Bates no. TI50540968/0972. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wku28b00. [Google Scholar]
- 84.Chilcote SD., Jr . Tobacco Institute; Mar 14, 1991. [Accessed April 8, 2011]. Bates no. TI11361881/1905. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ihf84b00. [Google Scholar]
- 85.Stuntz SM. Comments on CTA and other allies’ tax activity. Tobacco Institute; Aug 9, 1990. [Accessed April 8, 2011]. Bates no. TI58440857/0918. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jlu99b00. [Google Scholar]
- 86.Capital Communication Strategies. [Accessed March 16, 2011];Consumer tax alliance ads. 1989 Available at: http://archive.org/details/tobacco_nyy27a00.
- 87.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed April 19, 2011];Research report: consumer excise taxes, a campaign to mobilize public opinion. 1990 Mar; Bates no. TI24420088/0216. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bni33b00.
- 88.KRC Research & Consulting Inc. State and congressional district data: Consumer Tax Alliance post advertising study. Tobacco Institute; Aug, 1990. [Accessed April 8, 2011]. Bates no. TI50540517/0639. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fju28b00. [Google Scholar]
- 89.KRC Research & Consulting Inc. Topline summary of findings: Consumer Tax Alliance post advertising study. Tobacco Institute; Aug 10, 1990. [Accessed April 8, 2011]. Bates no. TI50540420/0472. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dju28b00. [Google Scholar]
- 90.Congressional recode -- House. Tobacco Institute; Oct 16, 1990. [Accessed January 12, 2012]. Bates no. TI03510402/0414. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rlf34b00. [Google Scholar]
- 91.Bureau of National Affairs Inc. Special supplement. Tobacco Institute; Oct 30, 1990. [Accessed January 12, 2012]. Bates no. TI03510454/0469. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nof34b00. [Google Scholar]
- 92.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 24, 2012];1990 Nov 9; Bates no. TI36320153/0155. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nug06b00.
- 93.RJR briefing info addendum: public laws. Tobacco Institute; May 10, 1991. [Accessed January 24, 2012]. Bates no. TI49950011/0015. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mof28b00. [Google Scholar]
- 94.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed January 24, 2012];1990 OTP monthly tax reports. 1990 Dec 5; Bates no. TI25160936/0954. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zla40g00.
- 95.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed April 19, 2011];Suggested talking points regarding Consumer Tax Alliance advertising project. 1990 Jun 26; Bates no. TI11950015/0016. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kjk03b00.
- 96.Tobacco Institute; Sep 15, 1988. [Accessed April 26, 2012]. Statement of the honorable Theodore C. Marrs, M.D. American Cancer Society volunteer representing the Coalition on Smoking or Health. Bates no. TI49491031/1038. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nfz73b00. [Google Scholar]
- 97.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed March 23, 2010];The partisan project. Bates no. 506650188/0221. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cfv44d00.
- 98.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 3, 2010];Public issues update. 1986 Bates no. 512556088/6140. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fqa71d00.
- 99.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 3, 2010];Public issues. 1987 Bates no. 513181084/1117. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dii23d00.
- 100.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 13, 2012];Public issues. 1987 Bates no. 505740534/0665. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rev05d00.
- 101.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed Janurary 3, 2010];1986 Bates no. 507666594/6595. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iss28c00.
- 102.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 3, 2010];Action Alert line. 1986 Dec 22; Bates no. 507666600/6602. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hss28c00.
- 103.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 3, 2010];Two informative publications that keep smokers up-to-date on the issues. 1986 Bates no. 506630011/0019. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zjf87c00.
- 104.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 3, 2010];Partisan Q&A. 1986 Bates no. 505467261/7273. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yys15d00.
- 105.Fonseca N. Action alert. RJ Reynolds; 1986. [Accessed January 3, 2010]. Bates no. 505740660/0661. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ofv05d00. [Google Scholar]
- 106.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 3, 2010];Choice line: your opinion counts! 1987 Bates no. 505740573/0574. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zev05d00.
- 107.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed April 24, 2012];Tom Ogburn speech at Hilton head. 1988 May 23; Bates no. 523506451/6480. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mwr97c00.
- 108.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 4, 2010];1988 Sep 16; Bates no. 512683535/3563. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tvg33d00.
- 109.Ogburn TL., Jr . Presentation to Peter Hoult. RJ Reynolds; Nov 9, 1988. [Accessed February 15, 2012]. Bates no. 506651900/1955. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sxu44d00. [Google Scholar]
- 110.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 14, 2012];RJR public issues. 1989 Mar 6; Bates no. 507675050/5089. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ktn87c00.
- 111.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed March 3, 2010];RCT/1987 public issues results. 1987 Bates no. 518280380/0381. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tfi97c00.
- 112.Ogburn TL., Jr . Public issues weekly status report. RJ Reynolds; Dec 11, 1987. [Accessed February 15, 2012]. Bates no. 513960588/0590. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/swx87c00. [Google Scholar]
- 113.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 4, 2010];1987/1988 strategic review. 1987 Aug 21; Bates no. 506634306/4329. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jvw44d00.
- 114.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 14, 2012];1988–1990 strategic plan: action programs. 1987 Aug 31; Bates no. 512683599/3614. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wvg33d00.
- 115.Ogburn TL., Jr . Public issues weekly status report. RJ Reynolds; Jul 2, 1987. [Accessed January 24, 2010]. Bates no. 520860805/0806. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qym97c00. [Google Scholar]
- 116.von Arx DW. RJ Reynolds; Jan 19, 1988. [Accessed April 24, 2012]. Bates no. 507690944. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hua24d00. [Google Scholar]
- 117.Murphy GE RJ Reynolds. [Accessed April 24, 2012];1988 Jan 19; Bates no. 507690945. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lon87c00.
- 118.von Arx DW. RJ Reynolds; Jan 19, 1988. [Accessed April 24, 2012]. Bates no. 507690938. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gua24d00. [Google Scholar]
- 119.Ogburn TL., Jr . Public issues weekly status report. RJ Reynolds; Oct 2, 1987. [Accessed January 24, 2010]. Bates no. 513960612/0613. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kwx87c00. [Google Scholar]
- 120.Tompson R. RJ Reynolds; Feb 22, 1990. [Accessed January 29, 2010]. Bates no. 507680713/0721. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zys28c00. [Google Scholar]
- 121.Tompson R. RJ Reynolds; Jan 10, 1990. [Accessed January 29, 2010]. Bates no. 507668339/8347. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mrs56a00. [Google Scholar]
- 122.Tompson RC. RJ Reynolds; Mar 16, 1989. [Accessed January 29, 2010]. Bates no. 507680722/0726. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gps56a00. [Google Scholar]
- 123.Ogburn TL., Jr . Public issues weekly status report. RJ Reynolds; Oct 30, 1987. [Accessed January 29, 2010]. Bates no. 513960604/0606. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/owx87c00. [Google Scholar]
- 124.Curry AM. Performance record. RJ Reynolds; 1989. [Accessed January 30, 2010]. Bates no. 513190817/0820. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jhx87c00. [Google Scholar]
- 125.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 14, 2012];Performance record. 1989 Bates no. 513190821/0827. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ihx87c00.
- 126.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed February 14, 2012];Will smokers organize? 1989 Mar 8; Bates no. 507675510/5587. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lnb24d00.
- 127.Tompson R. RJ Reynolds; Nov 7, 1989. [Accessed January 28, 2010]. Bates no. 507683081/3090. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ujt28c00. [Google Scholar]
- 128.Ainsworth G. Government relations status report - key issues. RJ Reynolds; Mar 3, 1989. [Accessed February 14, 2012]. Bates no. 507679530/9536. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ieb24d00. [Google Scholar]
- 129.Ogburn TL., Jr . Public issues weekly status report. RJ Reynolds; Jan 15, 1988. [Accessed February 5, 2010]. Bates no. 506651333/1334. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lwu44d00. [Google Scholar]
- 130.Ogburn TL., Jr . CMAA national convention opening remarks. RJ Reynolds; Feb 22, 1988. [Accessed January 29, 2010]. Bates no. 506651590/1595. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xwu44d00. [Google Scholar]
- 131.Ogburn TL., Jr . CMAA remarks. RJ Reynolds; Mar, 1988. [Accessed January 29, 2010]. Bates no. 506651527/1534. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/syf87c00. [Google Scholar]
- 132.Moran B. CMAA remarks. RJ Reynolds; Mar, 1988. [Accessed January 30, 2010]. Bates no. 506651535/1548. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ryf87c00. [Google Scholar]
- 133.RJ Reynolds. [Accessed January 28, 2010];Notes. 1989 Apr; Bates no. 507680769/0781. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qrn87c00.
- 134.Curry AM. Key PR-1 accomplishments. RJ Reynolds; Dec 19, 1989. [Accessed January 30, 2010]. Bates no. 518280288. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ugi97c00. [Google Scholar]
- 135.Tobacco use in America conference: tobacco marketing and promotion background paper. Tobacco Institute; Jan 27, 1989. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI04090136/0167. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/urf54b00. [Google Scholar]
- 136.Chilcote SD., Jr . Memorandum. Tobacco Institute; May 5, 1987. [Accessed July 15, 2011]. Bates no. TIMN0284761/4765. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sks62f00. [Google Scholar]
- 137.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed July 28, 2011];1987 Oct 8; Bates no. TIFL0535691/5704. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ktx02f00.
- 138.Tobacco Institute. Draft testimony of Charles O. Whitley on behalf of the Tobacco Institute before the Hourse committee on Ways and Means. [Accessed July 15, 2011];1986 Jul; Bates no. TI18240837/0849. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sts97b00.
- 139.Chilcote SD., Jr . Memorandum. Tobacco Institute; May 4, 1987. [Accessed July 15, 2011]. Bates no. TI12031281/1285. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cvk03b00. [Google Scholar]
- 140.Bell HH. American Advertising Federation. Tobacco Institute; Dec 15, 1980. [Accessed July 11, 2011]. Bates no. TI03530055/0058. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pqj34b00. [Google Scholar]
- 141.AAF Inter-Assoclation Council. Tobacco Institute; Mar 17, 1981. [Accessed July 11, 2011]. Bates no. TI03530082. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/erj34b00. [Google Scholar]
- 142.Toohey WD., Jr . AAF Inter-Association Council meeting October 8, 1982. Tobacco Institute; Oct 12, 1982. [Accessed July 11, 2011]. Bates no. TI03530043/0047. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wpj34b00. [Google Scholar]
- 143.American Advertising Federation. Inter-Assooiation Council agenda. Tobacco Institute; Oct 6, 1981. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI03530238/0250. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/quj34b00. [Google Scholar]
- 144.Panzer F AAF Inter-Association Council. Tobacco Institute; Nov 2, 1982. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI07390792/0797. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pxr16b00. [Google Scholar]
- 145.Tobacco Institute; Mar 20, 1984. [Accessed July 14, 2011]. Bates no. TI42011489/1495. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/owh15b00. [Google Scholar]
- 146.Kelly SE, Bell HH. Tobacco Institute; Mar 3, 1972. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI55843212/3216. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pzl09b00. [Google Scholar]
- 147.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Oct, 1982. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI03530251/0258. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wuj34b00. [Google Scholar]
- 148.Dolan J. AAF President opposes AMA call for cigarette ad ban. Tobacco Institute; Dec 10, 1985. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TIMN0353475. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zio52f00. [Google Scholar]
- 149.Bell H. Comments of Howard Bell. Tobacco Institute; Feb 12, 1986. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI51980287/0292. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dpf93b00. [Google Scholar]
- 150.Thomas D. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Mar 7, 1986. [Accessed July 12, 2011]. Bates no. TI51981882/1888. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nvf93b00. [Google Scholar]
- 151.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. RJ Reynolds; Jun, 1986. [Accessed July 12, 2011]. Bates no. 504988409/8416. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rhv76a00. [Google Scholar]
- 152.Jaffe DL. Tobacco Institute; Apr 11, 1986. [Accessed July 12, 2011]. Bates no. TI25291449/1455. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gmb49b00. [Google Scholar]
- 153.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Apr 21, 1986. [Accessed July 12, 2011]. Bates no. TI25291427/1436. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/emb49b00. [Google Scholar]
- 154.Advertising associations charge that the American Medical Association’s proposals to ban advertising are unconstitutional. Philip Morris; Jun 16, 1986. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. 2025857569/7571. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jem14e00. [Google Scholar]
- 155.Duffiin AH. AMA and ad industry doings in Chicago. Tobacco Institute; Jun 16, 1986. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI46970887/0890. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uje73b00. [Google Scholar]
- 156.American Advertising Federation. American Advertising Federation contends that Posadas case does not support ban on cigarette and alcoholic beverage advertising. Tobacco Institute; Jul 2, 1986. [Accessed July 13, 2011]. Bates no. TI50120321/0323. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tsg83b00. [Google Scholar]
- 157.Snyder W American Advertising Federation. Government relations update. Tobacco Institute; Apr 5, 1990. [Accessed July 14, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800594. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/svd29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 158.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Apr 26, 1990. [Accessed July 14, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800598/0603. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vvd29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 159.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; May 24, 1990. [Accessed July 14, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800604/0607. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wvd29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 160.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Jul, 1989. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI08060747/0753. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zug47b00. [Google Scholar]
- 161.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Sep 26, 1989. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800520/0525. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mud29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 162.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Dec 26, 1989. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800512/0519. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lud29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 163.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Feb 26, 1990. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800580/0586. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nvd29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 164.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Aug 28, 1990. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800625/0629. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dwd29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 165.American Advertising Federation. AAF Washington report. Tobacco Institute; Mar 18, 1991. [Accessed July 19, 2011]. Bates no. TI10800492/0498. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iud29b00. [Google Scholar]
- 166.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed July 15, 2011];Federal relations report: federal legislation 99th Congress final report. 1986 Nov; Bates no. TI40911598/1776. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dgf97b00.
- 167.Panzer F. Organizations opposed to S. 1950 and H.R. 3950. Tobacco Institute; Mar 6, 1986. [Accessed July 6, 2011]. Bates no. TI02840027. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ihi82b00. [Google Scholar]
- 168.Tobacco Institute. [Accessed July 7, 2011];1986 Mar 10; Bates no. TI46490625. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lce67b00.
- 169.Chilcote SD., Jr . Tobacco Institute; Jul 8, 1986. [Accessed July 15, 2011]. Bates no. TI11920604/0605. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/glj03b00. [Google Scholar]
- 170.Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. [Accessed November 14, 2012];Voters in all states support large increases to state tobacco tax rates. Available from: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0309.pdf.