Table 4.
Organizations Involved in the Pro‐e‐cigarette Advocacy Network
| Organization | Description of Organization |
|---|---|
| E‐cigarette Retailers | |
| Independent Vapor Retailers of Minnesota | A nonprofit group that was formed to help fight for the rights and regulations of the independent business owners and entrepreneurs that comprise the vapor retail business in Minnesota.155 |
| E‐cigarette User Groups | |
| Primary Groups | |
| Consumer Advocates for Smoke‐free Alternatives Association (CASAA) | An e‐cigarette “grassroots” user group established in 2009 to defeat restrictions on e‐cigarettes, including “tobacco, e‐cigarette or even smoking state law[s].”156 CASAA mobilized its members through its Constant Contact program, which provides members with newsletters and action alerts on proposed e‐cigarette legislation in their state and locality. Two of its members, Brad Rodu and Carl V. Phillips, received funding from British American Tobacco, US Smokeless Tobacco Company (UST), PM, RJR, and Swedish Match to conduct research on smokeless tobacco and harm reduction. One member, Greg Conley, is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and president of the AVA. CASAA framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on cigarette company arguments, including “no health risks” and “wait for the FDA.”157, 158, 159, 160, 161 One of its members attended the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in 2014. |
| National Vapers Club (NVC) | A “consumer‐based” e‐cigarette user group (formerly known as the Long Island Vapers Club) that was founded in 2009 by the 2014 SFATA co‐chair, Spike Babaian. In 2009, its website message was “Meeting Place for lovers of e‐cigarettes, personal vaporizers and all things ‘fog’ producing!”162 In 2010 the message changed to “It's Not Smoke, It's Vapor! Make the Switch Today!”141 and in 2013, it changed to “Protect your right to vape!” “Help us fight for vapers’ rights!” and “NVC provides written testimony all over the country.”64 NVC opposed e‐cigarette regulation in New York City and New York State163; funded e‐cigarette research claiming secondhand e‐cigarette emissions pose no apparent risk to human health164; and framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on e‐cigarette company arguments, including “individual freedom, personal liberties, choice,” “discriminatory,” and “no health risks.”65 |
| Secondary Groups | |
| Minnesota Vapers Advocacy (MNVA) | An e‐cigarette user group from Minnesota established in September 2013 in response to the Duluth City Council's move to restrict the sales, usage, and sampling of e‐cigarettes. MNVA supports “common sense regulations” such as restricting sales to minors and voluntary business policies for indoor usage but opposes excessive government regulation of the sale and use of e‐cigarettes.165 |
| Oklahoma Vapers Advocacy League (OVAL) | An organization founded in 2012 by local e‐cigarette store owners to protect consumer “rights” to reduced‐harm alternatives to tobacco, “while assisting in proper legislation that affords consumers the right of choice.”142 |
| E‐cigarette Trade Associations | |
| Primary Groups | |
| American Vaping Association (AVA) | An industry‐funded consumer e‐cigarette advocacy group166 founded in 2013 and located in New Jersey.167 Its president, Greg Conley, is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute and a member of CASAA. The AVA opposed efforts to include e‐cigarettes in smokefree laws in California, New York, and Minnesota, and while it did not exist at the time that the cities in our analysis were debating policy, Conley did oppose these local efforts.47, 168 |
| Electronic Cigarette Industry Group (ECIG) | An organization composed of consumers, manufacturers, importers, and distributors of e‐cigarettes that “supports strengthening regulations to keep e‐cigarettes out of the hands of children.”169 |
| National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) | A national trade organization that was established to “enhance the common business interests of all tobacco retailers.” In 2006, NATO and the Heartland Institute ran a campaign to “change public opinion about tobacco” by organizing to prevent restrictions on public smoking.170 NATO's executive director worked closely with the Tobacco Institute (TI) in the 1980s and 1990s.132 In 2013 and 2014, NATO provided written testimony to the Los Angeles City Council and the New York State Legislature opposing restrictions on e‐cigarette sales and public usage. It framed arguments against e‐cigarette restrictions on “no health risks” and “wait for FDA.”47, 125 |
| Smoke‐Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA) | A membership‐based industry trade organization composed of e‐cigarette distributors, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. SFATA membership included a monthly newsletter, a daily newsfeed, the opportunity to serve on SFATA committees, and exclusive members‐only content. Two of its board members previously worked with the TI and PM. SFATA supports policies that restrict sales to youth and launched its Age to Vape program in 2015 to “require retailers to display signs indicating they do not sell vapor products to minors and to check customer ID before making a sale.”171 SFATA used cigarette company arguments to oppose restrictions, including “individual freedom, personal liberties, choice,” “government intrusion,” “discriminatory,” “economic,” “no health risks,” and “wait for FDA.”37, 40, 172, 173 |
| Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA) | An international nonprofit e‐cigarette trade association dedicated to a “sensible and responsible” e‐cigarette market. Formed in 2008 as Electronic Cigarette Association (became TVECA in 2011), TVECA began opposing state proposals to prohibit sales of e‐cigarettes not approved by the FDA.143 In 2012, it criticized SFATA and V2 Cigs (an e‐cigarette company) for touting that e‐cigarettes were smoking cessation devices.174 |
| Secondary Groups | |
| American E‐Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA) | An e‐cigarette manufacturers trade association dedicated to “creating responsible and sustainable standards for the safe manufacturing of ‘e‐liquids’ used in e‐cigarettes.”175 Konstantinos Farsalinos is AEMSA's medical consultant. Farsalinos's research was funded by e‐cigarette companies, and he was an external reviewer for 2 Lorillard 2014 studies that provided favorable results for the e‐cigarette business.176 In 2014, AEMSA participated in the Tobacco Merchants Association's 99th Annual Meeting and Conference with 2 other e‐cigarette trade associations, 2 large e‐cigarette companies, 2 major cigarette companies, and 2 industry‐funded think tanks.177 |
| California Distributors Association (CDA) | An organization originally formed as the California Association of Tobacco and Candy Distributors, the CDA has long opposed tobacco legislation in California.178 In 2010, the CDA reported lobbying on e‐cigarette legislation at the state level in California.31 |
| Independent E‐cigarette Companies | |
| Logic Technology Development | The second largest independent e‐cigarette company (NJOY being the largest) founded in Livingston, New Jersey, in 2010. Its president was a former PM executive.179 Logic Technology Development opposed efforts in New York City, New York State, and Los Angeles to restrict the usage of e‐cigarettes in 2013 and 2014.180 It framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on cigarette company arguments, including “individual freedom, personal liberty, choice,” “government intrusion,” “no health risks,” and “wait for FDA.”47 |
| NJOY | The largest independent e‐cigarette company on the US market with a mission to “obsolete cigarettes.”181 In 2009, NJOY hired the scientific consulting firm Exponent (formerly Failure Analysis Associates), a company that began producing paid research questioning the health effects of secondhand smoke exposure for cigarette companies as early as 1986.182, 183, 184 Three members of NJOY's executive leadership were previously employed with PM.185, 186 NJOY was paid to become a member of ALEC in June 2013187 and opposed New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles public usage ordinances in 2013 and 2014 on the grounds that restrictions deter smokers from switching to e‐cigarettes. One of its members was a lobbyist for UST in Illinois.188 It framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on cigarette company arguments “no health risks” and “wait for the FDA.”47, 54, 189 |
| V2 Cigs | An e‐cigarette company of VMR Products, founded in 2009. NATO and SFATA are partners. One person on its executive management team was formerly employed with RJR for 15 years.190 Its founder sits on the board of SFATA and has held the roles of president and treasurer of the board.191 |
| Cigarette Companies | |
| Altria/Philip Morris (PM) | A cigarette company with a long history, PM developed e‐cigarette company MarkTen, which entered the US market in August 2013.192 In 2015, PM promoted lengthy health warning labels193 that were ironically much stricter than the warnings required for its own conventional cigarettes. Small e‐cigarette companies complained that these requirements would benefit larger companies. In 2003, PM changed the name of its parent company to Altria to improve its corporate image. We identify Altria as PM to unmask the cigarette company's attempts to hide behind a more “neutral corporate name.”194 PM framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on “reduced harm” and “wait for FDA” arguments.123, 195 PM attended the GTNF in 2014. |
| Lorillard (blu eCigs) | A cigarette company that in 2012 acquired blu eCigs, an e‐cigarette company created in 2009. As of March 2015, blu eCigs controlled 50% of the retail market share.196 It framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on “individual freedom, personal liberties, choice,” “unnecessary government regulation,” “discriminatory,” “no health risks,” “unreasonable,” and “wait for the FDA.”41, 47, 122, 144 |
| RAI Services Company/R.J. Reynolds (RJR) | A cigarette company that entered the US e‐cigarette market in July 2013 with its Vuse E‐Cigarettes,197 RJR petitioned the FDA to ban the production and distribution of second and third generation e‐cigarettes (vape pens and advanced personal vaporizers, respectively). As of August 2015 RJR only produced first generation “cigalike” e‐cigarettes and would thus escape such regulation.198 RJR attended the GTNF in 2014. |
| Industry‐Funded Think Tanks | |
| Primary Groups | |
| American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) | An organization founded in 1978, ACSH claims to be a “consumer health education and advocacy organization” that disseminates its “research” to the public, media, and policymakers. Industry‐funded ACSH frequently defends cigarette companies from smokefree science produced by government and academia. ACSH received funding from PM and RJR as late as 2013.108 It began opposing federal government regulation of e‐cigarettes in 2010.199 Its former assistant executive director, Jeff Stier, was employed with NCPPR as of May 2016. ACSH opposed New York City and Los Angeles public usage laws in 2013 and 2014 and framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on cigarette company arguments, including “government intrusion” and “no health risks.”47, 113 |
| Heartland Institute | An organization founded in 1984 whose mission is to “discover, develop, and promote free‐market solutions to social and economic problems.”200 Between 1991 and 2001, PM provided $400,000 to the Heartland Institute in exchange for its opposition to tobacco control measures.69, 201, 202, 203, 204 One of the Heartland Institute's former board members (Roy Marden) simultaneously served as manager of industry affairs at PM in the 2000s.205 The Heartland Institute continues to deny the science on secondhand smoke as a health hazard. In 2014,145 the Heartland Institute began advocating for smokers to switch to less harmful e‐cigarettes. In 2014, Greg Conley of AVA and CASAA and Jeff Stier, a representative for the NCPPR, began working with the Heartland Institute.206 Representatives of the Heartland Institute framed opposition on cigarette company arguments, including “individual freedom, personal liberties, choice,” “no health risks,” and “unreasonable.”31, 117, 118, 119, 207, 208, 209 |
| National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) | A Tea Party–related communication and research foundation135 advocating for a “strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems.”210 PM financed at least $165,000 for its activities between 1991 and 2001.135 In December 2013, NCPPR began opposing e‐cigarette sales, usage, and taxation legislation. One of its members was formerly employed with ACSH and, as of April 2015, serves as a policy advisor for the Heartland Institute. NCPPR framed opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions on cigarette company arguments, including “individual freedom, personal liberties, choice,” “no health risks,” and “unreasonable.”31, 117, 118, 119, 207, 208, 209 It attended the 2014 GTNF with CASAA's Carl V. Phillips, SFATA's Phil Daman and Ron Tully, and 6 major tobacco companies. |
| Secondary Groups | |
| American Enterprise Institute (AEI) | The longest‐standing industry‐funded think tank in this analysis, AEI was established in 1943 as an organization dedicated to an unrestricted free market. In 1980, the cigarette companies paid AEI to conduct a cost‐benefit analysis of smoking restrictions to counter the social cost argument developed by health advocates.211 Between 1991 and 2001 PM funded its activities.30 One of its members sat on the advisory board of CASAA and presented at the 2015 ALEC annual meeting on how e‐cigarette users inhale a combination of water vapor and nicotine. |
| American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) | An industry‐funded organization that works to advance “limited government, free markets and federalism at the state level”212 by pushing model legislation on a wide variety of issues. ALEC's funding sources are primarily (98%) from corporations and corporate foundations.213 Since 1978, ALEC has supported pro‐cigarette positions, including opposing FDA regulation of tobacco, promoting industry‐sponsored youth smoking prevention programs, and adopting PM's proactive efforts to pass preemption and accommodation legislation as model legislation.214 Members and funders include Lorillard, PM, RJR, the Smokeless Tobacco Council, and the Cigar Association of America. In June 2013, NJOY joined ALEC's Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development and Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Forces187; the following year, at ALEC's 2014 Spring Task Force Summit and 2014 States and Nation Policy Summit, ALEC presented on “Regulating Electronic Cigarettes: Jeffersonian Style”215 and “Vapor Usage Restrictions.”216 |
| Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) | An organization founded in 1985 by Grover Norquist, ATR “opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle.” ATR has historic ties to the cigarette companies and was funded by PM in 1999 ($435,000) and 2000 ($100,000)217 in exchange for its opposition to state cigarette taxes.132 Between 1991 and 2001, ATR received $1,385,000 from PM in exchange for press releases, letters to Congress, media outreach, and position papers. It opposed Duluth's public usage ordinance, cited a study funded by CASAA to argue against treating e‐cigarettes as tobacco products, and framed opposition on the cigarette company arguments, including “government intrusion” and “no health risks.” |
| R Street Institute | An industry‐funded organization that promotes free markets and limited and effective government with offices in DC, Florida, Texas, California, Alabama, and Ohio. The R Street Institute is an associated member of SPN, which pushes model legislation from ALEC.218 One of its members is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. Prior to 2012, the R Street Institute was the Heartland Institute's DC branch funded by insurance companies but became independent after the Heartland Institute in Chicago compared terrorists to proponents of climate change.208 The R Street Institute opposed Duluth's 3 ordinances for e‐cigarettes in September 2013118 and framed opposition on the cigarette company argument “no health risks.” |
| State Policy Network (SPN) | An industry‐funded think tank network that promotes limited government and market‐friendly public policies at the state and local level. In September 2013, SPN's annual meeting was funded by NJOY, PM, RJR, ALEC, ATR, and the R Street Institute.219 In 2010, PM and RJR contributed $105,000; major cigarette companies have funded SPN since the early 1990s in exchange for opposition to smokefree laws and cigarette taxes.220 |
| Business Organizations | |
| California Restaurant Association (CRA) | A California‐based organization that advocates for local, state, and national policy issues on behalf of restaurateurs to create a business‐friendly environment in California. CRA opposed Los Angeles e‐cigarette public usage ordinance in March 2014 on the grounds that there was not enough scientific evidence to justify a “ban” on using e‐cigarettes. In 1992, the CRA opposed the Los Angeles effort to restrict smoking in restaurants,221 while also receiving money from PM ($2,000)222 and the TI ($250) to fund its activities. Historically, the CRA had opposed smoking restrictions at the local level223 but in 1993 began to support the proposed statewide smokefree legislation AB13, which passed in 1994.224 It framed arguments on “no health risks” and “wait for the FDA.” |
| Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce | A longtime cigarette companies' third‐party ally225 that opposed the e‐cigarette public usage ordinance in Los Angeles. RJR was a gold member,226 which for a $5,000 annual membership fee provided the cigarette company with “direct access to Chamber public policy counsel.”109 The chamber attempted to exempt bars and nightclubs from the proposed smokefree law in Los Angeles in 2014 and framed arguments against e‐cigarette restrictions on the cigarette company argument “individual liberties, personal freedoms, choice.”227 |
| National Association of Convenience Stores | A longtime cigarette company third party that opposes tobacco control measures. Statewide associations, which are organized by the national association, opposed e‐cigarette sales and usage restrictions in New York.228 |
| New York City Hospitality Alliance | A broad‐based membership association founded in 2012 to represent the interests of restaurants, bars, lounges, destination hotels, and major industry suppliers.229 The alliance opposed New York City public usage law in 2013 and argued for exemptions in restaurants and bars.47 |
| Front Groups | |
| Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association (ESRTA) | A cigarette company third party created in 1987 in New York City to promote the cigarette companies’ accommodation program.100 Throughout the years ESRTA fought against local smoking restrictions, pushed preemption, promoted erroneous economic impact studies, and filed a lawsuit against New York State to prevent implementation of its law in 1995. The TI contributed at least $400,000 for the group's assistance in fighting any restrictions on smoking.230, 231 It has also been known as the United Restaurant, Hotel and Tavern Association and the New York Tavern and Restaurant Association. In 2014, ESRTA testified in opposition to e‐cigarette restrictions in New York State,103 citing adverse “economic” impact on bars and restaurants, and argued for policymakers to “wait for FDA” regulation of e‐cigarettes. |
| New Yorkers for Smarter Smoking Alternatives (NYSSA) | An e‐cigarette company front group founded in 2013 by David Schwartz,232 lobbyist for Gotham Government Relations & Communications, which represents Logic Technology Development. NYSSA alleges to be a coalition composed of local retailers, wholesalers and distributors, and members of the public to fight against local and state attempts to restrict sales and public usage of e‐cigarettes.233 It framed arguments against e‐cigarette restrictions on cigarette company arguments, including “unnecessary government regulation,” “irrational/extreme policy,” and “no health risks.”234 |
Within some of the categories we distinguish between “primary” and “secondary” groups; “primary” indicates that the organizations were active in at least 3 of the 8 jurisdictions we examined.