Corrupted 120+ member tobacco professors network, part 29: embarrassing GSA-letters

Overview of previous posts here

Content of the GSA-letters

John F. Militello

John F. Militello sent his letter July 7, 1986. He wrote

That's not exactly the truth: February 25, 1986 James Savarese sent this letter to the Tobacco Institute during the ongoing Chase op-ed campaign

Millitello's GSA letter was part of an organized campaign. James Savarese wrote a handy overview of theactivities each network economist was involved with until 1986 Militello's activities were listed as follows:

Clearly, the GSA letter was not an effort of private citizen.

Arthur C. Mead

Arthur C. Mead's letter is somewhat bizarre

This is embarrassing 

J.J. Boddewyn

J.J. Boddewyn' text is what one would expect to read from a free market professor: freedom, freedom, freedom

Boddewyn's last paragraph on enforcement is one-sided: if there would be something like a right to smoke at the work floor, this would imply the need of new regulation to enforce this right. . .

Morgan Reynolds

In 1979 the US Surgeon General concluded ETS is harmful. Reynolds still denied this:

Like all the network economists, Reynolds used one sided arguments like

Reynolds (and all the other economists) ignored facts like buildings will have to be painted less, there will be less economic loss from smoking related illnesses etc. Telling a one sided tale is not typical of economists, the standard description of whom is that there is no such thing as a one handed economist, because they always say on the one hand and on the other.

Reynolds again:

Following Reynolds logic, employers would not have a problem to pay that extra amount of money as they now could decrease the salary of non-smokers. After all, their workings conditions improved, meaning -following his logic- after a ban they suddenly are being overpaid...

Cecil Bohanon

Cecil Bohanon et al. use a weird analogy

Five people signed this crap. 

Allen Dalton

Allen Dalton clearly has a full understanding of the word 'addiction', as his letter proves

(do read his entire letter, it is bewildering)

1.1.1.7     Denying health Risks

Morgan Reynolds was not the only one of the economists to deny the health risks of ETS. S. Charles Maurice et al wrote:

The corrupted 120+ member tobacco economists network. Part 23 of many

Overview of previous posts here

Economic associations meetings

Some of the recruited economists had formal bonds with the Western Economic Association (Gary M. Anderson, Dwight R. Lee, Richard L. Stroup, Thomas Borcherding)

At least five network economists at that point had formal bonds with the Southern Economic Association. Anno 2015, 3 of the 8 officers of the association were members of the Social Cost Consultants network (Peter Boettke, Fred McChesney & Jeffrey Clark). Back in 1985, Robert D. Tollison, ringleader of the economist network, was elected president of the Southern Economic Association. Consultant James Savarese saw the lobbying-potential, and wrote this letter 

Savarese's letters seem to imply the tobacco industry wrote material subsequently presented by the economists as their original work.

Savarese's plan worked out, and the economists presented their anti-tax (read: pro-tobacco) message during several conferences of economic associations They all knew their mission.

It is impossible to claim the economists attending these conferences, 'understanding their mission', and submitting their papers to the Tobacco Institute ‘for review in advance’ were useful idiots. They were aware their mission was manipulating the conference attendees.

In 1984, economists received $2,000 for presenting a paper, the chairman and members of the panel got $1,000. In 1991, the economists earned $5.000 per presentation

The tobacco economists network - or how the Tobacco Institute recruited over 100 American economics professors. Part 15 of many

Overview of previous posts here

Savarese gets audited

The network was led by consultant James M. Savarese and economist Robert D. Tollison.

In 1997 James Savarese wrote he was under a new financial arrangement with the Tobacco Institute. 

The new financial agreement Savarese mentioned arose as result of the Tobacco Institute’s dissatisfaction with the way Savarese wrote his invoices (and maybe other reasons). Savarese nearly always mentioned the economists' names, but even in his correspondence with the Tobacco Institute he withheld two names (no idea why). As proof we are dealing with professionals, the Tobacco Institute in 1987 audited its subcontractor, leading to new arrangements with James Savarese.

The document is interesting because it shows the industry did not search for the economists, this job was left to Savarese. But:

The audit did generate some unfriendly messages within the Tobacco Institute and whatever sparked the dismay, the industry decided it would evaluate the economists themselves. 

Hurst Marshall wrote a letter to all regional VP's asking to fill a questionnaire

The impetus for these unfriendly communications is unclear but a few months earlier Savarese had been ordered to re-contact all the economists he listed

As another result of the audit, the Tobacco Institute seems to have made its own evaluation of the economists

[etc]

Tobacco employee Pete Sparber contacted 40 economists and 3 economists received less favorable reviews

Nevertheless, all three economists above stayed in the network for the next few years and still wrote op-eds (see another blogpost), but perhaps did not appear at any more hearings. The document does not mention why they wanted to replace Cecil Bohanon, but it shows the Tobacco Institute preferred James A. Papke who delivered very effective testimony in 1986

The same document finally solves the mystery why there were almost no women in the network 

Thomas Borcherding also received a poor review 

Gary M. Anderson indeed would enter the network and he had already worked as assistant for Robert Tollison). Nevertheless. Borcherding does not seemed to have been kicked out but in the future would only be asked to write, not to deliver testimony.

The industry in the beginning did not like the newly recruited Gary M. Anderson even though he was a member of the core group. Interestingly in this memorandum Tollison/ Savarese are referred to as his "superiors"

Richard K. Vedder never was asked to testify. Lobbyist Bill Trisler explains

Secret Tobacco economists network, Part 13 : political hearings and questionable ethics

Overview of previous posts here

Evaluating the witnesses

The industry evaluated the performance of the economists for effectiveness. The Tobacco Institute wanted to know if it would be good to use them again for future hearings, so it sent out questionnaires to its field agents to answer questions like

The same document also talks about other active programs, like Economic Impact studies produced by the Tobacco Institute (studies written to claim taxing the tobacco industry would have a negative impact), the scientific witness program and the helping youth decide program.

The August 1986 Field staff evaluation ofresources describes how the regional tobacco vice-presidents (RVP) thought the economists performed at the testimonies (emphasis added)

A memo from Susan Stuntz describes how the field lobbyists complained that the recruited economists were too conservative, making it difficult reaching liberal legislators. Stuntz dismissed this criticism

Of course, the economist were paid for their testimony

Still, being a good witness did not mean the economists were sure they would be asked for other output. This probably explains why the Savarese "tax hearing readiness" lists do not match with the activities of all economists in the network: economist not suited for testimony still benefitted the industry, as these economists were still useful when writing op-eds (and vice versa).