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

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).