Anne Landman's Collection
State Activities Policy Committee 830107 Meeting
Abstract
[From Page 50]: RE: Libertarians
MOBILIZING KNOWN ALLIES
Outside of the TAN organization there are a number of individuals who are sympathetic to our cause. Among them are the Libertarian Party, which is generally opposed to all taxes, but expecially to excise taxes; bar owners, who will suffer revenue losses tied to decreased purchase of cigarettes in vending machines; and may include friends in ethnic communities, who will bear an unfair burden of taxation with increased excise taxes...Assuming the cooperation of leadership in the Libertarian Party, we can stimulate at least a modest letter writing program among Libertarian activists throughout the state. We recommend some financial assistance directly to the Party, to help offset the cost of mailings to their members requesting action on the legislation in question. It would also be wise to employ a key Libertarian leader as a consultant to this effort..."
Generally speaking, Libertarian activists are considered to be out of the mainstream of political activity. Therefore, we would encourage them to write as consumer/taxpayers, not as political ideologues."
[From Page 100]:
"Smokers are generally identified as being usually -- though not exclusively -- of lesser education, and occupying a position of lesser affluence on the social ladder. There are special interest groups that possess similar demographic elements -- or are concerned with these elements -- which may be receptive to endorsing a position benefiting their constituencies. Some examples of such groups: the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."
Fields
- Named Organization
- American Cancer Society
- Assembly Tax Comm
- Bakersfield Californian
- Californians Against Regulatory Exc
- Congressional Budget Office
- Dobbs + Nielsen
- House Ways + Means Comm
- Leddy Production
- Natl Tobacco Council
- Office of Management + Budget
- Political Action Comm
- Senate Finance Comm
- Spencer Roberts
- State Activities Division
- Tan Advisory Comm
- Tan, Tobacco Action Network
- Tarrance + Associates
- TI, Tobacco Inst
- Treas, Dept of the Treasury
- Ufac
- Ustl, U.S.Testing Labs
- US Testing Lab
- Aln Productions
- Named Person
- Bankhead, J.
- Grush, T.
- Harper, S.
- Larson, H.
- Leddy, P.
- Mcguire
- Mettler, K.
- Morris, R.
- Niggemeyer, A.
- Revelle, D.
- Rupp
- Schaenman
- Sherman, N.
- Spears
- Spencer, S.
- Sutherland, P.
- Zierer, B.
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Type
- REPT, OTHER REPORT
- BUDG, BUDGET/BUDGET REVIEW
Document Images
STATE
ACTIVITIES
POLICY
COMMITTEE
STATE ACTIVITIES POLICY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Cs
I. ISSUE MANAGEMENT
I
1. Assessment by Lobbyists (See Tab VII)
2. Summary Report on Political Contributions (win./loss
Record) (See Tab VIII)
3. State Government Trends (See-Tab IX)
A. Excise Tax Issue
1. -1983 Legislative Outlook (See Tab I)
2. Basic Tax Lobbying Plan (See Tab II)
3. Support Programs
a. Communications (See Tab III)
b. Research (See Tab IV)
B. Self-Extinguishing Cigarette Issue
1. 1983 Legislative Outlook (See Tab I)
2. Report of Three Regional Lobbyists Meetings and
Legislative Strategy (See Tab V)
3. Communications Support
C. Public Smoking and other Issues
1. 1983 Legislative Outlook (See Tab I)
2. Ballot Measures
a. , Kera County (CA) (See- 14b VI),
b. Los Alamos (NM)
II. 1982 Elections
III. TAN in the Southeastern States (See Tab X)
IV. Other Business
1983 LEGISLATIVE OUTLOOK
Report from State Legislative Counsel
November 30, 1982
~~
r
REGION I (Northeast)
(L-likely; E=even; NL-not likely)
~
u
O
O
O x.
~ eo
'J
U eA
O ~-
O
tl O 'O O 7 C O d co ~
~+-+ O a+ u O r+ O O O N O ~s u -- .. O
r
-- Cd Q ~ tl C C .C C~ ~3
?C U E' U }+ ;J
C .+ ... C ++ a - .. cC 0,4 t.9 0 G U U
wa N .~~ e9 r-/ N ./ CS ~ tff ^4 4 f+ J
`~
U N N ^
tl
n
~
U
Y.-I
O ed tl N
dG m G.f
E ea tl N
Y N ~-4
r+ CO Q V1
Y N cC F
e'7 U N
Y N U ~
~ O N
x n ~d ~
r* ~ t
.,Y, N t
.i `
u u O
STATES cn ~ in. c cn v
Connecticut yes NL no NL yes L yes~ NL no no l
Delaware no NL no NL yes NL yes NL no no +
Indiana yes H no NL no NL yes E yes ' E yes I L mz=n
=
rest:
c
Maine - yes E no NL no NL. yes i E no ---
Maiyland no M'L no NL yes NL no ( E no ~ no
Lassac.lsusetts yes E yes E yes E yes E no no f
N
1
ri
;d E NL NL L L L
.
aavs
re
e yes yes yes yes yes no
YesJ Jersey yes NL no NL no NL no `?L no no ~
New York yes NL yes NL yes L yes ' E yes i EE no
I I ~'sc._=
Ohio no NL yes E no NL no VL no no (
Per^.sv'_rani.a yes T yes NL yes HL ves i? 2o I ,o ~ -0~1 =
I pc:.er
xaoCe Island yes M NL yes NL yes E ao L ti". 'no + ao ~ 5`` "~
I ' c ==
Yez=t yes 'c no NL no ~ YL ; no \L :0 + .'1Q
- -
c T 7 . I ; ~ I I
i0 yes 7 VL 7 nc iLYL 8 yes ?'tL yes _' L ,0 3/es yes
3 no 6_ 5 yes Z c 5 no Z L ZS nc L
TQT L:.S - L
_4
m_1.iks1y;_ fl=even,._ NL-no t I:ke1y)
REGION 71 (Southeast)
~. -
o
~ VI
c
Q~
~
r .14
C Q ..
.~
I .
R
] 67 C
C x.,r
.. ++
CO 6 O
: m OA a.+
C Q
C
V u O
rd u1 C vt
U Q~+
U
..y N
.SL ./. M C
Q7 Vf n.f. N
Gr4 'd Q
O Vf ~ N
«r
4i ^"4
~ VE
C S
~ '11
'J ~
C N
x V1 11
7J
.+ V Q
Y V1 :J U :
~`, ~
O r-0 .X N 5 W Y V1 'f C~ X N CO U Y m = O N
'~ r1 r.G ..~ 0 L tr C
rATES =~
3 ^r~ Q
J G Q U
S
Cf '^~ '4'
2 C m~
G!~ r "~ C
-I C .~f C
t~ -+
~. L f+
O C C
.. C Cl
tfl .~ . C
~~~
VS . ~ ~ .
Labama yes I NL no II I yes H yesl NL no ~ oge-tc~
rkansas no NL no ` no yes~ E no I no ~
.C. . ~
lorida yes NL no no ~ yesl NL no I no
eorgia yes NL no no no I no I no , Leg. tc
i
, ` .;_
duce
=or non
entucky (no essi n inI 1983
! i
.ouisiana yes ML no
1 -° *
~ yes
I NL no
~ no
~ ^-c ;`
~
. G
~~~
fississipp' yes NL no no yes~ E l no I no ~ 3il=~
i. Carolin
yes
E
n
c ` no ' yes I L yes ~ E yes L E eacr `
I I e rr c=
~ I n° no
I
i. Carclin no no zo no
I ,
~
`
n0
no
I
Cennessee yes NL no I nQ no
rexas yes ~ VL no ~ no I yes I VL no I no
_..
.
_
t
l
~ no no ,
virginia no nc no ~ yes
VL
no 70 Ls _
ro;a; a
V,_ yes NL o no yes NL cc_
_ --
I 7 T
es 9 N L, 1 - no _? no : yes ; V 2I=s
/ no
I
' +
~3 y
Ro 1 E I ~3 10 _0
flo .
y
-
1
I '_5 '
t ' !
Lvuu..
REGION III (Midwest)
+TiTcely;-E=even; NL=not likely)
4. x :` 6~
c A-
~
C
N C
m O C
O
~ Cd _^.
C O c" ~J U G
A-1
O ~
O
:~ :d
C»r O .+ O .+..a O G O
O '~ O
C ?~.r
~+ O U O
a+
C-0 4 0
C O GO u
C A O
' C1 N F+
X a O
= R7 u a7
+-~ n
= tl On
^+~
-' tl A
. = ..
... tl ., O
r sr U
C r-r r cC »+ ~ '+ Op O.+ ^ Od O C U U U
..~ N
~6 .~ r1 W
m N .-I N
Ga '0 A
m N ~ N
a
W ^4 GS
O N S+ 41
G' f+ ^' Q
tl N L. O
C7 A N n r
O ZA Y N eA
E Y ut .i CO -X w e0 U Y N n r+ eA
TATES E m ~q a a 0 .+ a
: c a m
J
cn -.' =
-~ a ~ C
Q ^' A
_4 _
, _
Sincis yes E yes E yes E yes ! NL yes I E no I
Twa yes E yes E yes E yes E no no
msas ao no no yes E no no ~
49, on aLl
~e~
ichigan yes E yes E yes NL no yes NL no
innesot2
no .
no ~
no
E
yes
E
no ~
+
~. .;
'
bition
fissol=i yes no no yes E no no tses-eve-
leorask no no no yes YIL yes YL yes ~ E
!7orr-h Dakota yes E no no no ~ no no ~
Okla:ac¢'aa n o no na no no no ~
Sout:l Ba<c _a .o ~ no . no no I no ' no ~
~ J ) a..as __
/iscc no r.o v
es ~ L
k : c lI ^o L .cs_ V_
-
ac_s-
~ ~ .e
C ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I
, 5 yes 3 er S yes 3 e 4 ves : wer ves -:0 I 3:o ~Z 3^c i e re :
{5 ::o L ~i.~
8 ao
7 no L VZ
even _`+L
i %~s _ e r
~n _ Ves ~
TOT 1 LS ((( ` I I
C
0
.
REGION IV (Western)
(L=Ii'_<ely; E=even; YL-not Ii'.<eIy)
c
a
-
a C
cs "
C `
o
_ ~
m O' o
~ O 'C C C . ~
C~
C C ~_;
C.a C «- C
+~ C 08 u C ++ ~.+ C a+ 0 C C N C ~ ~ - _- C
CA R O - - m x a - O :+ 1f - U r}+ - C7 r- C ~;J
C.-r .r t0 +i .r ++ CA 67 .r ^ e3 0 U U
A N r/ R ~ N ~ 4 ~ N
W+4
m N
R F+
Q N
CJ
1
O e4
N
Y
= r.7
X N
.1 C~
X N
el U
Y N ~ C
~n
~ r+ :-1 .y vf
STATES em
y..: a
~I C. am
47 ..: -»a
-3 L a~m
C!] .3
-. C.
U~-~
G G
'^ G
G!] ~
~ G
~ a a j~ yes ML no no no I n0 n0 I
Indian
Arizona yes NL no ~ no yes L no no ~ sales on
I I OCArrJ~'
rai; ozaia yes ilL' yes E yes E yes L no no ~
Colorado yes biL no yes NL yes I E no no (
, I ~..a.x on
(~a~- yes E no ' no yes NL yes ( NL yes NL ~Di 5~
Idaho yes INL ao no yes I NIL yes NL no !
k NIL no I ~ es E no I ao
;{
na yes no y I
Nevada no I no no I yes L YL no I no I --r
New Mexico yes E no no yes ' E na ' no ~ ---
~~ no no yes E yes NL no ~ no I
Utah no I no ~ no I no I no I :1 c }
Svas:nizg-.= yes f E no yes ~ YL yes ( VL _o ~ :o ~
Ny=ing yes vL no y
i no I yes ` NL
I no I ~.^_o I ;---
i
F T~ 4~
I L
10 y 7 VL ' Z no 1 E ° no 2'IL 1: y '~L : co 2 VL I' 2 no 'IL
~3no 3_ Ilyes 4y 2 E L210 _E 2 L I?! {_ye
s
~
_
.~.ir
J I I
t
TAX LOBBYING PLAN
FEDERAL
STATE
`
DRAFT
DRAFT
LOBBYING PLAN:
THE FEDERAL CIGARETTE EXCISE TAX
I. RATIONALE
A. The Necessary Assumption
There is not the slightest assurance that the 1982
doubling of the federal excise tax provides any security
against additional increases in the immediate future.
To the contrary, given the combination of grave federal
fiscal problems, public attitude which puts cigarette
tax increases high on the list of those which are least
objectionable, and realization by the anti-smoking coalition
that tax increases are one of their most potent weapons,
the only assumption under which the industry should
proceed is that there will be another attempt to increase
the excise tax in 1983 and assuredly by 1984, in the
Congress.
B. Elements of Plan
This lobbying program is divided into its two logical
components:
Page 2
1. Intelligence, and
a. Action.
II. THE INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
A. Basic Requirements
k
1. Commitment to System is required throughout, in
the sense that a successful federal lobbying program
must be built upon a systematic approach to intel-
ligence (and, subsequently, to lobbying) by which
continuing intelligence assignments are made,
specific individuals are responsible for gathering
and contributing intelligence from their assigned
sources, and assessments are made regularly by
combining all sources, as a means of managing the
style and breadth of resulting programs.
2. A commitment to Permanency is required: recognition
that the problem is a permanent one into the fore-
seeable future, that the system and structure for
dealing with it are permanent rather than ad hoc,
and that assignments of responsibility and follow-
~
