Abstract
This 1988 Tobacco Institute political strategy document describes how the tobacco industry operates politically in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. "Proactive legislation" refers to legislation the tobacco industry drafts and pushed through states in order to stop public health tobacco control activity at the local level.
In Colorado, the tobacco industry noted that widespread sentiment existed for a statewide smoking law, and that even the Colorado Restaurant Association favored such legislation. To head this off, the industry planned to introduce weak measure ("with moderate provisions") that would "institutionalize certain smokers' rights and dramatically weaken one of the strongest statewide GASP organizations in the country."
The current (2003) governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, is identified as a "friendly member of the House Local Government Committee (consistently favorable to tobacco interests) who could "offer a substitute bill with desireable provisions with a good chance of having it adopted and passed out of committee..."
The writer of the memo states,
"Publicly, tobacco industry advocates should express the position that NO smoking restriction law is desireable. If pressed, they should acknowledge that uniform regulation throughout the state is preferable to the state of confusion which now exists. Privately, our lobbyists would of course encourage legislators' support of the substitute bill."
Fields
- Quotes
There is no question that a statewide "Clean Indoor Air Act" with moderate provisions is an alternative much more desireable than the status quo in Colorado. Enactment of such a statute should be vigorously pursued not only for the uniformity it would provide, but also because it could institutionalize certain smokers' rights and dramatically weaken one of the strongest statewide GASP organizations in the country.
In Colorado's 1989 legislative session, a smoking restriction bill will certainly be introduced, and probably by a House member. Referral of the bill to House Local Government Committee (consistently favorable to tobacco interests) is likely, assuming Speaker Bev Bledsoe is reelected. A friendly member of this committee (identified well in advance -- Rep. Bill Owens in a good possibility) could offer a substitute bill with desireable provisions withe a good chance of having it adopted and passed out of committee.
...Publicly, tobacco industry advocates should express the position that NO smoking restrictions law is desireable. If pressed, they should acknowledge that uniform regulation throughout the state is preferable to the state of confusion which now exists. Privately, our lobbyists would of course encourage legislators' support for our substitute bill.
Extremely strong opposition to the substitute must be anticipated from the medical community, volunteer health groups and GASP...This resistance, however, can be offset by an extremely effective cadre of tobacco industry lobbyists...
MISSOURI
The Tobacco Institute is fortunate in Missouri to have very influential legislative council who, among other accomplishments, has engineered the defeat of smoking restriction legislation annually since 1975...
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Author
- Boman, Stanley M. (TI VP Regional Director (MO), Smokeless Tobacco Counsel)
- Recipient
- Woodson, Walter N. (TI State Activities VP 1992)
RegionUnited States
Colorado
Kansas
Missouri
New Mexico
Texas
Wyoming
Named OrganizationHouse Local Government Committee
Colorado Restaurant Association
Colorado Assn for Commerce and Industry
Municipal League
Association of Counties
Tobacco Institute (Industry Trade Association)The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue).
ACVA Atlantic (Predecessor of Healthy Buildings International, a PM front g)
House of Representatives
LitigationOklahoma Ag
Named PersonBledsoe, B.
Owens, Bill (Governor of Colorado c. 1998)Former CO House Representative
Mitchell, B.
TypeMEMO
Subjectlegislation
political interference
industry activity
industry influence
industry strategy
Document Images
Page 1: TOB18915.26
To: Walter Woodson
FROM: Stan Boman
DATE: June 27, 1988
RE: _ Proactive_Legislation
This memo comes in response to your recent correspondence and our
conference call regarding proactive legislation in 1989. What follows
are narrative analyses of each state in Region VIII with respect to
proactive legislative possibilities. Please bear in mind that I have
not had the opportunity for in-depth discussions with legislative
counsel in each case, let. alone the leaders of allied groups and
coalitions which might be involved. As a result, these should be
considered preliminary recommendations based on my personal knowledge
and observations. Please give me a call if you have questions or
require additional information.
COLORADO
Approximately three-fourths of Coloradans reside in areas where county
or city smoking restriction ordinances are in effect. These local
laws range from virtual smoking bans, as in Aspen, to simple
restrictions in public buildings as in a number of communities. The
result of this hodge-podge of smoking control laws is confusion among
business owners, regular citizens, and perhaps worst of all, tourists.
Within the past year a noteable amount of sentiment favoring a
statewide, uniform smoking law could be observed. Even the "Boulder
Camera", a newspaper that regularly attacks the tobacco industry, has
observed in an editorial that a state law might be preferable to the
existing patchwork of local smoking restrictions. The Colorado
Restaurant Association is on record as favoring statewide uniformity
in the regulation of smoking, and representatives of other business
and industry groups have privately indicated similar feelings.
There is no question that a statewide "Clean Indoor Air Act" with
moderate provisions is an alternative much more desirable than the
status quo in Colorado. Enactment of such a statute should be
vigorously pursued not only for the uniformity it would provide; but
also because it could institutionalize certain smokers' rights and
dramatically weaken one of the strongest statewlde GASP organizations
in the country.
In Colorado's 1989 legislative session, a smoking restriction bill
will certainly be introduced, and probably by a House member.
Referral of the bill to House Local Government Committee (consistently
favorabZe to tobacco interests) is likely, assuming Speaker Bey
Bledsoe is reelected. A friendly member of this committee
CON~DENT~L
O~AHOMA TOBACCO L|TIGATION
Case No. CJ-96-1499 TIOK 0019819
Page 2: TOB18915.27
(identified well in advance -- Rep. Bill Owens is a good possibility)
could offer a substitute bill with desirable provisions with a good
chance of having it adopted and passed out of committee.
In this plan for proactive legislation it will essential that trade,
professional and business organizations be identified as the
substitute bill's primary supporters. The Colorado Restaurant
Association and the Colorado Association for Commerce and Industry are
obvious choices for this role. Publicly, tobacco industry advocates
should express the position that no smoking restriction law is
desirable. If pressed, they shou~[~ acknowledge that uniform
regulation throughout the state is preferable to the state of
confusion which now exists. Privately, our lobbyists would of course
encourage legislators' support of the substitute bill.
Extremely strong opposition to the substitute must be anticipated from
the medical community, volunteer health groups and GASP. Other
opposition, perhaps more taken in nature, will come from the Municipal
League and Association of Counties. This resistance, however, can be
offset by an extremely effective cadre of tobacco industry lobbyists.
Success in achieving this alternative in Colorado is by no means
certain, but quite possible.
KANSAS
The Kansas state legislature should not be considered a good arena in
which to pursue proactive tobacco-related legislation. Frankly put,
legislative counsel and TI allies are simply not strong enough in
Topeka to pursue an aggressive legislative agenda. Nevertheless, we
can begin laying the groundwork now for such efforts in the future.
Very early in 1989, we would like ACVA Atlantic to conduct air quality
studies in both the House and Senate chambers in the Kansas state
capitol. When results of the studies are completed, legislative
counsel Bill Mitchell can arrange a briefing session for members of
the House and Senate Public Health & Welfare Committees featuring a
presentation by ~ray Robertson or another ACVA representative. This
exercise should do much to sensitize key legislators to the IAQ issue
and dampen enthusiasm for more restrictive smoking restriction
legislation.
MISSOURI
The Tobacco Institute is fortunate in Missouri to have very
influential legislative council who, among other accomplishments, has
engineered the defeat of smoking restriction legislation annually
since 1975. During the 1986 legislative session, the Missouri Senate
approved (with counsel's tacit approval) a very moderate smoking
restriction bill which would have preempted any local government
entity from legislating on this subject. The bill was later rejected
by the House when its supporters sought more restrictive language.
This legislation was allowed to proceed as far as this because of
increasing activity and successes on the local level by antlsmoking
CON~DENT~L
O~AHOMA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIOK 0019820
Case No. CJ-96-1499
Page 3: TOB18915.28
activists. In 1988 smoking restriction bills were again introduced
but were denied progress because of proponents' position of "no
compromise". If, in 1989 or some other time in the future, an
opportunity~is presented to preempt all local smoking restriction
legislation in Missouri by allowing enactment of a moderate statewide
law, that opportunity should be seized upon.
Missouri legislative counsel is also very interested in pursuing
passage of smokers' rights legislation in the area of employment
non-discrimination. This may be possible in 1989 through introduction
of a bill by a sympathetic legislator or by amendment to another bill
with an accommodating title. Four committees in the House of
Representatives (Civil & Criminal Justice, Employment Security & Fair
Practice, Human Rights & Resources and Judiciary) and two in the
Senate (Judiciary and Labor & Industrial Relations) can be targeted
for this plan, depending upon committee appointments made after
elections. Counsel advises that such smokers' rights legislation
could be passed, but runs the risk of inaction if legislators view a
Judicial remedy as a more appropriate one in the case of
discrimination against smokers.
NEW MEXICO
Legislative counsel in New Mexico is interested in pursuing a plan for
smokers' rights legislation similar to that outlined for Missouri.
How vigorously thls is pursued will obvlously depend upon what
opportunities are presented and also upon what legislative threats
surface in the 1989 session.
OKLAHOMA
Memoranda from State Activities headquarters staff have suggested
Oklahoma as a good candidate for proactive legislation in the area of
ventilation standards. After consulting with legislative counsel, I
have decided to recommend against pursuing such a project in Oklahoma
during 1989.
The Oklahoma legislature enacted a rather weak smoking restriction law
in 1987 that preempts any similar legislation by local governments.
Counsel feels that a statute mandating ventilation standards would not
significantly improve the Industry's position in Oklahoma with respect
to smoking restrictions.
TEXAS
During the past two and one-half years Texas has been the site of
repeated successes for antismoklng activists seeking enactment of
local smoking restriction ordinances. The plan previously outlined
for Colorado should be considered in virtually exactly the same way
for Texas in 1989.
CONFIDENTIAL
OKLAHOMA TOBACCO LITIGATION
Case No. CJ-9~-14~9 TIOK 0019821
Page 4: TOB18915.29
t
WYOMING
Wyoming probably should not be considered as a primary target for
proactlve legislative efforts in 1989, because a major struggle
against raised cigarette taxes is anticipated. A possible exception
to this might come in the way of opportunities to amend smoking
restriction legislation so as to secure certain smokers' rights and
preempt local smoking control laws.
SB/im
CONFIDENTIAL
OKLAHOMA TOBACCO
LITIGATION
Case No. CJ-96-1499
TIOK 0019822
