Tobacco Documents Online

., C C I'l Ill,ll' :1IC)}:I~I~ U:BA. Itfj i'AFiK AVCNUC.NCW'YORK.N Y. 10017 SAEPARD P. POLLACH rp[S1O[NT May 10, 1983 To: Messrs. Ainsworth, Cherry, Dey, Pepples From: Shepard P. Pollack Subject: Memorandum to State Activities Policy Committee from the Tobacco Institute Executive Committee cc: S. D. Chilcote M. R. Haley S. S. Scott

~ ~ Memorandum to the State Activities Policy Committee from The Tobacco Institute Executive Committee 1) Is the Section's mission well defined in detail - and understood by all? Do we agree with the mission and is the Section organized to accomplish its mission? Mission Present statement is empty, nice words. Mission is to use all aspects of the political process, within legal limits, to defeat legislation at state/county/ city level that would be inimical to our interests. A second mission, only recently articulated, is to use state and local efforts to affect issues at the national level. 2) Are we receiving value for the $8.3 million being spent in this area? Don't think so. -We should initiate an evaluation of state activities budget to determine dollar costs in various cost centers. The work of each area of State Activities should be examined methodically and redefined as necessary. There are questions about - people in the organization and an overemphasis to date on TAN as a mass of numbers. State activities budget should be approved by SAPC prior to presenta- tion to T.I. Executive Committee. As is indicated below, we do not have sufficient budget details to make determination that cost centers sufficiently relate to program missions. For example, what is actual cost of TAN? Aggregate Budget $8.3 million Headquarters (DC) $7.1 million Field Offices $1.2 million Personnel Number Cost Headquarters 12 $682,000 Travel Headquarters $178,000 TAN Training & Communications $234,000 Support of Tobacco & Other Organizations $530,000 State Political Contributions $152,000 _.....,.. T .."I - J-:.... n.........I L-...J-.. . ._ . _P7. 7-....~ 1 .

3) Are the Washington and Field Staffs appropriate in number? Properly trained and compensated? o Probably inadequate in number and quality. Answer depends on staff evaluation and other factors. o Initiate a performance review of all state activities staff. o Federal and state activities should be unified, or at minimum, much more closely coordinated than has been possible in the past. Federal and state divisions are widely separated and not related - little cooperation or communication between the two. 4) Should TAN be continued as is, or in an altered form - or not at all? o TAN~should be a support system of volunteers to promote/ defend tobacco's political objectives at the federal, state, and local level. TAN should not be a full-time political party. o Total dollar cost of operating TAN annually not in any one section's budget. o In what political battles has TAN made a difference in 1982-1983? To what degree was TAN a factor in the ultimate victory? Should TAN strive for numbers of members or the quality of their responses to action requests? o Responsibility for TAN training, communications, and materials should be in The Tobacco Institute Communications Department. 5) Is our overall approach to State lobbying the correct one? Overall approach not complete. r;ember company information access very limited. Lobbyists are paid and directed by the T.I., but work for member companies. New modus operandi needs to be elucidated~. T.I. lobbying abilities must be improved qualitatively. Federal and state activities should be unified or at least more closely coordinated. The Tobacco Institute either does not collect or make available to member companies sufficient information to evaluate the lobbyists in all 50 states. Evaluation should be a shared responsibility. We do not have regular access to:

w C o Vote counts prior to formal action or roll call votes afterwards - especially at the Legislative Committee level. s lobbyists. o Memos, position papers, and significant industry messages sent by letter to public officials by Tobacco Institute T.I. should develop and require system to evaluate lobbyists: lists of all clients the lobbyist represents, any possible conflicts of interest among clients, accountability on legislation, overall performance. o We must lobby each member of legislature - Evidence of systematic and regular contacts by lobbyists with legis- .lators - especially freshman legislators whose votes we often lose (turnover in legislatures runs 25-30% each election). o Tobacco Institute lobbyists should not be state wholesale association executives as for example in Illinois, North Dakota. o Although the lobbyists should be a major participant in developing state political strategy, the final responsi- bility should rest with senior Tobacco Institute staff in D.C. o On important issues, briefing meetings should be held among T.I. Operations staff, lobbyists and member-company staff to insure full understanding for mobilization and coordina- tion of political activity. The Tobacco Institute should be testing more public relations/ advertising vehicles in individual states. We should oppose in the e]ection~process those who oppose us (Stan's letter of 11/3/81).