Freedom to Advertise Coalition

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This stub is a work-in-progress by the ScienceCorruption.com journalists's group. We are indexing the millions of documents stored at the San Francisco Uni's Legacy Tobacco Archive [1] With some entries you'll need to go to this site and type into the Search panel a (multi-digit) Bates number. You can search on names for other documents also.     Send any corrections or additions to editor@sciencecorruption.com

Tobaccospin.jpg

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.

The Freedom to Advertise Coalition was set up by Philip Morris (through a coalition of six advertising trade associations) as a way to enrol newspaper, magazine and other media organisation, along with constitutional and personal rights promoters, in their cause to retain cigarette advertising. This was against the rising tide of threats posed by Henry Waxman, the Synar Bill and the Weiss Bill, all of which threatened the freedom of the cigarette companies to influence young smokers through image advertising. They also enlisted Barry W Lynn, the head of the AmericanCivil Liberties Union (ACLU) who had long worked on the quiet for the tobacco industry.

The immediate trigger for the FAC appears to have been a FDA proposal to regulate tobacco advertising:

In response to President Clinton's August 9 1995 approval of the FDA's initiative to reduce underage smoking, the AAAA (American Association of Advertising Agencies) and five other trade associations comprising an organization called the Freedom to Advertise Coalition ("FAC") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Patton Boggs represents FAC.

As you are aware, the constitutionality of the proposed ban will be judged pursuant to the Central Hudson Test. AAAA representatives believe that, of the four elements of that legislative test, the major battleground between the FDA and the industry will be with respect to whether the proposal "advances the government's interest" and is "narrowly tailored.

In addition to the lawsuit, the AAAA plans to conduct a letter writing campaign through its member agencies. Young & Rubicam its sister companies and other agencies will send letters to the FDA and to relevant members of Congress.

The AAAA's Washington office also plans to provide information and support to representatives who are drafting bills which support the industry's

position. They are currently working with Senator Ford of Kentucky and Representative L .F. Payne, Jr . of Virginia. Payne's bill would nullify the entire proposal.[2]

Barry Lynn, was a legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) along with his associate Burton Neuborne who was both its legal director and a Law Professor at New York University. They began working indirectly for the tobacco industry through this front group, and both of them worked both directly and indirectly for the Tobacco Institute in the period 1986-89. They even assisted RJ Reynolds when it was charged by the FTC with "false and deceptive advertising." [3]

Note the five cc's at the end of this letter.
  • Peter A Georgescu was the chairman of Young Rubican Inc. and a friend of Geoff Bible (PM's CEO) and Rupert Murdoch (News Ltd). Bible nominated his wife Barbara to the board of the International Tennis Hall of Fame (run by Philip Morris).
  • Jane Brite of Young & Rubican helped Ellen Merlo of Philip Morris USA organise the National Smoker's Alliance (NSA) for the tobacco industry in late 1993 (before this event)
  • John P McGarry, Chairman and CEO Young & Rubicam Worldwide, filed objections to FDA's anti teen-age smoking activities.
  • Gary Auxier of Burson-Marsteller PR later ran the NSA for the tobacco industry.
  • Thomas Bell, Vice Chairman Y&R (later Burson Marsteller), also ran tobacco industry/s "Youth Smoking Prevention" program and National Smoker's Alliance. [4]

The FAC operation was also well supported by the newspaper companies who wanted to keep the revenues from cigarette advertising. Jerry W Friedheim, executive vice president of the American Newspaper Publishers Association and William Gorog, president, the Magazine Publishers Association, also joined forces with the FAC.[5].

It is certainly possible to argue that these publishing representatives; the two ACLU lawyers (and their boss at the Washington office of the ACLU, Morton Halperin); and the advertising agencies were just taking an extreme view of personal freedoms by extending it to include corporations promoting dangerous products, while rejecting the well-known legal shibboleth that "Your right to swing your arms ceases where my nose begins."

Biography

"An accomplished speaker and lecturer, Lynn has appeared frequently on radio broadcasts and television to debate and discuss First Amendment issues, including The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, NBC's Today Show, Nightline, Fox Morning News (Washington, D.C.), CNN's Crossfire, The Phil Donahue Show, Meet the Press, CBS Morning News, ABC's Good Morning America, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and Larry King Liv]. He is also a weekly commentator on church-state issues for UPI Radio, and served for two years as regular co-host of "Pat Buchanan and Company" on the Mutual Broadcasting System," .

"Lynn is the co-author of The Right to Religious Liberty: The Basic ACLU Guide to Religious Rights. He writes frequently on First Amendment issues, appearing in such publications as USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Nation,"

Documents and Timelines

1985 Dec 10 Joint statement on advertising bans by Jerry W. Friedheim, executive vice president, American Newspaper Publishers Association and William Gorog, president, the Magazine Publishers Association. They say that such bans represent: an unconstitutional attempt to restrict free speech in a free society.
The statement also reads: "Products that can be legally sold in this society are entitled to be advertised; if it is legal to sell a product, it should be legal to advertise it. The ban would be tossed out by the courts."

  • Barry Lynn, ACLU legislative director stated that there is not sufficient proof that eliminating advertising would signficantly decrease smoking (and that) the proposed ban {would not) meet Supreme Court standards for limiting commercial speech.
  • Burt Neuborne, ACLU legal director said: In a society which believes in the 1st Amendment, you can't allow information control to become a means of behavior modification. [6]

1986 Jun /E Newsclipping in Tobacco Institute files:

In the Taking Exception column of the Washington Post Burt Neuborne, ACLU legal director, called a House bill to ban all tobacco advertising, an ill-considered attempt at better living through censorship.

In a rejoinder, George Will found it odd to suggest that banning tobacco advertising would constitute "enforced ignorance." Cigarette ads, he said, are not seminars; they are inducements, with the health warning the only "real" information.

Barry Lynn, Washington legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, opposed a ban, arguing that it would fail the third test of "Central Hudson" to directly advance a substantial government interest. Ads, he said, have no neamerixing effect. He wondered if we are moving toward "plain brown wrappers" for cigarette packs or to reducing the adult population to reading only ads fit for children.

Disagreeing with a Washington Post columnist about the "why" for the sharp drop in cigarette smoking since 1965, Ira Glasser, ACLU executive director, denied a broadcast ban helped. He wrote to the editor that the Fairness Doctrine allowed both sides to be heard and that the drop [in smoking rates] occurred before any ban. He added:

    "If ever there was an example where the remedy for 'bad' speech was not suppression but rather 'more speech,' this was it."

[7]

1986 Jun 3 Bill Klopfer's memo Re: an annual meeting of the Communications Committee of the Tobacco Institute. He lists their main activities during the year including organising op-eds and letters-to-the-editor opposing the Synar bill which tried to introduce cigarette advertising bans.

Barry Lynn of the ACLU is actively lobbying against the Synar legislation, targeting people like Pete Rodino and Joe Biden whose committees may have something to say about it, and others who are sympathetic to the first amendment issue. [8]

1986 Sep The Communications division of the TI Monthly Reports lists some of their achievements in getting stories opposing the Synar bill into newspapers:

Additionally, Scott Stapf (assistant to the president of the Tobacco Institute) has arranged for his consultants/allies (ie paid supporters) to be interviewed by the media for the following month:

  • Barry Lynn (ACLU), with Mike Ward, Tulsa Tribune, 6/9/86.
  • Barry Lynn (ACLU), Dan Jaffe (ANA), and Wally Snyder (AAAA), with Bill Kronholm of AP, 6/9/86.
  • Barry Lynn (ACLU), and Wally Snyder (AAAA), with Janet Meyers, Ad Ace, 6/9/86.
  • Barry Lynn (ACLU), with Dianne Oianelli, American Medical News, 6/9/B6.
  • Barry Lynn (ACLU), and Wally Snyder (AAA), with Jerry Badlander, AP Radio, 6/9/86.
  • Barry Lynn (ACLU), with Stove Colford, Ad Week, 6/9/86. [9]
If Lynn was doing this media work out of moral conviction he was a very generous man with his time.

1986 Oct 9 A Tobacco Institute draft for William Kloepfer's speech/statements (He was then the head of the TI's Media/PR section). This is a long document covering many different subjects including:

  • Defensive tactics (to be used against anti-smoking organisations.) Kloepfer says his group were:
    • planning to attack Surgeon General (SG) Koop's report.
    • planning to use members of the IAQ Advisory Group (IAPAG) to perform briefings on behalf of the industry, but the academics are worried about the possible hostile reaction to their open involvement: they had been recently attacked publicly by the Lung Association.
    • planning to attack the Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute's anti-smoking programs
    • targeting the anti-smoking ASH organisation.
  • Kloepfer also comments on the industry's erratic reactions to problems:

[W]e've bumped our exposure of independent expert consultants to the media from 30 in the first quarter, to 88 in the second. People like Gray Robertson demonstrating real indoor air problems, or Alan Katzenstein explaining what's really in and not in the literature on environmental tobacco smoke. Again, each speaker has a quota assignment (a TI staffer) to accompany such people.

The Kansas City Star gave professional lobbyist Alan Katzenstein a good writeup.

The AP in Colorado did a long story on Robertson's "sick building lessons". He was on a phone-in show in Denver for a full hour.

[Note: Gray Robertson and his sham air-testing company ACVA/HBI were mainly responsible for promoting the idea that it was the building which were sick -- not the smoky air. This was promoted a scapegoat for illnesses and discomfort caused by passive smoking.
  • [Heading] Media successes in recent times.

He lists three previous activities, then shows slides of recent achievements:

Fourth, targeted releases, out to the hinterlands.

  • One new vehicle is Tobacco Update, used for the first time this summer to notify some staff people at every newspaper with a ten-thousand-plus circulation of our summary views on the NAB aircraft cabin report.
  • Another vehicle is FYI, a good-looking article reprint format, which to date we've used to copy a couple of very good editorials on the ad-ban issue to some 1100 op-ed page managers and columnists. (Note: They were providing op-ed articles to magazines and newspapers in a high-gloss printer-proof format, so the article didn't need to be rekeyed or reset in type)
    • Here is Burt Neuborne's piece from the Washington Post;
    • this is Barry Lynn's article from the ACLU as it appeared in the LA Times.
  • A third vehicle is a straight news release. For example, a tailor-made statements (given to the media) in every State with a Ways and Means or Finance Committee member during the last days of debate on tax reform. (This propaganda was tailor-made for each state by:) ... estimating the statewide, regressive impact of any cigarette excise increase that might have remained in that legislation.
        (The) Pickup was fine. UPI told New Yorkers (that) an eight-cent increase would cost them $141 million (in extra cigarette taxes).
        AP notified the people of Colorado they would be in for another $25 million. The story said minorities and the poor would be the biggest targets.     [10]
[Note that Professor Burton Neuborne, the former legal director of the ACLU, now ran the tobacco industry's Freedom to Advertise Coalition


1987 Jan 20 Susan Stuntz, as head of the Public Affairs Division (PAD) at the Tobacco Institute has put together an overview of their 'readiness' for Federal Hearings on tax, advertising and public smoking bans. They are concerned about the recent GSA (Government Service Administration) ban on smoking in Federal buildings.

This is a 21 page detailed document worth reading. It includes many items related to the cash-for-comments economists network:

  • Identification of witnesses from among appropriate ally and coalition groups.
  • Development of arguments and identification of experts and coalitions to argue that excise tax increases are not an appropriate means of financing health care costs.
  • Op-ed articles, letters to the editor, etc., from academic resources.
  • Continue efforts to obtain copies of GSA comments, via Freedom of Information request.
  • Identification of potential Congressional witnesses, and Congressmen who would be amenable to invite other scientists who support the industry's view on ETS to testify.
  • Approval to proceed with economic impact studies and/or voter surveys. One-month lead time is requested on both. On the former, decision will be needed as to whether to seek labor sponsorship.

Tax Hearing Readiness: They have five 'basic arguments' that cigarette excise taxes are: Regressive - Unfair - Inefficient - Inadequate - Unconstitutional.

And they intend to mobilize their Core Witness List to promote different aspects of the argument, including the economists:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rnw88b00/pdf

1987 Apr 6 Fred Panzer and Susan Stuntz memo Peter Sparber at the Tobacco Institute re; Freedom to Advertise Coalition Budget - 1987 These figures are additional to line items in the existing budgets; they are trying to find some excess in other budget items.

Membership: $100,000
      Cost to join FAC is for "the tobacco industry." This sum represents direct lobbying and legislative support fees for cigarettes as well as smokeless. No determination has been made as to the proportion of the total to be borne by cigarettes.

  • Reproduction Printing: $100,000
This would include information kits and reprints, as well as advertising and sampling videos, if there are no further reprints planned for HYD (an $10,000 line item in the 1308--5200 budget), we still need to identify an additional $20,000 to cover these materials.
  • Advertising: $50,000
For advocacy ads in the D.C. market. There is $650,000 for HYD (Helping Youth Decide') and HYS [??] advertising in the 1308--0200 budget.
  • Professional Fees: $130,000
There is $80,000 in the current 1308--7300 budget that is allotted to advertising creative fees and to James Peterson. If those funds are applied to this request, we still need to identify another $50,000.
  • Support to Other Organizations: $120,000
The current 1308--7500 budget has $115,000 to cover first amendment activity, support to educational groups other than NASBE, and CASE. If support to education groups other than NASBE is unfunded, and if support to NASBE remains at $150,000, we would need to find another $5,000 to cover membership development and media relations support of FAC.
      However, if membership in FAC (see first item above) also is to come from the 1308--7500 budget, we may need to find as much as $105,000 from other sources.
Total: $500,000

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sez49b00/pdf

[Note: CASE = Coalition for Affordable Sports and Entertainment

NASBE = Nat. Assn for State Boards of Education (they paid for a lobbyist Jolly Ann Davidson -- "Helping Youth Decide" tobacco greenwashing program]

1987 Jul 23 Sam Chilcote General Manager of the Tobacco Institute is reporting to his Executive Committee. He is choosing witnesses for a Waxman hearing on both the Synar Bill and Whittaker Bill (ad ban legislation). Tobacco is now supported by the advertising industry which has lined up:

  • Scott Ward, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
  • Barry Lynn , Esq., Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
  • Richard E. Wiley , Esq. Wiley, Rein, & Fielding, sponsored by the Washington Legal Foundation
  • Professor Burt Neuborne , New York University Law School, on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers
  • David Starr , Publisher, the Union News & Republic, Springfield, MA, on behalf of the American Newspaper Publishers Association
  • Professor Philip Kurland , University of Chicago Law School, on behalf of the Magazine Publishers Association
  • Leonard Matthews , President, the American Association of Advertising Agencies
  • Michael J. Waterson , Director of Research, Advertising Association of Great Britain,, on behalf of the American Advertising Federation

The Tobacco Institute has lined up:

  • Charles Whitley . Mr. Whitley will also submit for the record statements of Professor Martin Redish , Northwestern University Law School,
  • Wallace D. Riley , former President of the American Bar Association.
  • Jean J Boddewyn , Prof of Marketing and Intl Business, Baruch College, City University of New York http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yvr85e00/pdf

1987 Aug 15 An article in the National Journal by Kirk Victor covers a range of related subject

  • LOBBYING     STRANGE ALLIANCES
    The tobacco industry has been reaching out to groups with which it ordinarily has little in common and taking advantage of their support to deflect the spotlight from its own strong economic interest.

[Note: This article is actually about the James Savarese operations for the Tobacco Institute, (including the use of economists and union officials) even though there is no mention of Saverese or the economists by name.]

  • Is the ACLU's Stand on Tobacco Ads ... Principled or a Case of 'Moral Myopia"

    When Burt Neuborne, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post on July 18, 1986, in which he blasted supporters of a congressional proposal to ban all forms of tobacco advertising, (the) antismoking lobbyists were, not surprisingly, dismayed.
     But even more upsetting to the foes of smoking was Neuborne's decision, just two weeks later, to appear at congressional hearings as a witness for the Tobacco Institute, the industry's lobby.     [He left the ACLU - under attack] Neuborne, now a law professor at New York University, bristles at such charges.
     In the aftermath of Neuborne's testimony, rumors began cropping up about the nature of the relationship between the civil liberties organization and the tobacco lobby. The ACLU seemed to be spending a disproportionate amount of time taking the lead in defending cigarette advertising when the tobacco industry could quite effectively defend itself without such strong outside support, observed former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Michael Pertschuk, who is now director of the Advocacy Institute, which counsels public-interest lobbying groups. Pertschuk's son, Mark, is executive director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, the largest nonsmokers' advocacy group in the country.
      Morton H. Halperin , the director of the ACLU's Washington office, explained that although tobacco lobbyists were called, they knew that such a request for help "would not lead to our doing more on the tobacco bill - we were already doing a lot and would continue to work hard on the issue." Added the ACLU's legislative counsel, Barry W. Lynn , "The ethical issue for me is whether there was a quid pro quo, and there clearly was not."
     The ACLU has also been criticized for its decision to file a brief in support of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in an administrative case brought by the FTC charging that the tobacco company had run a false and deceptive ad called "Of Cigarettes and Science." The ACLU's New York office discussed the case with Reynolds's prominent Ist Amendment lawyer on the case, Floyd Abrams, who sought the ACLU's intervention.

    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nzm09a00/pdf

1987 Nov Fred Panzer's regular report to the TI on 'Advertising Issues.

  • Rep Ted Weiss (D-NY) has introduced the "Smoking and Health Advertising Act of 1987" which would disallow deductions for tobacco advertising expenses unless the advertiser contributed more than 5% of these expenses for "health awareness advertising". {Already under consideration are the Synar bill (full ban) and Bradley/Stark + Bates and Whittaker legislation.]

    We have alerted our Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC) allies to this legislation. The opposition of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is encouraging, as is the initial opposition of the our advertising allies.

We are also focusing on cementing the opposition of media groups -- Magazine Publishers Association (MPA), American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA), and National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).[[11]Also active were Advertising Tax Coalition, [[Washington Legal Foundation]. Panzer has a Advertising Issues budget this year of $1.39 million.

1988 Jan Fred Panzer's annual report to the TI on the 'Advertising Issues' says:

Communications Daily, a media trade newsletter, had reported that [Henry] Waxman intended to make the Synar bill (HR 1272) a legislative priority for his Health and Environment Subcommittee. Now the inside word is that the Chairman plans to take no action. Lobbying teams from the 'Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC) plan to visit the Hill early next month to quietly assess the sentiment on the Health and Environment Subcommittee.

The Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined forces to debate Congressman Synar's legislative-aide; John Hollar at a seminar sponsored by the Federal Communications Bar Association.

Covington & Burling's legal analysis of the Weiss bill (HR 3503), the first counter-advertising measure introduced so far in the 100th Congress; was sent to (TI's) Federal Relations last month for comment (by) allies in the Freedom to Advertise Coalition.

After agreeing to join the Freedom to Advertise Coalition, I have learned that the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) has reneged on making the agreed-on financial commitment. A memo on the details is coming to me. [12]

1988 Aug Fred Panzer's bimonthly 'Advertising Issues' report to the Tobacco Institute. They are now facing both the Waxman Hearings (Hose Energy and Commerce Committee) and a new anti-smoking bill from Luken which would ban all advertising of cigarettes and sales by vending machines. Panzer has "encouraged" the Freedom to Advertise Coalition to oppose the Luken bills, and testify at the Waxman hearings.

Both actions are extensions of the FAC and ACLU position that Luken's preemption repeal would create marketing chaos, set a dangerous precedent for other products, and would be tantamount to an unconstitutional ad ban. On the local level, we also worked with our advertising and civil liberties allies, the American Advertising Federation and the ACLU. Both oppose the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority proposal to restrict liquor and tobacco advertising to 30 per cent of the subway's ad revenues . Both filed comments against the proposal .

They planned to influence 20 members of the Congressional committees by ...

  • To encourage editorial visits, media tours, op-ed articles, video playdates and legislative visits in "hometowns" of 20 key Members of Congress.
  • To organize a First Amendment cadre of ad agencies, ad clubs, ad media in each of these 20 key locations

[13]

1989 Powerpoint presentation lists as Legal Witnesses (lobbyists prepared to appear before Congressional committees):

  • Burt Neuborne, NYU
  • Philip Kurland, Univ of Chicago
  • Martin Redish, Northwestern Univ.
  • Barry Lynn, ACLU
  • Morton Halperin, ACLU
  • Dan Popeo, Washington Legal Foundation
  • Craig Smith, Freedom of Expression Foundation
  • Richard Wiley, Former FCC Chairman.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fcl34b00/pdf

1989 Jan The Tobacco Institute's Public Affairs Management Plan. Fred Panzer reported on Advertising Issues:

At the January 27-28 American Medical Association conference in Houston (anti-smoking measures were proposed which) range from a total ban on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products to seemingly less-drastic alternatives -- content control and counter-advertising proposals -- designed to burden "commercial speech" to the point of extinction.

Presence of the Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC) at the AMA Houston conference demonstrated to media and, more importantly, to Congressmen and staff, that opposition to advertising restrictions is much broader than the tobacco industry.

The FAC representative was the only "friendly" at the open portion of the workshop on advertising regulation. FAC plans to lobby members of the Energy and Commerce Committee and use the documents as briefing papers. The coalition also plans a follow-up distribution to media and other Congressional Members and staff.

[Also we saw that some] Favorable progress with our "slippery slope" coalition has been achieved. The Freedom to Advertise Coalition, along with its individual trade group members, have challenged proposals of the recent Surgeon General's workshop on drunk driving. The parallels with tobacco advertising are obvious, and for the first time in decades, we are talking with the National Association of Broadcasters.

[Next month plans:] Continue building our "slippery slope" coalition.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qsn62f00/pdf

[Note:The slippery slope concept was a way to build a friendly coalition which included alcohol companies, fast-food, confectionery and pharmacueticals -- and others likely to face advertising restrictions also.]


1989 Jun 21 Tobacco Institute: Briefing of Ehud Houminer of Philip Morris International -- comments on the advertising issue.

When the AMA first proposed its advertising ban four years ago, our allies came to us. [But] those days are gone. Today Institute staff is [sic] looking for additional allies -- when the time comes for hearings. It becomes our job to

  • contact those allies
  • encourage them to testify
  • ensure that Congress allows them to testify
  • write their testimony , and
  • coordinate any press coverage.

[Paraphrased: The main support comes from advertising groups]
When the AMA convened its anti-tobacco conference in Houston in January, the advertising community was there with the Institute, collaring the press, getting their responses out to the media.
When legal questions arose, we arranged through the advertising allies for reporters to talk to Barry Lynn of the ACLU . We had reached agreement in advance with the adverising groups to put [those newspapers wanting a local angle] in touch with local advertising organization, and Barry Lynn agreed to refer them to local ACLU Chapters.

The TI organised for the ACLU to join forces with the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) which was definitely a tobacco ally (if not one of their fronts) to attack the Synar (Cig. Ad) Legislation.

Last month, we asked the WLF to mail to its Congressional, media and business mailing lists an analysis of the Synar Bill by ACLU attorney Lynn. The Institute provided the funding for the mailing.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pqi52f00/pdf

1989 Aug A report on the activities of the Tobacco Institute's Communications Division shows that he was now mixing in totally corrupt circles:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pnr14b00/pdf

1989 Aug /E (Summer issue) International Health & Development (A journal run by David A Morse] and Paul Dietrich for Philip Morris and the Tobacco Institute) carries a part-reprint of "an essay on the relationship among free speech, free markets and democracy commissioned by the Association of National Advertisers and the Interpublic Group of Companies." It also has a long article "The Basis of a Free Society" on Commerical free speech by Barry Lynn, legislative counsel of the Washington DC Office of the ACLU. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ihu22e00/pdf

1989 Dec 7 The Tobacco Institute's Public Affairs Division report for the Board of Directors. This document has a section labled;

Advertising Issues: Resources and Allies :

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xyp78b00/pdf

1990 Jul The Tobacco Institute lists the 'consultants' who have served them in various capacities in the previous year, and outlines what service each of them has provided (on a month-by-month basis)

Advertising:

  • 7/89 Testimony in opposition to the Luken Bill (H.R.1250)
  • 8/89 Article in Playboy on proposals to censor tobacco advertising
  • 11/89 Statement re Luken hearing on tobacco industry conflicts with Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
  • 7/90 Testimony in opposition to Waxman Bill (H.R. 5041)

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ysw02f00/pdf

1990 Jul 12 A Tobacco Institute document lists the editorial successes of a large number of the paid cash-for-comments academics and consultants. It outlines what each has done in the recent past.

  • Philip Kurland,
  • Barry Lynn,
  • Bert Neuborne, Professor, New York University School of Law
    • 4/90 Testimony on behalf of Freedom to Advertise Coalition on Constitutional implication of Kennedy bill (S. 1883)

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kmv49b00/pdf

1990 Aug 3 Sam Chilcote at the Tobacco Institute has advised the Members of the Executive Committee of plans to develop a celebrity speakers program using academics and other expert consultants. They offer the speakers both money and personal/companypromotion:

[W]hile it is clear that there are a number of individuals who can and are speaking out on our issues independent of The Institute, there also is much more that could be done. There are, for example, opportunities to develop higher profiles for those individuals with whom we enjoy an existing relationship, and to increase within the media an awareness of their availability.

There also are a number of individuals who have been identified who do not currently have a relationship with the industry, but whose views appear to be compatible with our own.
  Should the Executive Committee decide that it wants to proceed with an expansion of our speakers' program, these individuals would be contacted to determine their interest in our issues. The addition of new speakers to our program will be expensive.
  Most of these individuals command substantial consulting fees; media and other activity will require a new commitment of funds, although an exact amount cannot be determined until candidates have been approached. He then lists:

  • Authors, newscasters and newspaper columnists
  • Well-known politicians, political aides, White House staffers, State authorities, agency administrators, etc
  • Heads of various coalition groups (American Advertising Federation. etc)
  • legal and business academics from Savarese's network list.
  • 'risk assessment' academics and promoters.
  • experts in indoor air pollution and ventilation systems.
  • academic economists (the Cash-for-Comments economists network)
  • Many other collaborators and some likely allies:

This consultant (Barry Lynn) along with about a hundred others, is thought to be a potential speaker.

The category heading was :- First Amendment/Constitutional Issues/Advertising Issues
Tobacco Institute list

    • Martin Redish -- University of Chicago law professor, Redish already appears in the broadcast and print media on advertising and other Constitutional issues.
    • Burt Neuborne -- Neuborne has represented the ACLU, the Freedom to Advertise Coalition and the tobacco industry in Congress and in media forums on Constitutional issues.
    • Floyd Abrams -- This pre-eminent First Amendment scholar has been most accommodating in Congressional and media appearances to defend the industry's right to advertise its products.
  • James Dickinson -- This former Washington Post political writer might speak out against efforts to censor free speech through advertising bans and restrictions.
    Philip Morris List [All PM consultants]
    • HOWARD H BELL, president of the American Advertising Federation, Washington
    • DANIEL L JAFFE, executive vice president of government relations, Association of National Advertisers, Washington
    • PHILIP KURLAND, professor of law, University of Chicago
    • BARRY W LYNN, legislative counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
    • BERT NEUBORNE (sic) professor of law, New York University School of Law, formerly national legal director, American Civil Liberties Union
    • MARTIN H. REDISH , professor of law, Northwestern University
    • RICHARD MIZERSKI, professor of marketing, Florida State University, former FTC staff member
    • ROGER D BLACKWELL , professor of marketing, Ohio State University and president of Blackwell Associates, a marketing consulting company
    • DR. J. J. BODDEWYN , professor of marketing and international business, Baruch College of City University of New York.

[Note: An attached TI note says that the consultants on the above list: "have existing relationships that allows them to testify, conduct media tours, write op-eds, etc. as appropriate ."] http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pai66b00/pdf [Note: In tobacco industry jargon "Constitutional Issues" refers to the "Freedom to Advertise" or so-called "Commerical Free Speech" projects which were run (often for free) in the print and broadcast media.]

1991A catalogue of useful consultants and witnesses which was later found in the B&W files carried many entries on consultants and lists their credential to show how much they could be trusted.

Advertising (relevant extracts only)

  • Commercial Free Speech -- Barry Lynn, Legislative Counsel, ACLU
    • 7/89 Testimony in opposition to the Luken Bill (H.R.1250)
    • 8/89 Article in Playboy on proposals to censor tobacco advertising
    • 11/89 Statement re Luken hearing on tobacco industry conflicts with Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
    • 7/90 Testimony in opposition to Waxman Bill (H.R. 5041)

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jyo90c00/pdf

1991 Sept the Tobacco Institute Public Affairs is facing drastic budget cuts. The budget documents show that they will cut funding to CART (Coalition Against Regressive Taxation) a well-established tobacco front; the FAC (Freedom to Advertise Coalition) also a tobacco front; NEMI (National Energy Management Institute) another front; and BCIA (Business Council on Indoor Air) yet another front. The ACLU, WLF and NCF were not controlled by tobacco, but part funded by them.

"Support to CART limited to annual dues of $45,000."
Zero out all support to 'Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC), ACLU, Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) on advertising and other First Amendment issues
Continue to support NEMI, other labor groups, BCIA on federal and state IAQ issues.
Zero out funds for BCIA entirely related to corporate workplace program and for IAQ studies in private businesses,
Eliminate support to National Chamber Foundation (NCF) "social cost" coalition.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lms76d00/pdf


1992 Oct Barry Lynn has transferred from the ACLU to become the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

External links
Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Freedom_to_Advertise_Coalition&oldid=778815"