William C Mitchell

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, 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

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

William C Mitchell was a Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. He was also a member of the Cash for Comments Economists Network which was run for the Tobacco Institute by Professor Robert D. Tollison and lobbyist James Saverese. The network was administered with the help of Tollison's wife Anna and the staff from the Center for Study of Public Choice which was located on the grounds of George Mason University.

The network later split up and most of the members transferred over to work for the tobacco industry under the cover of the Independent Institute with William F Shughart taking a leading role. Savarese and Tollison then appeared to have formalised their partnership, with Tollison and his wife becoming part of James Savarese & Associates.

 

HOW THE NETWORK WORKED

The Cash-for-Comments Economists' Network was run by Savarese through a partnership with Professor Robert D Tollison who used the staff and facilities of the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University to prove cut-out and organisation services. They developed and maintained a network of Economics Professors with at least one on tap in virtually every US state. As one Professor transferred or dropped out (there was a regular turn-over) a new one would be recruited in that State. In all, about 130 university professors were involved in the period 1985-1995, and costs ran to $3 million/year at a time when professor's salaries were in the $30-40,000 pa range. An active network member at a State university could almost double his normal salary.

  The main focus of the group was to write commissioned op-ed articles on a subject determined by the Tobacco Institute. The draft article would then pass back through the network to TI staff, who were essentially public relations experts. Here they were 'improved' and refined; then sent to the Institute's outside lawyers for vetting. Modified articles then returned to the professor, who would then send them to a designated State newspaper as if they were his 'independent expert opinion'. The professors received a base amount for writing and bonuses for successfully planting the article on the newspaper. Some, but not all, received a small (eg.$1000) annual retainer.[2]]

  Published papers would also be copied by the professor and sent to his local Federal Representative and Senator (for a further bonus). Sometimes there were special commissions, but generally the work was writing op-eds and LTE's where they were paid just on results (varied from about $700 to $3000 over the years). Network members could also be called upon to provide witness services and promote the cigarette companies' political/economic line at local ordinance or State legislative hearings. An active professor of economics at a State University could almost double his salary with these activities and with some further appearances, for instance, speaking on the importance of cigarettes in economic terms at major economic conferences, etc.
      Cash for Comments Economists Network   &   Robert Tollison   &   James Savarese   &   Network Document Index

 

Documents & Dates


1985 June/1986 March-July The Cash for Comments Economists Network was commissioned by the Tobacco Institute to write economic opinion pieces opposing excise taxes on cigarettes in mid-year-1985. This propaganda requirment resurfaced as a major project for the economist in the peak of the Tobacco Industry's PR campaign against the Packwood tax plan (although the threat was obviously still a possibility until the end of 1986r).

The Tobacco institute (much later) put together a package of commissioned economics reports (see front section of document), followed by about thirty op-eds and composite pieces which were generated by the Tollison/Savarese Cash for Comments Economists Network in this 1985-86 time frame. It illustrates the propaganda value of this network -- and shows what it can accomplish in a very short time for just a few thousand dollars in academic bribes.

These op-eds attacking the Packwood tax plan were all published in local newspaper across the USA. (Copies needed to be sent in for payment to be made.) A few are from July 1985 and the rest appeared in local newspapers during March-July 1986. These spontaneous independent expressions of expert opinion all miraculously come from Professors of Economics attached to the Center for Study of Public Choice ...

Joseph M Jadlow, Oklahoma State Uni. (He had two op-eds in different papers.);   William C Mitchell Uni of Oregon, Eugene;   Lee G Anderson, Uni of Delaware;   John S Howe Uni of Kansas, Lawrence;   D. Allen Dalton, Boise State University;   Thomas F Pogue, Uni of Iowa, Iowa City (He had two.);   Scott Atkinson, Uni of Wyoming. (He had two in different papers.);   S. Charles Maurice, Texas A&M Uni;   Todd Sandler, Uni of Wyoming;   Michael A Crew, Rutgers Uni, Newark;   Robert B Ekelund Jr., Auburn Uni (He had two.) ;   Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College;   Lee Alston, Williams College;   Paul L Menchik, Michigan State Uni;   Henry N Butler, Texas A&M Uni;   Burton A Abrams, Uni of Delaware;   Ryan C Amacher, Clemson Uni (He had two.);   Dominick T Armentano, Uni of Hartford;   Fred McChesney, Emory Uni;   and a think-tanker David Wilhelm (Citizens for Tax Justice);

Also short extract pieces and letters-to-the-editor from A James Heins, Uni of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana;   William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Milwaukee;   Dennis E Logue, Dartmouth College;   William F Shughart, George Mason Uni;   Harold Hochman, Baruch College, City Uni of New York;

Also uncredited overviews in the Newport Daily News, the Times-Review in Texas, Herald PA, etc. which expresses the encapsulated wisdom of most of the above with the addition of Thomas Borcherding (Claremont Graduate School, Calif);   K. Celeste Gaspari, Uni of Vermont, Birmingham;   David N Laband, Uni of Maryland;   Dean Tipps (Service Employees Intl. Union);   Allen M Parkman, Uni of New Mexico, Alburquerque, NM;   Richard K Vedder, Ohio Uni, Athens;   Roger L Faith, Arizona State Uni, Tempe;   Lee Alston, Williams College Mass;   and William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Wisc.; (Some sections were published in multiple papers). [3]
This was a massive amount of propaganda coverage for a payment of less than $1000 each to these Professors at that time.

 

1986 Apr 4: As a come-on, James Savarese has written to all his network economists to "alert them to some new research opportunities that may be available in the coming weeks". The Tobacco Institute would ...

... like to examine proposals for research that test, in a quantitative way, a number propositions on the relevant cost considerations that apply to the smoking issue. It is not interested in more generalizd formulations of private/social cost distinctions, but rather in testing a specific application of this economic orthodoxy.

He wanted 1-2 page descriptions and a cost approximation. And he enclosed an OTA report which was "representative of the kind of research being put forth by anti-tobacco activists" -- together with some "rebuttals developed by Bob Tollison and Richard Wagner". [4]

 

1986 May /E A Tobacco Institute list of "Schedule of Payments - Excise Tax Op-Ed project." (April-May 1986) This lists those academic economists who have already planted their article on a local newspaper, and the amount owing on the commission. They appear to have been paid $900 for each article, and $1025 if they had also made contact with their local Congressman. However a number of the cash-for-comments network members still have not completed their commission.

The George Mason (Uni) production staff of Bob Tollison, Bill Shughart, and Gary Anderson were paid extra for "rewrites, editing and research, 18 articles", and Carol Robert (Center for Study of Public Choice) for the "production of final product. " A total of $18,000 + $1067 expenses

This is about $1000 per article to generate saleable propaganda for a local newspaper + anything the newspaper may pay them on top.]

The GMU production staff were also being paid another $9,500 for rewrites, editing and research on 9 additional articles, while Savarese seems to have been charging $5,800 + $235 in expenses for recruiting replacement economists in California, Montana, New York, Ohio and Tennessee.

Mitchell in Oregon has been given the target of planting his article on the Statesman Journal and was due for payment of $900. [5]



1985 June/1986 March-July The Cash for Comments Economists Network was commissioned by the Tobacco Institute to write economic opinion pieces opposing excise taxes on cigarettes in mid-year-1985. This propaganda requirment resurfaced as a major project for the economist in the peak of the Tobacco Industry's PR campaign against the Packwood tax plan (although the threat was obviously still a possibility until the end of 1986r).

The Tobacco institute (much later) put together a package of commissioned economics reports (see front section of document), followed by about thirty op-eds and composite pieces which were generated by the Tollison/Savarese Cash for Comments Economists Network in this 1985-86 time frame. It illustrates the propaganda value of this network -- and shows what it can accomplish in a very short time for just a few thousand dollars in academic bribes.

These op-eds attacking the Packwood tax plan were all published in local newspaper across the USA. (Copies needed to be sent in for payment to be made.) A few are from July 1985 and the rest appeared in local newspapers during March-July 1986. These spontaneous independent expressions of expert opinion all miraculously come from Professors of Economics attached to the Center for Study of Public Choice ...

Joseph M Jadlow, Oklahoma State Uni. (He had two op-eds in different papers.);   William C Mitchell Uni of Oregon, Eugene;   Lee G Anderson, Uni of Delaware;   John S Howe Uni of Kansas, Lawrence;   D. Allen Dalton, Boise State University;   Thomas F Pogue, Uni of Iowa, Iowa City (He had two.);   Scott Atkinson, Uni of Wyoming. (He had two in different papers.);   S. Charles Maurice, Texas A&M Uni;   Todd Sandler, Uni of Wyoming;   Michael A Crew, Rutgers Uni, Newark;   Robert B Ekelund Jr., Auburn Uni (He had two.) ;   Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College;   Lee Alston, Williams College;   Paul L Menchik, Michigan State Uni;   Henry N Butler, Texas A&M Uni;   Burton A Abrams, Uni of Delaware;   Ryan C Amacher, Clemson Uni (He had two.);   Dominick T Armentano, Uni of Hartford;   Fred McChesney, Emory Uni;   and a think-tanker David Wilhelm (Citizens for Tax Justice);

Also short extract pieces and letters-to-the-editor from A James Heins, Uni of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana;   William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Milwaukee;   Dennis E Logue, Dartmouth College;   William F Shughart, George Mason Uni;   Harold Hochman, Baruch College, City Uni of New York;

Also uncredited overviews in the Newport Daily News, the Times-Review in Texas, Herald PA, etc. which expresses the encapsulated wisdom of most of the above with the addition of Thomas Borcherding (Claremont Graduate School, Calif);   K. Celeste Gaspari, Uni of Vermont, Birmingham;   David N Laband, Uni of Maryland;   Dean Tipps (Service Employees Intl. Union);   Allen M Parkman, Uni of New Mexico, Alburquerque, NM;   Richard K Vedder, Ohio Uni, Athens;   Roger L Faith, Arizona State Uni, Tempe;   Lee Alston, Williams College Mass;   and William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Wisc.; (Some sections were published in multiple papers). [6]
This was a massive amount of propaganda coverage for a payment of less than $1000 each to these Professors at that time.

 

1986 April Professors Joseph M Jadlow (Oklahoma) and Charles Maurice (Texas A&M) have prepared draft articles attacking the Packwood Tax Plan. James Saverese has sent them, together with clippings of articles already published, along to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute for correction and clearance. (See page 10)

This document lists many dozens of articles which the cash-for-comment economist on the network have now written, including one:

OREGON
Professor W Mitchell

Submitted to Paper: 3/28/86, Eugene Register Guard
Current Status: Published 4/9/86

Letter have been sent on 3/28/86 to Senators Packwood and Hatfield [7]

The Tobacco Institute also kept a record of his submissions and letters to his State Senators, which is circulated to the tobacco companies (here Lorillard). [8] William Mitchell has also written an "Open Letter to Senator Packwood" attacking his plan, and this is being circulated, along with a letter from "Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc." [9]


1986 Jul 21 Sam Chilcote the CEO of the Tobacco Institute writes to the members of his Executive Committee detailing the TI's successes in generating objections to the proposed GSA {Government Services Administration] anti-smoking bans.

They have persuaded the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to help having the rules amended, and have turned out their friends and associated companies to generate letters of objection.

Included among the comments received by GSA thus far are thousands generated as a result of contact with TAN [Tobacco Action Network] activists, other tobacco family organizations, key coalitions, organized labor and economists.

The State Activities Division's alert of key contacts in the field, as well as TAN activists, has generated at least 3,100 letters of opposition. These are letters for which copies have been sent to division headquarters; there are no doubt many others.

Among member companies, all have asked their employees to write letters of opposition. In addition, RJ Reynolds reports its phone bank efforts to reach Washington, DC residents, may have resulted in up to 3,700 opposition letters. Reynolds also sought letters from respondents to an earlier mailing on the federal excise tax issue. Philip Morris initiated a program designed to generate up to 10,000 mailgrams to GSA by the comment deadline.

Letters of objection (all remarkably similar in content) from numerous academic economists were also attached. They all seemed to focus on one extraordinary aspect: the cost of implementating the ban -- rather than the rights of non-smokers to breathe clean air.

The economist's letters all attacked the GSA's calculation ... "that the costs of NO-SMOKING signs in government buildings would cost less than $100 million annually." Apparently Robert Tollison had circulated a much higher estimate of costs (which some of the letter-writers mentioned) ... and all of the economists' letters completely ignored any cost savings, such as lower cleaning and painting costs in government buildings; reduced sick days; higher productivity, etc. which you would normally figure to be of significance to an economist.

These letters, were all written within a few days of each other by university professors (sometimes with multiple signatures) spread across the country, and they came from:



1986 June: The Anti-smoking Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) unexpectedly sprung some hearings on the tobacco industry with only a few week's notice. He planned to inquire into 'Smoking in Public Buildings'.

A major effort was then made to stall the hearings (led by Republican Thomas Bliley of Virginia). Jim Savarese at Ogilvy & Mather was also to recruit a network of academic lawyers in the constituency of the members of the Waxman Committee -- and set them to work writing op-ed articles for their local newspaper and making personal representations to their Congressmen, questioning the Constitutional legality, etc.


1986 June 13 Susan Stuntz, Director of Issues Management at the Tobacco Institute has written to Bob Lewis in charge of Federal Relations re: the Waxman Committee hearings, to restrict smoking in federal buildings. Californian Rep. Henry Waxman was also floating the idea of cigarette advertising bans.

Because of clearance problems, Bob Tollison's study and statement were not available for submission to the Waxman committee until Thursday afternoon, 6/12. Given the now "unofficial" nature of the hearing, should Tollison now go ahead and submit the statement? I query, because if Bliley's strategy is to continue to protest the hearing, he may not want us to submit additional information for an "official" record. Tollison is awaiting instructions from me.

[Thomas Bliley (R-VA) -- known as "Mr Tobacco" among Congressmen -- was demanding both new hearings, and the classification of Waxman's earlier June hearings as "unofficial". A new "official hearing" date had been set for June 27. [11]



1986 Aug James Savarese is now creating a cash-for-comments network of academic lawyers, which is integrated into the economists network. This group are being specifically recruited to combat the threat of the hearings being run in Congress by Rep. Henry Waxman into public smoking and advertising to children. The Senate was also set to hold hearings into second-hand smoke.

1986 Aug 12 James Savarese writes to Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute who has complained that the tobacco industry needs more academic lawyers willing to provide comment in the media in support of the industry, especially on advertising issues. With this new Savarese/Tollison network of business lawyers, they are dealing with Panzer, rather than Peter Sparber and Susan Stuntz.

The idea is to have these academic lawyer promote the tobacco industry's causes by writing op-ed articles for their local newspapers, and acting as 'independent' witnesses at State legislature hearings or local government ordinarnce hearings, etc. Their academic [rather than crass-commercial] status is the important factor. Savarese writes:

There are 19 people on the list, 16 are lawyers and 3 are economists. The three economists are Bob Ekelund in Alabama, Bill Mitchell in Oregon, and James R Kearl in Utah.
  • Professor Ekelund is an expert on the economics of advertising and knows the law.
  • Professor Mitchell is a political scientist tuned into the constitution and an expert on first amendment arguments.
  • Professor Kearl is probably the only person in Utah who will make these arguments (He was a Mormon with a flexible conscience).
We have used both Ekelund and Mitchell on other projects with the Tobacco Institute. We are still having problems with New Jersey but have calls in to several people. I'll let you know as soon as we get someone there. As you can see, the majority of these people are new with the exception of Ekelund, Parkman, and Mitchell. They all understand the issue and will be on call should we need them. [12]

This is an extension of the Cash for Comments Economists Network and it uses some of the same resources provided by George Mason University. Savarese also attaches the annual report from the Public Choice Society and Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University. This was Tollison's money-laundry service.



1986 Aug 12 The cash-for-comments academic lawyer network was run by Savarese. It included three economists

enclosed is the academic lawyer list. There are 19 people on the list, 16 are lawyers and 3 are economists.

We are still having problems with New Jersey but have calls in to several people. I'll let you know as soon as we get someone there.

As you can see, the majority of these people are new with the exception of Ekelund, Parkman, and Mitchell. They all understand the issue and will be on call should we need them.

[The two copies of this list of cash-for-comments lawyers have minor differences, probably reflecting the date of recruitment of the academics. See both below.]

  • ALABAMA, Professor Robert Ekelund, Dept of Economics, Auburn University [Also economists network]
  • CALIFORNIA
    • Los Angeles/Southern California -- Professor Donald P Lyden (Woodland Hills, CA) Don is a business law professor at California State University at Northridge
    • San Diego -- Lloyd R Cohen, JD. PhD -- California Western School of Law, San Diego.
  • COLORADO, Professor John C Ruhnka, University of Colorado, Graduate School of Business Administration, Denver
  • FLORIDA, Professor Marvin E Newman -- Rollins College in Winter Park, Clearwater,FL
  • ILLINOIS, Professor Randy E Barnett, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago
  • IOWA, Professor Paul Lansing -- Department of Industrial Relations, Phillips Hall, University of Iowa
  • KANSAS, Professor Douglas Whitman -- University of Kansas School of Business, Lawrence KS
  • MARYLAND, Professor John A. Gray -- Loyola College, School of Business and Management, Baltimore,
    On vacation until 8/18/86
  • MICHIGAN, Professor Steven B Dow-- Michigan State University,Dept of Business Law, East Lansing/Detroit
  • MINNESOTA, Dr David A Reese, Gustavus Adoiphus College, St Peter, MN
  • NEW JERSEY/Camden/Rutgers, Professor William Clarritt -- Rutgers University, Department of Business and Accounting, Newark, NJ
  • NEW MEXICO, Professor Allen Parkman -- School of Management, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, [Also economists network]
  • NEW YORK
    • New York City, Anthony Wiener, Professor of Management, Polytechnic University of New York, Brooklyn
      Tony will be out of the country during August. He was very enthusiastic about the free speech arguments. Harvard J.D., with strong economic emphasis in his teaching and research.
    • Rochester, Professor George M Sullivan -- Rochester Institute of Technology, College of Business, Rochester, NY
      George would like to see a legal brief on the subject he is arguing.
  • OHIO/Cincinnati, Prof Richard Nathan, Ohio State University, Columbus ohio
  • OREGON, Professor William Mitchell -- Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, [An old recruit for the economists network]
    Bill will be in Washington in late August for the American Political Science Association meetings. He would like to go to lunch with us on August 28.
  • PENNSYLVANIA, Professor John Bagby, State College, PA
    John is a business law professor at Penn State, which is about halfway between Pittsburg and Philadelphia.
  • UTAH/Salt Lake City, Professor James R Kearl -- Department of Economics, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT
    Jim is Mormon, so he has a problem with most Tobacco Institute issues; however, he says he would probably be comfortable with a 1st Amendment op-ed on the advertising ban.
  • TEXAS, D. Bruce Johnsen-- Department of Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX [13] [14]

1986 Aug 14 Savarese has recruited his latest academic lawyer in New Jersey, so he sends the complete list along to Fred Panzer -- who sends it to Anne Duffin. He writes a note to her:

Here's the full list of experts -- tailored to your issue -- lawyer/economist or lawyer/business-management. One for each State represented on Waxman committee. [15]


1986 Aug 14 Along with the list of new recruits, Savarese has included a "Fee for developing list of academic lawyers in states with Congressmen on Waxman's subcommittee.
Complete invoice, 18 states, 29 academicians. ...  $11,400.00 [16]


1986-87 Tobacco Advertising projects
This document explains the background to the hurried recruitment of academic lawyers.
1986 Sep 27: Out of the blue, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) enacted by overwhelming voice-vote a resolution to promote the idea that the Congress should ban any form of media advertising of tobacco products. This was the second serious attempt to ban tobacco advertising from the press (first two years earlier).

In the same month, columnist Jack Anderson reported that the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU had struck a secret deal with the tobacco industry where the tobacco industry was to pressure its ally, Sen Jesse Helms (R-NC), into dropping his planned amendment outlawing dial-a-porn phone calls in exchange for them offering support for tobacco advertising. The pornography measure which the ACLU opposed, would be attached to a privacy bill protecting citizens from electronic surveillance. In exchange the ACLU would then openly support the tobacco industry's 'Constitutional' right to retain advertising.

James Savarese was immediately asked to recruit a number of academic lawyers who would be willing to lend their support in opposition to any advertising bans on 'Constitutional' grounds. This is only one small part of a massive project funded by the tobacco, advertising and publishing interests. It was later developed into a consortium known as the Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC).

 

1986 Dec 1: An internal Tobacco Institute memo from Anne Duffin says that

The first of what could be multiple 1987 advertising hearings could occur as early as mid-January in the Senate, a week later in the House. Hearings in the House are more likely, however, in February or March, unlikely in the Senate in the near future. But we must explore options quickly and adopt an overall plan.

She anticipates a well-resourced attack on the industry from Reps Waxman and Synar.

TI has neither manpower nor funds to develop and utilize all of the following resources. Nor do I recommend we try to do so. But all should be considered and preparations taken for action, depending on what sorts of restrictions are proposed in coming months,: and by whom:

  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Freedom of Expression Foundation
    [A think-tank founded by Senator Robert Packwood and run by UCLA Professor Craig Smith
  • Tobacco lawyers, Covington & Burling, and TI staff are working with a task force of AAAA, AAF and ANA Washington executives [all advertising agency groups] to head off the NYSBA resolution on its way to New Orleans [annual conference] in February and/or win affirmative action from ABA.
  • Placement of op-ed page articles and letters to editor by law-oriented professors of business in target cities and states, with judicious distribution of reprints.
    Status:
    Twenty-plus such professionals have been identified and ready to start. Awaiting ammunition on all-text regulation from Covington & Burling, and draft copy from Ogilvy & Mather, due Dec 15.
  • Jean Boddewyn, [Baruch College, CUNY] is also working on another possible op-ed piece and C&B's David Remes will investigate editing down Roger Blackwell and/or Scott Ward's Aug 1 testimony for other articles. [The testimony was given at Congressional hearing] [17]

1986 Dec 16: Jim Savarese writes to Anne Duffin at the Tobacco Institute:

Attached are three prototype Op-Editorials that address the advertising issue. I realize that some of the arguments made will not be acceptable, but I wanted to see exactly how far we could push.

In-addition, these prototypes are too lengthy for most newspapers and need to be cutback.
I have also attached a page of quotes from which excerpts can be drawn.

Please let me know how you want to proceed. [18]
Prototype articles:
  • Advertising Ban On Tobacco: A Costly Economic Mistake [19]
  • Economics, Free Speech, and the Cigarette Ad Ban [20]
  • An Advertising Ban On Tobacco: A Threat To Freedom [21]

1987 May 28 Paul A Jacobson, the Tobacco Institute's Region V Supervisor, has been evaluating the value of the economists that Savarese and Tollison had recruited to cover his area of the country. He had interviewed the TI's State lobbyists to see what their impressions were as to the value of various economists. He says about this economist:

Professor William Mitchell

Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene

Professor Mitchell expressed his interest in the excise tax issue and demonstrated his expertise in a recent guest editorial for The Oregonian. TI Counsel Hank Crawford feels that Professor Mitchell's reputation is excellent and his testimony at future legislative hearings would be crucial. [22]


If there are any lingering doubts that these economist knew exactly what they were doing, it should be dispelled by a Tobacco Institute memo of June 3 1987. [23]. This shows that they knew that this work was unethical - that it needed to be done surreptitiously - and that they were working for the Tobacco Institute ... but in a way that was deniable since no formal contracts existed.

Apparently Prof. McMahon has " … reviewed and agreed to "author" an economic impact study on the effects of a smoking bill …"
The writer puts "author" in quotes
... leaving no doubt that the professor was being paid to put his name to a tobacco industry paper.

The same file has an letter from Professor K. Celeste Gaspari, an economist from the University of Vermont. She tells us that:
  • She had been contacted in Sep 1985 by the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason Uni (Tollison's think-tank)
  • She was offered an annual retainer of $1000 + paid work for the Tobacco Institute.
  • In 1986 she had been paid the retainer and had written a paper for them.
  • It was now March '87 and her retainer hadn't arrived. She'd complained but still hadn't received the retainer.
  • She has now been asked to do more work, but is on strike until her $1000 annual retainer is paid.

I am very disappointed with the Tobacco Institute's policies on making good on verbal agreements.
It is true I never had a written agreement with the Institute -- we only spoke over the phone. I did, however naively, trust that a verbal agreement with a prestigious institute was as good as a formal contract. I was evidently mistaken.
I am not interested in working with your group at this time if this is the way you do business.

Sincerely K. Celeste Gaspari

References