Contemporary health care reformers, like those who promoted the failed Clinton era plan, face opposition from multiple corporate interests. However, scant literature has examined how relationships between corporations and other stakeholders, such as think tanks and advocacy groups, shape health care reform debate.

We show how the 2 biggest US tobacco companies, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, and their trade association coordinated in mobilizing ideologically diverse constituencies to help defeat the Clinton plan. Unwittingly perhaps, some reform supporters advanced the tobacco industry's public relations blitz, contributing to perceptions of public opposition to the plan.

As the current reform debate unfolds, this case highlights the importance of funding transparency for interpreting the activities of think tanks, advocacy groups, and “grassroots” movements.

Health care reform is an Obama administration priority.1 The Clinton Health Care Security Act, the last federal attempt at comprehensive reform, failed to pass in 1994. That plan, introduced in September 1993,2 represented a compromise between constituencies favoring government-guaranteed universal coverage and those favoring free-market competition. It proposed universal coverage through “managed competition”: competing government-regulated private plans.2 To be funded through employer mandates, business and health care provider charges, and a 75-cent per pack tobacco excise tax,2 the plan initially received strong public support. However, ensuing compromises satisfied few, and criticisms that had begun months earlier continued: diverse constituencies intensified public relations and lobbying efforts.2,3 Ultimately, Congress abandoned the legislation; efforts to enact alternatives failed.2

Media coverage of Obama's efforts suggests that, as for the Clinton plan, corporate influence and contention over financing pose challenges.2,410 Previous research on the Clinton plan's demise faulted its complexity, divisions among reform supporters, and the administration's failure to effectively communicate the plan's features, enabling opposition to mobilize.3,1117 Although lobbying and advertising by multiple corporate interests also played important roles,13,1820 scant literature has examined how relationships between corporations and other stakeholders, such as think tanks, advocacy groups, and “grassroots” movements, affected reform debates.

We explore how the 2 biggest US tobacco companies, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, and their now-defunct trade association, the Tobacco Institute, worked together to mobilize right-leaning think tanks and smokers’ rights, labor, and left-leaning public policy groups to help defeat the Clinton plan. Through a coordinated, nationwide initiative, the industry helped persuade policy makers that considerable public opposition existed to both a funding mechanism—a tobacco excise tax increase—and the plan as a whole. This case offers lessons for the current health care debate, highlighting the importance of funding transparency for interpreting activities of think tanks, advocacy groups, and “grassroots” movements and the need for advocacy organizations to consider how accepting corporate donations may compromise their agendas.

Between January 2008 and June 2009, we searched the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu), which includes more than 10 million internal tobacco industry documents obtained following the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.21,22 Using snowball sampling,21,23 we identified documents dated 1992–1995, beginning with search terms including “Clinton plan” and extending to names of organizations and industry personnel. Searches produced approximately 7000 hits. Reviewing index entries and page content to exclude duplicate or irrelevant documents yielded a final sample of approximately 500 documents. We searched LexisNexis, NewsBank, and ProQuest Newspapers databases for related coverage on third-party allies and the Web sites of identified organizations.

We used an interpretive approach for data collection and analysis.24 Iteratively reviewing successive collections of documents, we summarized, discussed, and revised ongoing interpretations, considered emergent themes, and identified gaps. We continued until the last wave of data collection yielded no new information.2426 We organized documents chronologically, constructing timelines of events, and assembled a case history.24,26,27

Although tobacco companies shared other industries’ concerns about the plan's potential impact on businesses, the proposed excise tax spurred their activities.28,29 Tobacco companies had monitored health care legislation since at least the mid-1970s, when tobacco excise taxes were first proposed as a funding mechanism.30,31 Paid by consumers, excise tax increases result in declining cigarette sales, threatening tobacco company profits.3235 During the 1980s, federal and state legislators increasingly used excise taxes both as a politically popular alternative to other forms of taxation and as a health policy mechanism to reduce cigarette consumption.36 By 1992, more than 20 national and state health care reform bills were under development, several including cigarette tax increases.37

During the early 1990s, low public approval ratings and a negative image diminished Philip Morris's credibility,38 limiting its options for publicly opposing health care reform. Given its vested interests in minimizing tobacco taxes and its concerns about tobacco control initiatives included in most health care legislation,28 Philip Morris sought to influence the health care reform debate through third parties. As Philip Morris's Washington relations director Kathleen Linehan explained, “PM [Phillip Morris] has been and continues to work behind the scenes to achieve its strategic objectives and keeps its public visibility on the healthcare reform issue very low.”28 Likewise, RJ Reynolds sought to “explore existing organizations we might join/influence … [a] credible, non-tobacco voice for hearings and for generating information on issue to media, op-eds, letters, etc.”39 In March 1993, when the Clinton administration publicly suggested cigarette excise taxes to fund health care,40 the 2 companies joined forces to “develop a coordinated plan.”29

The resulting “PM/RJR Tobacco Task Force” included representatives from both companies, the Tobacco Institute, and 4 public relations firms (Figure 1).4143 Company and Tobacco Institute personnel held weekly meetings.44 Their work plan included soliciting support from credible “message carriers,”45 including tobacco farmers and industry suppliers (e.g., suppliers of seed, pesticides, and paper), think tanks, advocacy groups, smokers, other businesses, and organized labor.41,46 To appeal across the ideological spectrum, the task force initially selected 4 core arguments: excise taxes were unfair to the country's 50 million smokers, were regressive for the poor, were likely to encourage a black market, and could result in more than 785 000 tobacco-related jobs lost because of reduced cigarette sales.43,47 Later arguments attacked the Clinton plan more broadly, claiming it would create new bureaucracy and limit health care options.48,49

Task Force Responsibilities

Task force members created a liaison with third-party allies on the basis of the strengths of their preexisting contacts (Table 1). “Leveraging” relationships already established through its corporate contributions department, Philip Morris prioritized the funding of right-leaning think tanks and antitax organizations ideologically opposed to tax increases and government regulation, “strategically directing certain of our assets … consistent with Philip Morris’ positioning on the healthcare issue.”50 RJ Reynolds coordinated local-level “coalition-building,” hiring the Ramhurst Corporation, a firm started by former RJ Reynolds employees,5153 to work with local antitax groups, tobacco industry-affiliated businesses such as retailers, and smokers’ rights groups (SRGs). Since 1988, RJ Reynolds had organized hundreds of SRGs nationwide; by 1991, it had used SRGs to “respond to swiftly emerging issues” with “grassroots” action on 175 federal, state, and local level issues.54 The Tobacco Institute sought to mobilize labor unions and left-leaning policy organizations with whom it had already established relationships through its umbrella organization, the Labor Management Committee.41,55 The Labor Management Committee had been developing these relationships since its creation in 1984, persuading 5 unions to join its board,56 providing funding to labor-aligned policy organizations, and mediating most communications through paid consultants with preexisting union or policy group affiliations.36,5661 Joint membership of labor unions in this association conferred on it legitimacy and the appearance of autonomy.36,61,62 Previous research has examined the industry's funding and tactical relationships with both independent SRGs and industry front groups for other legislative issues.51,52,6367

Table

TABLE 1 Activities of Tobacco Industry Supported Groups

TABLE 1 Activities of Tobacco Industry Supported Groups

OrganizationaPrimary LiaisonResearch and Policy PublicationsConference or ForumMedia OutreachbPoliticalc
Right-leaning organizations
    Acton InstitutePMX124,236
    Alexis de Tocqueville InstitutePMX69,70,237,238X69,70,87,124,236X70,125,126
    American Enterprise InstitutePMX69,239X71,81,240242
    Americans for Tax ReformPMX243X50,69,124,236,244249X250253
    Citizens for a Sound EconomyPMX69,254X69,247,248,255264X69,127,256,260,263,265270
    Claremont InstitutePMX50,69,127X45,69,271
    Consumer AlertPMX69X69,124
    Free Congress FoundationPMX69,8486,127
    Heartland InstitutePMX127X69X69,85,272
    Heritage FoundationPMX69,85,236,273276X69,78,80,274286X286
    Hoover InstitutePMX69
    Mackinac Center for Public PolicyPMX69,236X69,124
    Manhattan InstitutePMX69,7476,85,90
    National Journalism CenterPMX69,84,127,236X69,85
    National Center for Policy AnalysisPMX287289X69,124,278,290297X69
    National Policy ForumPMX69
    Pacific Research Institute for Public PolicyPMX69X69
    Philanthropy RoundtablePMX69,85
    Pioneer Institute for Public Policy ResearchPMX69
    Reason FoundationPMX298
    Tax FoundationPMX69,299,300X301X69,300,302306
Left-leaning organizations
    A. Philip Randolph InstituteTI-LMCX165,183,307310
    Citizen ActionTI-LMCX183X82,83,163,170,189191,233,311316X77,82,83,163,170,180,183,233,308,309,312314,317,318
    Citizens for Tax JusticeTI-LMCX183,308,309,319X308X308,320
    Coalition of Labor Union WomenTI-LMCX168,169,182,321,322X170,321,322X170,308,309
    Coalition on Human NeedsTI-LMCX128
    Economic Policy InstituteTI-LMCX188,323X77,180,317,318
    Institute for Research on the Economics of TaxationPMX69,85X45,324
    Labor Council for Latin American AdvancementTI-LMCX183,186,308,309
    League of United Latin American CitizensPMX41,325X326,327X328
    National Council of Senior CitizensTI-LMCX182,321X311,321X183,317
    New Jersey Citizen ActionTI-LMCX166,329X166,168
    Wisconsin Citizen ActionTI-LMCX313,330X313
Smokers’ rights groups
    State and local chapters in 44 US statesRJR- RamhurstX9193,9698,100103,137,140,144,153,154X9193,96103,107,132,133,136138,144,148155

Note: PM = Philip Morris; RJR = RJ Reynolds; TI-LMC = Tobacco Institute Labor Management Committee. Sources cited do not include all the internal industry documents and news coverage identified through searches but rather a representative sample.

aAll organizations except smokers’ rights groups received funding from Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, or the Tobacco Industry Labor Management Committee between 1992 and 1994.127,131,173,214,215,238,325,331340 However, documents provide evidence that industry-funded consultants (the Ramhurst Corporation) helped organize smokers’ rights groups and coordinated their activities.91,96102,104109,111,113,114,117,132144,146,150,151,153155,157,341345

bMedia outreach activities included publishing articles, op-eds, and letters to the editor; conducting interviews; sponsoring paid advertising; and issuing press releases and solicited or unsolicited positive coverage of the organization's policy papers that critiqued the Clinton health plan or endorsed an alternative health plan.

cPolitical activities included lobbying; disseminating policy papers, letters to the editor, and op-eds to elected officials and their staff members; and organizing rallies, protests, and constituent letters and telephone calls to elected officials in opposition to the Clinton health plan.

Whereas right-leaning think tanks funded by Philip Morris already opposed the Clinton plan, the Tobacco Institute faced the challenge of soliciting assistance from organizations considered to be key plan supporters.11 However, in response to earlier legislation proposing cigarette taxes, Tobacco Institute staff had already begun strategizing. In January 1992, Susan Stuntz, Tobacco Institute vice president of public affairs and Labor Management Committee treasurer, noted, “Although the labor movement and many interest groups have stood firmly against excise taxes as a mechanism for raising general revenues, many of these groups view healthcare financing as a fundamentally different issue.”37 Therefore, the Tobacco Institute sought to establish common ground by “encouraging” organizations to back “a comprehensive healthcare reform package that includes … funding through broad-based progressive taxes instead of regressive excise taxes” and by working with them to identify alternative funding.68

Media Outreach

The industry embarked on a media blitz with anti–excise tax messages and other criticisms of the Clinton plan. From 1993 to 1994, at least 28 tobacco industry–funded think tanks, antitax groups, labor organizations, and left-leaning organizations published studies or organized conferences (Table 1). Some, such as Americans for Tax Reform and Citizens for a Sound Economy, sponsored paid print and radio advertising and direct mail campaigns.69 Organizations garnered major US newspaper coverage through op-eds, interviews, and reports.7083 Targeting social conservatives who might otherwise support “sin taxes,” Philip Morris funded a 6-part miniseries on the Clinton plan by the Free Congress Foundation, aired on its National Empowerment Television network.8486 An Alexis de Tocqueville Institute critique of the Clinton plan brought author interviews on right-leaning radio, including a syndicated broadcast to 1000 religious stations.70,8789 Philip Morris also collaborated with the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, providing “off-the-record” input to one of its fellows, Betsy McCaughey, for her widely read Clinton plan critique published in The New Republic.69,90

To generate the appearance of “grassroots” opposition to excise taxes, RJ Reynolds's Ramhurst coordinators worked with SRGs to hold press conferences and rallies, issue press releases, and conduct media interviews.91103 Consultants provided groups with petitions104106 and held training sessions on excise taxes, health care reform, and communicating with media.92,104,107115 SRGs received a briefing book containing talking points, media guides, and resources about speaking opportunities.110 To facilitate letter-writing campaigns, RJ Reynolds staff prepared 80 unique “Letters to the Editor” templates for SRGs and samples of letters to elected officials.116121 When Clinton formally announced the health care plan in September 1993,122 SRGs alone generated more than 300 media hits, including op-eds, talk show interviews, and press release coverage.92

Mobilizing the Political Right

Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds collaborated on tax increase alerts to 50 million US consumers in their databases, who reportedly sent approximately 50 000 letters to Congress.29,44,123 For politically sympathetic elected officials (particularly those representing tobacco states), the companies shared lobbying responsibilities.41,44,69,124 To supplement direct outreach, Philip Morris organized grassroots lobbying by right-leaning think tanks.48 At Philip Morris's request, for example, Heartland Institute staff met with 2 Republican congressmen “to encourage opposition to the Clinton plan and FET [Federal Excise Tax] hikes.”85 The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute distributed studies and op-ed pieces to Congress members through 4 “Dear Colleague” letters; 2 senators who served on its board entered Alexis de Tocqueville Institute pieces into the Congressional Record.70,125,126 Citizens for a Sound Economy helped organize protests at town hall meetings (sessions between elected officials and constituents).69,127

Mobilizing the Political Left

Labor Management Committee–funded organizations enjoyed credibility within Democratic Party circles, the Tobacco Institute noted in reports to member companies,128 and were well positioned to influence policy makers. Former personnel of some organizations had been appointed to high-ranking party and Clinton administration positions. Former Citizens for Tax Justice executive director David Wilhelm, for example, was appointed Democratic National Committee chair.128 Tobacco Institute personnel were initially concerned that left-leaning allies would be reluctant to criticize the Clinton plan. However, Tobacco Institute president Sam Chilcote reported in February 1993 that Wilhelm had informed Tobacco Institute staff that he advised the Citizens for Tax Justice executive director not to give Clinton a “honeymoon” period but to “keep the heat on the White House through the media,” because this empowered cabinet members who opposed excise taxes.128

Citizen Action also enjoyed a high profile among congressional staff and the Clinton administration.129,130 Tobacco Institute staff noted that Citizen Action personnel visited the White House regularly to discuss health care.131 Citizen Action also lobbied the House Ways and Means Committee, arguing that excise taxes would hurt the middle class,128 and held a briefing opposing excise tax health care funding for 300 house members, staff, labor unions, and interest groups.128

Mobilizing “Grassroots” Movements

To influence policy makers and public opinion about excise taxes in general and the Clinton plan specifically, RJ Reynolds's Ramhurst coordinators met with existing SRGs, helped create at least 20 new ones,99,107,113,132137 trained leaders, and coordinated statewide coalition meetings in at least 44 states (see Table 1).51,52,114,133,137140 Coordinators also held “smokers’ rights meetings” in regions lacking formal groups; participants signed petitions or wrote letters to congressmembers.99,133,141144 Coordinators were urged to maintain a variety of SRG activities targeting elected officials:

We won't make an impression with congressmen with one or two blow-out events. Rather we will make our point by hitting his/her office with a barrage of letters one week, petitions the next, a well-designed questionnaire the next, some media hits next, steady opposition made known via town meetings and other personal visits… .145

By February 1994, SRGs had reportedly made at least 20 000 phone calls to Congress members, sent 100 000 letters, and attended 140 town hall meetings nationwide.92 In reports to RJ Reynolds, Ramhurst characterized several meetings as confrontational.107,115,146,147 In April 1993, for example, Minnesota Smokers’ Coalition members attended a town hall meeting with Senator Paul Wellstone (D, MN), presented 50 000 petition signatures, and solicited his position on cigarette taxes. When the senator affirmed support for the tax, “what should have been a friendly town meeting in his home town turned hostile and Wellstone abruptly ended the meeting and left… .”107 A Ramhurst coordinator reported learning that Congressman Tim Johnson (D, SD) had described his town hall meetings in late 1993 as

not only the worst 4 weeks of his political career but the worst 4 weeks of his life… . Our groups should be commended for their efforts for being in his face everywhere he went… . He certainly will be thinking about the political ramifications of supporting the presidents [sic] plan as it is now.147

SRG members met with elected officials locally, expressing home state opposition.93,94,101,107,109,137,144,148155 In April 1994, SRGs in North and South Dakota organized a 2-week program targeting Senate Finance Committee members Tom Daschle (D, SD) and Kent Conrad (D, ND).150 Groups submitted formal resolutions against excise taxes to the senators’ offices and activated phone trees.101,150 Ultimately, one group met with Senator Daschle,136 and another received a response from Senator Conrad's office indicating “he wants to get a healthcare bill passed that has no new taxes.”101 By June 1994, Ramhurst reported, Conrad had expressed opposition to the entire Clinton health plan during 3 town meetings attended by “hostile” crowds.115

SRGs also targeted events where the Clintons were promoting health care reform. In September 1993, 2 Florida-based SRGs and “volunteers from RJR [RJ Reynolds] field sales” staged a protest outside the building where ABC's Nightline program was conducting a town hall meeting with President Clinton, drawing coverage from rival media.91,156 A Ramhurst coordinator organized an antitax rally at the site of a Kansas City health care forum attended by Hillary Clinton and Senator Bob Dole,157 and a Kentucky SRG burned an effigy of the first lady at a rally attended by elected officials of both parties.154,158,159

Promoting Alternatives

In a strategy to either minimize the proposed excise tax increase or defeat the Clinton plan altogether, Philip Morris funded right-leaning policy organizations to organize conferences critiquing the plan and promoting free-market alternatives.69 Philip Morris also “worked with” the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Heritage Foundation in the development and promotion of alternative health care proposals.69

The Tobacco Institute provided funding and public relations support to left-leaning groups pressuring the Clinton administration toward a single-payer plan.160176 By early 1994, the Clinton plan's most significant left-leaning rival, the McDermott-Wellstone single-payer plan, was supported by more than 90 congress members.177179 Although an insufficient number for bill passage, it constituted a powerful minority.179 At the Labor Management Committee's request, several left-leaning groups requested appearances before the House Ways and Means Committee in November 1993, opposing “regressive elements of the Clinton plan including tobacco taxes.”180 Public relations firm Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart, hired by the Labor Management Committee,160,181,182 met with organizations to help them prepare and publicize their statements.180,183185 In testimony, Citizen Action, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, and the National Council for Senior Citizens mitigated support for the Clinton plan by framing it as an acceptable but temporary alternative to single payer.186 All explicitly criticized the tobacco excise tax.186

Ironically, whereas the Clinton plan proposed a 75-cent per pack tax increase, a $2 per pack increase was added to the single-payer legislation in early 1994.187 Citizen Action had initially claimed it would not support legislation with a cigarette tax increase188 but continued to endorse McDermott-Wellstone, limiting its support for the Clinton plan.189192 Although in one respect this conflicted with the Tobacco Institute's agenda, support for rival plans still served tobacco industry interests by maintaining divisions among left-leaning constituents, helping defeat the Clinton plan; indeed, the Tobacco Institute continued to fund Citizen Action the following year.193,194

Epilogue

By September 1994, the Clinton plan was “dead.”20 Although multiple factors accounted for its defeat, the tobacco industry credited itself with a significant role. According to Philip Morris's Linehan, the

industry was confronted with a multitude of healthcare reform proposals, the majority of which relied heavily on increased tobacco excise taxes… . With the valuable assistance of tobacco growers, industry suppliers, third-party activists and congressional allies, the industry worked to defeat these tax proposals.195

Philip Morris viewed its funding of right-leaning groups as money well spent. An internal company presentation commented, “The question is fairly asked, are we getting enough out of groups we support… . Our reach is wide by any corporate standard.”196 RJ Reynolds was similarly pleased with the SRGs’ results: “We chased ‘Clintoncare’ I all over the country and the ‘beast’ is currently hiding in a cave, somewhere inside a beltway.”197 Although SRGs helped persuade elected officials that widespread public opposition to excise taxes existed, RJ Reynolds's own data showed that in late 1994, 69% of Americans still supported increasing tobacco taxes to fund health care.198

Although taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugared soft drinks have been identified as potential funding mechanisms for current health care reform, to date they have not been included.199 Although the tobacco industry may, therefore, have little incentive to fund third-party allies to oppose present reforms, several organizations that received tobacco industry funding to help defeat the Clinton plan have publicly opposed elements of the current legislation.9,200207 None of these groups publicly disclose their funding sources through Web sites or annual reports.

In addition, as occurred with the Clinton plan, numerous opposing coalitions and “grassroots” groups have appeared.208 Patients United Now and Patients First were created by Americans for Prosperity,209211 formerly Citizens for a Sound Economy,212 the single largest recipient of Philip Morris funding to generate opposition to the Clinton plan.127,213,214 These and other groups have deployed similar tactics, including organizing protests at town hall meetings215 and hanging a Congress member in effigy,216,217 just as an SRG burned an effigy of Hillary Clinton.158 Several organizations claiming to represent grassroots or popular movements have ties with corporate interests across multiple industries, including FreedomWorks, another Citizens for a Sound Economy spin-off.218220 Conservatives for Patients’ Rights has disclosed that its founder, formerly chief executive officer of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Company, contributed approximately $5 million but provided no details on the remaining 75% of its $20 million budget.221,222 Betsy McCaughey, to whom Philip Morris provided input for a Clinton plan critique, recently published articles opposing the current legislation,223225 just before resigning from a medical device corporation to “avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.”226 Although media coverage has noted participation of industries or individuals with close industry ties in some coalitions,227229 not all articles make these ties explicit.230232

The tobacco industry's success in mobilizing opposition to the Clinton plan among ideologically diverse constituencies underscores the challenge of overcoming corporate efforts to obstruct health care reform. By encouraging organizations to focus on points of contention, the tobacco industry fostered a climate in which inaction seemed preferable to the solidarity needed for reform legislation to pass. Key to the tobacco industry's strategic alliances was its ability to keep these relationships largely hidden. Perceptions of these groups as autonomous and representing the “public interest” enhanced the credibility of the industry messages they carried.

These findings demonstrate the need for full disclosure of corporate funding sources in publications, congressional testimony, and lobbying. As Balbach and Campbell observed, “Acceptance of funding is less important than the transparent admission of funding sources.”36 Transparency is critical to the passage of health care reform legislation, because arguments advanced by interest groups should be evaluated in light of their corporate sponsors’ agendas. Although the tobacco industry may not have the same vested interests in influencing the health care reform efforts of the Obama administration, other industries appear to be using the same tactics.

Skocpol2 has argued that single-payer supporters considered the Clinton plan an acceptable compromise but believed they could gain further concessions from the president by leveraging their endorsements, in some cases by publicly criticizing the plan. Left-leaning groups helped diminish public understanding of and support for the Clinton plan, albeit unintentionally.2 They failed to comprehend their role in a broader, but weak, coalition for universal health coverage that required unconditional support from all members to enact legislation.2

As one newspaper described in May 1993,

Groups like Citizen Action, the National Council of Senior Citizens and unions are being counted on as front-line troops whose money and members will help balance well-funded industry public relations campaigns against particular elements.233

Instead, perhaps unwittingly, they participated in an industry public relations campaign, accepting support from the tobacco-funded Labor Management Committee and ongoing “assistance” from its public relations firms, prioritizing the tax issue and “progressive” health care financing at the expense of universal coverage and other Clinton plan elements. As Tobacco Institute personnel described, “Institute funding provided the necessary seed money to … move our issues to the top of these groups’ agendas … or where we disagreed, it helped to move antitobacco issues to the bottom… .”131

Whether these groups genuinely believed they shared common ground with the industry on promoting progressive tax structures or made a strategic decision to promote the industry's messages in exchange for funding and public relations assistance, this concession to corporate interests proved costly. Organizations should recognize that relationships with corporations pose conflicts of interest in the health care arena because (1) the primary function of the corporate entity is to maximize profits, regardless of social consequences,234 and (2) many corporate practices deployed to maximize profits, from selling harmful products to lobbying against public health regulations, actually promote disease.235

Our study has limitations. Because of the archive's volume and types of litigation requests, there may be additional, unretrieved relevant documents. Our analysis of policy and advocacy organizations was limited to those receiving tobacco industry funding during 1992–1994 that were explicitly identified in documents as assisting industry efforts to oppose the Clinton plan. It is possible that the industry collaborated with additional organizations. Internal industry documents strategically classified think tanks and advocacy groups as either right leaning or left leaning; similar classifications appear in the media and academic literature, but this dichotomy cannot capture the full spectrum of beliefs among such groups.

To enable both the public and policy makers to critically evaluate arguments about prospective health care legislation, public disclosure of all corporate contributions to think tanks and public interest groups attempting to influence public opinion is vital. The media should investigate funding sources of interest groups that appear when major legislation is pending. Proponents of universal health coverage should decline donations from corporations in health-damaging industries234,235 or any other industry whose broader agenda may pose conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health fellowship funding (grant CA113710) and the National Cancer Institute (grant CA120138).

Note. R. E. Malone owns one share each of Philip Morris (Altria), Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American stock for research and shareholder advocacy purposes.

Human Participant Protection

No institutional review board approval was required for this study.

References

1. Pear R. Health care policy is in the hands of an ex-senator. The New York Times. December 12, 2008:A28. Google Scholar
2. Skocpol T. Boomerang: Clinton's Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in U.S. Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.; 1996. Google Scholar
3. Hoffman B. Health care reform and social movements in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(1):7585. LinkGoogle Scholar
4. Pear R. Democrats to develop pitch to sell health plan. The New York Times. May 14, 2009:A16. Google Scholar
5. Pear R. 2 Democrats spearheading health bill are split. The New York Times. May 30, 2009:A7. Google Scholar
6. Pear R. 45 centrist Democrats protest secrecy of health care talks. The New York Times. May 12, 2009:A16. Google Scholar
7. Pear R. Antitrust laws loom as hurdle in Obama effort to overhaul health care. The New York Times. May 27, 2009:A12. Google Scholar
8. Pear R. Tax proposals draw critics in talks on financing health insurance. The New York Times. May 21, 2009:A18. Google Scholar
9. Pear R. Warring sides on health care carry their fight to TV and radio ads. The New York Times. May 28, 2009:A14. Google Scholar
10. Pear R. Obama open to mandate that people own coverage. The New York Times. June 4, 2009:A17. Google Scholar
11. Clymer A, Pear R, Toner R. The health care debate: What went wrong? How the health care campaign collapsed—A special report; for health care, Times was a killer. New York Times. August 29, 1994:A1. Google Scholar
12. Blendon RJ, Brodie M, Benson J. What happened to Americans’ support for the Clinton health plan? Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;14(2):723. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Hansen O, Ortmans J, Norton C, et al.. Lawmakers’ views on the failure of health reform: a survey of members of Congress and staff. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996;21(1):137151. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Heclo H. The Clinton health plan: historical perspective. Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;14(1):8698. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Bilheimer LT, Colby DC. Expanding coverage: reflections on recent efforts. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(1):8395. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Gottschalk M. The missing millions: organized labor, business, and the defeat of Clinton's Health Security Act. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24(3):489529. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Koch JW. Political rhetoric and political persuasion: the changing structure of citizens’ preferences on health insurance during policy debate. Public Opin Q. 1998;62(2):209229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
18. Swenson P, Greer S. Foul weather friends: big business and health care reform in the 1990s in historical perspective. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2002;27(4):605638. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. West DM, Heith D, Goodwin C. Harry and Louise go to Washington: political advertising and health care reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 1996;21(1):3568. Google Scholar
20. Nathanson CA. The skeptic's guide to a movement for universal health insurance. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2003;28(2–3):443471. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000;9(3):334338. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Balbach ED, Gasior RJ, Barbeau EM. Tobacco industry documents: comparing the Minnesota Depository and internet access. Tob Control. 2002;11(1):6872. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. MacKenzie R, Collin J, Lee K. The tobacco industry documents: an introductory handbook and resource guide for researchers; 2003. Available at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/tc/surveys/dochbook2003/. Accessed July 7, 2009. Google Scholar
24. Marshall C, Rossman G. Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999. Google Scholar
25. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002. Google Scholar
26. Yin R. Case Study Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994. Google Scholar
27. Hill M. Archival Strategies and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1993. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
28. Linehan K. PM participation in health care coalitions. Philip Morris; June 1, 1992. Bates no. 2046799264/9266. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sob62e00. Accessed June 15, 2009. Google Scholar
29. Fuller C. Report on the RJR PM Tobacco Task Force. Philip Morris; March 10, 1993. Bates no. 2048603223/3225. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wlb72e00. Accessed April 17, 2009. Google Scholar
30. Tobacco Institute. Comments regarding penny-a-pack cigarette tax increase; January 1975. Bates no. TI04380735-TI7. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iwe19a00. Accessed June 26, 2009. Google Scholar
31. Tobacco Institute. Pending cigarette tax increase would require smokers to pay entire cost for improving the health care delivery system; February 19, 1976. Bates no. TIOK0000750/0751. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sef02f00. Accessed June 26, 2009. Google Scholar
32. Yang JS, Novotny TE. Policy coherence in US tobacco control: beyond FDA regulation. PLoS Med. 2009;6(5):e1000079. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2000. Google Scholar
34. Warner KE. The economics of tobacco: myths and realities. Tob Control. 2000;9(1):7889. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Warner KE. Cigarette taxation: doing good by doing well. J Public Health Policy. 1984;5(3):312319. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Campbell R, Balbach ED. Mobilising public opinion for the tobacco industry: the Consumer Tax Alliance and excise taxes. Tob Control. 2008;17:351356. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Stuntz SM. Earmarked excise taxes and health care reform. Tobacco Institute; January 3, 1991. Bates no. TIMN0352267/2271. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yjo52f00. Accessed April 27, 2009. Google Scholar
38. Smith EA, Malone RE. Thinking the “unthinkable”: why Philip Morris considered quitting. Tob Control. 2003;12(2):208213. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Reynolds RJ. Health care excesses issue action plan: background; November 5, 1992. Bates no. 512689050/9053. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bjg33d00. Accessed June 29, 2009. Google Scholar
40. Associated Press. The Clinton administration would delay implementing some of its health care plans. Philip Morris; March 9, 1993. Bates no. 2048603226. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xlb72e00. Accessed April 17, 2009. Google Scholar
41. Nicoli D. PM/RJR taskforce FET plan. Philip Morris; May 27, 1993. Bates no. 2046936205/6361. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/las81f00. Accessed April 17, 2009. Google Scholar
42. Philip Morris. Concept; March 25, 1993. Bates no. 2048583297/3325. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wfq36e00. Accessed June 10, 2009. Google Scholar
43. Philip Morris. PM/RJR Tobacco Task Force; March 1993. Bates no. 2048583231/3254. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gmt81f00. Accessed June 10, 2009. Google Scholar
44. Philip Morris. The federal excise tax strategy; June 8, 1993. Bates no. 2046985164/5170. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/avh87e00. Accessed January 23, 2009. Google Scholar
45. Philip Morris. FET campaign national briefing book; February 1994. Bates no. 2074070000/0092. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qpb76c00. Accessed August 8, 2008. Google Scholar
46. Philip Morris. PM/RJR task force projects; April 2, 1993. Bates no. 2048583035/3087. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eoh92e00. Accessed January 23, 2009. Google Scholar
47. Philip Morris. Timeline—federal excise taxes; March 22, 1993. Bates no. 2048603233/3235A. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qxt66e00. Accessed June 10, 2009. Google Scholar
48. Linehan K. Board presentation—March 30, 1994. Philip Morris; March 30, 1994. Bates no. 2062526450/6455. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nrt47d00. Accessed August 8, 2008. Google Scholar
49. Reynolds RJ. Action guide for opposing the federal excise tax increase on cigarettes; December 1993. Bates no. 518727899/7977. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fnt92a00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
50. Marden R. REM monthly report, 940200. Philip Morris; February 1994. Bates no. 2078212289/2291. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/irs75c00. Accessed August 6, 2008. Google Scholar
51. Apollonio DE, Bero LA. The creation of industry front groups: the tobacco industry and “Get Government Off Our Back.” Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):419427. LinkGoogle Scholar
52. Carter SM. Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin: destroying tobacco control activism from the inside. Tob Control. 2002;11(2):112118. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Mother Jones. Bob Dole & Big Tobacco's. comeback strategy: Marlboro's man. RJ Reynolds; May 1996. Bates no. 522626931/7045. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lem60d00. Accessed January 31, 2008. Google Scholar
54. Reynolds RJ. State government relations legislative counsel briefing book 1990–1991 (900000–910000). RJ Reynolds; 1991. Bates no. 507591790/1870. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtj24d00. Accessed May 20, 2009. Google Scholar
55. Payne MT. PM/RJR task force status. RJ Reynolds; March 22, 1993. Bates no. 512534535/4541. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wlm33d00. Accessed April 17, 2009. Google Scholar
56. Balbach ED, Barbeau EM, Manteufel V, et al.. Political coalitions for mutual advantage: the case of the Tobacco Institute's Labor Management Committee. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(6):985993. LinkGoogle Scholar
57. Tobacco Institute. Labor Management Committee coalitions. Bates no. TNWL0050258/0281. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/alf07d00. Accessed April 28, 2009. Google Scholar
58. Mather O. Savarese Associates. Resource assessment for targeted states. Tobacco Institute; February 26, 1988. Bates no. TITX0034850/4855. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/itw32f00. Accessed February 4, 2009. Google Scholar
59. Tobacco Institute. Public relations division report annual meeting; December 12, 1985. Bates no. TI04351157-TI251. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dng19a00. Accessed February 5, 2009. Google Scholar
60. Anderson Byers Inc., Daniels JC. In the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, No. 96-2-15056-8sea, videotaped deposition of Joe C. Daniels. Tobacco Institute; June 4, 1998. Bates no. TINY0001142/1297. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qds22f00. Accessed February 5, 2009. Google Scholar
61. Balbach ED, Herzberg A, Barbeau EM. Political coalitions and working women: how the tobacco industry built a relationship with the Coalition of Labor Union Women. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(suppl 2):2732. MedlineGoogle Scholar
62. Campbell RB, Balbach ED. Building alliances in unlikely places: progressive allies and the Tobacco Institute's coalition strategy on cigarette excise taxes. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(7):11881196. doi:AJPH.2008.143131. LinkGoogle Scholar
63. Morley CP, Cummings KM, Hyland A, et al.. Tobacco Institute lobbying at the state and local levels of government in the 1990s. Tob Control. 2002;11(Suppl 1):i102i109. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
64. Givel MS, Glantz SA. Tobacco lobby political influence on US state legislatures in the 1990s. Tob Control. 2001;10(2):124134. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
65. Cardador MT, Hazan AR, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry smokers’ rights publications: a content analysis. Am J Public Health. 1995;85(9):12121217. LinkGoogle Scholar
66. Smith EA, Malone RE. ‘We will speak as the smoker’: the tobacco industry's smokers’ rights groups. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(3):306313. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
67. Muggli ME, Forster JL, Hurt RD, et al.. The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(9):14191423. LinkGoogle Scholar
68. Chilcote S. Letter to Charles H. Mullen. Tobacco Institute; January 27, 1992. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqj03f00. Bates no. TIMN0031149/1153. Accessed April 28, 2009. Google Scholar
69. Philip Morris. Tobacco strategy; March 1994. Bates no. 2022887066/7072. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtv34e00. Accessed April 10, 2008. Google Scholar
70. Carey M. ADTI on the Clinton health care plan. RJ Reynolds; November 7, 1994. Bates no. 515245516/5519. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kqo80d00. Accessed August 8, 2008. Google Scholar
71. Stelzer I. There is no health care crisis. Tobacco Institute; January 25, 1994. Bates no. TI16741130/1131. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtr76d00. Accessed August 11, 2008. Google Scholar
72. Will GF. Came the revolution… Newsweek. February 21, 1994:74. Google Scholar
73. Lambro D. Clinton's plan needs reform to get healthy. The Washington Times. February 5, 1994:A1. Google Scholar
74. Kurtz H. The scholar who raised Clinton's bile; Elizabeth McCaughey enjoys healthy bite. The Washington Post. February 4, 1994:C1. Google Scholar
75. McCaughey E. Price controls on health care. The Wall Street Journal. November 22, 1993:A14. Google Scholar
76. McCaughey E. Health plan's devilish details. The Wall Street Journal. September 30, 1993:A18. Google Scholar
77. Chilcote S. Tobacco Institute. Memorandum to the members of the executive committee. Lorillard; February 2, 1993. Bates no. 87680255/0256. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sym13c00. Accessed June 16, 2009. Google Scholar
78. Pear R. Health care debate to shift to federal employees’ plan. The New York Times. September 7, 1994:A1. MedlineGoogle Scholar
79. Wolf R. A little bit of health reform is getting a longer look. USA Today. September 12, 1994:4A. Google Scholar
80. Hasson J. Congress’ insurance in limelight. USA Today. July 12, 1994:8A. Google Scholar
81. Furchtgott-Roth D. Clinton's radical health plan. The Wall Street Journal. November 17, 1993:A23. Google Scholar
82. Priest D. Amid hisses, Clinton aide hears call for another kind of health care. The Washington Post. July 18, 1993:A4. Google Scholar
83. Priest D. Central health care: ‘undoable’ but no longer on political fringe. The Washington Post. May 7, 1993:A11. Google Scholar
84. Fuller CL. Monthly report—000500. Philip Morris; June 13, 1994. Bates no. 2040410833/0839. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ouf04e00. Accessed April 9, 2008. Google Scholar
85. Philip Morris. FET update 1/28/94. Philip Morris; January 28, 1994. Bates no. 2046554465/4467. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oim57d00. Accessed April 23, 2008. Google Scholar
86. Borelli T. 000100 Activity report. Philip Morris; January 31, 1994. Bates no. 2046585284/5285. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aqb03e00. Accessed March 20, 2008. Google Scholar
87. Carey M. Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Health care tax increase. Philip Morris; February 28, 1994. Bates no. 2073011682. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
88. America E. Clinton's health plan: the biggest tax increase in history? Philip Morris; February 1994. Bates no. 2073011681. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
89. Carey M. Health care tax increase. Philip Morris; February 22, 1994. Bates no. 2073011671/1673. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
90. McCaughey E. No exit: what the Clinton plan will do for you. The New Republic. February 7, 1994:21. Google Scholar
91. Ogburn TL. Public issues update September 20–September 24, 1993 (930920–930924). RJ Reynolds; September 24, 1993. Bates no. 515195313/5319. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ija71d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
92. Reynolds RJ. Highlights: FET opposition programs. RJR/external relations; 1993. Bates no. 513217604/7606. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xig23d00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
93. Ogburn TL. Public issues update September 27–October 1, 1993 (930927–931001). RJ Reynolds; October 1, 1993. Bates no. 515195324/5328. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jja71d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
94. Reynolds RJ. RJR memorandum; 1993. Bates no. 515799413. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eli92d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
95. Fackler R. Refvwo929. Weekly report. RJ Reynolds; September 29, 1993. Bates no. 515195239/5240. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zed03d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
96. Ogburn TL. Public issues update July 19–July 23, 1993 (930719–930723). RJ Reynolds; July 23, 1993. Bates no. 515195272/5277. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hja71d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
97. Reynolds RJ. Public issues update October 11–October 15; October 15, 1993. Bates no. 515195329/5332. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/efd03d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
98. Griscom TC. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of January 31 through February 4, 1994 (940131–940204). RJ Reynolds; February 8, 1994. Bates no. 511425805/5812. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dej38c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
99. Reynolds RJ. Public issues update March 1, 1993–March 5, 1993 (930301–930305); March 5, 1993. Bates no. 515190639/0643. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pqd03d00. Accessed May 15, 2009. Google Scholar
100. Griscom TC. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the weeks of April 11–22, 1994 (19940411–19940422). RJ Reynolds; April 25, 1994. Bates no. 519858853/8860. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/szk97c00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
101. Hyde T. Public issues update May 9–13, 1994 (940509) (940513). RJ Reynolds; May 13, 1994. Bates no. 512766817/6824. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xda71d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
102. Hyde T. Public issues update May 23–27, 1994 (940523–940527). RJ Reynolds; June 2, 1994. Bates no. 512572125/2129. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gda71d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
103. Hyde T. Public issues update August 22–23, 1994 (940822–940823). RJ Reynolds; August 27, 1994. Bates no. 511398624/8626. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yxp44a00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
104. Caldeira S. Weekly field memo. RJ Reynolds; February 25, 1993. Bates no. 515190598/0602. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oqm10d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
105. Ellis J.FET actions. RJ Reynolds; July 25, 1994. Bates no. 532052478/2479. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eiu36a00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
106. Phillips MW. FDA petition program. RJ Reynolds; October 13, 1994. Bates no. 532053410/3415. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qjm96a00. Accessed April 21, 2009. Google Scholar
107. Ogburn TL. Public issues update April 26–30, 1993 (930426–930430). RJ Reynolds; April 30, 1993. Bates no. 515195347/5353. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ffd03d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
108. Griscom TC. Following are highlights of activities in our external relations organization for the week of April 19–23, 1993 (930419–930423). RJ Reynolds; April 23, 1993. Bates no. 512688213/8219. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zrg33d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
109. Ogburn TL. Public issues update April 19–23, 1993 (930419–930423). RJ Reynolds; April 23, 1993. Bates no. 515195341/5346. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kja71d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
110. Smith M. Review: Pr1—1993(930000)—Mark D. Smith. RJ Reynolds; 1993. Bates no. 512015582/5587. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eqh43d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
111. Griscom TC. Following are highlights of activities in our external relations organizations for the week of March 22–26, 1993 (930322–930326). RJ Reynolds; March 29, 1993. Bates no. 512688259/8264. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/isg33d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
112. Griscom TC. Following are highlights of activities in our public relations department for the week of May 17–21, 1993 (930517–930521). RJ Reynolds; May 21, 1993. Bates no. 512688493/8498. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cig33d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
113. Ogburn TL. Public issues update July 12–July 16, 1993 (930712–930716). RJ Reynolds; July 16, 1993. Bates no. 515195267/5271. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gja71d00. Accessed April 16, 2009. Google Scholar
114. Reynolds RJ. Public issues 1994 (940000) Plans; 1994. Bates no. 512531446/1488. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wtm33d00. Accessed April 16, 2009. Google Scholar
115. Hyde TN. Public issues update June 4–10, 1994 (940604–940610). RJ Reynolds; June 10, 1994. Bates no. 512572114/2119. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fda71d00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
116. Reynolds RJ. Letters to the editors FET; 1992. Bates no. 512692912/3032. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcg33d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
117. Fackler R. Weekly report Robert Fackler 06-30-93(930630). RJ Reynolds; June 30, 1993. Bates no. 515195225/5226. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wed03d00. Accessed April 16, 2009. Google Scholar
118. Reynolds RJ. Smokers’ rights action guide. 2nd ed; January 1994. Bates no. 525722395/2414. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dnk03c00. Accessed April 16, 2009. Google Scholar
119. Reynolds RJ. Leadership manual. Smokers’ rights; 1994. Bates no. 518570842/0997. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/suk72d00. Accessed April 16, 2009. Google Scholar
120. Smith M. Your memo/job values. RJ Reynolds; January 13, 1994. Bates no. 512015576/5578. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dqh43d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
121. Griscom TC. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of January 24–28, 1994 (940124–940128). RJ Reynolds; January 31, 1994. Bates no. 511425813/5817. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/now43d00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
122. Anonymous. Speech draws large TV audience. Chicago Sun-Times. September 24, 1993:6. Google Scholar
123. Philip Morris. Outline for issues presentation to management committee for 940330 breakfast before board meeting; March 4, 1994. Bates no. 2022816043/6060. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wph04e00. Accessed June 9, 2009. Google Scholar
124. Fuller CL. 000800 Monthly report. Philip Morris; September 16, 1993. Bates no. 2041424327/4336. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jau93e00. Accessed April 10, 2008. Google Scholar
125. Allard W. Dear colleague letter to members of U.S. House of Representatives. Philip Morris; March 8, 1994. Bates no. 2073011693. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
126. Conda C. Facsimile transmission. Philip Morris; March 8, 1994. Bates no. 2073011692. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
127. Fuller CL. 000200 Monthly report. Philip Morris; March 17, 1994. Bates no. 2041424310/4316. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eau93e00. Accessed April 10, 2008. Google Scholar
128. Chilcote S. Tobacco Institute. Memo from Sam Chilcote to Kathleen Linehan. Philip Morris; February 9, 1993. Bates no. 2046786669/6677. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uex45d00. Accessed January 8, 2009. Google Scholar
129. Fleishman H. Dole tops Mitchell in legislative effectiveness say top congressional aides; Clinton reelection support surprisingly low; no middle class tax cut expected. Tobacco Institute; February 4, 1993. Bates no. TIOK0014647/4651. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xma02f00. Accessed April 13, 2009. Google Scholar
130. Priest D. White House to stump for health plan—“campaign manager” sought in bid go build support for program. The Washington Post. February 6, 1993:A1. Google Scholar
131. Chilcote S. Remarks by Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. for executive committee. Tobacco Institute; 1994. Bates no. TCAL0157268/7281. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cbh86d00. Accessed April 13, 2009. Google Scholar
132. Hennes BM. Weekly activity report. RJ Reynolds; March 31 1993. Bates no. 515190542/0545. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gqd03d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
133. Hyde T. Public issues update August 29–September 2, 1994 (940829–8). RJ Reynolds; September 2, 1994. Bates no. 512572035/2039. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yqa71d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
134. Ogburn TL. Public issues update May 3–7, 1993 (930503–930507). RJ Reynolds; May 7, 1993. Bates no. 512688187/8193. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wrg33d00. Accessed April 15, 2009. Google Scholar
135. Ogburn TL. Status report—period ending 2/5/93(930205). RJ Reynolds; February 5, 1993. Bates no. 512688392/8398. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jtg33d00. Accessed May 15, 2009. Google Scholar
136. Hyde T. Public issues update May 2–6, 1994 (940502–940506). RJ Reynolds; May 13, 1994. Bates no. 512572130/2136. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ara71d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
137. Hyde T. Public issues update May 16–20, 1994 (940516–940520). RJ Reynolds; May 21, 1994. Bates no. 512575653/5659. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ksj33d00. Accessed April 16, 2009. Google Scholar
138. Hyde TN. Public issues status, w/e 6/24/94(940624). RJ Reynolds; June 24, 1994. Bates no. 512572103/2107. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eda71d00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
139. Ogburn TL. Public issues update March 1, 1993–March 5, 1993 (930301–930305). RJ Reynolds; March 5, 1993. Bates no. 512688327/8331. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tsg33d00. Accessed April 17, 2009. Google Scholar
140. Griscom TC. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of January 3–7, 1994 (940103–940107). RJ Reynolds; January 10, 1994. Bates no. 511425831/5836. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bej38c00. Accessed April 21, 2009. Google Scholar
141. Griscom TC. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of July 18–22, 1994 (940718–940722). RJ Reynolds; August 1, 1994. Bates no. 511382881/2887. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/phz43d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
142. Hyde T. Public issues update August 15–19, 1994 (940815–940819). RJ Reynolds; August 19, 1994. Bates no. 512572046/2049. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dmn30d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
143. Hyde T. Public issues update September 12–16, 1994 (940912–940916). RJ Reynolds; September 19, 1994. Bates no. 512572029/2034. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cmn30d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
144. Hyde T. Public issues update April 18–22, 1994 (940418–940422). RJ Reynolds; April 22, 1994. Bates no. 512766831/6837. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yda71d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
145. Goodyear D. By now I've had a chance to talk with each of the nine folks on our team. RJ Reynolds; July 20, 1994. Bates no. 531099081/9084. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hqs46a00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
146. Griscom TC, Annese B. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of February 14–18, 1994 (940214–940218). RJ Reynolds; February 23, 1994. Bates no. 511423306/3311. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jtw43d00. Accessed July 31, 2008. Google Scholar
147. Fackler R. Refwo922 Weekly report. RJ Reynolds; September 22, 1993. Bates no. 515195237/5238. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yed03d00. Accessed April 16, 2009. Google Scholar
148. Griscom TC. Following are highlights of activities in our external relations organization for the week of May 3–7, 1993 (930503–930507). RJ Reynolds; May 10, 1993. Bates no. 512688175/8178. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/urg33d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
149. Griscom TC. Following are highlights of activities in our external relations department for the week of November 29–December 3, 1993 (931129–931203). RJ Reynolds; December 6, 1993. Bates no. 512696738/6745. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nzf33d00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
150. Hyde T. Public issues update April 25–29, 1994 (940425–940529). RJ Reynolds; May 5, 1994. Bates no. 512572137/2143. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hda71d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
151. Griscom TC. Weekly report. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of August 8–August 12, 1994 (940808-940812). RJ Reynolds; August 16, 1994. Bates no. 511425640/5646. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tnw43d00. Accessed April 21, 2009. Google Scholar
152. Griscom TC. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of January 17–21, 1994 (940117–940121). RJ Reynolds; January 25, 1994. Bates no. 511425818/5824. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cej38c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
153. Griscom TC. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of March 28 through April 8, 1994 (940328–940408). RJ Reynolds; April 17, 1994. Bates no. 511423297/3305. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/itw43d00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
154. Griscom TC. Weekly report. Following are the activities in our external relations department for the week of July 4–July 8, 1994 (940704–940708). RJ Reynolds; July 8, 1994. Bates no. 511425673/5681. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ynw43d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
155. Hyde TN. Public issues update July 11–15, 1994 (940711–940715). RJ Reynolds; July 19, 1994. Bates no. 512572089/2093. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dda71d00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
156. Mashek J. Clinton sells plan town-meeting style. Boston Globe. September 24, 1993:12. Google Scholar
157. Griscom TC. Following are highlights of activities in our external relations department for the week of October 25–29, 1993 (931025–931029). RJ Reynolds; November 1, 1993. Bates no. 511423320/3326. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ltw43d00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
158. Associated Press. Tobacco rights activists burn effigy of first lady. Philip Morris; August 29, 1994. Bates no. 2046440576. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xbw87d00. Accessed May 21, 2009. Google Scholar
159. Lawrence K. Effigy sparked firestorm of attention for tobacco advocate. Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer (KY). September 1, 1994:1A. Google Scholar
160. Savarese J. Ogilvy, Adams, &Rinehart. TI. March activity report. Tobacco Institute; April 29, 1993. Bates no. TI01480783/0787. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/har30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
161. Kennedy E. Single-payer health insurance is answer. The Buffalo News. May 12, 1993:C2. Google Scholar
162. Powell S. Woman tells Gore health concerns. Times Union (Albany, NY). March 24, 1993:B7. Google Scholar
163. Chilcote S. Letter to members of the executive committee. Philip Morris; March 22, 1993. Bates no. 2070038507/8512. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sfq16c00. Accessed April 13, 2009. Google Scholar
164. Savarese J.Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. TI February activity report. Tobacco Institute; March 15, 1993. Bates no. TI01480799/0804. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dar30c00. Accessed August 15, 2008. Google Scholar
165. George C. Taxes and social costs. Tobacco Institute; June 1993. Bates no. TI14580156/0158. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/toj86d00. Accessed May 1, 2009. Google Scholar
166. Associated Press. Citizen action rallies in N.J. for national health-care plan. Press of Atlantic City (NJ). May 17, 1993:A4. Google Scholar
167. Strategy Group. May report. Tobacco Institute; June 22, 1993. Bates no. TIILBC0010987/0996. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xjj22f00. Accessed May 12, 2009. Google Scholar
168. George C. Taxes and social costs. Tobacco Institute; May 1993. Bates no. TI14580124/0126. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/foj86d00. Accessed May 12, 2009. Google Scholar
169. Savarese J. Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. Labor Management Committee May activity report. Tobacco Institute; June 15, 1993. Bates no. TI01480738/0739. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nar30c00. Accessed February 13, 2009. Google Scholar
170. Stainer H. 500 Women gather to battle over health plan proposal. Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH). May 2, 1993:6B. Google Scholar
171. Merrill L. Torricelli urged to back health-care bill—activists rally in Hackensack. The Record (New Jersey). January 26, 1993:A3. Google Scholar
172. Savarese J. Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. TI January activity report. Tobacco Institute; February 12, 1993. Bates no. TI01480811/0814. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zzq30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
173. Tobacco Institute. Tobacco Industry Labor Management Committee national strategy. Lorillard; January 1994. Bates no. 93795131/5139. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mui60e00. Accessed August 15, 2008. Google Scholar
174. Tobacco Institute. The Tobacco Institute 1993 budget public affairs division; October 6, 1992. Bates no. TI16681190/1262. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ams76d00. Accessed May 12, 2009. Google Scholar
175. Radell M. The Tobacco Institute 1994 budget—public affairs division. Tobacco Institute; May 1993. Bates no. TI38950053–TI115. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bpm09a00. Accessed May 12, 2009. Google Scholar
176. Sears L. Strategy group. March report. Tobacco Institute; April 12, 1993. Bates no. TNWL0051799/1807. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vbf07d00. Accessed February 19, 2009. Google Scholar
177. Sword D. McCloskey calls single-payer best option yet. Evansville Courier (IN). January 28, 1994:A3. Google Scholar
178. Byrd J. What about single-payer? The Washington Post. July 17, 1994:C6. Google Scholar
179. Hasson J. Single-payer backers courted by Clinton. USA Today. February 24, 1994:8A. Google Scholar
180. Shulman E. Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. Ways and Means Committee witness list. Tobacco Institute; November 11, 1993. Bates no. TI02850950. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/twt30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
181. Savarese J. TI September activity report. Tobacco Institute; October 15, 1993. Bates no. TI01622940/2942. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fcs30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
182. Savarese J. Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. Labor Management Committee December activity report. Tobacco Institute; January 15, 1993. Bates no. TI01480819/0820. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xzq30c00. Accessed June 18, 2009. Google Scholar
183. Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. Update on southern and national activities by labor, agriculture and LMC Allies. Tobacco Institute; November 1993. Bates no. TI02850959/0963. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mwt30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
184. Woodson W. Ways & Means hearing developments. Tobacco Institute; November 5, 1993. Bates no. TI02850956/0957. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/owt30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
185. Danowitz J, Savarese J. Update on southern and national activities by labor, agriculture and LMC allies. Tobacco Institute; November 5, 1993. Bates no. TI02850958. Available at: http://legacy.ucsf.edu/tid/nwt30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
186. Philip Morris. —Briefing book—tobacco taxes and health care financing. Philip Morris; February 1994. Bates no. 2077420547/0691. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zwm62c00. Accessed February 13, 2009. Google Scholar
187. Tobacco Institute. At the federal level; February 4, 1994. Bates no. TI11710759–TI75. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lbw09a00. Accessed May 12, 2009. Google Scholar
188. Chilcote S, Tobacco Institute. Tobacco held in reserve for health care reform proposal; March 10, 1993. Bates no. TI06092251/2257. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/klx30c00. Accessed January 8, 2009. Google Scholar
189. Ivins M. Fighting for the single-payer plan. Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA). March 7, 1994:B5. Google Scholar
190. Reifenberg A. House set to move on health—Clinton renews push for his reform plan. The Seattle Times. March 8, 1994:A4. Google Scholar
191. Turner D. Clinton's fatal mistake: rejection of single-payer experts say concept could save health plan. The Buffalo News. July 24, 1994:A1. Google Scholar
192. Pear R. Business groups and labor unions attack Clinton on health plan. The New York Times. February 4, 1994:A19. Google Scholar
193. Tobacco Institute. TILMC proposed 1995 budget; 1995. Bates no. TI16680950/0953. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xks76d00. Accessed February 6, 2009. Google Scholar
194. Tobacco Institute. Goals & objectives for 1995 public affairs division, the Tobacco Institute; 1995. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hks76d00. Bates no. TI16680870/0878. Accessed April 13, 2009. Google Scholar
195. Linehan K. Wrap-up of the 103rd Congress. Philip Morris; October 25, 1994. Bates no. 2047945859/5881. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qpz42e00. Accessed September 3, 2008. Google Scholar
196. Philip Morris. Tobacco strategy review; March 22, 1994. Bates no. 2022887003/7033. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jrc78e00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
197. Federal excise tax—1995(19950000). November 2, 1994. RJ Reynolds; Bates no. 528347741/7744. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ckd75a00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
198. Reynolds RJ. The 1995–1997 (950000–970000) strategic plan; April 1994. Bates no. 513252342/2371. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/adf23d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
199. Calmes J. Obama and Congress clash on how to pay for health care. The New York Times. June 26, 2009:B1. Google Scholar
200. Americans for Tax Reform. Raft of new tax increases in House Democrat health care bill spells trouble for taxpayers; 2009. Available at: http://www.atr.org/userfiles/071409la-housedembill.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2009. Google Scholar
201. Kesler C. The new new deal. Claremont Review of Books. 2009;IX(2):3. Google Scholar
202. Emanuel J. Kennedy unveils government-run health care bill. Health care news 2009. Available at: http://www.heartland.org/full/25644/Kennedy_Unveils_GovernmentRun_Health_Care_Bill.html. Accessed July 14, 2009. Google Scholar
203. Heritage Foundation. Fix health care policy; 2009. Available at: http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/. Accessed July 14, 2009. Google Scholar
204. Entin SJ. IRET congressional advisory #256: excise taxes ill-suited for health care funding; 2009. Available at: http://iret.org/pub/ADVS-256.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2009. Google Scholar
205. McQueen MP. Jobless can't afford to extend health coverage. The Wall Street Journal. January 24, 2009:B2. Google Scholar
206. Pipes SC. Health “reformers” ignore facts. The Wall Street Journal. March 6, 2009:A15. Google Scholar
207. Douglas W. Health plan would tax rich–Democrats want to move fast on reform. Republicans say small business would suffer. Charlotte Observer (NC). July 15, 2009:7A. Google Scholar
208. Kristof ND. This time, we won't scare. The New York Times. June 11, 2009:A31. Google Scholar
209. Lazarus D. Playing on fears in health debate. Los Angeles Times. August 9, 2009:B1. Google Scholar
210. Spellman D. Health care protest goes mobile. Joplin Globe (MO). September 7, 2009. Google Scholar
211. Scott W, ed. Rally to oppose health reforms. Laurinburg Exchange (NC). September 5, 2009:1A, 2A. Google Scholar
212. McCaslin J. Nation inside the beltway. The Washington Times. October 28, 2003:A5. Google Scholar
213. Philip Morris. 940000 PMMC contributions to DC—area public policy organizations; 1995. Bates no. 2078212149. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uej50b00. Accessed April 30, 2008. Google Scholar
214. Nicoli DDPN. January miles report. Philip Morris; December 1, 1994. Bates no. 2048624653/4655. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iyv72e00. Accessed May 2, 2008. Google Scholar
215. Herszenhorn DM, Stolberg SG. Health plan opponents make their voices heard. The New York Times. August 4, 2009:A12. Google Scholar
216. Stolberg SG. Where have you gone, Joe the citizen? The New York Times. August 9, 2009:WK1. Google Scholar
217. Dionne EJ. The real town hall story. The Washington Post. September 3, 2009:A19. Google Scholar
218. Eggen D, Rucker P. Loose network of activists drives reform opposition. The Washington Post. August 16, 2009:A1. Google Scholar
219. Weisman J. With insurance policy comes membership—unbeknown to some, those signing up with firm are joining conservative group. The Washington Post. July 23, 2006:A5. Google Scholar
220. MSNBC. The Rachel Maddow Show for Monday, August 17, 2009. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32461660/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/. Accessed September 7, 2009. Google Scholar
221. Rutenberg J. Health critic brings a past and a wallet. The New York Times. April 2, 2009:A1. Google Scholar
222. Eggen D. Ex-hospital CEO battles reform effort—ads cite long waits in Canada and Britain. The Washington Post. May 11, 2009:A1. Google Scholar
223. McCaughey B. GovernmentCare's assault on seniors. The Wall Street Journal. July 23, 2009:A15. Google Scholar
224. McCaughey B. Obama's voodoo health economics. The Wall Street Journal. June 5, 2009:A15. Google Scholar
225. Rutenberg J, Calmes J. Getting to the source of the “death panel” rumor. The New York Times. August 14, 2009:A1. Google Scholar
226. Dwyer J. Distortions on health bill, homegrown. The New York Times. August 26, 2009:A16. Google Scholar
227. Haberkorn J. New ads ramp up battle on reform—key legislators to be targeted. The Washington Times. May 25, 2009:A8. Google Scholar
228. Cillizza C. Foes of health-care plan off to a slow start. The Washington Post. June 15, 2009:A2. Google Scholar
229. Fram A. Television advertising war begins over health overhaul: ads aim to influence lawmakers as detailed health bills emerge from Congress. Lewiston Morning Tribune (ID). July 7, 2009:A5. Google Scholar
230. Montgomery R. Groups on all sides of health care debate pepper airwaves. Anniston Star (AL). July 12, 2009:7. Google Scholar
231. McNulty T. Obama collects health care diagnosis—president's supporters share horror stories while hoping for overhaul. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA). July 2, 2009:A1. Google Scholar
232. Adams K. Forum's theme: government not the solution for health care. The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA). June 14, 2009:B4. Google Scholar
233. Bowman L. Hillary Clinton woos plan's opponents: Mrs. Clinton works to diffuse opposition by meeting with potential foes. Mobile Register (AL). May 9, 1993:19. Google Scholar
234. Wiist WH. Public health and the anticorporate movement: rationale and recommendations. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(8):13701375. LinkGoogle Scholar
235. Freudenberg N. Public health advocacy to change corporate practices: implications for health education practice and research. Health Educ Behav. 2005;32(3):298319. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
236. Philip Morris. FET status report 001211–001217. December 17, 1994. Bates no. 2063393972/3973. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lbn97d00. Accessed August 8, 2008. Google Scholar
237. Smith M. De Tocqueville follow-up. RJ Reynolds; September 27, 1994. Bates no. 515245526. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lni01d00. Accessed August 8, 2008. Google Scholar
238. Bartlett B. Taxes in the Clinton health plan. Philip Morris, March 3, 1994. Bates no. 2073011687/1689. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
239. Anonymous. Learning curve: has the public been adequately informed? American Health Line. July 26, 1994. Google Scholar
240. Mitchell ML, Thau R. Don't hand the young the health bill. The New York Times. July 24, 1994:F9. Google Scholar
241. Anonymous. Roll call: special section looks at health reform. American Health Line. February 22, 1994. Google Scholar
242. Anonymous. Roll call: special section offers diverse opinions. American Health Line. October 18, 1993. Google Scholar
243. Philp A, Roff P. Americans for Tax Reform. A taxpayer's guide to health care: a comparison of the 7 major plans. Philip Morris; 1993. Bates no. 2040223373/3378. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ubt20b00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
244. Norquist GG. Ten things every taxpayer needs to know about the Clinton health care package—revised 931118. Philip Morris; November 18, 1993. Bates no. 2040223379/3380. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nud00b00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
245. Philip Morris. Enough is enough: wasteful spending (bucket). March 1993. Bates no. 2048603269. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jxt66e00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
246. Americans for Tax Reform. Let's shut off new tax increases to stop wasteful government spending. Philip Morris; December 1993. Bates no. 2073010011. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ehs57c00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
247. Reynolds R. Status report—FET—media relations. Philip Morris; October 1993. Bates no. 2072212145/2158. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ogs47c00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
248. Wartzman R. Truth lands in intensive care unit as new ads seek to demonize Clintons’ health-reform plan. The Wall Street Journal. April 29, 1994:A16. Google Scholar
249. Weisskopf M. Invisibly, tobacco firms back campaign against higher cigarette taxes. The Washington Post. August 26, 1994:A10. Google Scholar
250. Americans for Tax Reform. Action form. Philip Morris; April 1994. Bates no. 2073974888. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jyy42c00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
251. Norquist GG. Letter to Americans for Tax Reform members. Philip Morris; April 1994. Bates no. 2073974886/4887. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kyy42c00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
252. Americans for Tax Reform. How much longer can this go on? Philip Morris; December 1993. Bates no. 2073010010. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fhs57c00. Accessed January 9, 2009. Google Scholar
253. Irastorza H. FET campaign interim report. Philip Morris; March 25, 1994. Bates no. 2073974569/4899. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xsy42c00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
254. Bartlett B. How to quadruple federal revenue. Philip Morris; March 7, 1994. Bates no. 2073011690. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
255. Parrish S. Sea Island presentation. Philip Morris; April 11, 1994. Bates no. 2048310347/0358. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ylc87e00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
256. Broder DS. Health care reform and political survival: in last homeward swing before decisions are due, legislators face grueling pressures. The Washington Post. June 5, 1994:A17. Google Scholar
257. Riley K. Harnessing health care: struggle to curb costs gains but reformers want controls. The Washington Times. June 5, 1994:A14. Google Scholar
258. Lambro D. Health care reform plan jarred by rule that holds business premiums are taxes. The Washington Times. February 9, 1994:A11. Google Scholar
259. Manegold C. The health care debate: the campaign; using TV to create skewed window on nation. The New York Times. July 17, 1994:A1. Google Scholar
260. Hasson J. Big names board the bus, join cross-country caravan of supporters. USA Today. July 22, 1994:5A. Google Scholar
261. McCastlin J. Less government. The Washington Times. February 16, 1994:A6. Google Scholar
262. Pear R. Clinton's health plan: principles; experts’ grades: ‘A’ in security, ‘C’ in simplicity, ‘D’ in savings. The New York Times. September 24, 1993:A18. Google Scholar
263. Johnson D. The health care debate: the heartland; a moderate Democrat from Omaha caught in the middle on health care. The New York Times. July 10, 1994:A18. Google Scholar
264. McNamee M, Dunham R. A medicine show a minute in Washington. Bus Week. August 24, 1994:27. Google Scholar
265. Borelli T. New project. Philip Morris; April 1993. Bates no. 2046662829/2837. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/blz55e00. Accessed May 29, 2009. Google Scholar
266. Trafford A. The bus stops here; 600 citizens pressed for change in a grueling cross-country trek. But did their message get through? The Washington Post. August 9, 1994:Z8. Google Scholar
267. Price J. Reform riders on rough road; Clinton's bus caravan runs into some healthy opposition. The Washington Times. July 29, 1994:A3. Google Scholar
268. Balz D, Trafford A. Clinton warns against reform “fearmongers” Gephardt health bill struggles for support. The Washington Post. August 2, 1994:A10. Google Scholar
269. Riley K. Medical rationing opposed; groups unite, fight health plan. The Washington Times. July 2, 1993:A5. Google Scholar
270. Balz D, Broder DS. Players in health care debate mobilize consultants, lobbyists. The Washington Post. October 10, 1993:A4. Google Scholar
271. Izumi LT. Sin taxes are sinful. Philip Morris; October 10, 1993. Bates no. 2074070089. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mpb76c00. Accessed August 27, 2008. Google Scholar
272. Federal excise tax status report compilation 000321 to 000325. Philip Morris; March 21, 1994. Bates no. 2078845735/5736. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ocz67c00. Accessed April 10, 2008. Google Scholar
273. Mitchell DJ. Heritage Foundation. The economic and budget impact of the Clinton health plan. Philip Morris; January 13, 1994. Bates no. 2073011656/1665. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wat57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
274. Lambro D. Dole's stock turns blue chip with alternative health plan; chances in ’96 might improve. The Washington Times. July 4, 1994:A13. Google Scholar
275. Hallow R. GOP split at retreat on health reforms; forcing insurance purchase is issue. The Washington Times. March 4, 1994:A8. Google Scholar
276. Moss J. GOP health plan touted for choice; Nickles proposal has 24 backers. The Washington Times. December 16, 1993:A4. Google Scholar
277. Henderson K. Health-care reform raises questions of individual rights. Christian Science Monitor. March 29, 1994:3. Google Scholar
278. McNamee M. How big a bite will health reform take out of the paycheck? Bus Week. April 4, 1994:28. Google Scholar
279. Liu J. Tried and true health care reforms. The Washington Times. May, 17, 1994. Google Scholar
280. Turlinksi A. How the Clinton plan will hurt the elderly. The Washington Times. January 23, 1994:B2. Google Scholar
281. Devine D. GOP snookered on health care? The Washington Times. January 6, 1994:A17. Google Scholar
282. Anonymous. Latest health plan offers tax credits. USA Today. November 16, 1993:4A. Google Scholar
283. Rich S. Health care, minus U.S. cost curbs; Nickles bill would end employer-paid benefits. The Washington Post. December 5, 1993:A19. Google Scholar
284. Feulner E. Entitlement pie: slice for everyone? The Washington Times. December 7, 1993:A14. Google Scholar
285. Mitchell DJ. The president's costly budget-buster. The Wall Street Journal. December 23, 1993:A10. Google Scholar
286. Tumulty K. Panel OKs key piece of Clinton health proposal. Los Angeles Times. March 16, 1994:A1. Google Scholar
287. National Center for Policy Analysis. Brief analysis: do higher cigarette taxes make sense? Philip Morris; 1994. Bates no. 2041403042/3043. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xts93e00. Accessed July 1, 2009. Google Scholar
288. National Center for Policy Analysis. Briefing book on health care. Philip Morris; August 16, 1994. Bates no. 2070054862/4866. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tml47d00. Accessed July 1, 2009. Google Scholar
289. Marden RE. Memo on draft of National Center for Policy Analysis backgrounder on excise taxes. Philip Morris; August 15, 1994. Bates no. 2041403040. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ppl05e00. Accessed July 1, 2009. Google Scholar
290. Editorial. A proposal for medical savings. The Washington Times. July 15, 1993:G2. Google Scholar
291. Goodman J. Butt out of health care. USA Today. September 22, 1993:12A. Google Scholar
292. Du Pont P. Coming to terms with health care. The Washington Times. March 21, 1994:D3. Google Scholar
293. Goodman J. Health plan's maladies. The Washington Times. April 26, 1994:A17. Google Scholar
294. Beck M, Rosenberg D, Miller S, et al.. Rationing health care. Newsweek. June 27, 1994:30. Google Scholar
295. Du Pont P. The free-market health proposal. The Wall Street Journal. July 1, 1994:A12. Google Scholar
296. Matthews MJ. Medisave accounts: the ethical health reform. The Wall Street Journal. September 16, 1993:A20. Google Scholar
297. Forbes. All power to the patients. Philip Morris; June 21 1993. Bates no. 2046936815/6816. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/umt92e00. Accessed July 1, 2009. Google Scholar
298. Powrel VI, Sullum J. The rule of Lawton. Philip Morris; September 1994. Bates no. 2072055087/5088. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vif08d00. Accessed June 1, 2009. Google Scholar
299. Tobacco Merchants Association of the U.S. Inc. Executive summary. RJ Reynolds; October 28, 1993. Bates no. 517127978/7985. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gip82d00. Accessed June 1, 2009. Google Scholar
300. Marotta G. Taxgate…with new shackles. The Washington Times. May 3, 1993:E1. Google Scholar
301. Bennett CG. Tax Foundation. Facsimile to David Nicoli. Philip Morris; March 15, 1994. Bates no. 2073011702. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vzs57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
302. Tax Foundation. Taxes in Clinton health care plan don't stop at cigarette excise. Philip Morris; February 24, 1994. Bates no. 2073011700/1701. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wzs57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
303. Foster JD. Tax Foundation. Facsimile to David Nicoli. Philip Morris; February 25, 1994. Bates no. 2073011699. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xzs57c00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
304. Tomb H. Tax Foundation 000415 op-ed. Philip Morris; April 15, 1994. Bates no. 2078845666/5669. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rry67c00. Accessed August 22, 2008. Google Scholar
305. Philip Morris. FYI: Clinton's proposal for “sin taxes” may stumble by turning too many Americans into saints; April 14, 1993. Bates no. 2046786663/6665. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fvc03e00. Accessed June 1, 2009. Google Scholar
306. Foster JD. Whither health care now? The Washington Times. June 3, 1994:A19. Google Scholar
307. Hill N. A Philip Randolph Institute. On behalf of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, I am writing to communicate to the members of the House Ways and Means Committee our opposition to the Health Subcommittee's proposal to raise the tobacco excise tax by $1.25 per pack to fund health care reform. RJ Reynolds; April 8, 1994. Bates no. 513217296/7298. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sic11d00. Accessed June 18, 2009. Google Scholar
308. Savarese J. Tobacco Industry Labor Management Committee activities March 1–June 10, 1994. Tobacco Institute; June 10, 1994. Bates no. TICT0009959/9964. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gna42f00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
309. Savarese J. Labor Management Committee activities November 1993–April 1994 (931100–940400). RJ Reynolds; April 25, 1994. Bates no. 513205391/5394. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ita71d00. Accessed February 4, 2009. Google Scholar
310. Stuntz S. Encouraging labor groups to interact with appropriate members of Congress. Tobacco Institute; June 7, 1993. Bates no. TI11220824. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mxh40c00. Accessed May 4, 2009. Google Scholar
311. McQueeney J. Senior groups critical of Clinton health care reform bills. The Daily Oklahoman. December 26, 1993:14. Google Scholar
312. Lipman H. Health reform pushed. Times Union (NY). February 11, 1993:B2. Google Scholar
313. Foster A. State resident takes plea for health reform to Washington. Wisconsin State Journal. March 24, 1993:2B. Google Scholar
314. Silvers AR. Health: mission: girls grandma meets Gore. Milwaukee Journal. March 24, 1993:B1. Google Scholar
315. Fritz S. Health plan includes inequality—proposal far short of ensuring the same quality of care for all. Journal Star (Peoria, IL). September 27, 1993:A1. Google Scholar
316. Germond J, Witcover J. Single-pay liberals aim at Clinton's health plan—on politics. The Sun (Baltim, Md). October 8, 1993:2A. Google Scholar
317. Woodson W. Witnesses scheduled to testify to Ways & Means Committee. Tobacco Institute; November 11, 1992. Bates no. TI02850953. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rwt30c00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
318. ChilcoteWays S, Means Committee hearing on financing Clinton administration health care plan. Tobacco Institute; November 16, 1993. Bates no. TI02850895/0897. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vwt30c00. Accessed April 14, 2009. Google Scholar
319. Harris TC. FET plan. RJ Reynolds; March 5, 1993. Bates no. 512720302/0303. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/itv61d00. Accessed February 19, 2009. Google Scholar
320. Savarese J. Memo from Jim Savarese to Bob Reese, Tommy Payne, Dick White and Walter Woodson on Citizens for Tax Justice. Philip Morris; April 21, 1994. Bates no. 2047597653. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/txw45d00. Accessed February 5, 2009. Google Scholar
321. Savarese J. Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. Labor Management Committee March activity report. Tobacco Institute; April 27, 1993. Bates no. TI01480788/0790. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gar30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
322. Dratch G. Ogilvy, Adams, & Rinehart. Coalition of Labor Union Women convention. Tobacco Institute; November 15, 1993. Bates no. TI01620619/0621. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jzr30c00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
323. Chilcote S. I would like to report the following new activity with regard to our efforts, and efforts by allies, to discourage inclusion of cigarette excise taxes in the financing component of President Clinton's health care program, still scheduled to be released in May. RJ Reynolds; March 22, 1993. Bates no. 508771913/1918. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ayy83d00. Accessed February 4, 2009. Google Scholar
324. Ture NB. Health “puritans” assailed Clinton's big sin tax error. Philip Morris; September 27, 1993. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lpb76c00. Bates no. 2074070088. Accessed August 27, 2008. Google Scholar
325. Nicoli D. Funding of Lulac health care study. January 22, 1993. Bates no. 2046030182/0183. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oub03e00. Accessed January 23, 2009. Google Scholar
326. Philip Morris. Speech on PM's strategies to oppose federal excise tax increase in Clinton health plan. 1993. Bates no. 2077421889/1898. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ooe76c00. Accessed January 23, 2009. Google Scholar
327. Philip Morris. Washington report. March 29, 1993. Bates no. 2070199311/9315. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bmx01b00. Accessed January 23, 2009. Google Scholar
328. Nicoli DP. LULAC meeting at the White House. Philip Morris; May 20, 1993. Bates no. 2073553828/3829. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tvr42c00. Accessed January 9, 2009. Google Scholar
329. Hendrie PJ, McGeehan P. Miracle pill or bitter remedy? U.S. sales tax debated. The Record (New Jersey). April 16, 1993:A1. Google Scholar
330. Sharma-Jensen G. Study predicts spiraling health costs. The Milwaukee Journal. November 22, 1993:C8. Google Scholar
331. Miles MA. Ferocious defense. Philip Morris; March 7, 1994. Bates no. 2022887001/7002. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lio87e00. Accessed August 5, 2008. Google Scholar
332. Philip Morris. 930000 Corporate contributions report for PM USA NYO; 1993. Bates no. 2073010053/0054. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sgs57c00. Accessed August 25, 2008. Google Scholar
333. Philip Morris. SET SWOT analysis 950000; October 1994. Bates no. 2044700812/0815. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/glq18d00. Accessed April 10, 2008. Google Scholar
334. Nicoli D. Letter to Victoria Hughes, vice president for development of Citizens for a Sound Economy. Philip Morris; March 7, 1994. Bates no. 2047993206. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tki57d00. Accessed August 8, 2008. Google Scholar
335. Marden RE. Letter to Fred L. Smith, Jr. Philip Morris; June 29, 1993. Bates no. 2046558316. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pot72e00. Accessed August 22, 2008. Google Scholar
336. Borelli TJ. Letter to Fred Smith. Philip Morris; July 27, 1994. Bates no. 2046557955. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/plh36e00. Accessed August 22, 2008. Google Scholar
337. Weyrich PM. Letter to Dr. Thomas Borelli. Philip Morris; September 23, 1994. Bates no. 2046563261/3262. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bsw87d00. Accessed March 20, 2008. Google Scholar
338. Stuntz SM. re: Public affairs division 1994 budget request. Tobacco Institute; September 1, 1993. Bates no. TI14141110–TI92. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pev09a00. Accessed January 7, 2009. Google Scholar
339. Tobacco Institute. Attachment 1: Tobacco Institute contribution to Tobacco Industry Labor Management Committee summary; 1994. Bates no. TICT0002814/2817. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hoc42f00. Accessed February 5, 2009. Google Scholar
340. Tobacco Institute. Tobacco Industry Labor Management Committee summary of disbursements by vendor: twelve month period ended 19941231; March 16, 1995. Bates no. TI16370245/0246. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oac86d00. Accessed February 12, 2009. Google Scholar
341. Reynolds R. Public issues update March 7–11, 1994 (940307–940311). RJ Reynolds; March 11, 1994. Bates no. 512766882/6887. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qwb33d00. Accessed April 20, 2009. Google Scholar
342. Rife T. 1991(910000) state plans Rocky Mountain Region—Idaho. Montana. Nevada. Utah. RJ Reynolds; 1991. Bates no. 512000822/0877. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fzh43d00. Accessed May 20, 2009. Google Scholar
343. Rife T. Weekly report for May 22, 1991 (910522). Tim Rife. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah. RJ Reynolds; May 22, 1991. Bates no. 507698251/8252. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kwa71d00. Accessed May 20, 2009. Google Scholar
344. Synhorst T. Weekly report. RJ Reynolds; April 7, 1993. Bates no. 515190686/0688. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uqd03d00. Accessed April 17, 2009. Google Scholar
345. Spangler TJ. Weekly report for Toby J. Spangler. Week ending April 25, 1991 (910425). RJ Reynolds; April 25, 1991. Bates no. 507698396/8397. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wyz14d00. Accessed May 20, 2009. Google Scholar

Related

No related items

TOOLS

SHARE

ARTICLE CITATION

Laura E. Tesler, PhD, and Ruth E. Malone, PhD, RNAt the time of the study, Laura E. Tesler was with the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco. Ruth E. Malone is with the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco. ““Our Reach Is Wide by Any Corporate Standard”: How the Tobacco Industry Helped Defeat the Clinton Health Plan and Why It Matters Now”, American Journal of Public Health 100, no. 7 (July 1, 2010): pp. 1174-1188.

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.179150

PMID: 20466958