Lee G Anderson
|
This stub is a work-in-progress by the ScienceCorruption.com journalists's group. We are indexing the millions of documents stored at the San Francisco Uni's Legacy Tobacco Archive [1] With some entries you'll need to go to this site and type into the Search panel a (multi-digit) Bates number. You can search on names for other documents also. Send any corrections or additions to editor@sciencecorruption.com |
 |
This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation. |
Lee Anderson was an economist at the College of Marine Sciences, and professor in the College of Business and Economics ag the University of Deleware, Newark -- and also a part-time lobbyist for the tobacco industry. He wrote op-ed articles on commission for the Tobacco institute. These commissions were handed down by Robert Tollison and James Savarese through the Cash for Comments Economists Network. Payments were washed through the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.
Lee Anderson joined the Tollison/Savarese network in 1986. He was commissioned to write op-eds which were to be planted on the News Journal Papers in Delaware. He was also paid to send copies together with a letter to Senator William Roth Jr. and Joseph Biden.
| HOW THE NETWORK WORKED |
|---|
|
The Cash-for-Comments Economists' Network was run by Savarese through a partnership with Professor Robert D Tollison who used the staff and facilities of the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University to prove cut-out and organisation services. They developed and maintained a network of Economics Professors with at least one on tap in virtually every US state. As one Professor transferred or dropped out (there was a regular turn-over) a new one would be recruited in that State. In all, about 130 university professors were involved in the period 1985-1995, and costs ran to $3 million/year at a time when professor's salaries were in the $30-40,000 pa range. An active network member at a State university could almost double his normal salary. The main focus of the group was to write commissioned op-ed articles on a subject determined by the Tobacco Institute. The draft article would then pass back through the network to TI staff, who were essentially public relations experts. Here they were 'improved' and refined; then sent to the Institute's outside lawyers for vetting. Modified articles then returned to the professor, who would then send them to a designated State newspaper as if they were his 'independent expert opinion'. The professors received a base amount for writing and bonuses for successfully planting the article on the newspaper. Some, but not all, received a small (eg.$1000) annual retainer.[2]] Published papers would also be copied by the professor and sent to his local Federal Representative and Senator (for a further bonus). Sometimes there were special commissions, but generally the work was writing op-eds and LTE's where they were paid just on results (varied from about $700 to $3000 over the years). Network members could also be called upon to provide witness services and promote the cigarette companies' political/economic line at local ordinance or State legislative hearings. An active professor of economics at a State University could almost double his salary with these activities and with some further appearances, for instance, speaking on the importance of cigarettes in economic terms at major economic conferences, etc. |
| Cash for Comments Economists Network & Robert Tollison & James Savarese & Network Document Index |
Documents & Dates
1984 Jul The Tobacco Institute's Cigarette Excise Tax Plan.
The plan augments our basic lobbying efforts by relying on groups outside the industry -- some not regularly associated with the industry -- to argue against excise taxes for us.
It is an ambitious program, based on the notion that many of the most effective protests against tobacco taxes will come from groups philosophically distant from The Institute. Many such groups agree with us on the excise issue, even though they disagree with us on other matters. At the federal level, supporting Congressional members from the tobacco states is essential to our lobbyists. The tobacco members consistently vote as a unified group -- something that is rarely seen in Congress today. They are our lobbyists' most important resource.
The program recommends that economic and other consultants assist us in developing, "packaging," and presenting our anti-excise arguments in legislative testimony or meetings with coalition members.
Resources:
Economic consultants with different areas of expertise will conduct research and act as spokespersons for The Institute and organizations supported by The Institute. Specific activities with economists are discussed throughout the tactics.Tactics:
- Stimulate reputable public finance economists at key state universities to determine the validity of state revenue forecasts, perhaps on behalf of state business organizations and present arguments against excise taxes in various forums; e.g., meetings with potential coalition members or budget officials.
- Encourage economists to make the case against regressive taxation in meetings with potential coalition members and legislators.
- Retain public finance economists affiliated with non-profit organizations to research the subject and use their findings in forums such as:
- Private meetings with state legislators or staff ;
- formal testimony before government bodies ;
- targeted media appearances;
- speeches before business, civic, labor, and other groups ;
- tax symposia in key states where the proceedings could be published for use in other states ; and
- articles which raise the visibility of key arguments in the business, academic, and popular press.
Strategies:
- Presenting specific members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees with arguments prepared by economists with whom they share some common interest; e.g college affiliation, service on the same commission.
- Gaining the support of Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), the most influential labor/liberal tax reform group in the country, in opposition to excise taxes.
- Relying on the AFL-CIO -- via The Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers Union -- to ensure that the labor/liberal tax package that emerges in the next session of Congress does not include tobacco.
Appendix: A list of economists in key states who may be willing to act as industry and third-party spokespersons on the tax issue. Following is a list of economists in key states who might assist us as experts receiving honoraria. We have begun contacting them to ensure their willingness and expertise. We are asking each about past experience; work with similar issues; previous work with the industry; published articles or research; and availability.
Our intent is to have a group of individuals whom we can call upon as needed to testify, conduct special research and discuss their research projects and/or views on excise taxes with budget officials, potential coalition members, legislators and the media.
Professor Lee Anderson joined this scheme less than a year later. [3]
|
1985 June/1986 March-July The Cash for Comments Economists Network was commissioned by the Tobacco Institute to write economic opinion pieces opposing excise taxes on cigarettes in mid-year-1985. This propaganda requirment resurfaced as a major project for the economist in the peak of the Tobacco Industry's PR campaign against the Packwood tax plan (although the threat was obviously still a possibility until the end of 1986r). The Tobacco institute (much later) put together a package of commissioned economics reports (see front section of document), followed by about thirty op-eds and composite pieces which were generated by the Tollison/Savarese Cash for Comments Economists Network in this 1985-86 time frame. It illustrates the propaganda value of this network -- and shows what it can accomplish in a very short time for just a few thousand dollars in academic bribes. These op-eds attacking the Packwood tax plan were all published in local newspaper across the USA. (Copies needed to be sent in for payment to be made.) A few are from July 1985 and the rest appeared in local newspapers during March-July 1986. These spontaneous independent expressions of expert opinion all miraculously come from Professors of Economics attached to the Center for Study of Public Choice ... Joseph M Jadlow, Oklahoma State Uni. (He had two op-eds in different papers.); William C Mitchell Uni of Oregon, Eugene; Lee G Anderson, Uni of Delaware; John S Howe Uni of Kansas, Lawrence; D. Allen Dalton, Boise State University; Thomas F Pogue, Uni of Iowa, Iowa City (He had two.); Scott Atkinson, Uni of Wyoming. (He had two in different papers.); S. Charles Maurice, Texas A&M Uni; Todd Sandler, Uni of Wyoming; Michael A Crew, Rutgers Uni, Newark; Robert B Ekelund Jr., Auburn Uni (He had two.) ; Ann Harper-Fender, Gettysburg College; Lee Alston, Williams College; Paul L Menchik, Michigan State Uni; Henry N Butler, Texas A&M Uni; Burton A Abrams, Uni of Delaware; Ryan C Amacher, Clemson Uni (He had two.); Dominick T Armentano, Uni of Hartford; Fred McChesney, Emory Uni; and a think-tanker David Wilhelm (Citizens for Tax Justice); Also short extract pieces and letters-to-the-editor from A James Heins, Uni of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana; William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Milwaukee; Dennis E Logue, Dartmouth College; William F Shughart, George Mason Uni; Harold Hochman, Baruch College, City Uni of New York; Also uncredited overviews in the Newport Daily News, the Times-Review in Texas, Herald PA, etc. which expresses the encapsulated wisdom of most of the above with the addition of Thomas Borcherding (Claremont Graduate School, Calif); K. Celeste Gaspari, Uni of Vermont, Birmingham; David N Laband, Uni of Maryland; Dean Tipps (Service Employees Intl. Union); Allen M Parkman, Uni of New Mexico, Alburquerque, NM; Richard K Vedder, Ohio Uni, Athens; Roger L Faith, Arizona State Uni, Tempe; Lee Alston, Williams College Mass; and William J Hunter, Marquette Uni, Wisc.; (Some sections were published in multiple papers). [4] |
|
