Big tobacco's rightwing pals (and fundees) aggressively supporting e-cigs; some things never change

Just as e-cigarette advertising is modeled on the most aggressive of old-fashioned cigarette advertising, the e-cigarette companies (which are, increasingly owned by cigarette companies) are mobilizing the same network of right-wing think tanks that the cigarette companies have used for years to push their policy agenda, often linked with the tobacco companies' development of the Tea Party and related groups.  John Mashey, a member of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education's Advisory Committee, sent me a few good examples. 
 
Heartland Institute (tobacco documents):
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/01/chicago-bans-indoor-use-of-e-cigarettes-heartland-institute-responds/
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-age-restrictions-electronic-cigarettes
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-electronic-cigarettes
 
Competitive Enterprise Institute  (tobacco documents)
http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/possible-fda-ban-e-cigarettes-wrong-move
http://www.openmarket.org/2013/07/29/regulating-e-cigarettes-creates-the-wrong-incentives/
 
CATO Institute  (tobacco documents)
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/e-cigarettes-cigars-fdas-new-powers
 
National Center for Public Policy Research (my addition; tobacco documents)
http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/1/22/national-center-senior-fellow-to-testify-before-oklahoma-leg.html
 
The more things change the more they stay the same.  (And, of course, there are lots more examples.)

Comments

More on this , including comments on M P Siegel's silly post

(From John Mashey)
 
 
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/28/familiar-think-tanks-fight-e-cigarettes
gave links to thinktanks who have long gotten funding from tobacco companies and have been starting to help out with e-cigs, now that the market has been pioneered by startups, and the major companies are moving in.
 
People have asked me how the funding flows work.
 
1)  From the LTDL, one can find at least a dozen years of good records of "donations" from tobacco companies to tax-exempt non-profit "public charities" like CATO, CE, Heartand, etc.
 
2) This is a wonderful entrepreneurial structure: each year, think tanks tell their funders of their accomplishments and beg for more money, examples from LTD:L given in:
 
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax  PDF pp.37-47 covers this in some detail.'
 
3) Each year, tobacco companies decide how to allocate money. and the checks go to the think tank, not individuals ... who have plausible deniability, since *they* did not receive $ from the companies ...if nobody @ CATO helps out one year, what is likely to happen to their "donation" the next year??
 
There is no long-term contract, and the various think tanks get to compete, so they  have long cooperated with tobacco companies, as thousands of LTDL documents show.  A brilliant design: plausible deniability for individuals, dark money ... and tax-free, cheaper than hiring PR agencies.
 
4)  M P Siegel wrote a silly article:
 
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/02/will-stan-glantz-defend-his-...
 
He apparently used to know better:
 
http://junksciencearchive.com/sep99/anradmit.html
 
http://www.junkscience.org/sep99/anrad5.html
 
5) As for CATO, they have helped tobacco companies and gotten paid for it for decades:
 
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/search/basic?fd=0&q=%22CATO%20Institute%22    2,842 documents with "CATO Insititute"
 
And of course, http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-t... pp.37-42 has plenty.
 
Of the think tanks there, on p.39, CATO was #3 (after WLF and ATR, although I'm chagrinned to have ignored #1, CSE, which Amanda, Rachel and Stan dug out).
 
That was just Philip Morris, but CATO certainly got paid by Reynolds, as a few of the many examples show:
 
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/myt40d00/pdf
 
CATO President Crane to RJR: ‘Just a note to add my thanks to those of Bob Borens for the generous $50,000 contribution...’
 
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vaw72a00/pdf
 
RJR Internal: ‘Bill Orzechowski at TI noted that at a meeting yesterday, the folks at CATO were "singing the praises of Tom Griscom and RJR" ...very complimentary and supportive.’
 
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dyt40d00/pdf
 
'RJR to CATO: ‘It is our pleasure to be able to support the work that is being done by the Cato Institute.’
 
What do they do for the money?  For example:
 
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/coa85c00/pdf
 
‘Cato Institute Op-eds, media, policy briefs, LTEs’
 
But CATO staff/affiliates have written *many* articles besides.
 
Needless to say, truth is a defense,  and I rather suspect CATO knows enough about defamation law not to want to open itself to the legal discovery that would inevitably result.  I suspect Siegel doesn't know much about libel law, as this is as a demand for apology is quite reminiscent of the UK Lord Christopher Monckton's frequent demands for apologies from US Senators or scientists who debunk his absurd claims.

Inspired by Stan, I diod blog post

See
Familiar Think Tanks Fight For E-cigarettes
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/28/familiar-think-tanks-fight-e-cigare...
 
This integrated that various lists here and added some more, as well as some images, including a video commercial in which vapor:
a) Turns into "Save humanity"
and then
b) "Start vaping"
-John Mashey

As Stan notes, ther are many more examples

p.39 of PDF @ http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax
 listed 501(c)(3) tax-exempt "public charities" for which the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library had records of funding from Philip Morris.
An hour's worth of searches easily found more on that list to add to Heartland, CATO, CEI, and NCPPR (and now ACSH).
Funny thing, they all talk about the health benefits of e-cigs, having gotten paid for years to help the tobacco companies.
Another funny thing, they downplay the marketing, especially of all the candy flavors, as per:
http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/ecigs.php
-John Mashey
American Enterprise Institute - AEI
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/november/smoking-kills-and-so-might-e-cigarette-regulation
American Spectator Foundation
http://spectator.org/articles/34413/deadly-crusade-against-e-cigarettes
Americans for Tax Reform - ATR
http://www.atr.org/atr-opposes-new-tax-e-cigarettes-a7621
http://www.atr.org/city-deluth-considers-nonsensical-regulations-e-a7843
Heritage Foundation
http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=21174 Smoking Kills, and So Might E-Cigarette Regulation (repost of AEI)
Independent Women's Forum - IWF
http://www.iwf.org/blog/2792359/Lights-Out-on-E-Cigarettes
" E-cigarettes are exposing the true motivations behind the anti-tobacco industry..."
http://iwf.org/blog/2791913/ Smoked Out: E-Cigarettes to Be Banned in the Big Apple
National Center for Policy Analysis - NCPA
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23882  Smoking Kills, and So Might E-Cigarette Regulations (from AEI)
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23891  E-Cigarettes Reduce Harm from Tobacco
Reason Foundation
http://reason.org/blog/show/e-cigarette-regs-nyc E-Cigarette Regulations Likely to Harm Anti-Smoking Efforts, Yet NYC Still Considers Ban
Washington Legal Foundation
http://www.wlf.org/litigating/case_detail.asp?id=629
http://www.wlf.org/Upload/litigation/pressrelease/072110RS.pdf COURT URGED TO RESTRICT FDA POWER TO BROADLY DEFINE "MEDICAL DEVICES"
While not on that list, Forbes magazine happened to show up as well:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2014/01/22/e-cig-bans-should-go-up-in-smoke/ editorial by Steve Forbes

Sadly, this now also includes

Sadly, this now also includes ACSH
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising
ACSH once stood tall against Big Tobacco. I will miss them in the fight.
-- Jon