House Republicans are bought and paid for by Big Tobacco
Kari Chisholm
On Tuesday, PolitickerOR reported that the Oregon House Republicans had accepted a $100,000 check from tobacco giant Reynolds American -- the parent company of R.J. Reynolds, and the maker of Camel brand cigarettes and dozens of others.
As the House Democrats noted, it was a payoff to the GOP for being good allies in the 2007 session:
“Last session, House Democrats passed legislation to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. And we asked voters to raise the price of cigarettes to pay for health insurance for children. That issue went to the ballot only because House Republicans refused to increase tobacco prices during the session. Now, House Republicans are getting paid back for doing the bidding of big tobacco with this $100,000 contribution,” said Michele Rossolo, executive director of FuturePAC. “Future Pac has refused to accept any donations from Reynolds or any other tobacco company.”
Because I'm a data nerd, I hustled myself on over to ORESTAR and did a little research of my own. Aside from the big $100,000 check - how many other House Republicans (and Democrats) took checks from Big Tobacco?
It turns out that there are basically two tobacco companies that play in Oregon politics - Reynolds and Philip Morris. And their donations go almost exclusively to House Republicans.
In addition to the big $100,000 check, the Oregon House Republicans caucus took another $20,378 and their individual members took another $49,000 -- for a total of $169,378.
The Democrats? The caucus, FuturePAC, took zero -- and two members took $4000 total.
That's right. The House Republicans took 42 times as much Big Tobacco money as the House Democrats.
Here's the totals, just for this election cycle. First, the Republicans:
$120,378 Promote Oregon Leadership PAC (House GOP)
$7,500 Bruce Hanna
$6,500 John Huffman
$6,000 John Nelsen
$4,000 Gene Whisnant
$3,500 Vic Gilliam
$3,000 Bill Garrard
$3,000 Kevin Cameron
$2,500 Bill Kennemer
$1,000 Andy Duyck
$1,000 Sal Esquivel
$1,000 Bob Jenson
$1,000 Greg Smith
$1,000 Linda Flores
$1,000 George Gilman
$1,000 John Lim
$1,000 Phyllis Thiemann
$1,000 Kim Thatcher
$1,000 Wayne Krieger
$500 Jim Thompson
$500 Jim Weidner
$500 Ron Maurer
$500 Susan Morgan
$500 Tim Freeman
$500 Dennis Richardson
And the Democrats:
$2,500 Dave Hunt
$1,500 Mike Schaufler
Why isn't Oregon's media doing this sort of reporting? ORESTAR is amazingly easy to use. For this project, I just punched in "Reynolds America" and "Philip Morris" into the search form. When the results came up, I clicked on Export to Excel - and I was off and running.
Here, try it yourself. What will you find?
One last thing: For a little comic relief, watch this excellent video from last year -- The Adventures of Mr. Butts in the Oregon Legislature:
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
3:52 p.m.
Oct 30, '08
[Full disclosure: My firm built the website for the Oregon House Democrats, but I speak only for myself.]
Oct 30, '08
Emory University:
"Obesity drives up the cost of health care by increasing the incidence of diabetes, hypertension, and a wide variety of expensive chronic health conditions, many of which are significant risk factors for other serious diseases, say researchers at Emory University, Atlanta. They found the overall cost of health care rose from $3,600,000,000 in 1987 to $36,500,000,000 in 2002."
The CDC:
"The CDC has calculated the cost to the nation in terms of lost worker productivity and health care costs for a pack of cigarettes. For every pack sold in the US it costs $3.45 per pack in health care costs and $3.73 per pack in terms of lost productivity putting the total at $7.18. Multiply that by the total cost of smoking per year ($3 391 and the total US costs is $157 billion."
Marin Institute says:
Twenty-five to forty percent of all patients in U.S. general hospital beds (not in maternity or intensive care) are being treated for complications of alcohol-related problems. Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22.5 billion. The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year. Untreated alcohol problems waste an estimated $184.6 billion dollars per year in health care, business and criminal justice costs, and cause more than 100,000 deaths."
I don't mind taxing cigarettes, but why is it fair to tax one and not the other? Eating junk food as a regular diet (which millions of Americans do) or over-indulging on alcohol are both just as bad as smoking. Am I missing something? Seems like there's a double standard here. Why not tax liquor stores, or alcohol products, or fast food chains?
I understand that funds raised from the tobacco tax would go toward prevention and eduction for kids - which is vital. I like the grassroots approach of trying to find a solution to the problem, rather than just throwing money at it. I just don't believe that only taxing cigarettes is the most fair and equitable way of raising money.
Oct 30, '08
I would like to know why Big Tobacco gave so much to Gene Whisnant. He is in one of the safest seats in Oregon and a safe vote for business.
Oct 30, '08
I don't mind taxing cigarettes, but why is it fair to tax one and not the other?
Jason: Most people will see your point, but there are aspects you appear to not have considered. Cigarettes are addictive and they tend to encourage smokers to use them to dangerous excess. Alcohol, in many if not most cases, is not a problem and if consumed in modest amounts appears to have some benefits. On the other hand the fact that alcohol does contribute to expensive problems suggests a case could be made for increasing existing taxes on it.
As for trying to dissuade kids from smoking I believe the wrong approach is being taken. Telling them they can wind up with cancer or emphysema or some other potentially fatal disease doesn't seem to have much effect. However, if we let them know that tobacco smoke makes their breath, their hair, their clothes, their cars and their homes stink they might have second thoughts.
I was thinking of writing my state rep Whisnant to propose a law making it illegal for anyone to smoke in a car or truck that had a child 16 years or younger as a passenger, but it appears unlikely my proposal would have much of an impact when weighed against the $5,000 he got from the tobacco companies.
Oct 30, '08
Schaufler is a Democrat?
8:31 p.m.
Oct 30, '08
Well, in Oregon part of the story is the state monopoly on booze (as opposed to beer and wine). I'm not sure how OLCC prices compare to other states (when I lived in the Boston Mass. area a lot of people made liquor runs to New Hampshire to buy their booze tax-free, not sure if there would be any similar issue in the Portland area vs. Vancouver WA). But it may be that the prices include an increment that is similar to a tax if it were sold privately.
Taxing food gets tricky. When we discussed this in a public health Ethics class up at OHSU a number of the MPH & MD/MPH students argued against such a tax on the basis of regressiveness & the necessity that time-pressed working people face to rely on it.
And what should we tax? Transfats? Fast-food restaurant meals? If trans, why not saturated fats (butter, steaks)? If MacDonalds, what about Applebee's? Olive Garden?
Or should we tax oversized portions? A chunk of the problem with fast food is the marketing of excessive quantities of food. Maybe we should tax "fourth meal" extra, plus fine Taco Bell for malicious marketing.
Oct 30, '08
Chris: I don't think the liquor situation is much different in the 'couv. But I can testify that when I was in college in Klamath Falls, late night runs to Dorris, CA were not at all unusual.
Oct 31, '08
why the big deal about big tobacco - Obama is big customer?
Oct 31, '08
I couldn't help but notice The Oregonian's resident "doughy pantload", Herr Doktor, is also cashing in on the deadliest drug on Earth -- Big Tobacco.
I guess the crack lobbyist job was filled.
Oct 31, '08
Bill Bodden-- that bill was introduced in 2007. Doesn't look like Whisnant helped with it.
House Bill 2796
Sponsored by Representative GELSER; Representatives BONAMICI, BUCKLEY, HOLVEY, RILEY, ROSENBAUM, SCHAUFLER, TOMEI, WITT
Creates offense of smoking in motor vehicle while person under age of 17 is in motor vehicle. Punishes by maximum fine of $90 for first offense, $180 for second offense and $360 for third or subsequent offense.
Relating to smoking in a motor vehicle. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. { + Section 2 of this 2007 Act is added to and made a part of the Oregon Vehicle Code. + } SECTION 2. { + (1) A person commits the offense of smoking in a motor vehicle if the person smokes cigars, cigarettes or tobacco in any form in a motor vehicle while a person under 17 years of age is in the motor vehicle. (2) The offense described in this section, smoking in a motor vehicle, is a: (a) Class D traffic violation for a first offense. (b) Class C traffic violation for a second offense. (c) Class B traffic violation for a third or subsequent offense. + }
9:15 a.m.
Oct 31, '08
not sure if there would be any similar issue in the Portland area vs. Vancouver WA
No, but I have friends who drive home from California with trunks full of booze. Substantially cheaper prices down south.