The memorandum further explained that “[w]hile this does not change our interest in getting media outlets to reduce the ratio to the lowest possible number, it does explain [the broadcasters’] hesitancy to abandon fairness doctrine principles as they pertain to ballot issues…”A May 15, 1990 Tobacco Institute ballot issue update memorandum written by Bob McAdam and Stan Bowman indicated that progress had been made in recruiting some of these groups as allies: “Excellent progress is being made in Montana, particularly in the area of coalition building. During the past two weeks, expressions of support have been obtained from, most notably, the state’s grocers’s association and several veteran’s groups.”A June 18, 1990 incomplete tobacco industry ballot issue update also stated that “…the campaign is beginning to line up the people necessary for the grassroots elements of the campaign. By identifying allies in various parts of the state, it appears that our effort will have significant local level involvement.”Observations of support from ally groups were also given in the 1993 Journal of Public Health Policy paper, “The 1990 Montana Initiative to Increase Cigarette Taxes: Lessons for Other State and Localities,”which reported that the “Montana American Legion opposed the measure, fearing its passage would jeopardize tobacco tax funding for the proposed Veteran’s Nursing Home in eastern Montana, and sent letters to all its members urging a ‘no’ vote,” even though the tobacco industry had fought against the 1989 cigarette tax increase to fund the veterans’ facilities in the first place.Also, “[t]he Montana Alliance for Progressive Policy, a liberal group opposing the increase as an unfair tax on poor people, received $22,500 from a tobacco industry lobby group to produce and send brochures to its 50,000 members urging rejection.”In addition to recruiting already existing groups as allies in the fight against the cigarette tax initiative, the tobacco industry also directly organized and coordinated at least one group, the Montana’s Smoker’s Caucus. An October 5, 1990 R.J. Reynolds interoffice memorandum to Jim Johnston, CEO of R.J. Reynolds, from Thomas C. Griscom, Executive Vice-President of External Relations for R.J. Reynolds, states that Jean Gowdy, Executive Director of the Montana Smoker’s Caucus,ebb and flow setup was an RJR smoker’s rights group leader who was recruited by Philip Morris, and that the Smoker’s Caucus’ activities were coordinated by Philip Morris, though this information was never released to the public.
Starting in October 1990, Jean Gowdy would make numerous public appearances as the Executive Director of the Montana Smokers’ Caucus in opposition to I-115, all the while maintaining the appearance of the group as an independent organization with no ties to the tobacco industry. On October 11, 1990, the Montana Smokers’ Caucus issued the press release, “Montana Taxpayers Unite Against Initative-115,” in which Gowdy argued that I-115 would create more costly, unnecessary bureaucracy and would “continue the dangerous trend of government intrusion into people’s lives and personal decisions.”Gowdy also claimed that it would further burden those in the lower income brackets and that the initiative was an unwise use of state resources.According to the press release, the “Smoker’s Caucus originated in 1988 by citizens of Montana who choose to smoke and who are concerned about fair public policies. Since then, more than 1100 Montanan residents have expressed interest in defending their individual rights.”The Montana Smoker’s Caucus press release was mentioned in 6 Montana Newspapers , from October 13, 1990 to November 4, 1990, for a total of 32 times. The combined circulation of all newspapers was 214,541 .These newspapers carried the arguments in the Smoker’s Caucus press release to the broader public. Gowdy was also quoted in several Montana newspapers as saying, “I don’t feel it’s a smoker vs. non-smoker issue, it’s the additional taxes and bureaucracy.” Additionally, Gowdy appeared on 5 local news programs in Great Falls, Helena, Butte, and Bozeman, and spoke on 3 radio talk shows from October 15, 1990 to October 24, 1990, each time repeating the arguments made in the press release.None of the interviews with Gowdy reported any affiliation or funding by the tobacco industry, and some newspaper reports even strengthened the impression that the Montana Smoker’s Caucus was entirely independent of tobacco industry influence. The Billings Gazette on November 4, 1990 reported that the “Smokers Caucus is not affiliated with the Tobacco Consumers, Distributors and Producers Opposed to Unfair Tobacco Sales Taxes.”In an October 15, 1990 interview on the KMBN Talk Radio show in Bozeman, Gowdy was questioned about how the organization was formed. In her response, Gowdy’s did not mention her affiliations with R.J. Reynolds or Philip Morris. I-115 was defeated on November 6, 1990, by a margin of 59% to 41%, with voter opposition coming mainly from rural counties and the two largest cities, Billings and Great Falls.The initiative received its strongest support from the smaller cities of Missoula, Bozeman, and Helena.About six months after the defeat of I-115, the July 17, 1991 edition of the Smoker’s Advocate, published by Philip Morris, named Jean Gowdy as the Smokers’ Advocate of the Month.The article explained that Gowdy had fought a “war” against Montana’s 1990 tax initiative by touring the state, appearing on television talk shows, speaking on the radio, and writing opinion letters to news editors. Though, curiously, no mention was made of the Montana Smokers’ Caucus or its claimed 1100 members, nor was the group mentioned in any of the tobacco industry documents since the 1990 tax initiative.
The tobacco industry spends a significant amount of money in Montana on campaign contribution to legislative candidates, constitutional officer candidates, and political parties, as well as through expenses incurred through the work of their state lobbyists. It should also be noted that financial contributions are made to state officials which are not recorded through the Office of Political Practices, or any other supervising state government agency. For instance, Gov. Judy Martz, while serving as Governor from 2001-2004, was the honorary chairperson of the Montana Majority Fund, a tax-exempt political organization which was not subject to reporting rules by the Federal Elections Commission, and which received thousands of dollars of financial contributions from several tobacco companies . Also, Senator Ken Miller served as Montana’s State Public Chairman of ALEC , a national advocacy group made up of conservative state lawmakers, and which received financial contributions from the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Such ties between the tobacco industry and state officials or political organizations are difficult to discover. As such, it is likely that the amount of financial expenditures reported by the tobacco industry is considerably less than the amount it actually spends in its efforts to affect tobacco control policy. Organizations included as “tobacco industry” funding sources were: Brown and Williamson, Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Inc. , R.J. Reynolds, Smokeless Tobacco Council, the Tobacco Institute, and US Tobacco. Miller Brewing Co. was also included for lobbying expenditures because the company did not make any substantial contributions to state legislative or statewide candidates, but did spend significant amounts in state lobbying.Other tobacco industry allies, such as the Montana Gaming Industry Association,sliding grow tables were not included because they made almost no campaign contributions. Campaign contributions from tobacco industry lobbyists were included, with each lobbyists given their own category . Contributions data for candidates and elected officials was collected for 1989-2002, and data for contributions to political action committees and lobbyist expenditures was collected for 1993-2002. A complete list of all candidates and elected officials for 2002 and their tobacco industry campaign contributions, as well as tobacco industry lobbying expenditures, are listed in the Appendix. included a gubernatorial election , other statewide elections, and legislative elections.
The amount spent includes campaign contributions to individual statewide candidates, legislators and legislative candidates, as well as to political parties, and lobbying expenditures made by tobacco companies and their allies. This was about an 8% increase from the amount spent by the tobacco industry and it’s allies from 1995-1998 when total expenditures were $90,162 , a period that also included a gubernatorial election as well as legislative and state campaigns. Financial contributions to legislative candidates from the tobacco industry and its ally groups have steadily increased since the 1995-1996 elections cycle . While tobacco industry contributions to both parties have increased, Republican legislative candidates have received more tobacco industry contributions in each election cycle than Democrat legislative candidates since 1992 . Furthermore, the difference between the contributions to Republicans and Democrats has widened since 1996. Tobacco industry contributions to influential House and Senate committees were also examined, because such committees can play a significant role in tobacco control policy making. Of all the committees examined, only the House Committee on Appropriations received $1,000 or more in tobacco industry contributions from 1999-2002 . The House Committee on Appropriations reviewed all of the proposed bills dealing with the allocation of Master Settlement Agreement money since 1999 . This included the allocations received by the tobacco use prevention program, which have been a major point of conflict between tobacco control advocates and legislators wanting to spend MSA funds in other government areas . Those in the committee receiving the most tobacco industry contributions were Appropriations Committee Vice-Chair Rep. John E. Witt , Rep. Rick Ripley , and William Glaser . Lobbying expenditures were higher than others years between 1997 and 1998, and between 2001 and 2002. Between 1997 and 1998, the majority of lobbying expenses came from the Montana Tavern Association, which spent $41,025 in opposition to several proposed state liquor and gambling license restrictions in the 1997 Legislative Session. Also in 1997, Philip Morris paid $14,700 in fees to its state lobbyist John Delano and Leo Berry. Berry was a partner in the Helena law firm Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry, & Hoven, P.C , which was meeting with a variety of state officials and state organizations to coordinate Philip Morris’s PMUSA Field Action Team Program in the late 1990s and into 200178, 79 . Lobbying expenditures from the tobacco industry were also relatively high from 2001 to 2002. In addition to continued efforts from tobacco companies to build and coordinate state coalitions during that time, the 2001 Legislative Session heard a great deal of debate regarding Gov. Judy Martz’ proposed budget cuts in the state’s tobacco use prevention program. In 2001, tobacco use prevention program funding was cut to it’s lowest point under Gov. Martz, whose chief political advisors were tobacco industry lobbyist Mark Baker and Baker’s legal partner, tobacco industry lobbyist Jerome Anderson. It was also between 2001 and 2002 when Mark Baker created the Montana Majority Fund, a Republican committee to financially support state and national campaigns, which received thousand of dollars from tobacco companies. Gov. Martz also served as honorary chairperson of the Montana Majority Fund . According to the Institute on Money in State Politics , the average amount of money raised by the winner of Montana Legislature elections in 2002 was $5,619 for House members, and $11,469 for Senate members. This level of campaign contributions is relatively small compared to larger states, such as California, so the amount of money received from the tobacco industry is, likewise, smaller in comparison. In examining Montana’s relatively low campaign contributions, it should also be noted that Montana has the most stringent contribution limits in the nation.In 1994, Montana voters passed an initiative to lower contribution limits from $250 per election cycle for House candidates and $400 for Senate candidates, to a maximum of $100 per election for both House and Senate candidates.Contribution limits specified in the 2003 Montana Code for candidates running for other offices in Montana are low as well. Individual contributions to a gubernatorial candidate are limited to $500. For candidates of other statewide elected offices, the limit is $250.As a result of these low limits, in the last ten years Montana has seen an increase in self-financed candidates who can give their own campaigns unlimited amounts of money, and who do not have to raise a large number of small individual contributions.Previous research has demonstrated a relationship between campaign contributions from the tobacco industry and policy making behavior among legislators.We sought to test this relationship in Montana by using the 1999-2002 campaign contributions data.