Mobilising public opinion for the tobacco industry: the consumer tax alliance and excise taxes
Open accessAbstract
Background: Tobacco industry funding was instrumental in creating and financing the Consumer Tax Alliance in 1989 as an organisation that relied upon extensive media outreach to build opposition to excise taxes as a regressive form of taxation. By obscuring its own role in this effort, the tobacco industry undermined the public’s reasonable expectations for transparency in the policy-making process. Aim: To examine the formation and activities of the Consumer Tax Alliance as a “hybrid” form of interest group in order to provide tobacco control and public health advocates with a better understanding of unanticipated tobacco industry coalitions and facilitate appropriate countermeasures. Methods: Document searches through the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library and through Tobacco Documents Online and review of background literature. Results: The Tobacco Institute actively sought liberal allies beginning in the mid-1980s in seeking to build public opposition to cigarette excise tax increases by promoting them as a regressive form of taxation. The creation of the Consumer Tax Alliance in 1989 was expressly intended to turn labour and middle-class opinion against prospective excise tax increases in federal budget deficit negotiations, without divulging the tobacco industry’s role in its formation. Conclusion: It is important to understand the dynamic by which trusted organisations can be induced to alter their agendas in response to funding sources. Advocates need to understand this form of interest group behaviour so that they are better able to negotiate the policy arena by diagnosing and exposing this influence where it occurs and, by doing so, be better prepared to take appropriate countermeasures.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing studies on how tobacco control policy is passed at the national level focus more on tactics used by opponents rather than proponents.
“Moreover, existing studies on how tobacco control policy is passed at the national level are focused more on tactics used by opponents (eg, lobbying, litigation, protests and other tactics to delay or subvert policy passage) rather than proponents,25–32 with few exceptions.33–36”
From Seven-year tobacco tax plan in Ukraine: a case study of the actors, tactics and factors motivating policy passage (2022) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- [6]Givel MS Glantz SA Tobacco lobby political influences on U.S. state legislatures in the 1990s Tobacco Control 2001 10 124 134 11387532 PMC1747563
- [7]Apollonio DE Bero LA The creation of industry front groups: The tobacco industry and “Get Government off our Back” American Journal of Public Health 2007 97 419 427 17267719 PMC1805008
- [8]Dearlove J Aguinaga Bialous S Glantz S Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places Tobacco Control 2002 11 94 104 12034999 PMC1763854
- [9]Balbach ED Barbeau EM Manteufel V Pan J Political coalitions for mutual advantage: The case of the Tobacco Institute’s labor management committee American Journal of Public Health 2005 95 985 993 15914820 PMC1449295
- [10]Muggli M Forster J Hurt R The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against control of environmental tobacco smoke American Journal of Public Health 2001 91 1419 1493 11527774 PMC1446797
- [11]Barnes DE Bero LA Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions JAMA 1998 279 1566 1570 9605902
- [12]Bodensteiner CA Special interest group coalitions: Ethical standards for broad-based support efforts Public Relations Review 1997 23 31 46
- [13]Tucker K McNerney SL Building coalitions to initiate change Public Relations Journal 1992 January 28 30
- [18]Patton CV Sawicki DS Basic methods of policy analysis and planning 1993 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall
- [19]MacRae D Whittington D Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse 1997 Washington DC Georgetown University Press
- [20]Malone RE Balbach ED Tobacco industry documents: Treasure trove or quagmire? Tobacco Control 2000 9 334 338 10982579 PMC1748361
- [23]Lewit EM Coate D The potential for using excise taxes to reduce smoking Journal Health Economics 1982 1 121 145 10263952
- [24]Schultz JM Moen ME Pechacek TF The Minnesota plan for nonsmoking and health: the legislative experience Journal of Public Health Policy 1986 7 439 453 3095374
- [25]Lewit EM Coate D Grossman M The effect of government regulation on teenage smoking Journal of Law and Economics 1981 24 545 569
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weiger, C., Hoe, C., & Cohen, J. E. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049833 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Campbell, R., & Balbach, E. D.
- Affiliations
- Tufts University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, R
- Venue
- Tobacco Control
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2008-08-07
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 351-356
- ISSN
- 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3318
- PMC
- PMC2772174
- OpenAlex
- W2140918735
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA095964)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
- Keywords
- tobacco industry, excise tax, cigarette taxes, regressive taxation, interest groups, public opinion, media outreach, tobacco control advocacy, agenda setting
- MeSH terms
- Consumer Advocacy, Humans, Politics, Public Opinion, Smoking, Taxes, Tobacco Industry
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review