Sunday, June 30, 1996

Poll: Texans oppose efforts to sue tobacco companies

By Harte-Hanks

Bob Dole may not look much like the Marlboro man - but don't tell that to Texas Democrats, eager to use the presumptive GOP presidential nominee as a poster boy in a war against tobacco.

Dole was in Houston Friday followed by "Butt Man," a man dressed as a cigarette, to call attention to Dole's no-brainer ideas that nicotine isn't addictive at a time his campaign is drawing huge tobacco industry contributions.

Tobacco is a big political issue this year. Dole and President Clinton have squared off over government efforts to regulate nicotine as a drug.

And in Texas, the state has joined at least eight other states in suing tobacco companies in an effort to recover billions of taxpayer dollars spent on low-income folks who have tobacco-related illnesses.

Add to that a call from Attorney General Dan Morales for state agencies to sell tobacco stocks in their portfolios; a ban on tobacco contributions by the Texas Democratic Party; and a Senate committee examining new ways to keep kids from getting tobacco, and you have the makings of one of the year's big political issues.

"The (Clinton) administration has made it pretty clear that they see this as an attractive campaign issue for them," said Peggy Carter, spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. "Nobody's going to criticize you for holding (anti-tobacco) positions, and we are not one of the better-liked industries. It is an issue that somewhat polarizes people."

The question is how much it polarizes people. More than 60 percent of Texans in a Harte-Hanks Texas Poll opposed Morales' efforts to sue the tobacco companies. Even more - about 80 percent - opposed smokers who file suit against tobacco companies.

Most public health groups say Texans don't really understand the lawsuit and just oppose lawsuits in general.

That could change as Texans become more aware of the costs of tobacco on public health.
Each year the state spends billions of dollars on health-related illnesses in Medicaid funds.

And more than 400,000 Americans die each year from tobacco-related diseases - about 25,000 of them in Texas. That's more people killed than by heroin, cocaine, alcohol, AIDS, fires, homicides, suicides and automobile accidents combined.

Each day, more than 3,000 youngsters start smoking, and that means the toll on taxpayer dollars is going to go even higher as health costs due to tobacco use continues to increase.

Parties to the Texas lawsuit say tobacco is not a partisan political issue, but few think that's true.
"Republicans and Democrats alike are banding together to fight the tobacco issue," said Morales spokesman Ron Dusek. "Democrats and Republicans are not part of the legal documents," shot back Chuck McDonald, who is working with Philip Morris.

But the fact is that tobacco companies nationwide are pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns and political parties to try and stem the tide to regulate their industry.

In June, the New York Times reported that in 15 months previous to March 31, Philip Morris gave $1,687,478 to the two parties - 88 percent o Republicans. RJR Nabisco gave $831,053 - 84 percent to Republicans.

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports that last year Philip Morris and RJR Nabisco together gave $1.7 million to the Republican Party and $326,000 to the Democratic Party.

In Texas, tobacco industry folks want the state's lawsuit moved from the Texarkana federal court to Austin. They say it will be easier to get witnesses and documents in the state capital. Critics say they are afraid of U.S. District Judge David Folsom, who will hear the tobacco case, and was appointed by President Clinton.

They also worry about Texas Democrats who said their party wouldn't take any more tobacco money - despite the fact that Philip Morris gave $50,000, the party's largest contribution last year. They said they wanted to avoid any conflict of interest while Morales - a Democrat - was suing tobacco companies.

Political parties and candidates would do well to follow that example. If they don't, they risk the perception that they are addicted - not to the nicotine - but to the lush political contributions it produces.