IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ctcres/qt49n4q7qc.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Clean Air Now, But a Hazy Future: Tobacco Industry Political Influence and Tobacco Policy Making in Ohio 1997-2007

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Tung, MPH
  • Stanton Glantz, PhD

Abstract

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From 1997-2006 the tobacco industry and tobacco trade organizations contributed $464,700 to Ohio state political candidates and political parties, including $88,400 during the 2005-6 election. From 1997-2006 the tobacco industry and tobacco trade organizations made 77.2% of their total contributions to individuals and organizations affiliated with the Republican Party. Starting in 2000, health advocates made attempts to introduce clean indoor air regulations to all public and work places in Lucas County through the regulatory authority of the County Board of Health. These attempts were opposed by forces allied with the tobacco industry, and included legal and legislative challenges. In 2002 the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Boards of Health do not have the authority to regulate tobacco products. In 1998, the state settled its lawsuit against the tobacco industry through the Master Settlement Agreement, which awarded the state about $350 million per year. In 1999, Governor Bob Taft (R) formed the Tobacco Task Force to outline a plan for how Ohio would use the Master Settlement Agreement money awarded to the State. This plan specified the formation of the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation to coordinate Ohio’s tobacco control programs and the creation of a trust fund/endowment to fund the Foundation with $1.1 billion in MSA revenue by 2008. Through 2008 the Ohio Legislature has redirected the majority of the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation’s funding to the State’s general fund. The Foundation has received only 32% of the originally planned funding recommended by the Tobacco Task Force. From 1997-2006, Ohio has increased the State’s excise tax on cigarettes twice. In 2002 the tax was increased $.21 to a total of $.55 and in 2005 the tax was increased $.70 to a total of $1.25. None of these funds were directed to Ohio’s tobacco control programs. The Ohio Department of Health has a very small and limited Tobacco Risk Reduction Program that is completely funded by grants from the US Centers for Disease Control that has historically ranged between $1-2 million. The Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation is a government funded independent foundation that is charged with running and coordinating all of Ohio’s tobacco control programs. Due to the redirection of originally planned funding, the Foundation’s annual budgets have leveled off at $45 million, short of the CDC recommended minimum $62 million in annual tobacco control program expenditures for Ohio. In order to maintain even this reduced level of activity, the Foundation has had to start spending down its principle. Absent a new infusion of funds, it will be forced to cease operations in 2016. The Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation’s community grants program effort has expanded tobacco control infrastructure throughout the state and accelerated the pursuit of local clean indoor air efforts throughout Ohio. Local efforts to pass comprehensive clean indoor air ordinances in Ohio produced variable results with some tobacco control successes, such as in Columbus, and some setbacks, such as in Toledo. In 2005, the American Cancer Society and a coalition of Ohio health groups formed Smoke Free Ohio, a campaign to pursue a statewide comprehensive clean indoor air law through a ballot initiative. The campaign was run primarily by the American Cancer Society and received some criticism from tobacco control advocates for being too hierarchical and insulated. In response to the Smoke Free Ohio campaign, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company backed a competing campaign called Smoke Less Ohio, which was a ballot initiative to amend the State’s constitution and introduce an extremely weak state clean indoor air ordinance that exempted bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and bingo parlors. The Smoke Less Ohio initiative would also have preempted future local ordinances that were more strict and overturned 21 local ordinances in Ohio that were already in place. Health advocates (mainly the American Cancer Society) spent $2.7 million supporting the Smoke Free Ohio campaign and tobacco interests (mainly RJ Reynolds) spent $6.7 million supporting Smoke Less Ohio. On November 7, 2006, Ohio became the 15th state in the US to go smoke free when the Smoke Free Ohio campaign passed with 58% of voter in favor and the Smoke Less Ohio campaign failed with only 36% of Ohioans in favor. While the law was enacted in December 2006, enforcement did not start until the Ohio Department of Health finalized enforcement rules, which it did in April 2007. During this delay, pro-tobacco interests worked to create confusion and undermine public support for and compliance with the law. Consequently public confusion and non compliance with Ohio’s new clean indoor air law was common. The American Cancer Society and other health groups generated a tremendous amount of political credibility when they successfully passed the Smoke Free Ohio initiative by a convincing margin. However, these health groups were nsuccessful in using their new political power along with underlying public support to aid implementation of Ohio’s clean indoor air law and to exert political pressure to restore funding for the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Tung, MPH & Stanton Glantz, PhD, 2007. "Clean Air Now, But a Hazy Future: Tobacco Industry Political Influence and Tobacco Policy Making in Ohio 1997-2007," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt49n4q7qc, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt49n4q7qc
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/49n4q7qc.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dearlove, J.V. & Glantz, S.A., 2002. "Boards of health as venues for clean indoor air policy making," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(2), pages 257-265.
    2. Monardi, F. & Glantz, S.A., 1998. "Are tobacco industry campaign contributions influencing state legislative behavior?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(6), pages 918-923.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ibrahim, J K & Tsoukalas, T H & Glantz, Stanton A. Ph.D., 2004. "Public health foundations and the tobacco industry: lessons from Minnesota," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt82c1j5c8, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    2. Payán, Denise D. & Lewis, LaVonna B. & Cousineau, Michael R. & Nichol, Michael B., 2017. "Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 78-86.
    3. Maurice Mulcahy & David S. Evans & Blaithin Lahiffe & Deirdre Goggin & Colm Smyth & Gerard Gerard Hastings & Miriam Byrne, 2009. "Environmental Health Organisations against Tobacco," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Stephen P. Ferris & Reza Houston & David Javakhadze, 2016. "Friends in the Right Places: The Effect of Political Connections on Corporate Merger Activity," NFI Working Papers 2016-WP-01, Indiana State University, Scott College of Business, Networks Financial Institute.
    5. Bialous, Stella Aguinaga & Mandel, Lev L. & Glantz, Stanton A. Ph.D., 2006. "Avoiding “Truth”: Tobacco Industry Promotion of Life Skills Training," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt2cd8t2jd, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    6. Ferris, Stephen P. & Houston, Reza & Javakhadze, David, 2016. "Friends in the right places: The effect of political connections on corporate merger activity," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 81-102.
    7. Beneish, Messod D. & Jansen, Ivo Ph. & Lewis, Melissa F. & Stuart, Nathan V., 2008. "Diversification to mitigate expropriation in the tobacco industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 136-157, July.
    8. Nixon, M L & Mahmoud, L & Glantz, Stanton A. Ph.D., 2004. "Tobacco industry litigation to deter local public health ordinances: the industry usually loses in court," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt3217s0k3, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ohio; Policy Making;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:ctcres:qt49n4q7qc. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/ctcre/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.