As fate would have it, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona is guiding the tobacco bill through the Senate. The irony is that McCain has championed campaign finance reform, and the smoking debate shows–if nothing else–that contributions do not corrupt Congress on major issues. The tobacco companies have long been among the most lavish corporate contributors. In 1996, they gave nearly $10 million to candidates and parties, reports Common Cause. The more they give, the less influence they have.
Last week, McCain’s Commerce Committee approved legislation that the industry despises. It would raise cigarette prices by an estimated $1.21 a pack by 2003. It would provide little protection against lawsuits. The industry says some firms would go bankrupt; RJR-Nabisco is most often mentioned. Some in Congress think this is too lenient. So much for the power of campaign money.
Its ineffectiveness is no mystery. People–not dollars–vote. Few politicians want to be tainted by the tobacco companies. In a 1997 Roper Starch poll of 29 industries, tobacco ranked last in popularity. Only 30 percent rated it “highly” or “moderately” favorable. By contrast, favorable ratings were 73 percent for car companies (No. 9) and 48 percent for beer firms (No. 25). As important, the enormity of campaign giving dilutes individual contributors’ influence. In the 1995-96 election cycle, gifts for federal office totaled $2.1 billion. Against that, tobacco’s money was puny.
This does not mean that money has no influence or that gathering it is not an often-grotesque process. It does mean that few politicians depend on one or two contributors; and it also means that, as issues become more important, money’s influence fades. But the absence of money’s influence does not ensure–as reformers assume–responsible debate. Tobacco shows that, too.
We are not having a debate on smoking; we’re having an inquisition. The only discussable positions are tough and tougher against the industry. Reasoned debate requires at least three conditions: an honest use of language; an openness to information; and a recognition that good goals might have bad side effects. None of these conditions exists in the smoking debate.
Language regularly misleads. McCain says that his bill would force “the industry . . . to pay over $500 billion (over 25 years).” Though true, this obscures the larger truth: The $500 billion would be paid mostly by smokers in higher cigarette prices. Talking about this is awkward, because smokers predominate among the poor and lower middle class. So no one does.
For example, the Treasury Department recently issued a report on the benefits of anti-smoking legislation. It omitted any analysis of who would pay the costs, although Treasury performs such distributional analyses for many tax proposals. Any analysis would have shown that more than half the tax is paid by those with incomes under $30,000 and only 1 percent is paid by those with incomes over $100,000.
People conceal inconvenient facts–or don’t know them. The Treasury study asserts that most smokers are addicted, justifying tough government action to deter them from starting. But this argument hardly squares with the fact that there are about as many ex-smokers as smokers. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control found 48 percent of adults once smoked and 25 percent still do.
More Top Picks Best Standing Desk Mats For Kitchens
Deterring teen smoking is important; but it is not all that’s important. Should we tax a poor population without rebating some funds? Is it a wise precedent to bankrupt companies that fall into public disfavor? The industry’s warnings are not obviously far-fetched. David Adelman, an investment analyst with Morgan Stanley, says RJR is vulnerable because it has higher debt, lower profits and greater costs than Philip Morris. By his estimate, RJR has only three dollars of operating profits for every dollar of interest costs. As income drops, RJR will have a harder time servicing its debt. The bill would also try to limit the tobacco industry’s ability to lobby. Should a democracy be trying to muzzle unpopular groups?
The anti-smoking bill has immense implications–economic, social and political–that have been lost in the single-minded focus on teen smoking. Every politician is in favor; none dares express doubt. In drafting his bill, McCain allowed public health advocates to view and influence the measure. Had the industry received similar access, there would have been a huge outcry about the tobacco companies buying “access” with political donations. But the companies were excluded.
The point is that people–not money–ultimately corrupt political debate. What defeats reasoned discussion is conformity, ignorance and ambition. The Founding Fathers knew this was a problem and were at pains to prevent it. “In all cases where a majority is united by a common interest or passion,” James Madison said at the Constitutional Convention, “the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them (the majority)?” This was a good question then; it certainly is now.