Tobacco.org

'Stub out' tobacco company lobbying  

They've been stripped of the right to advertise, will soon be forced to sell their products in plain packaging, at least two political parties refuse to accept their donations and now there is a call to ban tobacco companies from lobbying governments.

Anti-tobacco group Action on Smoking and Health wants a crackdown on the tobacco industry's ability to influence public policy.

In a submission to a Senate committee inquiry into the Government's Lobbying Code of Conduct and and the Register of Lobbyists, ACOSH said smoking had caused the deaths of more than one million Australians since 1950 and was now responsible for the deaths of 15,000 each year.

''Action to reduce smoking has been consistently and vigorously opposed and undermined by the global tobacco industry through sophisticated and well-funded campaigns in Australia, with the goal of undermining tobacco control and public health initiatives,'' the ACOSH submission said.

''A ban on lobbying activities by the tobacco industry is an appropriate remedy to the tactics utilised by the tobacco industry, which defy accountability or transparency.

Jump to full article »

Bid to stub out tobacco donations  

POLITICAL parties would be banned from accepting donations from tobacco companies under government legislation to be introduced to State Parliament this year.

The move will keep the heat on the Tasmanian Liberal Party, which was criticised last week for taking $38,000 from cigarette companies last year.

Attorney-General Brian Wightman said legislation was necessary because the Opposition had failed to do the right thing.

``From our point of view, such a law is just commonsense given the harm that smoking has on our community year after year,'' Mr Wightman said.

``Political parties should not be accepting money from the sale of a product that has such an impact.''

Mr Wightman's promise comes ahead of the release this week of a discussion paper on political donations.

Jump to full article »

Unions and Tobacco Comparison is Offensive and Out of Touch - Brian Wightman, MP  

The Attorney-General, Brian Wightman, today called on the Tasmanian Liberals to apologise for comparing unions to tobacco companies on the issue of political donations.

The Liberal Party's State Director, Sam McQuestin, is quoted in today's media as saying "I trust that the Bill (banning political donations from tobacco companies) will also include a proposal to ban union donations to Labor".

"Unfortunately, this again shows that the Liberals just don't get it," Mr Wightman said.

"Comparing unions to tobacco companies is both ignorant and offensive.

"Suggesting they should be treated the same way in donation laws is even worse.

"Trade unions fight for workers' rights, including better pay and conditions. By contrast, rich tobacco companies sell cigarettes which kill about 400 Tasmanians every year, and put huge extra strain on our health system.

Jump to full article »

Labor targets the Opposition over tobacco donations 

The Labor party in Tasmania is stepping up its campaign against the Liberal party for accepting donations from tobacco companies.

Last week the Australian Electoral Commission released a list of donations to Tasmania's political parties, which showed the state Liberals received about $38,000 in donations from two big tobacco companies.

Labor's state secretary, John Dowling says it's re-released the Liberal party's "vision for the future" TV commercial on the internet with a health warning about tobacco.

"The Liberal party has received tens of thousands of dollars from big tobacco, they've received tens of thousands of dollars from other sources," he said.

Jump to full article »

Where Else Are the Liberals' Cigarette Donations Going?  

Labor Member for Bass, Brian Wightman, today called on Will Hodgman to explain where else the Liberals will spend the political donations it received from cigarette companies.

Mr Wightman said the Liberals needed to come clean on exactly what campaigns this money from big tobacco would be spent.

"Given that Mr Hodgman's new website advertisement features him making promises about health care funding, I'm sure Tasmanians would be interested in knowing what else the profits of cigarette sales will be helping pay for.

"He should immediately can these ads, and ensure the Liberal Party start disclosing how much of their advertising is being brought to Tasmanians courtesy of big tobacco companies and their profits.

"Mr Hodgman seems to think it is okay for his Party to pocket $38,000 in proceeds of cigarette sales on the basis that it doesn't alter its policies, and that they have supported Labor's anti-smoking laws.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco companies are biggest political spenders 

New figures have revealed the political spending of tobacco companies, the mining industry and clubs as they fought to reverse government policy in the past financial year.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has released financial disclosure returns that show the donations of more than $11,500 made to political parties and the political expenditure of donors.

Large tobacco companies spent about $14 million as they fought against the Federal Government's plain packaging laws.

British American Tobacco, Phillip Morris and Imperial Tobacco gave a total of $9 million to the Alliance of Australian Retailers, which led the campaign against the laws.

Imperial Tobacco also separately spent more than $4 million fighting the move with printed material and broadcast advertising and Philip Morris added to that with nearly $500,000.

The Coalition also received donations worth $184,000 from British American Tobacco and $79,000 from Philip Morris.

Jump to full article »

Libs still taking Big Tobacco's blood money ... Heat on Wightman 

The Tasmania Greens today said it was disappointing but unsurprising that the Tasmanian Liberal Party had received another large cash handout from their friends at Big Tobacco.

Greens Leader Nick McKim MP said that today's release of the previous year's political donations report by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) showed that the Liberals received $22,000 from British American Tobacco and $15,900 from Phillip Morris.

Mr McKim said the figures could be the tip of the iceberg, because current disclosure laws do not require political parties to provide a complete or up-to-date picture of the donations they receive.

"As the only state party still accepting tobacco company political donations, any credibility the Liberals might have sought on public health policy has gone up in smoke," Mr McKim said.

"British American Tobacco, Phillip Morris and the Tasmanian Liberal Party continue to be friends-with-benefits, which explains the Liberals' reprehensible stance against a ban on tobacco company donations."

Jump to full article »

• Liberals using tobacco revenue to fund attack ads  

The Premier, Lara Giddings, said the Liberal Opposition had been exposed using money from tobacco companies to fund their expensive commercial television campaign.

Ms Giddings said the latest political donations report by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) showed that the Liberals received $22,000 from British American Tobacco and $15,900 from Phillip Morris last year.

"It is reprehensible that the Liberal Party in Tasmania continues to accept donations from tobacco companies," Ms Giddings said.

"We now know how Will Hodgman can afford to bombard commercial television with glossy ads in the lead-up to the next EMRS poll.

"Those ads should carry the disclaimer: funded by Big Tobacco. . . .

*COMPTON Where did the money come from? Most people who have been around the state political traps for any length of time would know that campaigns are hard to fund even at the height of the election cycle. Where did the money come from?

McQUESTIN Ah well.., err, the.., the money has come from.., err.., err.., from our own.., err, resources, I suppose, Leon. Err, we have a.., a consistent fundraising activity which I don't think I'd.., I'm keen to outline, but.., that will.., err, that continues on and on, and.., as I say, given the unstable nature of.., of this.., this Government.., err, we decided it was a good opportunity to.., to u.., to use some now.

Jump to full article »

Capitol Alert: Tobacco tax backers launch campaign with swipe at opponents 

Supporters of a tobacco tax slated for the June primary ballot launched the opening salvo today of what is expected to be a multimillion dollar campaign, framing their effort as a battle to beat moneyed "big tobacco" interests.

At a news conference kicking off the campaign, Proposition 29 proponents cast their measure, which would raise taxes on cigarettes by $1 a pack to fund cancer research and anti-smoking programs, as an approach to improve health and save lives.

"It's this simple: A no vote on Proposition 29 supports tobacco companies' strategy of singling out poor people and people of color for addiction and death. A yes vote on Proposition 29 is a vote for better health and live saving research," Joe Debbs of the American Heart Association said, adding: "From our perspective there is no middle ground. You're either with us, or you buy big tobacco's lies."

Supporters marked the official launch of the campaign for the initiative, which qualified for the ballot in 2010, by holding rallies in 21 other locations across the state that featured a bed with the message, "Let's see who's in bed with Big Tobacco."

Jump to full article »

Supreme Court Overturns 'Right v. Wrong'  

Striking down the judicial precedent that established the legal supremacy of right over wrong more than two centuries ago, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Right v. Wrong.

The landmark reversal—a bitterly contested 5-4 decision that has been widely praised by murderers, rapists, bigots, usurers, and pro-wrong advocates nationwide—nullifies all previously lawful forms of right and makes it very difficult for Americans to make ethical decisions or be generally decent human beings without facing criminal charges.

"It is the opinion of this court that the Constitution was crafted in such a manner as to uphold and encourage practices that are not right and, ideally, are very wrong," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, which also in­cluded Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts. "Despite the compelling case for goodness, truth, and justice made by our predecessors in the case of Right v. Wrong, we firmly believe that malice, dishonesty, and injustice were the framers' original intent." . . .

Justice Stephen Breyer chose to read his dissenting opinion aloud before the court, a rare gesture apparently aimed at expressing the full measure of his disgust with the verdict.

"The court needs to overturn this ruling immediately because, simply put, it's the right thing to do," said the associate justice, who, along with his colleagues joining him in the minority, was then arrested by Capitol Police, placed into custody, and is currently awaiting trial.

Jump to full article »

Mr. President: Let's Overturn Citizens United 

Two years ago, the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court ruling gave corporations like Exxon or Bank of America approval to spend millions of dollars buying elections. It is already happening, and it is wrong.

Changing Supreme Court decisions can take decades. A better alternative is to pass a constitutional amendment. Support from President Obama would give a big, early boost to the movement for an amendment. The president has already condemned Citizens United as a bad ruling. If the president comes out in support of the amendment, it will inspire millions of people to believe in the idea and a lot of members of Congress will follow, too.

Sign the Petition

President Obama: Support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to boot big money out of politics and to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling.

Jump to full article »

"Occupy the Courts" Protests Hit Supreme Court and Federal Courthouses Nationwide  

The “occupy” movement took its campaign against corporate domination to the federal judiciary on Friday, storming the U.S. Supreme Court building and demonstrating at other federal courthouses nationwide to protest the high court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision.

“Corporations are not persons, and money is not political speech!” proclaimed “Occupy the Courts” leader David Cobb in front of several hundred people at a grassy area on U.S. Capitol grounds across the street from the Supreme Court. . . .

The protests marked the two-year anniversary Saturday of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down restrictions on independent expenditures by corporation and unions in election campaigns. Critics say the ruling has injected millions of dollars into campaigns, often in the form of attack advertising funded by independent “Super-PACs” that cannot be directly traced or imputed to candidates.

Several leaders of the protest Friday said coverage of the Super-PACs and their impact on the Republican presidential primaries has helped galvanize opposition. “We are seeing how this disgusting decision is corrupting our system,” said Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, a longtime D.C. activist who helped organize Friday’s protests. “And we ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until the races get underway, and this will be influencing congressional races, everything.” Asked why she was demonstrating at the Court, she said, “This is the scene of the crime.”

Some of the protesters are hoping to build on Friday’s actions and push for a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United by stating that money is not speech and corporations are not persons under the law.

Jump to full article »

HUGHES: Flowers, fags and Faust  

Richard Ottaway also lists in the register of MP's interests that he and a guest were taken to the Chelsea Flower Show by Japan Tobacco International last May.

He must have done more than wandered around sniffing flowers, because the day out was worth over £1,000.

This Japanese firm is a big player in Britain because it took over some British brands. Japan Tobacco sells us our Silk Cut, Benson & Hedges and Camels. It also owns Old Holborn rolling tobacco - which, as I remember from my smoking days, is darker and wetter than Golden Virginia, but sometimes has odd bits of twig in it that can tear your Rizla.

Japan Tobacco has a big interest in getting MPs not to stop cigarette displays and advertising or put any more unpleasant labels on their packets. So it likes to entertain MPs.

Nigel Evans, the Tory Deputy Speaker, also went to the Chelsea Flower Show in May 2011 thanks to Japan Tobacco. But he forgot to register the trip until over six months later in December 2011. His forgetfulness means Evans was not named when newspapers reported protests over tobacco lobbyists entertaining MPs.

Jump to full article »

United For the People 

Enter your zip code below & sign up to attend an action near you! . . .

Occupy the Courts Portland OR: Rally at Pioneer Square Jan. 20th, 2012 Gather 11;30 am Rally 12 Noon March ...

Portland, OR

Jump to full article »

Top court backs foreigner campaign donation ban  

The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a free-speech challenge to the longtime ban on campaign contributions by foreign citizens who temporarily live and work in the United States.

The justices affirmed a ruling by a three-judge federal panel that upheld the ban adopted by Congress to keep foreigners from financially influencing U.S. elections.

The court's last federal campaign finance law ruling was in January 2010, when it gave corporations the free-speech right to spend freely to support or oppose candidates.

President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats in Congress criticized that ruling while Republicans praised it.

The new challenge was brought by two foreign nationals who temporarily live in the United States and want to contribute money to certain political candidates. One wanted to support Obama's 2012 re-election bid.

They said in their lawsuit that the law at issue violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment. . ..

In appealing to the Supreme Court, their attorney, Michael Carvin, said the three-judge panel's ruling sets a "dangerous precedent on campaign finance regulation, the First Amendment and the constitutional rights of resident aliens." . . .

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court that invalidating the ban would allow millions of foreign nationals in the United States to spend unlimited amounts on election advocacy and contribute money directly to candidates, even at the behest of hostile foreign governments.

Jump to full article »