Tobacco.org

Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures of Tobacco Interests in California (PDF) 

The key highlight for lobbying expenditures is that Philip Morris USA Inc. greatly increased its quarterly lobbying spending to lobby the health care reform bill (ABX1-1) authored by Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-46). Part of the financing for the health care reform plan would have been a $1.75 tobacco tax increase. During the fourth quarter of 2007, when the bill was introduced and passed by the Assembly, Philip Morris USA Inc. spent more than $340,000 on lobbying expenditures, which is $150,000 more than they have spent in any other quarter on lobbying expenditures this decade. The only bill listed on their lobbying disclosure report for the fourth quarter was the health care reform bill.

In addition to lobbying expenditures, tobacco interests contributed nearly $600,000 to campaigns in 2007. A little more than half of this total was contributions to political committees, while roughly $275,000 was contributions to legislators, constitutional officers and candidates. Tobacco interests made contributions to forty-four percent of the Members of the Legislature (37 Assembly Members and 16 Senators) and to five candidates who are running for legislative office. The amount of contributions and number of Members and candidates that have accepted contributions is nearly identical to the figures after one year of the 2005-2006 election cycle. This indicates that tobacco interests are continuing to maintain a strong financial presence in the Capitol through contributions to Members and future Members of the Legislature.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco Money & Politics 

Tobacco interests maintain a strong presence in California policymaking through spending millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures. All of this information is public information and is required to be reported to the California Secretary of State.

The Database of Campaign Contributions of Tobacco Interests is a searchable database of contributions from tobacco interests to Members of the California Legislature. It contains data from the 2001-2002 election to the present and is searchable by Legislator name, legislative district and county.

Quarterly updates on tobacco interests’ spending are produced every three months to provide information about how much money tobacco interests spend, who they make contributions to and what bills they lobby on. Every two years, a comprehensive report for the complete election cycle is produced. Below are the reports organized by election cycle.

2007-2008 Election Cycle

Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures of Tobacco Interests in California: January- December 2007

Lobbying Expenditures of Tobacco Interests in California: January-September 2007

Jump to full article »

• Report Shows Tobacco Money Flows to Campaigns, Lobbying 

Tobacco interests spent nearly $2 million to influence California elections and legislative policy in 2007, according to a new report by the American Lung Association of California's Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing (the Center).

"Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures of Tobacco Interests" shows which legislators and how much money was accepted from tobacco interests in 2007, as well as which bills the tobacco interests lobbied. This report for 2007 is one of a series of quarterly reports produced by the Center for the 2007-2008 election cycle. Highlights from the 2007 report include:

- Philip Morris USA, Inc., maker of Marlboro cigarettes, spent nearly $345,000 in the fourth quarter (September - December) of 2007 to lobby on ABX1-1, the health care reform bill authored by Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-46) and supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The health care reform legislation would have increased the state tobacco tax by $1.75 per pack.

- Tobacco interests are making campaign contributions to legislators and candidates at the same rate they contributed in the previous election cycle. . . .

In addition to this report, the Center unveiled an expanded online database of campaign contributions from tobacco interests to members of the Legislature. The public can use the database to see if their legislator accepted tobacco money. Additionally, the database contains contributions information for both current and past legislators and you can search by name, legislative district or county. . . .

A full copy of "Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures of Tobacco Interests" is available at http://www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org/tobaccomoney .

The searchable database can be accessed at http://www.Center4TobaccoPolicy.org/database .

Jump to full article »

Report Shows Tobacco Companies Spent $2 Million to Lobby Calif. Lawmakers  

A new report issued by the American Lung Association of California shows tobacco companies have spent $2 million to lobby state lawmakers during the past year. Association spokesman Paul Knepprath says 37 Assembly-members and 16 Senators received contributions from tobacco companies.

Knepprath: The most important thing about the report that we are issuing is that Philip Morris spent more in the last part of 2007 lobbying against the governor and speaker's health reform bill. They spent about $345,000 and ultimately that bill went down to defeat.

That health care reform measure killed by lawmakers included plans to hike the state cigarette tax by $1.75.

Jump to full article »

Supreme Court turns out the 'lights' 

By refusing to take action Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote the end to one of the most celebrated and controversial legal cases in the history of Madison County.

The Supreme Court sided with Philip Morris USA, refusing to disturb an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out a $10.1 billion verdict out of Madison County over the company's "light" cigarettes. The court issued its order without comment. . . .

The case became part of a contentious Illinois Supreme Court campaign in 2004. Tort reform groups, including the Illinois Civil Justice League, pointed to Byron's ruling as symptomatic of what they said was bias toward plaintiffs and their attorneys in the Madison County court system. The Republican candidate, Lloyd Karmeier, who was supported by the ICJL, won election to the Supreme Court.

Philip Morris appealed Byron's ruling directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Last year, Karmeier was part of the 4-2 majority on the Supreme Court who overturned Byron's verdict, effectively ruling that the Federal Trade Commission had permitted Philip Morris USA to use the term "light" in its packaging and advertising.

Tillery appealed the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling to the nation's highest court, which declined Monday to hear arguments in the case.

Jump to full article »

The best justice money can buy? Big Tobacco, Philip Morris and the US courts 

Jump to full article »

Tobacco Co.'s Attempt to Overturn $10B Light Cigarette Verdict Begins in IL Supreme Court 

Newly elected Lloyd Karmeier, a Washington County Circuit judge, will not be on the bench for the hearing because he will not be sworn in until Dec. 6. But the case likely will not be decided before he joins the bench. That leaves open the question of whether Karmeier will weigh in on the matter.

If he decides to opt out of the case, Philip Morris would have the burden of winning over four of the five remaining judges to reverse the lower court's ruling. If the company cannot garner four votes, court precedent suggests that the verdict would stand.

Normally Karmeier's absence would leave six justices to decide the matter, but Justice Robert Thomas has chosen not to participate in the case because of a conflict of interest.

Court rules allow sitting justices to participate in all pending cases, said court spokesman Joseph Tybor. A spokesman for Karmeier said the judge has not determined if he will participate in the case, which involves Altria's U.S. tobacco unit, Philip Morris USA. After joining the bench, he plans to discuss pending cases with the other justices and then make up his mind, the spokesman said.

Court observers are betting that Karmeier will not stand aside because of the significance of the case. Karmeier, a Republican, replaces Philip Rarick, a Democrat whose term will expire in December. The court now has four Democrats and three Republicans.

Jump to full article »

SAMUELS: Judges for Sale  

But some victory. The state Supreme Court justice who cast the deciding vote in the case, a former lower court judge named Lloyd Karmeier, received millions of dollars in campaign support in 2004 that Philip Morris and other tobacco interests tendered for the very purpose of trying to reverse the enormous "light" cigarette award. They got what they paid for.

Judicial ethics rules exempt campaign contributions from their otherwise strict approach of requiring judges to disqualify themselves whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. But given the history, Justice Karmeier's failure to voluntarily recuse himself was a disgrace.

The Philip Morris case, it should be noted, was not the first time that Justice Karmeier, a Republican, ruled for big contributors in a high-profile case. . . .

Legislative and executive officials represent their various constituencies. Judges, in contrast, are supposed to represent only the ideal of justice. A judge deciding a case shouldn't be worrying how ruling a certain way might affect campaign fundraising, or whether it might invite a blitz of negative TV ads in the next election.

It is time -- long past time, really -- to drain the influence money from America's system of justice.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT: Buying justice 

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an editorial today that begins: "BIG BUSINESS won a nice return on a $4.3 million investment in Tuesday's election. It now has a friendly justice on the Illinois Supreme Court." and wonders "might the new justice be tempted to do favors for the interests that lavished millions on his campaign? Given Judge Karmeier's record in the lower courts, we believe he will proceed with integrity. But you couldn't blame a citizen for wondering if it's payback time." . . .

The American system works because people have faith in the fairness of the courts. At this point, the people of Southern Illinois may have more faith in their laundry detergent than in their judges. And who could blame them?

Jump to full article »

The Battle Over The Courts 

Big money is at stake in these seemingly small-time elections. In Illinois, where one court recently handed down a $10.1 billion damage award against tobacco giant Philip Morris, the Magg-Karmeier race has become a surrogate for the furious national debate over tort reform. In fact, both candidates complain that they do not have control over some of their more fanatical supporters. "This is not a political race, but we're being forced into the politics of it," says Karmeier, the pro-business Republican.

The force driving many of these changes is the same one that has played such a corrosive role in America's broader political culture: special interest groups. Increasingly, they have come to view the judiciary as something to be gamed and captured -- just like Congress or the State House. The political patronage that once existed in Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago is being replaced by a new form of interest-group patronage. The list of organizations that have jumped into America's judicial wars is long and growing. . . .

On Aug. 24, the Illinois State Bar Assn. said it will begin monitoring the Karmeier and Maag campaigns in an effort to bring civility to the race. A prominent new recruit to the state judicial election-reform bandwagon is Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who told BusinessWeek that he worries that "the extreme amount of big money in this year's judicial elections will only reduce public trust in the courts."

Jump to full article »

Benched 

"Benched: the Corporate Takeover of the Judiciary" chronicles the most expensive Supreme Court Race in history - the 2004 race for State Supreme Court in Illinois where over ten million dollars was spent.

"Benched" explores the underlying issue of the race - the battle over "tort reform." Critics charge that the insurance industry unfairly targeted doctors in Madison County, Illinois, raising their malpractice insurance premiums to pressure the doctors to lobby their patients and the community for "tort reform", including caps on medical malpractice awards that will only benefit the insurance industry and harm consumers. The doctors contend that they are being driven out of business by "frivolous lawsuits" while victims of medical malpractice and lawyers argue caps on law suits will deny them justice and that claims of an out of control civil justice system are corporate propaganda.

In the end, the documentary reveals the true beneficiary of this campaign for tort reform - Big Tobacco companies. Critics charge that the Philip Morris tobacco company played a role in financing the tort reform movement to get their chosen candidate, Lloyd Karmeier elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in order to have a pending 10.1 Billion dollar judgment voided by the Court.

In December, 2005, Justice Lloyd Karmeier cast the tie-breaking vote reversing the 10.1 Billion Dollar judgement against Philip Morris.

Jump to full article »

SAMPLE: Justice for Sale  

Certain American values transcend partisan divisions. One is that money should not influence the courts. But with record sums pouring into judicial elections, the ideal of due process is giving way to a perception of pay-to-play justice. . . .

John Grisham's latest bestseller, "The Appeal," is a shadowy tale of a chemical company that buys a favorable legal ruling by funding the election of the judge who makes it. Farfetched? Not according to West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher. In a scathing opinion last month, he decried a "cancer" of moneyed influence in his court, asserting that "John Grisham got it right when he said that he simply had to read The Charleston Gazette to get an idea for his next novel."

The citizens of 39 states elect some or all of their judges. These contests have become costly arms races. . . .

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce got involved in 13 judicial races in 2004 and won 12. Nationwide in 2006, business donors contributed twice as much to state supreme court candidates as attorneys, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Consider three recent episodes in light of the American Bar Association's requirement that judges disqualify themselves whenever their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Lloyd Karmeier, the winner of a $9.3 million campaign for the Illinois Supreme Court in 2004, was supported by $350,000 in direct contributions from employees, lawyers and others directly involved with the insurer State Farm and/or its then pending appeal . . .

In the long term, we all lose when any decision reinforces suspicions that the biggest donor, not the best case, wins. Reforms range from commission-based appointment systems, to publicly financed campaigns, to more rigorous recusal rules. Without such measures, stories like "The Appeal" will fill non-fiction shelves.

Jump to full article »

Common Cause Calls For Investigation of Justice Karmeier and Corporate Donors 

Common Cause is shining the light on the need for public financing of judicial campaigns. Common Cause, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI) and Citizen Action Illinois are asking for an investigation of Illinois State Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who has made favorable decisions regarding corporate donors.

Jump to full article »

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Karmeier Named in Misconduct Complaint (PDF) 

Today, Common Cause, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI) and Citizen Action/Illinois filed a request for an investigation of Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier concerning his participation in and decisive vote in two cases constituting the first and second largest class action judgments in the history of Illinois. According to the request for investigation, Justice Karmeier can be viewed as giving big business a nice return on their 2004 donations to his election campaign raising serious issues of judicial impropriety or at least the appearance thereof. Unlike the growing list of elected non- judicial officials accused of accepting corporate contributions and then directly benefiting the donors, whose conduct may have to await indictment, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice or any other justice or judge has an affirmative obligation to recuse himself or herself from a case in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The complaint filed with the State of Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board alleged that Justice Karmeier accepted millions of dollars in donations for his 2004 election campaign and then cast the deciding vote which supported the position of the donors in two pending cases decided in 2005. The three complainants urged an investigation into Justice Karmeier's conduct in Michael Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Price v. Philip Morris Incorporated.

Jump to full article »

Donations complicate Philip Morris tobacco suit.  

A lobbying group that filed a brief defending Philip Morris USA in a massive Illinois lawsuit contributed more than $1 million last year to state Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who helped decide that suit in the tobacco giant's favor last week.

Philip Morris' hired legal team donated an additional $16,800 to Karmeier, state records show.

Meanwhile, the St. Louis-area lead attorney for the losing side had donated more than $100,000 to groups opposing Karmeier's election.

There is nothing illegal about the donations, as Illinois law doesn't limit the source or size of campaign contributions to judges or anyone else. However, campaign reform advocates say the circumstances still raise concern.

"This is a very good example of why both sides were so interested in this race," said Cindi Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "Our judicial system is in the middle of a high-stakes shootout. It makes it very difficult for anyone who gets to the bench to insulate themselves from their contributors."

Jump to full article »