Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
New Jersey's campaign finance system may have restricted the flow of big money into statewide elections and cut down on the abuses known as pay to play, but determined donors and fund-raisers always seem to find a loophole.
Indeed, newly available records show that big donors to the Democratic and Republican Parties -- along with law firms, engineers and others who do business with the state -- are sidestepping the state's contribution limits and pay-to-play rules by giving to the parties' governors' associations, which turn around and spend heavily in New Jersey.
Harry Pozycki, chairman of the Citizens' Campaign, a nonpartisan group that is an advocate of the pay-to-play rules, said on Monday that the two associations were providing "a huge back door for the evasion of contribution limits." He added, "Following the money becomes that much more difficult." . . .
The Republican Governors Association, which has spent nearly $3 million already in support of Christopher J. Christie, the former federal prosecutor who is challenging Mr. Corzine, has raised $90,000 from the National Rifle Association since December. . . .
Big tobacco also seems to be backing Mr. Christie, who as a securities lawyer once represented the industry in an antismoking lawsuit: Tobacco interests have given the Republican group nearly $300,000.
Jump to full article »
Description: This is the second "Engle" tobacco case to go to trial after a Broward County jury awarded nearly $8 million to the widow of a smoker who died from lung cancer.
After a Miami jury awarded the largest class action verdict in history to smokers who claim major tobacco companies withheld critical information about the dangers of smoking, the Florida Supreme Court determined that each case had to be tried individually.
By presiding over the first two of nearly 8000 of these individual suits, Judge Streitfeld could set an important standard for how future "Engle litigation" will play out across the state Florida.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Liggett Group, Inc. v. Davis, 973 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), a decision in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified two questions to be of great public importance. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. However, upon further consideration, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion to discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.
Claudia Henschke and David Yankelevitz of Weill Cornell Medical College are key figures in a multicenter study of spiral CT screening for lung cancer and leading proponents of screening. . . .
All the scientists presumably hold their strong views without being influenced by monetary considerations. But their incautious behavior in accepting special-interest money and the failure of Weill Cornell researchers to make their royalty interests explicit have inevitably cast doubt on the research they take pride in.
Although the science in a submitted manuscript should be judged on its merits, one cannot fully appreciate a study's meaning without acknowledging the subtle biases in design and interpretation that may arise when a sponsor stands to gain from the report. . . .
This situation raises two concerns. First, as medical journal editors, we believe that it is important that the ultimate source of funding be made clear to the Journal's readers. Second, it is appropriate to ask whether a study on clinical outcomes in lung cancer should be directly underwritten in part by the tobacco industry. Given the enormous burden of smoking-related illness and the ongoing sale of cigarettes and other forms of tobacco, one might question the advisability of research entities accepting funding from tobacco companies except through the American Legacy Foundation, which distributes funds received through the Master Settlement Agreement with U.S. tobacco companies.
We believe that it is important for our readers and the entire biomedical community to be aware of this situation. Our goal is that readers be fully informed about funding sources. It is the responsibility of authors to disclose fully and appropriately the sources of funding of their studies. We expect that authors will be particularly attentive to transparency in reporting if a funding entity has a vested interest in the outcome. The public's trust in biomedical research depends on it.
#?? ? the science in a submitted manuscript should be judged on its merits, one cannot fully appreciate a study's meaning without acknowledging the subtle biases in design and interpretation that may arise when a sponsor stands to gain from the report.After the Henschke/Liggett hurricane, an editorial from the NEJM.
The Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention and Treatment received an unrestricted gift of $3.6 million from the Vector Group, the holding company for Liggett Tobacco, in a series of payments, from July 2000 to June 2003. The gift was used appropriately for the public good -- to support Weill Cornell Medical College's highly regarded, multi-institutional, international I-ELCAP [International-Early Lung Cancer Action Program], whose objective is to perform CT screening research for lung cancer in order to determine whether such screening improves cure rates for persons at risk.
The original $2.4 million pledge to the Foundation -- and the work funded by the Foundation at Weill Cornell -- was fully and publicly disclosed at the time through a press release, and was substantially covered in the lay media. It was discussed and disclosed in the academic community at conferences, which were widely attended by advocacy groups, agencies, and by investigators from around the world interested in lung cancer screening. It was also fully disclosed to other foundations and groups wishing to contribute funds to I-ELCAP.
Specifically, the gift was used to support the I-ELCAP lung cancer screening project to develop the WCMC Coordinating Center and to help other institutions to develop screening programs as part of the international screening collaboration.
The gift was unrestricted, which means, unlike industry-funded research agreements, it allows for completely independently conducted research into areas of significant but uncertain promise, without the gift-recipient being held accountable in any way to the gift-giver. Significantly, there were no restrictions on publication of results or data.
I-ELCAP has obtained considerable funding from other sources, and has been able to recruit additional screening centers which, in turn, have developed their own funding resources.
Today the New York Times ran an article "exposing" a donation made in 2000 by the Vector Group, which owns Liggett, to the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) screening study and insinuated that the research and researchers were tainted.
Sadly, this is far from the truth and another attempt to discredit I-ELCAP and lung cancer screening in general. Why else raise this now? The donation was made 8 years ago, was publicly reported and was an unrestricted grant that allowed for no control by the donor. . . .
LCA President and CEO, Laurie Fenton Ambrose responded to the NY Times reporter with a written letter (below). We will not let those who want to deny the lung cancer community the benefits they deserve defeat our efforts. . . .
"I continue to be concerned that lost in these various questions and comments is any understanding of the public health epidemic upon us. Lung cancer is the most lethal of all cancers - killing more people than breast, prostate, colon, liver , kidney and melanoma cancers combined - 85% of which are current and former smokers - most of whom will die within a year of diagnosis because their cancers are found too late. We can help those at high risk for lung cancer today through the use of CT scans - and we stand proudly with those in the public health community who view lung cancer as a disease deserving of increased compassion and support."
--Laurie Fenton-Ambrose
The press release quotes Bennett LeBow, chairman and CEO of Vector Group: . . .
The document is posted at http://www.tobacco.org/news/54637.html. . . .
Over the past four years, Henschke received over $100,000 in grants and contracts from ACS, the society said. This included several $10,000 to $15,000 contributions for the annual meeting of the I-ELCAP, and a $61,850 contract to support the I-ELCAP pathology and cytology evaluation program.
Each time she accepted ACS funds, Henschke signed a document certifying that she didn’t represent a tobacco company or subcontract work to those who do.
The ACS definition of a “tobacco company” contained in each of these documents includes “any company that manufactures tobacco products and is commonly considered to be part of the tobacco industry, including subsidiaries and parent companies, as well as philanthropic foundations and other organizations closely linked with the tobacco industry.” . . .
Though scientists who receive Legacy money are precluded from accepting concurrent funds from tobacco sources, surpluses of funds received from tobacco companies in the past are exempted from this prohibition, Cartwright said.
“The American Legacy Foundation requires grant recipients to agree not to accept tobacco funds or anything else of value from tobacco companies during the Legacy grant period,” she said in an e-mail. “It does not include a look-back provision, i.e., we do not disqualify grantees on the basis that they may have previously received tobacco support. . . .
On March 10, at a gala at the Pierre hotel, Legacy gave Henschke its “Humanitarian in Medicine and Public Health Award.”
In 2007, the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute gave $8.7 million to Weill Cornell to set up a “multidisciplinary research and clinical program to enhance early detection and treatment of diseases related to secondhand smoke exposure-including cancer, heart disease, emphysema, asthma, chronic bronchitis and osteoporosis.”
The initiative, called the FAMRI-I-ELCAP Collaborative Network, was expected to recruit 5,000 individuals from industries associated with exposure to secondhand smoke.
In October 2006, Dr. Claudia Henschke of Weill Cornell Medical College jolted the cancer world with a study saying that 80 percent of lung cancer deaths could be prevented through widespread use of CT scans.
Small print at the end of the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, noted that it had been financed in part by a little-known charity called the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention & Treatment. A review of tax records by The New York Times shows that the foundation was underwritten almost entirely by $3.6 million in grants from the parent company of the Liggett Group, maker of Liggett Select, Eve, Grand Prix, Quest and Pyramid cigarette brands.
The foundation got four grants from the Vector Group, Liggett’s parent, from 2000 to 2003.
Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, editor in chief of the medical journal, said he was surprised. “In the seven years that I’ve been here, we have never knowingly published anything supported by” a cigarette maker, Dr. Drazen said.
An increasing number of universities do not accept grants from cigarette makers . . .
most in the cancer establishment say that Dr. Henschke has yet to prove her case. CT scans have radiation risks and sometimes detect cancers that would not have progressed, leading to risky procedures like biopsies and lung surgery when not needed. . . .
On Monday, The Journal of the American Medical Association published corrections about unreported financial disclosures from Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz. The patent and pending patents reported by The Cancer Letter “are relevant to these publications,” an editors’ note stated. Editors at the journal were not aware of Dr. Henschke’s association with Liggett . . .
An increasing number of doctors and institutions are setting up foundations to accept money from companies without having to disclose its source, said Dr. Murray Kopelow, chief executive of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education.
“This is the third time in the past few weeks that one of these has been identified to us,” said Dr. Kopelow
You have to ask yourself the question, ‘Why did the tobacco company want to support her research?’ They want to show that lung cancer is not so bad as everybody thinks because screening can save people; and that’s outrageous.Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and the author of a book about conflicts of interest, on Liggett funding of the Weill Cornell lung cancer CT screening study.
If you’re using blood money, you need to tell people you’re using blood money.Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, which gave Dr. Henschke more than $100,000 in grants from 2004 to 2007, money it would not have provided had it known of Liggett’s grants.
Vector Group Ltd.'s (NYSE: VGR) subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, announced today that, consistent with cigarette fire safety standards enacted by a growing number of states, it plans to voluntarily convert the production of all of its domestic cigarette brands to comply with state cigarette fire safety standards beginning January 2009. The Company will continue to meet all deadlines for fire safety standards that become effective prior to January 2009.
"We are committed to making best in class cigarettes while assuring compliance with all state and federal regulations. Converting our production to make all of our cigarette brands fire standards compliant nationwide is consistent with that commitment," said Ronald J. Bernstein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Liggett Group. "A change in cigarette paper along with our state of the art manufacturing process will enable us to provide customers with value priced brands that continue to meet the highest taste and quality standards in the industry."
Vector Group Ltd.'s (NYSE: VGR), subsidiary, Liggett Group, announced today that it plans to introduce Grand Prix snus, a Premium quality pouched tobacco product designed for adult smokers who are interested in smokeless tobacco alternatives to cigarettes. Grand Prix snus will be available in a variety of test markets beginning in May 2008.
The product is the latest addition to the Grand Prix brand, the fastest growing U.S. cigarette brand over the past two years. Grand Prix snus will be sold at value pricing and will be available in three varieties: Original, Spearmint and Wintergreen.
Grand Prix snus will be manufactured in Sweden under an agreement with Snusab, a Stockholm-based manufacturer of premium snus products.
It took a Palm Beach County jury 90 minutes to decide Thursday that cigarette-maker Liggett wasn't responsible for the 2002 death of 72-year-old Boca Raton resident Leila Schwartz.
Her widower, Leonard Schwartz, 79, said he wanted Liggett, which for decades made the unfiltered Chesterfield brand that Leila smoked for 50 years, to be punished for their actions.
"I would've been happy to win money ... but more important was for [Liggett] to be liable for their lack of honesty," Schwartz said. "But the jury spoke and that's it."
Liggett attorney Aaron Marks argued that for years before her death, Leila Schwartz suffered myriad health issues, such as depression, high blood pressure and cholesterol, a painkiller dependency and heart disease. Two heart attacks and triple bypass surgery, Marks said, ultimately killed Mrs. Schwartz. Doctors didn't consider a cancerous lung tumor found two months before Leila Schwartz's death to be terminal, Marks told jurors.
North Carolina cigarette-maker Liggett Group Inc. is not responsible for the death of a Boca Raton woman who smoked the company's unfiltered Chesterfield brand, a jury decided.
Leila Schwartz died in 2002 after smoking for 50 years, according to the lawsuit filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court by her husband, Leonard Schwartz. She was 72.
It took a jury 90 minutes to decide Thursday that Liggett, based in Research Triangle Park, N.C., was not liable.
"I would've been happy to win money ... but more important was for (Liggett) to be liable for their lack of honesty," Schwartz said. . . .
Liggett attorney Aaron Marks argued that Leila Schwartz suffered from numerous illnesses, including depression, high blood pressure and heart disease, and that two heart attacks and a triple bypass surgery caused her death.
Doctors didn't consider a cancerous lung tumor found two months before she died to be terminal, Marks said.
As a teenager, Leila Schwartz began smoking cigarettes. Her brand of choice: the unfiltered, tar and nicotine-laden Chesterfield.
In 2002, the 72-year-old Boca Raton resident died.
A Palm Beach County jury will decide whether it was a result of lung cancer or heart disease and whether cigarette manufacturer Liggett is to blame.
In a trial that began Tuesday, Schwartz's husband of more than half a century, Leonard, is seeking to hold Liggett responsible, saying the company continued to produce Chesterfields despite knowing since about 1950 that they caused lung cancer. . . .
During the two-week trial, jurors will hear from doctors and experts. The plaintiffs will present testimony indicating studies published in the mid 1900s -- the same time Schwartz took up smoking -- linked cigarettes to lung cancer.
A tobacco liability trial in St. Louis potentially worth millions has ended with a settlement so confidential that the lawyers are forbidden to acknowledge it.
On Monday, Kenneth B. McClain, attorney for Carole Sue and Keith Mattern, said, "By agreement, I'm not able to confirm the existence of or any of the terms of any potential settlement agreement. However, we were extremely pleased with the trial, and my clients are very satisfied that this matter has been resolved short of a jury verdict."
McClain asked jurors in his closing arguments for $15 million in actual damages.
If jurors had decided to award punitive damages, those could have run into hundreds of millions of dollars or more. . . .
Friday morning, jurors told Circuit Judge Lisa Van Amburg that they were having trouble reaching a verdict. Lawyers agreed to the settlement after Van Amburg told them to keep trying and they took a lunch break, according to court files.
By agreement, I'm not able to confirm the existence of or any of the terms of any potential settlement agreement. However, we were extremely pleased with the trial, and my clients are very satisfied that this matter has been resolved short of a jury verdict.Kenneth B. McClain, attorney for Carole Sue and Keith Mattern. The last word?