Big Tobacco then, Global Warming Now

Here's an October 1995 internal memo I came across written by someone at tobacco giant Philip Morris outlining all the “public policy grants” and the totals received by US think tanks and associations.

More than a few of the familiar names involved in the industry-funded war on climate science appear on this list, including:

Competitive Enterprise Institute - $200,000

Frontiers of Freedom - $10,000

Heartland Institute - $65,000

Heritage Foundation - $50,000

Hudson Institute - $25,000

National Center for Policy Analysis - $60,000

National Center for Public Policy Research - $50,000

National Association of Manufacturers - $130,000

Reason Foundation - $25,000

Who wants to bet this money wasn't for anti-smoking campaigns?

Udpate: and here's a list of the $3.9 million provided to think tanks and associations from Philip Morris in 1998 for “public policy” work.

Udpate 2: And here's a great tobacco industry memo outlining how to go about “building a successful front group coalition around a specific issue.”


“Who wants to bet this money wasn’t for anti-smoking campaigns?”

Okay, I give up, Kevin. What was the money used for? You never actually get around to explaining the significance of any of this.

“National Association of Manufacturers - $138,000”

Reading the actual document, the figure is $130,000, not your inflated figure. What other sloppy mistakes have you made?

Also, in the case of this figure, the note right beside it gives a very big clue as to what the money was intended for – “Corporate dues”. Not much of a mystery there, is it?

Here’s some of the other grants in the list you left out:

Police Research and Education Project - $25,000

Educational TV of South Carolina - $300,000

George Mason University School of Law - $85,000

Grocery Manufacturers of America - $583,000 (“Corporate dues”)

Kevin, I don’t know what diabolical schemes George Mason University School of Law and the Grocery Manufacturers of America are up to, but I bet they’re not running anti-smoking campaigns either!

(And that goes double for South Carolina Educational TV. No wonder the Cookie Monster now has a butt hanging out of his mouth. We must think of the children!)

Kevin posed an innuendo laden rhetorical question. I was simply asking him to answer his own question. He hasn’t.

If anything meets the definition of “troll”, it would seem to be Kevin’s post, not my comment.

I found this while trying to look up the results to the ABEC CNN debate thing. Tobacco is willing to dump a lot of revenue into defeating such initiatives. I’m amused for a couple of reasons that aren’t important here. Anyway, I thought it tied in well.