Advertisement
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
ACPM
APTR
Advanced SearchSave search
Full length article| Volume 27, ISSUE 5, P363-372, December 01, 2004

Where there's smoke there's money

Tobacco industry campaign contributions and U.S. Congressional voting
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.08.014
Where there's smoke there's money
Previous ArticleMotorcycle-related hospitalizations in the United States, 2001
Next ArticleComorbidity and early diagnosis of head and neck cancer in a Medicare population

      Background

      Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. A direct contributor to this massive health burden is the effectiveness of the tobacco industry's activities, including campaign contributions.

      Methods

      Voting records of 527 members of the 106th U.S. Congress were obtained for 49 tobacco-related bills between 1997 and 2000. Tobacco industry political action committee (PAC) contributions for each member were summed from 1993 to 2000. A cross-sectional, multilevel model was constructed that predicts voting behavior based on amount of contributions, political party, home state, and amount of state tobacco agriculture. The data were analyzed in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

      Results

      A total of $6,827,763 was received by the legislators from 17 tobacco industry PACs, an average of $12,956 per member. Senate Republicans received the most money (mean $22,004), while Senate Democrats received the least ($6,057). Republicans voted pro-tobacco 73% of the time and Democrats voted pro-tobacco only 23% of the time (p <0.001). Pro-tobacco voting percentage varied significantly by state (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.27, p <0.001). The amount of PAC money received by a member of Congress was positively associated with voting pro-tobacco (p <0.01), even after controlling for political party, state, and state tobacco farming. For Democrats in Congress who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 contribution they received, they were 9.8% more likely to do so. On the other hand, for Republicans who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 received, they were only 3.5% more likely to do so.

      Conclusions

      Tobacco industry contributions, political party, and state-level factors influence the voting behavior of Congress members. In the 106th Congress, Republicans voted pro-tobacco over three times as often as Democrats. However, for those Democrats who voted pro-tobacco, the relationship between receiving tobacco industry PAC money and a pro-tobacco vote was stronger than it was for Republicans.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission cigarette report for 2000. Washington DC: Federal Trade Commission, 2002.

        View in Article

      2. National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund. Campaign contributions by tobacco interests quarterly report. Washington DC: National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, January 2003.

        View in Article
        • Flynn B.S.
        • Goldstein A.O.
        • Solomon L.J.
        • et al.
        Predictors of state legislators' intentions to vote for cigarette tax increases.
        Prev Med. 1998; 27: 157-165
        View in Article
        • Goldstein A.O.
        • Cohen J.E.
        • Flynn B.S.
        • et al.
        State legislators' attitudes and voting intentions toward tobacco control legislation.
        Am J Public Health. 1997; 87: 1197-1200
        View in Article
        • Cohen J.E.
        • de Guia N.A.
        • Ashley M.J.
        • Ferrence R.
        • Northrup D.A.
        • Studlar D.T.
        Predictors of Canadian legislators' support for tobacco control policies.
        Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55: 1069-1076
        View in Article

      6. Public Citizen. Sweethearts of big tobacco: tobacco PAC contributions and 1997 tobacco votes. Available at: www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tobacco/prod_liability/tobacco. Accessed January 2003.

        View in Article

      7. Common Cause, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Lung Association. Buying influence, selling death: how big tobacco's campaign contributions harm public health. Washington DC: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, March 2001.

        View in Article

      8. Public Citizen. Public Citizen report on tobacco PAC money and 1998 tobacco votes shows that Republican leaders stalling tobacco bill are hooked on cash crop. Available at: www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/prod_liability/tobacco. Accessed January 2003.

        View in Article

      9. Moore S, Wolfe SM, Lindes D, Douglas CE. Epidemiology of failed tobacco control legislation. JAMA 1994;272.

        View in Article
        • Glantz S.A.
        • Begay M.E.
        Tobacco industry campaign contributions are affecting tobacco control policymaking in California.
        JAMA. 1994; 272: 1176-1182
        View in Article
        • Monardi F.
        • Glantz S.A.
        Are tobacco industry campaign contributions influencing state legislative behavior?.
        Am J Public Health. 1998; 88: 918-923
        View in Article

      12. Project Vote Smart. Home page. Available at: www.vote-smart.org. Accessed January 2001.

        View in Article

      13. Public Citizen. Home page. Available at: www.citizen.org. Accessed January 2001.

        View in Article

      14. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Home page. Available at: www.tobaccofreekids.org. Accessed January 2001.

        View in Article

      15. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. Home page. Available at: www.cq.com. Accessed January 2001.

        View in Article

      16. Library of Congress. Thomas: legislative information on the Internet. Home page. Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov. Accessed January 2001.

        View in Article

      17. Lexis Nexis Congressional. Home page. Accessible through Saint Louis University library (subscriber) website. Accessed January 2001.

        View in Article

      18. Federal Election Commission. Home page. Available at: www.fec.gov. Accessed February 2001.

        View in Article

      19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. Home page. Available at: www.usda.gov/nass. Accessed February 2001.

        View in Article
        • Snijders T.
        • Bosker R.
        Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.
        Sage, Thousand Oaks CA1999
        View in Article
        • Raudenbush S.W.
        • Bryk A.S.
        Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods.
        Sage, Thousand Oaks CA2002
        View in Article
        • Fisher L.D.
        • van Belle G.
        Biostatistics: a methodology for the health sciences.
        John Wiley & Sons, 1993
        View in Article
        • Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
        Evaluating comprehensive tobacco control interventions: challenges and recommendations for future action.
        Tob Control. 2002; 11: 140-145
        View in Article

      24. National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, American Legacy Foundation. National tobacco workshop: monitoring, research, and evaluation. Bethesda MD, 2002.

        View in Article

      25. O'Connor EA. Process of change in smoking cessation: a longitudinal perspective. PhD diss. 1996.

        View in Article
        • Novak S.P.
        • Clayton R.R.
        The influence of school environment and self-regulation on transitions between stages of cigarette smoking: a multilevel analysis.
        Health Psychol. 2001; 20: 196-207
        View in Article
        • Malone R.E.
        Tobacco industry surveillance of public health groups: the case of STAT (Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco) and INFACT (Infant Formula Action Coalition).
        Am J Public Health. 2002; 92: 955-960
        View in Article

      Article Info

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.08.014

      Copyright

      © 2004 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX