By Jamie Weiser

For decades, tobacco opponents have argued that Wisconsin’s tobacco control policies have been dictated by the very goliath whose power such policies aim to subdue – the tobacco industry itself.

Now, amidst budget woes and reports accusing past lawmakers of accepting money from the industry in exchange for tobacco-friendly legislation, lawmakers are working to loosen big tobacco’s stronghold on state policymaking.

Wisconsin’s history of giving in to the economic power of large tobacco companies dates to a time when people were not widely educated about the health risks of tobacco. Large numbers of people were smoking and as a result, tobacco industry revenues and the power of the tobacco companies skyrocketed. However, as lawsuits and internal tobacco industry documents have uncovered the truth about the tobacco companies’ influence on public policy and the serious health risks associated with tobacco use, more investigations and reports have been conducted.

A report released by the Monitoring and Evaluation Program at the UW Comprehensive Cancer Center outlines the economic, social and political importance of large tobacco corporations to the state. The report, “Influence of the Tobacco Industry on Wisconsin Tobacco Control Policies,” claims that Wisconsin lawmakers have, in the past, allowed corporate tobacco companies to dictate tobacco policy in the state.

“Over the past 50 years, the tobacco industry has defined how tobacco is controlled and regulated in the state and in the nation,” says David Ahrens, research and program manager for the center. “What has happened in Wisconsin is indicative of what national politics and policies have been over the same period.”

Naming Philip Morris Companies Inc. (officially changed to Altria Group Inc. in April 2002) as the dominant tobacco company in Wisconsin, the report explains that although Philip Morris is primarily engaged in the manufacture and sale of tobacco, many of its wholly owned subsidiaries include Oscar Mayer, Tombstone Pizza and Kraft Foods, all of which have factories located in Wisconsin. Additionally, the company owns 36 percent of Miller Brewing Co. in Milwaukee. In total, this major tobacco company saw its revenues increase from $80 billion in 2000 to $90 billion in 2001 and employs more than 8,000 Wisconsin residents.

The report continues to explain that with such high revenues and a large Wisconsin workforce, Philip Morris has a great deal of social, economic and political importance in the state. It reads, “Through generous contributions to political candidates, political parties and committees and extensive lobbying efforts, the tobacco industry has played the dominant major role in shaping public policy on tobacco.”

Such supporting evidence, in addition to the publication of internal tobacco industry documents, have forced the public to acknowledge the true impact of the tobacco industry on Wisconsin’s tobacco control policies. Some of the state’s lawmakers say Wisconsin has just recently started to gain legal ground on the industry.

“The tobacco industry has had a tremendous influence in Wisconsin and elsewhere and we are just beginning to break some of the locks that they’ve had in the courtroom,” says Dan Leistikow, Gov. Jim Doyle’s spokesman. “Unfortunately, up until the last several years when Doyle and other attorney generals were leading lawsuits against the tobacco industry, it had a streak of court victories that led them to be pretty careless about public health.”

Admitting that the tobacco industry has influenced Wisconsin tobacco legislation in the past is only the first step toward changing that tradition. Lawmakers and anti-tobacco organizations say they have set goals to try to loosen the tobacco industry’s grip on policymaking.

“Our goals in terms of tobacco policy in Wisconsin are to follow what the [Centers for Disease Control] say are best practices,” says Dona Wininsky, public policy director for the American Lung Association of Wisconsin. “A comprehensive tobacco control program is one of them, which Wisconsin has. It needs to be funded at a higher level, but the program itself exists. There also needs to be more clean indoor air laws and a higher cigarette tax because higher price is a known deterrent for youth.”

Like most other anti-tobacco organizations, the American Lung Association sees the current Wisconsin budget crisis as the biggest barrier to accomplishing these goals.

“The [Centers for Disease Control] minimum funding level is $31 million, so obviously at $10 million, we’re not there,” Wininsky says. “I think Doyle has expressed and demonstrated a commitment to tobacco control funding, but that right now there are serious budget problems that are getting in the way. We are hopeful that in the future when some of these budget problems are fixed, the funding will go back up again.”

Despite funding problems in the state, Doyle is still attempting to continue the fight against tobacco he began as attorney general. In February, Doyle announced he would not cut tobacco control programs. Instead, he decided to recoup $2 million for budget repair using interest earned from the Tobacco Control Fund, a key decision that has positively affected Wisconsin’s effort to reduce the use of tobacco.

Additionally, in October 2003, Doyle announced the launch of an anti-tobacco media campaign. The campaign, which runs until mid-December, aims to prevent Wisconsin teenagers from starting to smoke and help current smokers quit.

In his announcement of the media campaign, Doyle said the state will spend $400,000 on anti-tobacco ads. The American Legacy Foundation will match that amount, bringing total funding for this campaign to $800,000. He says he believes joining with the American Legacy Foundation will not only maximize taxpayer dollars, but also prevent future health care costs.

“This sort of public-private partnership allows us to leverage state resources and get more bang for the buck so that we can reach more people and hopefully stop more kids from smoking,” Leistikow says.

Although Doyle has made efforts to change tobacco policy and resist the industry’s power, some have criticized his public opposition to an increase in the state’s tobacco tax and decision to eliminate the tobacco control board. However, Leistikow attributes those decisions to the current budget crisis.

“The governor believes that especially at a time where our economy has struggled and a lot of people are out of work, now just isn’t the time to be raising taxes of any kind,” Leistikow says. “As far as the tobacco control board is concerned, the role that they play is still happening. It’s just a question of consolidating the effort so that we can be more efficient about the way that we do this.”

Wininsky says Doyle remains committed to finding a solution to Wisconsin’s tobacco woes as well as its budget problems.

“Doyle has been openly and actively committed to tobacco control and prevention but obviously needs to also balance the budget, and he has expressed some optimism that in the future the funding can go back up again, and we hope that can occur,” Wininsky says.

While there is quite a long way to go in terms of tobacco policy in Wisconsin, there are high hopes that Doyle is leading Wisconsin down the right path. He knows what needs to be done and is confident that his newest campaign could be another step in the right direction.