TOBACCO FOES FAILED TO STOKE VOTERS' FIRE

Candidates Who Relied on Anti-Industry Sentiment Won Little Satisfaction at
Polls

The hoped-for electoral bounce of anti-tobacco sentiment never
materialized Tuesday for many of the candidates who believed that
suing cigarette makers would help propel them to higher office.

Two of tobacco's most outspoken foes -- attorneys general Hubert H.
"Skip" Humphrey III (D) of Minnesota and Scott Harshbarger (D) of
Massachusetts -- lost bids to become governors of their states.
Humphrey wrung a $6 billion settlement out of the industry, and
Harshbarger has a case pending to recover the costs of treating sick
smokers.

Tobacco ended up working for Democrats just about as well as Monica S.
Lewinsky did for Republicans: Each side believed it had latched onto a
potent campaign issue, but the voters' response was mixed and tepid.

"There ain't a lot of lift in tobacco," said Scott Williams, a public
relations consultant to the industry with the Bozell Sawyer Miller
Group. "If you get $6 billion for your state and you come in third,
what does that tell you?" Williams referred to Minnesota, where
Humphrey finished far behind the surprise winner, Reform Party
candidate Jesse Ventura, and Republican Norm Coleman.

Democrats and health advocates warned against reading too much into
the results. "I think tobacco was about as relevant to voters this
week as Monica's beret," said James Tierney, a former Maine attorney
general who advises current attorneys general on political and legal
issues. He noted that anti-tobacco attorneys general Carla J. Stovall
of Kansas, the first Republican to file a suit against the industry,
and Democrat Tom Miller of Iowa won resounding victories. Trying to
pin a loss on tobacco is "tempting, but it's a huge
oversimplification," Tierney said.

Matthew L. Myers of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids said,
however, that "weak positions on tobacco may have hurt some candidates
like Dan Lungren [in California] or Ellen Sauerbrey" in Maryland, two
Republicans who lost gubernatorial bids.

Health advocates also pointed to victories in places where voters
spoke directly to an anti-tobacco issue. In Portland, Maine, for
instance, more than 60 percent of the voters favored a ballot
initiative upholding a ban on smoking in certain restaurants. In
Corvallis, Ore., voters defeated an initiative that would have
exempted bars from a smoking ban.

In California, where the industry spent millions to defeat a
50-cent-per-pack cigarette surtax, the vote remained too close to
call. The measure was ahead by 13,000 votes, but more than 700,000
absentee ballots remained uncounted.

A White House official said the tobacco issue had become "muddied"
because the vote by Senate Republicans to kill the national tobacco
bill occurred last June and had lost its potency. The industry's
continuing advertising campaign also made it difficult for Democrats
to use tobacco as a weapon, because it painted tobacco foes as
candidates in favor of high taxes.

White House adviser Paul Begala said Republicans had defeated so much
of the Democratic congressional agenda, particularly the patients'
bill of rights, that a Democratic candidate was "like a mosquito in a
nudist colony." There were so many issues to choose from in attacking
the GOP that tobacco was not the most obvious or powerful one, he said.

At least one GOP candidate, following the tobacco industry's lead,
managed to turn the tobacco issue against his opponent. In
Massachusetts, Acting Gov. Paul Cellucci (R) accused his anti-tobacco

opponent, Harshbarger, of being a taxer and spender because
Harshbarger supported a tobacco tax, already in effect, that funds
Medicaid coverage for about 100,000 residents. Harshbarger ended up
defending the tax.

In Massachusetts, tobacco is "not a defining element when [voters]
determine who they want to support," said Boston-based Democratic
consultant Mary Anne Marsh. "It is only effective as an example of
something larger like, 'I am going to fight to make schools better,
health care better, day care better. . . . Look at my record: I fought
against tobacco.' " But Harshbarger "unfortunately did not use it that
way," she said.

Harshbarger spokesman Ed Cafasso agreed that tobacco "just wasn't a
defining issue" in the campaign. After the national tobacco bill died
in the Senate last summer, interest in the issue seemed to wane.
Moreover, the Massachusetts lawsuit against the industry has not gone
to trial. "There was a lot of sizzle, but there was no bacon," Cafasso
said.

Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said that just as other issues must
be part of a larger strategy, tobacco is "no silver bullet."

"Is it a useful issue? Yes," he said. "In and of itself, can it turn
an election around? No. But neither can any other issue."

The election results could affect efforts by several attorneys general
to reach a group settlement of their lawsuits against the industry --
one that could serve as a framework to settle more than three dozen
remaining state suits. The talks, taking place in an environment in
which the industry has regained its negotiating advantage, have been
attacked by some members of the public health community.

Now two of the attorneys general leading those talks have become lame
ducks: Lungren, who lost his bid to be California's governor, and
Dennis Vacco, who was not reelected in New York. Activists have seized
the opportunity to urge those attorneys general and others to
reconsider a settlement they say would do little to curb smoking.

California Attorney General-elect Bill Lockyer has written Lungren
urging him to provide "for full and thorough public disclosure and
review" of the proposed settlement, which has been kept confidential
by negotiators. Veteran smoking foe Stan Glantz, of San Francisco,
called the letter a "big boost" for those who oppose the settlement.
He said slowing action on the proposed deal would either improve it or
kill it.

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady