Is the tobacco industry spending for sway in S.C.?

Big tobacco has spent big bucks in the state legislature over the past two years as the debate over cigarette taxes and statewide smoking bans kicked into high gear.

Three industry groups spent a total of at least $785,000 between June 2005 and the end of the last legislative session in June 2007. The money went for lobbying and contributions to lawmakers, an Island Packet review of South Carolina Ethics Commission documents shows.

About 56 percent of that, $442,000, was spent before and during the last legislative session, when cigarette-related issues commanded more attention from the public and lawmakers began considering several bills regulating tobacco.

Some was spent on lobbyists, while some was spent on dinners for lawmakers and for grassroots marketing through newspaper advertising or other outlets. But $108,250 over the 2-year period went directly to lawmakers in the form of campaign contributions, the records show.

The Packet reviewed four quarters of financial disclosures made to the Ethics Commission from cigarette manufacturers RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris USA and the Cigar Association of America, a Washington, D.C.-based political action committee.

The amount spent has some tobacco opponents worried.

"I'm not surprised to see these large contributions from the tobacco industry to our state legislators," said Dan Carrigan, executive director of the Charleston-based Smoke Free Action Network.

"I would really hope the constituents would want to question why their lawmakers are taking these contributions, and what their lawmakers are promising in return."

MONEY PATTERNS

RJ Reynolds, makers of Camel, Kool and Winston cigarettes, was the most active company. The amount the company spent on lobbyists nearly tripled between 2006 and 2007, and its overall spending more than doubled between the 2006 and 2007 sessions in South Carolina.

The amount is not unusual compared with what other big companies like Bell South spend each year, said Howard Duvall, executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina, which supports local governments' right to enact smoking bans.

For example, various organizations representing health professionals and the medical industry contributed more than $1.2 million during the 2006 session, according to followthemoney.org, a Web site that tracks money contributed to state legislators.

"You look at any major issue that's got an industry behind it and they do spend lots of money on the issue," Duvall said. "That's the normal situation."

What's more interesting, he said, is the pattern behind the money.

Thirteen of the tobacco companies' contributions to individual legislators, totaling $8,650 in the 2007 and 2006 sessions, were targeted at sitting members of the Senate and House Judiciary committees, the bodies that screen the bills dealing with smoking bans. Five contributions totaling $1,750 went to legislators assigned to those committees this session, which started Jan. 8. Those legislators are Rep. Keith Kelly, R-Woodruff; Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-Indian Land; Sen. Lewis Vaughn,

R-Greer; Rep. Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville; and Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach.

Other funds were spent outside the Statehouse. RJ Reynolds paid $5,482 in 2006 to an Arizona telemarketing company that specializes in advocating issues to voters, and more than $41,000 to an Ohio-based public relations firm. The finance reports don't specify what those firms did, but they are listed as part of RJ Reynolds' lobbying efforts in South Carolina.

Tobacco regulation became one of the hottest issues last session after local governments across the state, including Hilton Head Island, Bluffton and Beaufort County, passed smoking bans. Several lawmakers filed bills aimed at nullifying the bans by preempting local governments' right to enact the laws. Some lawmakers also tried to cut a break for smokers and create a smoking permit that would allow restaurants or bars to continue to allow smoking for as little as $100.

Proposals to raise the state's 7-cents-per-pack cigarette tax -- the lowest in the nation -- have been around for years, and a House committee last year passed a bill that would raise the tax by 30 cents. The measure stalled in the Senate.

Last week, the Senate passed a bill that would prohibit smoking in a car if young children are present. The House Judiciary Committee will soon take up the bill.

REASONS VARY

Some legislators said they were identified for contributions by the tobacco companies because they support business interests, or have histories opposing bans.

"A contribution isn't going to change my position whatsoever," said Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson. Bryant, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee last session, has received two contributions from RJ Reynolds and one from Philip Morris totaling $2,000 over the past two years.

Bryant said he opposes bans because it should be up to the businesses to decide whether to allow smoking. But he supports increasing the cigarette tax and using the money to help cut health care costs, such as putting it toward Medicaid.

"That was my position ever since I became a candidate," he said. "Generally, contributors seem to support those who are very clear on the issues."

Contributions are limited to $1,000 for House and Senate members and $3,500 for statewide candidates.

Locally, RJ Reynolds contributed $250 to Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Bluffton, in 2007 and $200 to Rep. Richard Chalk, R-Hilton Head Island, in 2006. Former Sen. Scott Richardson, R-Hilton Head Island, got $500 from Philip Morris in 2006.

It's nearly impossible to compare such contributions to a legislator's voting record on tobacco issues. Many issues are taken up on voice votes, so legislators' votes usually are not recorded.

Herbkersman said he either returned the tobacco money he received or donated it to a charity. The lobbyist disclosure forms do not show what candidates did with the contributions.

"I just don't feel good about taking money from a tobacco company," he said. "I'm looking out for my constituents when I vote on tobacco issues."

Herbkersman, who said he supports a statewide smoking ban and an increase in the cigarette tax, said it troubles him that so much tobacco money is spent lobbying the legislature.

"I think there are some legislators who would possibly take any contribution," he said. "I don't condemn anybody for taking the money. I just don't feel comfortable taking it."

Chalk said he has a long-standing relationship with RJ Reynolds from the time that he served in the North Carolina legislature. He said the company supported him because he is pro-business, but the contribution doesn't affect his stance on issues.

"In my opinion, the issues that they're concerned about are business issues as well as just direct issues just impacting tobacco," he said. "I have never voted for something just because their (political action committee) gave me any money."

Some legislators, however, rely on money from tobacco interests.

Rep. Jim Battle, D-Nichols, said he actively solicits donations from tobacco companies. Battle, who represents the only part of the state that still has tobacco farms, received $500 from RJ Reynolds and $1,000 from Philip Morris in 2006. He said he opposes increased cigarette taxes and smoking bans because they could hurt his constituents. But he says he knows he's biased on the issue: For three generations his family's company has sold fertilizer, gas and other supplies to tobacco farmers.

"I make my living with tobacco and they know that I'm a friend," he said. "I get contributions from those people because they want me to stay in the General Assembly because there's very few of us left."

Rep. G. Murrell Smith, R-Conyers, was one of the staunchest opponents of smoking bans last session. He threatened to filibuster a bill that would have protected local control and told legislators it was "ridiculous" to pass the bill. He received $500 from RJ Reynolds in 2007.

Carrigan, of the Smokefree group, said proponents of smoking bans felt the effects of heavy lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry last session. Many legislators repeated the same arguments made by the lobbyists, including that a single statewide smoking law is better than scattered local bans, even if a statewide ban was less strict, he said.

"It was evident that (the legislators) had been very prepared on this issue," he said. "It tells us we just have to work harder. We have to counter that."

Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, has a government affairs division that handles lobbying and legislative matters in South Carolina and other states, spokeswoman Dawn Schneider said. The company's philosophy is to look out for the interests of its customers, she said.

"We have a long-standing commitment and an involvement in the political process in a bipartisan fashion on behalf of our employees and our shareholders," she said. "Political contributions are a business decision and they're made on a state-by-state basis."

RJ Reynolds did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

THE FIGHT AHEAD

For now, the fate of local smoking bans hangs on the state Supreme Court's decision that will settle two lower court rulings, one that upheld Sullivan's Island's ban and one that overturned Greenville's. That decision is expected any day.

If the court decides local bans run afoul of existing state clean air laws, lawmakers are expected to either enact a statewide ban on indoor smoking in public places or pass a law allowing local governments that option.

But health advocates are worried the legislature will pass a looser law like Georgia's, whichallows smoking in establishments that don't let in people under 18.

"Smoking interests want to have a weak statewide law and in that law prohibit any further regulation by local governments," said the municipal association's Duvall. "I think the public is going to demand a statewide law that is strong."

Some lawmakers said they expect the cigarette tax increase to finally pass this year, but the sticking point is deciding where to allocate the money. Sen. Bryant said he supports an increase in the tax if the money goes to a fund applied to tax cuts for people who need health insurance. Even Rep. Battle, who represents tobacco farmers, said he may come around on a tax increase if the money goes to health care.

Chalk supports the increase, but wants it to be tied to inflation and offset by a tax cut elsewhere. The tax could help deter smokers, he said, but the money should go back into the general fund instead of a being directed toward health care costs.

"If we can discourage kids from smoking, they may never start smoking," he said. "We need to worry about health, not just health care."

Until the issues are settled, legislators and other observers said it's clear that tobacco interests are ready to spend to get their point across.

One thing is sure: Both sides of the smoking debate expect 2008 to be the year of much activity in the Statehouse, and possibly a year of change for historically tobacco-friendly South Carolina.