Lawmakers Wary of Tobacco Dispute

WASHINGTON — After decades of persuading lawmakers to leave them essentially alone, the nation’s large tobacco companies are on the verge of beseeching Congress to set limits that industry executives once considered unthinkable.

But with public opinion shifting from indifference to hostility not only toward tobacco companies, but also toward politicians who cozy up to them, lawmakers are carefully weighing their options--and words--before rushing to defend Big Tobacco.

Congress may be dragged into the battle if the states and the companies eventually reach a settlement of state lawsuits seeking industry compensation for medical costs stemming from tobacco-related illnesses.

The industry is trying to craft a massive legal accord, which could include some kind of limit on its future liability. This kind of settlement would require federal legislation and almost certainly be highly controversial.

As a result, even legislators from tobacco states are shying away from jumping into the fray.

“I think we have enough on our plates right now,” said first-term Rep. Bob Etheridge (R-N.C.). “That issue hasn’t arrived at this door, and I don’t think anyone is looking for any fights on it yet.”

Added an aide to another member of Congress: “We’d like to stay away from [issues related to the settlement talks]. We don’t have many facts and see no reason to comment on it right now.”

Lawmakers seem to be treading gingerly around the combustible mixture of growing anti-tobacco sentiment and the cash-rich influence of the industry’s lobbyists, said Bill Hogan of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based public policy think tank.

“Congress would prefer not to deal with these vexing issues because it puts the public’s perception of [the tobacco industry as] a threat to its children and people’s health against the money of a loyal campaign contributor,” Hogan said. “This is the worst kind of political issue that could ever land on a congressman’s desk.”

As if to underscore the difficulty a potential tobacco settlement poses, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) apparently flip-flopped in his comments about the chances of Congress’ approving a settlement.

Last Monday he told reporters that if a settlement could be reached that was supported by all sides in the tobacco talks, it would “have a lot of momentum” and most likely would have no problem winning approval from Congress.

“The key component is, do they have an agreement that everyone can sign off on,” Lott said in an interview after a speech to the National Assn. of Realtors. “If they do, it should be relatively easy.”

On Tuesday, asked if Congress would be willing to embrace a settlement on tobacco, Lott sounded a more cautious note.

“I really don’t know,” he said at his daily briefing with Capitol Hill reporters. “It’s hard to say until you see what it is. There has been resistance to various components of it. It would depend on what [negotiators] come up with.”

Without its hard-core congressional support of old, some contend, Big Tobacco is an industry on the run.

“We’re going to see the collapse of the American tobacco industry,” said Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah), an opponent of tobacco interests.

Few others would go that far, given the industry’s long-standing clout in Washington--and its deep pockets. Over the last decade, the industry has given more than $25 million in political contributions, according to figures compiled by Common Cause, which tracks campaign donations.

“The industry is answering the attacks . . . by turning up their political contributions . . . in the hopes of keeping politicians addicted to their political money so they can enlist the aid of those politicians to protect tobacco,” said Ann McBride, president of Common Cause.

According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington campaign fund watchdog group, tobacco concerns were among the largest contributors to political campaigns last year, giving more than $7.3 million to Democrats and Republicans. Philip Morris, the nation’s largest tobacco firm, led the way with more than $850,000 in donations.

The industry offers no apologies for its generosity.

“Nothing has changed,” said a spokesman for the Tobacco Institute, an industry lobbying group. “We’ve always had friends and we’ve always had enemies.”

More and more, tobacco supporters are calling on their friends to shore up support in case it’s needed in the near future. Representatives of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand, a Washington law firm involved in the settlement talks with state officials, have been meeting quietly with congressional leaders and selected members to keep them informed.

What the industry wants from Congress is some degree of protection from the onslaught it now faces. Participants in the negotiations and congressional staff members say tobacco executives have requested federal protection from future litigation in exchange for a commitment to provide substantial cash compensation to victims of smoking-related illnesses.

The industry also hopes to persuade Congress to accept voluntary restrictions on tobacco-product marketing, thwarting Clinton administration efforts to impose such limits through federal regulations.

Yet in the current atmosphere, it may be tougher for tobacco lobbyists to press their case with lawmakers, especially those from non-tobacco states.

“The whole politics of tobacco interests has changed because of the threat of litigation,” said Thomas Mann of Washington’s Brookings Institution. “It’s a very different situation for tobacco firms than anything they’ve ever experienced with Congress before.”

Although polls have shown that tobacco companies have suffered from progressively declining public opinion for years, the first half of this year brought a drumbeat of bad news and adverse publicity. A series of court decisions cast cigarette firms in a negative light, making it difficult for lawmakers to be openly supportive of industry issues, according to legislative sources.

In particular, a federal judge in Greensboro, N.C., found that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to regulate nicotine-laden tobacco products as drugs. Tobacco firms, sensitive to any suggestion that cigarettes are remotely associated with narcotics, had fended off repeated efforts in Congress to have nicotine labeled a drug.

Also, executives of Liggett Group, the third-largest U.S. tobacco company, reached a settlement earlier this year with state officials to release documents that executives said show that the industry was aware of the health dangers associated with smoking years ago. Liggett said the documents will show that industry executives who testified before Congress in 1994 knew that cigarettes were addictive, even though they swore under oath to the contrary.

Even as the industry has been buffeted by such news, its lobby still has considerable muscle, as evidenced by its campaign against a children’s health insurance bill in the Senate.

That legislation, an amendment to the recent balanced-budget deal and sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), would have allowed states to expand existing Medicaid programs to provide health care for uninsured children. It would have been financed by a 43-cent-a-pack cigarette tax increase.

Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group that is largely supported by tobacco firms Philip Morris and RJR Nabisco Holdings, had broadcast radio ads criticizing Hatch and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), a co-sponsor of the legislation. After additionally hearing pleas from GOP leaders that the budget deal should be left intact, the Senate voted down the amendment 55 to 45.