Add new comment

Another reason the industry might have been so active in Oregon could be that, through their longstanding relationship with Mark Nelson and his experience and track record defeating public health measures in Oregon, the "infrastructure" already existed to defeat the tax. All the cigarette makers had to do was make a money injection into Public Affairs Counsel and turn Nelson loose. One more reason why the industry failed to fight a very similar measure in Colorado in 2004 could have been that three months prior to the election, in June 2004, the American Lung Association of Colorado published and widely circulated a report titled <em>Tobacco Industry Involvement in Colorado</em>(available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/tc/reports/CO2004/) that analyzed tobacco industry documents to describe tactics the industry had used for decades in Colorado to successfully scuttle previous cigarette tax ballot initiatives. The report was circulated to health groups, legislators and the media, and received media attention, particularly in rural areas of Colorado (since the report described industry involvement in smaller towns in Colorado). This official "outing" of tobacco industry strategies to defeat ballot measures could have had a protective effect. Anne Landman