You are here

Tobacco Policy

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is waging a legal fight against the
corrupt $240 billion tobacco deal signed in 1998 between 46 state attorneys
general and major tobacco companies. The lawsuit, filed in federal district
court in Louisiana
on August 2, 2005, alleges that the tobacco “Master
Settlement Agreement
” (MSA) is unconstitutional because it violates the
Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement
or Compact with another State. (U.S.
Constitution, Article I, Section 10)

The Compact Clause was designed to prevent states from
collectively encroaching on federal power or ganging up on other states
The tobacco settlement does both. The MSA set up a national government/tobacco
cartel that harmed consumers and small businesses by increasing cigarette
prices and restricting competition. It was a backroom deal between state
governments and big tobacco companies. Not surprisingly, the winners in the
settlement were sitting at the negotiating table.


WINNERS: Activist State Attorneys General & Big Tobacco

State attorneys general became breadwinners for their states, thrust
themselves into the limelight, and expanded their own power. Trial lawyers
associated with the state lawsuits won an estimated $13 billion windfall that,
in some cases, amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per hour of work.
Health activists won some long-sought restrictions on cigarette marketing and a
new, tobacco-funded anti-smoking group, the American Legacy Foundation.

Tobacco companies were big winners, too. They ended the state lawsuits and
secured the states as allies in protecting their own market share and financial
well-being. In short, once the industry decided to settle, the former
adversaries--attorneys general and major tobacco companies--shared similar
interests: to keep major companies solvent and thriving.


LOSERS: Consumers & Small Tobacco Companies

The losers in the settlement agreement were the taxpayers and small
businesses excluded from the negotiations. The direct financial burden (higher
cigarette prices) befell smokers, many of them low-wage earners. Small tobacco
companies were saddled with annual escrow payments designed to “level the
playing field,” followed in subsequent years by a growing list of onerous
mandates. Despite the fact that a massive new tax and regulatory regime was
forged, other parties impacted by the settlement terms-- average citizens,
lawmakers, small businesses -- were never given an opportunity to participate.


The Case Against Big Tobacco & State AGs

CEI hopes to strike at the sort of attorney general activism and abuse of
power that the tobacco settlement falsely legitimized. In the lawsuit, CEI
represents one
small tobacco manufacturers, a tobacco store, and an individual smoker
. The
defendant in the case is the attorney general of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr.

The case is pending in court.




The Big Tobacco Deal's 10th Anniversary