Tobacco Industry Gifts After Vote Reported

By LEO C. WOLINSKY

Jan. 9, 1988 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO — The tobacco industry, which won major protections from lawsuits in a “tort reform” bill that was rushed through the Legislature on the last night of its 1987 session, contributed $23,750 to 16 lawmakers immediately after the vote, according to figures released Friday by Consumers Union.

The money was contributed by the Tobacco Institute on Monday, Sept. 14, the first working day after the bill was brought to a vote in both houses of the Legislature, the consumer group reported. Among those who received the contributions were top Democratic and Republican leaders who played key roles in assuring approval of the last-minute deal.

In addition, the study found that the Tobacco Institute and three other special-interest groups that helped draft the measure contributed a total of $635,000 to lawmakers during 1987, a non-election year. The three groups--manufacturers, physicians and trial lawyers--traditionally are among the largest contributors to legislative campaigns.

“Once again it appears that money means more to the lawmaking process than public health and safety,” said Bob Shireman, an analyst for Common Cause, which opposed the bill. “It looks like the tobacco lobby wasted no time in rewarding its friends for protecting cigarette companies from their responsibility to consumers.”

Relied on Documents

Shireman, who relied on documents filed with the secretary of state in preparing the study, noted that all but one of those who received the Tobacco Institute money had voted for the bill. The one who did not, Sen. William Craven (R-Oceanside), said he was attending a Rules Committee meeting during the vote but would have supported the bill had he been there.

A spokesman for the Tobacco Institute could not be reached for comment. The institute’s top Sacramento lobbyist declined to be interviewed.

The tort reform bill provides broad protections for private industry and individuals against personal injury lawsuits and exempts manufacturers of alcoholic beverages, cigarettes and other “inherently unsafe products.”

The final compromise was struck in a series of closed-door meetings that culminated the night before the session ended. The Legislature’s top leaders shuttled between tables at a Chinese restaurant to forge the agreement that eventually was outlined on a white, linen napkin. The next day it was presented to the Legislature and passed exactly as written.

Supporters had argued that many of the measure’s provisions had been heard by various legislative committees over the years. But the provision exempting tobacco products was never fully dis1668641651session. Tobacco industry lawyers who flew to Sacramento from Washington to help write the measure were credited by other participants with heavily influencing the final product.

Recipients Named

Among those who received contributions from the Tobacco Institute were Assembly Minority Leader Pat Nolan (R-Glendale); Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco); Speaker Pro Tem Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles); Senate GOP Leader Ken Maddy (R-Fresno) and Senate Democratic Floor Leader Barry Keene of Benicia.

Nolan, who received the largest single contribution after the vote--$4,500--could not be reached for comment. But a spokeswoman, Ann Richards, said she could not see how the contributions could have influenced Nolan’s vote because he had long backed tort-reform efforts.

“He would have supported it in any event,” Richards said.

Dan Pellissier, a spokesman for Maddy, said he was “absolutely dismayed” by the charges implied by Consumers Union. The Tobacco Institute’s $2,000 contribution was in response to a “leadership event” Maddy was staging, Pellissier added, and a “$2,000 contribution is not really significant.”

Gene Livingston, chairman of the coalition of manufacturers and physicians that sponsored the legislation, also downplayed the influence of campaign contributions, saying agreement came merely because all the parties came together to avoid a costly war of initiatives that otherwise could have been launched.

But Shireman said the fact that the money was contributed during a year when no elections were scheduled is evidence that tobacco interests had an ulterior motive.

“This is what I call policy money,” Shireman said. “It has nothing to do with supporting people for public office and everything to do with power.”