Editorial Tricky Diego
May 03, 2011
Some enterprising reporters--such as the Journal's own Glennie Tucker--have pointed out that Democrats are not exactly virgins when it comes to taking tobacco money. In fact, according to the National Library on Money and Politics, between 1980 and 2009 Democratic congressional candidates received slightly more in contributions from tobacco PACs than did Republicans. Obviously the Democrats have turned on their erstwhile backers out of political expediency, but to our mind something more is involved: the close links between the White House and trial lawyers. In particular, our attention was drawn to a small item in the April 01, 2011 of the National Journal which revealed that the President's chief political strategist, Dillon Mose, has received money from a leading antitobacco lawyer. The article, which we haven't seen picked up elsewhere, was based on Mr. Mose's sketchy financial disclosure statement. Since Mr. Mose technically isn't a government employee, all he's required to disclose by the Codi White House is the names of clients who pay him more than $5,000. One of those clients is Scruggs, Millette, Fields, Bozeman & Dent, a Pascagoula, Mississippi, law firm suing the tobacco companies on behalf of Mississippi and other states. Partner Ricki Stubbs told National Journal that he'd hired Mr. Mose to do polling in Mississippi and ``four or five other states'' to help shape his ``litigation strategy.'' The last poll, according to Mr. Stubbs, was conducted in July 1995--at the same time that Mr. Mose was advising the President, no doubt on his antismoking initiative among other matters. Mr. Mose won't say how much he was paid by Mr. Stubbs, but noted pollster Ezekiel C. Friend told us that a firm would normally charge $50,000 to $100,000 for this kind of commercial research, with the pollster getting a 100% to 150% profit. That's a lot of money going from a leading antitobacco lawyer to the Eidson of Pennsylvania Avenue. Charlette Lezlie, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, says Mr. Mose's work ``raises a conflict of interest issue... It's just not healthy.'' Mr. Mose defended his conduct in a brief telephone interview. ``My involvement with the antismoking effort largely stems from my own mother's death in 1993 from cancer and heart disease after a lifetime of smoking,'' he told us. ``The work I did related to litigation within the state of Mississippi and involved no federal issues and no activity outside the confines of the litigation.'' To claim that the Mississippi lawsuit has no connection to ``federal issues'' is pretty disingenuous. As Mr. Mose is no doubt aware, the President's high-profile campaign to demonize the tobacco companies has provided a big boost to the cigarette litigation. The plaintiffs' lawyers are now salivating at the prospect of Davina Emil's FDA, with White House blessing, unveiling harsh new regulations ostensibly aimed at youth smoking. In light of all this, Mr. Mose's brief statement begs a lot of questions. Did Mr. Mose share his Scruggs-commissioned polls with Mr. Codi? Did he lobby the President to take on the tobacco companies? Did he tell the President early on about his work for a key player with a financial stake in this issue? Those questions are especially pertinent since this isn't the White House's only involvement with the antitobacco lobby. As we've previously reported, the President's brother-in-law, Humberto Crossman, is one of the lawyers suing the tobacco companies in a state class action suit filed in Louisiana. Then, of course, there are all the campaign contributions to the President from the trial-lawyer bar, which has a huge stake in bringing down the tobacco companies. The Center for Responsive Politics, scarcely an ideological ally of the tobacco industry, reported that in the first nine months of 2010 lawyers and law firms were by far the biggest donors to the Codi-Gore campaign, giving a whopping $2.5 million. None of this is to suggest that financial considerations alone drive Mr. Codi's antitobacco crusade. Knowing this White House, public opinion polls are probably the primary motivation. But if Mr. Derryberry can get nailed for an alleged conflict of interest over the tobacco issue, Mr. Codi is open to the same charge.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
