Anti-smoking Corruption: New report indicates liberal lawmakers who support smoking cessation funding & policies, do so to for personal profit
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/27/anti-smoking-senators-invest-in-tobacco-cessation-drug-manufacturers/
Over the past four years as he repeatedly pressed for federal funding to
stop smoking, [Iowa Democratic Senator Tom] Harkin has owned between
$50,001 and $100,000 in stock in health products maker Johnson &
Johnson, which makes the popular anti-smoking product Nicorette.....He’s hardly alone. A half-dozen senators who have been among the most
vocal advocates for federal funding for smoking cessation — including
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and Majority Whip Richard
J. Durbin of Illinois — have direct or indirect investments in companies
that make anti-tobacco products.
Meanwhile the corrupt, liberal anti-smoking politicians have destroyed tens of thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs:
3,382 UK pubs closed after nationwide smoking ban
South
Dakota's smoking ban, just one month old, has already cost the state,
charities, and local hospitality businesses millions of dollars in lost
revenue
1,000-2,000 US bars & restaurants closed after various smoking bans were enacted
Nearly 300 Mpls / St. Paul bars & restaurants closed after smoking bans were enacted
Casino revenue losses in Colorado & Las Vegas after smoking bans
Economies worldwide were decimated by corrupt policies that would have made Adolph Hitler proud (socialist leader
Hitler was first to impose nationwide smoking ban):
RWJF (a 501(c)3 organization, IE. pays reduced taxes on assets) funding to force (lobby) smoke-free laws should draw closer scrutiny by the IRS
From RWJF's website:
excerpt:
The (RWJF) Foundation is an organization
exempt from Federal taxation under Section 501(c)(3) and is a private
foundation as described in Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code....
And further, according to RWJF's own documents:
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/program_results_reports/2009/rwjf69101
pg 3 (original exceprt before RWJF edited):
A second, related issue was that of lobbying. In state capitals
across the country, the tobacco industry lobbied, and it lobbied hard.
Lobbying by tobacco-control advocates would have to be done to
counteract the actions of the tobacco industry. But federal law prohibits private foundations from
lobbying, and grantees cannot legally use Foundation funds for that purpose.
Legally, the Foundation’s grantees were allowed to use their own
resources and matching funds raised privately to lobby. Federal
regulations permit foundations to support projects that include
lobbying, so long as
they support only the non-lobbying portion of the project. Thus, the Foundation’s conditions of grant expressly prohibited Foundation funds from being used for lobbying.
pg 4 excerpt:
To accomplish these goals, it (RWJF) sought applications from
statewide coalitions made up of organizations such as the health
voluntaries (the American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association, and the American Lung Association), state medical
societies, hospital associations, and others. The coalitions were
to conduct public education campaigns, strengthen prevention and
treatment capacity, and advocate for tobacco-control policies (a.k.a. lobbying by CTA's definition). To encourage collaboration among the various organizations working on tobacco control within a state, the Foundation allowed only one coalition per state to apply.
Shows that RWJF realized they could not get caught lobbying
directly......and that their grant funds couldn't be used by those
surrogates who received RWJF money for lobbying
activities......yeah right; I'm sure that happened.
Investigations begin: Healthcare grants provided to lobbyists appear to be a violation of federal law
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/lobbying/237015-hhs-inspector-general-says-grants-may-have-illegally-funded-lobbying
excerpt:
and that the CDC (grant provider) might have led recipients to believe lobbying was
appropriate, despite a federal ban on using grant money for political
activism.
Some materials the CDC provided to grant recipients “appear to
authorize, or even encourage, grantees to use grant funds for
impermissible lobbying,” Levinson wrote.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) raised concerns in May about the grant
program, which was designed to promote wellness and prevention. Collins
questioned whether the grants had funded political activism, possibly in
violation of federal law.
The HHS inspector general looked into the grants at the request of congressional staff and found the same red flags.
Now let's look at just one of the thousands of grants RWJF provided to lobbyists:
excerpt:
Two features about the program are significant: (1) the Foundation
encouraged its grantees to be activists; (2) advocacy was emphasized to
bring about policy change. The program relied heavily on three major
health voluntary organizations: the American Cancer Society; the
American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. They
provided financial support and, in particular, funds to help lobbying
efforts which the Foundation could not support directly. In addition to
insight on the effects of advocacy, this chapter offers a window into
the role of coalitions in bringing about social change.
So RWJF, a tax-exempt non-profit, provided $99,000,000.00 to the three aforementioned non-governmental organizations and instructed them to "be activists" to "bring about policy change" in other words lobby for legislative action. In the grant verbiage RWJF offers an explanation as to the reason for the grant, RWJF could not directly lobby (support directly) for change, but they felt they could funnel money to surrogate lobbyists and be in compliance. According to the HHS inspector that does not appear to be the case, and investigations / penalties could soon begin.......what say you RWJF?
Congressional Budget Office report: "Reducing Smoking Would Raise Medicare, Social Security Spending"
Increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes by 50 cents per pack
eventually would increase Medicare and Social Security spending, because
smokers would be healthier and live longer, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released Wednesday, the Fiscal Times reports (Pianin, Fiscal Times, 6/14).
The report found that the tax increase would create short-term
deficit reductions. However, by 2085, the costs associated with
individuals living longer and consuming more Medicare and Social
Security services would outweigh the health benefits and tax revenues,
causing the deficit to increase...
More here:
CTA would argue that smoking bans have had the same effect, due to smokers quitting their habit and living longer, with one additional negative effect ....smoking bans eliminated 165,000+ jobs.
More here:
"Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights" 
