<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2537" dir="ltr"> James Heins took out a full page ad in today's paper in support of Phyllis Wise. He is listed as follows on sciencecorruption.com: <a id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2564" href="http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN172/00004.html">http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN172/00004.html</a></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2555" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2556" dir="ltr">A James Heins [ Prof.] </div><center id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2558"><h4 id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2557">— A University of Illinois cash-for-comments economist who worked for the tobacco industry — </h4></center><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2559"><b>Professor James Heins</b> was one of the original cabal of economists who became the nation-wide network working for the Tobacco Institute. It was put together by tobacco lobbyist <b>James Savarese</b> and <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2565">Professor Robert Tollison</b> of George Mason University who collaborated in the 1980s to provide the tobacco industry with academics willing to write propaganda material ... always provided their names were not linked to the industry or to any of the cigarette companies.</div><div></div><div> The idea was simply that the academic 'sleepers' would be available on a cash-for-services basis when needed to counter attempts to increase excise taxes, or to ban public smoking, or just to appear as independent experts at Congressional hearings and promote the industry causes.</div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2544"> Economist were by far the most useful academics to the tobacco industry because the distinction between economics and politics was never clear: so support of the cigarette companies could always be claimed as support for free-market economics ... the rights of individuals to make public choices ... small government ... or even the first Amendment to the Constitution.</div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2543"> The economist always claimed to be 'independent', 'professionals' and they wre recognised 'academics' from some credible university. They never revealed the source of their funding in their op-eds or letters-to-the-editor. </div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2539"> If ever put under cross-examination, they must be able to claim with weasel-word precision, that they had never received a penny from the tobacco industry. Therefore all payments were laundered, either through tobacco industry lawyers (usually <b> Covington & Burling</b>), the principle organisers, <b> James Savarese & Associates</b>, or through Bob Tollison's <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2542"> Center for the Study of Public Choice</b> at George Mason University.</div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1412772434010_2541"> The aim was to have, in each State, at least one academic economist, one academic lawyer, and one academic from a business management, business law, marketing or advertising discipline willing to jump into action and write op-ed articles for their local newspaper, or to appear at local ordinance or legislative hearings. Copies of these articles were always to be sent to a local Congressman who sat on some important (to the tobacco industry) committee.</div><div></div><div> The academics were always expected to wave their own and their university's credentials vigorously, and loudly proclaim their "independence' from any crass-commercial motives. And those who could boast of being 'non-smokers' were especially prized — since without this addiction, their non-dependent-on-tobacco status was thought to be proved beyond any doubt!</div></div></body></html>