Literature DB >> 15556735

Where there's smoke there's money: tobacco industry campaign contributions and U.S. Congressional voting.

Douglas A Luke1, Melissa Krauss.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. A direct contributor to this massive health burden is the effectiveness of the tobacco industry's activities, including campaign contributions.
METHODS: Voting records of 527 members of the 106th U.S. Congress were obtained for 49 tobacco-related bills between 1997 and 2000. Tobacco industry political action committee (PAC) contributions for each member were summed from 1993 to 2000. A cross-sectional, multilevel model was constructed that predicts voting behavior based on amount of contributions, political party, home state, and amount of state tobacco agriculture. The data were analyzed in 2002, 2003, and 2004.
RESULTS: A total of $6,827,763 was received by the legislators from 17 tobacco industry PACs, an average of $12,956 per member. Senate Republicans received the most money (mean $22,004), while Senate Democrats received the least ($6,057). Republicans voted pro-tobacco 73% of the time and Democrats voted pro-tobacco only 23% of the time (p <0.001). Pro-tobacco voting percentage varied significantly by state (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.27, p <0.001). The amount of PAC money received by a member of Congress was positively associated with voting pro-tobacco (p <0.01), even after controlling for political party, state, and state tobacco farming. For Democrats in Congress who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 contribution they received, they were 9.8% more likely to do so. On the other hand, for Republicans who voted pro-tobacco, for every $10,000 received, they were only 3.5% more likely to do so.
CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco industry contributions, political party, and state-level factors influence the voting behavior of Congress members. In the 106th Congress, Republicans voted pro-tobacco over three times as often as Democrats. However, for those Democrats who voted pro-tobacco, the relationship between receiving tobacco industry PAC money and a pro-tobacco vote was stronger than it was for Republicans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15556735     DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.08.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  8 in total

1.  Reducing the gap between the economic costs of tobacco and funds for tobacco training in schools of public health.

Authors:  Liza S Rovniak; Marilyn F Johnson-Kozlow; Melbourne F Hovell
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  Point of purchase cigarette promotions before and after the Master Settlement Agreement: exploring retail scanner data.

Authors:  B R Loomis; M C Farrelly; J M Nonnemaker; N H Mann
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  The politics of smoking in federal buildings: an executive order case study.

Authors:  Daniel M Cook; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Strong tobacco control program requirements and secure funding are not enough: lessons from Florida.

Authors:  Allison Kennedy; Sarah Sullivan; Yogi Hendlin; Richard Barnes; Stanton Glantz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Forcing the Navy to sell cigarettes on ships: how the tobacco industry and politicians torpedoed Navy tobacco control.

Authors:  Naphtali Offen; Sarah R Arvey; Elizabeth A Smith; Ruth E Malone
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  The alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, and excise taxes in the US 1986-89: new insights from the tobacco documents.

Authors:  Matthew Lesch; Jim McCambridge
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 4.135

7.  Advance and retreat: tobacco control policy in the U.S. military.

Authors:  Sarah R Arvey; Ruth E Malone
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.437

8.  "Throwing a rock at their armored tank": civilian authority and military tobacco control.

Authors:  Quinn Grundy; Elizabeth A Smith; Ruth E Malone
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 3.295

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.