takenorinvalid

Long answer. Apologies in advance.

Rep. Aderholt's Bill:

One federal Tobacco to 21 bill, proposed by Rep. Robert Aderholt, snuck in a legal definition of "vapor product" that would have kept Altria's newest e-cigarette, iQOS, from being classified as a cigarette.'

Tobacco-Free Kids very quickly pointed this out and Aderholt's bill got a lot of bad press. It's unlikely that bill will pass.

These are called "Trojan Horse" bills, and they're not a new idea. Last year, Texas Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole snuck a provision into an Appropriations bill that exempted "premium cigars" from FDA regulations. You can read a bit about that here.

McConnell and Romney's Bills:

The other two bills are more complicated, so bear with me here through a long answer.

About one week after Aderholt's bill was exposed, Mitch McConnell announced his bill - which again got bad press and was associated with Altria.

Two weeks after that, Utah Republicans Romney and Stewart announced their support for a third bill.

Altria lobbied in support of both of those bills. They're pretty much identical - they raise the legal age to 21 and literally don't do anything else.

Tobacco Policy expert Ruth Malone believes that McConnell's is a continuation of an old Altria strategy called "Project Sunrise". You can read an internal memo outlining that strategy here.

Essentially, the strategy outlined in that memo is to support and help put through what they call "moderate" tobacco control campaigns and legislation. They specifically say, in the memo, that they should focus on laws and campaigns that focus on "youth access to tobacco" to keep the conversation away from "bans on advertising".

This, Malone says, is because:

1. They don't really sufficiently affect tobacco sales -- 90% of smokers start before they're of legal age
2. They distract the conversation away from more effective measures like marketing regulations
3. They get people talking about tobacco as something "for adults", which appeals to kids.

15 state Tobacco to 21 laws have been passed in the last year, and some of them include rules against e-cigarette flavors and marketing practices -- things that'll actually affect Altria's ability to sell to kids.

If McConnell or Romney's bills get passed, it's expected to stop the trend of states enacting tougher laws that'll actually affect their sales. It's likely that they'll also work as "mission accomplished" that'll kill out the fervor for some other bills that would increase FDA regulations on e-cigarette flavors and marketing practices.

They'll last for a while, too. On average, studies say, it takes 17 years to get a weak law replaced.

Incidentally, the lobbyists hired to support these bills were simultaneously asked to push for lighter FDA restrictions on e-cigarettes or exemptions for Altria's products. Unlike Aderholt's bill, we haven't seen those requests worked directly into these bills, but we could see that request granted in other, less obvious ways.

Frank Pallone's Bill

The fourth bill proposed last month was presented by Frank Pallone, and it's just a great example of what Altria's trying to keep from getting passed.

It's tough -- it bans e-cigarette flavors, limits marketing practices, and does a lot of other stuff Altria doesn't want to see happen.

It's also the only federal Tobacco to 21 bill they haven't publicly supported and that we can't link to them in any way.

I kind of answer that question here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/brqljs/im_an_investigative_journalist_ive_found_evidence/eofvihv/?context=3

But, as a shorter answer, the bills supported by McConnell and Romney literally don't do anything but put the legal smoking age up to 21.

Dr. Ruth Malone believes these bills are intended to stop the growing trend of tough, state laws against e-cigarettes by giving the battle against teen vaping a sort of "Mission Accomplished" banner that doesn't really sufficiently affect teen smoking rates.

Admittedly, that's conjecture -- but the biggest proof supporting it is Project Sunrise, a leaked strategy from when the company was called Philip Morris. Their internal memos specifically outline a strategy to "minimize the effectiveness of the anti-tobacco industry" by focusing the conversation on "youth access to tobacco" instead of marketing bans.

You can read that memo for yourself here:

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=jrjk0061

Fair question. Let me do my best to answer it.

What are you adding to the conversation?

The donations are McConnell's "being from Kentucky" aren't the key points. The key point is that Altria hired a lobbyist to ask McConnell to raise the legal smoking age to 21 and that, shortly afterward, McConnell announced a Tobacco to 21 bill.

Rep. Chris Stewart has confirmed that he spoke to tobacco lobbyists about his bill before going public with support for it. Altria has confirmed their role, as well.

The "hard fact" I'm contributing is that there is clear evidence showing that Altria asked lawmakers to support these federal Tobacco to 21 bills and that, shortly afterward, the lawmakers they spoke to introduced federal Tobacco to 21 bills.

So what if Philip Morris targets kids?

I believe you've misunderstood the "Project Sunrise" part of this story.

The point isn't that Philip Morris targets kids. It's that they wrote a corporate memo that specifically outlined a strategy to control the conversation around tobacco controls and focus it on "youth access to tobacco".

The goal, outlined in the strategy, is to "delegitimize" (Philip Morris's words) efforts to limit their marketing ability and to "minimize the effectiveness of the anti-tobacco industry" (their words again).

I spoke to Dr. Ruth Malone about this because she is the leading expert on Project Sunrise. She's explained to me that Altria took this approach because, if the conversation around tobacco control is focused on the minimum legal smoking age, it actually results in improved perceptions of tobacco products among young people.

Where exactly do you see a problem?

That's the big question that's driven the research. This started with my discovery that Altria had pushed for these bills -- but after that, I still had to figure out why they were doing it.

As you've mentioned, I did have to talk to anti-tobacco advocates and, as you put it, "get quotes from them being mean to cigarette companies" to try to understand that.

The people I spoke to are experts in tobacco regulations and industry practices who have an in-depth knowledge of their history. I don't know who better to talk to than them.

Tobacco-Free Kids thinks this isn't a huge deal. They're willing to take a Tobacco to 21 bill even if Altria supports it.

Malone's less convinced. She thinks that McConnell's bill is meant to pre-empt tougher legislation.

Personally, despite the tone in the article, I don't have any strong opinion on whether or not the bill should pass. I just believe that, if lobbyists and politicians are hiding something, it should be made public.

So I want everyone to know that Altria asked them to put these bills forward. You're welcome to react to that information however you choose.

One little thing I want to add that I didn't manage to fit into the article:

Despite the impression I've given, I don't think Stewart and Romney are "evil" or "sold out to the tobacco lobby". Having spoken to Stewart, I believe that he - and most likely the other people behind that bill - genuinely think they're doing the right thing.

That being said, I also believe that Altria lobbied in favor of the bill because they believe that it will keep tougher bills from getting through.

Brevity. No other reason.

The date Schatz drafted that bill is significant because it suggests that Altria's lobbying efforts on the bill were effective.

A basic timeline of the bill goes:

2015: Schatz introduces the bill. Nothing happens.

2016: Nothing happens.

2017: Nothing happens.

2018: The FDA cracks down on e-cigarettes and Altria hires a lobbyist firm to ask Congress and Senators to support it.

2019: The bill bursts back into life with the newfound support of Romney and Stewart.

Stewart confirmed, in a personal interview, that he spoke to tobacco lobbyists about the bill, although he claimed not to be able to remember whether they were affiliated with Altria. He did, however, quote an Altria spokesperson in the statement he released announcing that he was going to co-sponsor the bill.