Anti-Tobacco Ads Don’t Educate; They Just Vilify

In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 99, which placed a 25-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in the state. That tax is paid by my company and other tobacco distributors, and those funds are supposed to be used primarily for tobacco- related health education and medical care for the indigent.

We have no objection to ads intended for tobacco-related health education. But my company and others do object to the fact that some Proposition 99 funds have been redirected to another purpose: a series of ads that state officials acknowledge are designed to vilify cigarette manufacturers, saying we lie and target children just to make a profit. These ads exceed the authority granted to the state by the voters and violate the companies’ state and federal constitutional rights.

Last week, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. sued the state in federal court in Sacramento, asking that the state redirect its efforts to the purposes voters approved.

We are not seeking money. We are simply asking California to play by the rules: Stop placing ads that attack legitimate businesses and their employees.

The U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that requiring a person or company to pay for speech or ads they disagree with violates their 1st Amendment rights (United States vs. United Foods, in 2001; Keller vs. State Bar of California, in 1990; and International Assn. of Machinists vs. Street, in 1961).

The 1st Amendment protects both the right of free speech and the right not to be compelled to speak against yourself. As no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson believed, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

Further, some of the state’s ads violate the companies’ 7th Amendment right to a fair trial. These ads portray fiction as fact in an effort to sway public opinion. After being barraged by the state’s ads, jurors impaneled in upcoming lawsuits related to smoking may not be able to make fair judgments.

The 1st and 7th Amendments are not selective in terms of the citizens they protect. Even companies that make controversial products are granted certain rights. And voters deserve to know whether the government is spending tax money for the purposes the voters authorized.