# Joint Appendix — Loveday v. Federal Communications Commission > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0398%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1983 - **Citation:** 464 U.S. 1008 ## Text mm THE et UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS at eq ’ * to ean « 7 ; Paul Loveday and Californians for Smoking ) 4 a and No Smoking Sections, Petitioners No. 81-2061 + Be ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW i v. ) OF ORDER OF FEDERAL * ) COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ts Federal Communications Commission ) a and the United States, Respondents. s , , if ; Cal P. Saunders PAUL L. LOVEDAY a as. Counsel - ‘Federal Communications Commission Two Embarcadero Center Washington, D.C. 20554 24th Floor San Franciseé, CA 94111 Attorney for Petitioners tye = $s ° ’ h: seg Attorneys for Respondents Dated: March 31, 1982 “re : a : este at Mervin Field Relessed August 7, 1901" Copy of Proposition 10 News Release from California's Fair Political Practices Commission Richard S. Woodward Declaration Yes on 10's Request for Declaratory Ruling Tobacco Institute’s Denial of Knowledge or Part in No on § Campaign as reported in New York Times March 16, 1978 Campaign finance disclosure statement filed by Tobacco Institute that before March 10, 1978 Tobacco Institute had (i) spent $61,688 Proposition 5, (ii) had No on 5 ca and (iii) hired Dobbs & Nielsen Official Court Reporter's Transcript of Vigo Neilsen's apparent perjury Declaration re John Greenagel's misrepresentations that he was volunteer spokesman for No on 5 Pages from campaign finance disclosure statement of No on § showing «A Greanagel for professional services 41A 42 45-50 51 vt "1 52-54 i - 4 ‘ Me ¥ ¥ . aaa Relevant Pages of "A Study of Public Attitudes Toward Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco Industry" by the Roper Organization Pertinent page from campaign finance disclosure statement of No on 5 Campaign showing $20,000 paid by No on 5 Campaign to State Senator Bill Greene Copy of Greene Bill Sacramento Bee editorial April 15, 1980 against Greene Bill ASH Newsletter's July- August 1980 report of Tobacco's Industry's equivalent to Greene bill in Dade County, Florida Declaration re statement by Joe Cerrell, political consultant to Philip Morris, that Tobacco Industry had decided in June 1980 to run a campaign against Proposition 10 57 58-70 71 72-79 81 et. SP ee Wy ot eee ho” Woe Tab Ww 86 x 87 additional contributions to No on 10 (in excess of $340,000 (reported contributed as of Sept. 30, 1980) would "be very limited". Y 88 c Robert DeVries Declaration Zz 89 LA Times Oct. 9, 1980 No on 10 advertising on 50 TV and 105 radio stations A 90 Text of No on 10 radio ads B 90A-90B te Ae Copy of No on 10 ‘ y fundraising mailer Cc 91-100 “4 re No on 10 fundraising a mailer D 101-102 $ A, Robert Nelson % Declaration E 103-107 fer ; a3 93! 93 161-162 163-176 177-178 Ae ig My Nara? f ay : ms vi a bak ok OF TTY Fe aapae NE - # mints oe es ‘ f «= nit, ¥ 3 Adopted: July 30, 1981 Released: August 7, 1961 | By the Comission: . . 1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review, filed oa _ November 28, 1980, by Paul Loveday et al, of the Broadcast Bureau's ruling of _ October 30, 1980. '#/ wmreasonably. The information before the Bureau did not show that there was 3. Except as modified above, we believe the Bureau's ruling was / correct, and the Application for Review does not contain sufficient grounds to Warrant @ reversal of the ruling. Therefore; pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of ; Is ° William J. Tricarico Secretary A copy. of that ruling is appended (Attachment A). . : ay FEDE. «L COMMUNICATIONS COMMI- ON WASHINGTON, OC. 20534 0cT 301970 ae 8330-H 10-1275 10-1264 10-997 C10-768 In re: Request for Declaratory Ruling by "Californians for Smoking and No Smoking Sections." Dear Mr. Loveday This is in reference to the Request for Declaratory Ruling that you filed @ October 17, 1980 cn behalf ot the "Californians for Smoking and No Smoking Sectiwns" (the "“Committee") concerning advertisements opposing Propostion 10 by "Californians Against Regulatory Excess" ("CARE"). Tne Committee states that Proposition 10 represents "a measure placed on the November 4, 1980 Cali- fornia election ballot by the signature initiative process" which would "create smoking and no smoking sectians in incoor public places." Te Committee supporss the adoption of Proposition 10; CARE opposes its adoption. BACKGROUND * ilieed —1——— It is the Conmittee's contention that CARE is acting es the "agent and alter ego" of the tobacco incustry Bgvew CARE derives substantially all or “virtually : 100%" of its funds from industry 2/ and has relinquished editorial control : over its advertisements to the indus Essentially, the Committee's contentions i are based on the following: (1) CARE and “Cali for Common Sense, are based © oppose a simtilar ballot proposition in 1978, msvane Siian th geganized °o Oera*eavertising fim and further involved sintlar Pe iy and strategies; (2) the four largest cigarette manufacturers are "acting in and stratedies) (7) ting finds to CARE according to their respective TTT Shares in California, as was the case in 1978) (3) the tobacco industry took persmal credi for defeating the 1978 ballot proposition; 3/ (4) the four cigarette manufacturers "deferred massive spending on advertisements against Proposition 10 WHAS, Inc., 385 F Trstunt case from VOTER, On October 27, 19 that it is a bona fide nonprofit corporation and political Board members ,9/ organized station licensees that [it] is the entity, {CARE's] political spot annow fairly In support of its request, the Committee cites Amendment of the Commission's « rship Identification" 89 76.221) , 75); in re XOOL~IVv, 2a 784 (eth Cir. 1967). ‘The Committee distinguishes the 46 RR 24 350 (B/c. Bur. 1979) and Naticnal Welfare Rights Orcanizaticn, 41 FCC 24 187 (1973), since here the tabasco industry allecedly { ee control cver CAFE advertisements. that time is of the essence, im licht of CARE's “media L119 73.289 73.7 and 4 ; Uni tates Vv. the election which has swayed voters to 80, by its attorney, CARE filed its response. 8/ CARE represents “have Se ed properly and within their discretion in concluding ced the only entity, they must identify as sponsor of cements." CARE asserts that it has “wholly and ts under California's campaign and and although “the four tobacco es are the major contri- has been "widely publicized,"10/ CARE “editorial spot ads” and “it is not the tobacco companies." ———— SR - 4. On October 27, 1980, counsel for CARE responded to the Committee's reply, during a phone conversation with a staff attorney of this office. CARE stated that, due to an oversight, it neglected to mention the Board's first organizational meting which was held on June 16, 1980. (In attendence were Mr. Bergland, Mr. Dohr and Mr. Bens). CARE also explained that a political committee which ments. CARE denies tiet =e cobacce industry exercises any control whatsoever over the orcanizaticn's activities or stratecies. DISCUSSION The thrust of this request is that the sponsorship identification statements S ncrtisements are inadequate and improper under Section 315 Wee Be: Se. Seas eee tn bax ss F = va Sy See Be = al oe ee LP eee, ee IN Ce eee 4 ie + ee rule is contained in Section 73.1212 of the Commission's Rules The corresponding and Regulations and provides, nertinent part, that: (b) ‘The Licefee of each broadcast station shall exercise reasonable diligence to obtain from its employees, and from other persons with whom it deals directly an coniny tion with any matter for broadcast, information to enable toe licensee to make the announcement required by this * + * DY te. Pelt. lovey 8 ptt an 6. ‘ ) ; ghe beaic prenise of the sponsorship identification requirements is that the Public is entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded. VOTER, supra at 352; National Welfare Richts Organization, suora at 195; Applicability of Sponsor- , 40 FCC 141, 141 (1963). _Sectic 317 and Section 73.1212 impose a duty upon licensees to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the identity of the sponsor of broadcast material. The , Gbligation to exercise reasonable diligence to ferret out the actual spomsor | of broadcast material, of course, does not cast licensees in the role of "insurers" ; @s to the complete accuracy of sponsorship identification statements; they have an affirmative obligation to ascertain and identify the sponsor, no more - no less. onal Welfare Richts zation, supra at 195. The Conmissicn's responsi- EGRET matters is to not to substitute its judgment for that of the licensees' or to pass on the bona fide nature of an organization; rather the . Commission, as a government licensing agency, reviews its licensees’ decisions é : eve that the Bureau ruling in VOTER, supra, is dispositive of this request. The case of VOTER concerned a ballot proposition (involving the establishment of a county public power system), in which advertisements opposing the ballot were aired as being sponsored by a political conmittee ("Westchester Citizens"). The Conmittee was funded in substantial part or completely by the Consolidated Edison Company. The complainant argued that Con Edison should have been substituted or added to the sponsorship identification statement. The Conmittee admitted that it received substantial financial assistance from Con Edison, but maintained that it exercised editorial control over all of its advertisements. After noting that “longstanding Commission policy has been that an entity paying for advertising time and editorial control over the message must be identified as the sponsor of the statement," the Bureau stated that: (W)e camnot conclude that any licensee, in evaluating | the facts before it recardinc the acvertisement, failed to exercise reasqmacle cilicerce cv accertine the revcresenssticns Cr ‘jastoes :=.5853. 8 substan proportion of Con s role in West- chester Citizens funding might suggest a basis for further inquiry to save licensees. On the other hand the Westchester Citizens by-laws, ted asserticn of editorial control over these t, weight of precedent suggest that those licensees who accepted Westchester Citizens' advertisements as offered did so in good faith and without closing their eyes to any attempted misrepresentation. Indeed, same licensees may conclude, either on the facts thus far provided by the Westchester Citizens, or additional information not now before us, that, in its view, "Con Edison” alone is the appropriate identification. In such a case, we would have no basis for finding that the licensee has acted wreascn- ably (emphasis added). Id. at 352; see also, National Welfare Rights zation, supra (announcements paid for by a iete corporation, but controlled and directed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, were properly identified as “presented as a public service announcement by the American Academy of Pediatrics). oe eee ee + Mr: Paul L. Loveday ps In the same fashion, on the basis of all the information before us, we cannot determine that all the California broadcast station licensees acted unreasonably by failing to exercise reasonable diligence in accepting the representations of CARE and ultimately airing the CARE advertisements as offered. On the other hand, if some licensees substituted the sponsorship identifcation statements with "Paid for by the Four Major Tobacco Companies," we would have no basis for concluding that they acted unreasonably. The Committee submitted a rather voluminous record (consisting of studies, polls, newspaper articles and declarations) in a attempt to demonstrate that the tobacco companies are controlling CARE. While it has been shown that substantially all or "virtually 100%" of CARE's fiumds have come from the four major tobacco companies, a fact that CARE readily admits in its response, there has not been any conclusive evidence which establishes that the tobacco companies are exercising editorial control over CARE advertisements, or for that matter CARE's entire campaign efforts or any other drive aimed at defeating similar legislation like that pending in California. More importantly, there has been no evidence that the California broadcast station licensees have dismissed this matter ~:-- without exercising reasonable diligence to ascertain the trie sponsor in compliance with their obligations under Section 317 and Section 73.1212. CONCLUSION Based on all of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that any broadcast station licensee has violated the sponsorship identification provisions of the Commmi- ‘48 Act or the Commission's Rules and Regulations. To hold otherwise would this agency to investigate the nature of political conmittees organized rt or oppose an election matter (e.g., whether or not corporate formalities adhered to), to second-quess broadcast Station licensees’ judgments, to rule on the basis of hindsight, rather than reviewing licensees’ decisions to determine if they acted reasonably and in good faith. 8 F E Ce : In closing, "we continue urce caution and the exercise of reasonaple dilicence on the part of our licensees to taxe appropriate steps to ascertain che Sullest factual informatim as to the true identity of political and controversial issu Sponsors." VOTER, sucra-.at 352. Due to the inminence of the election, pertinent parts of this ruling were relayed by phone conversation to the respective attorneys on October 30, 1980. Staff action is taken here under delegated authority. Application for Review by the full Commission may be requested within 30 days of the release date of this letter by writing the Secretary, Federal Commmications Commission, Washington, JA... 2 ) , ~ * © can 00° a on ; Mr. Paul L. Loveday oy = 8. D. C. 20554, stating the factors warranting consideration and, if mailed, | should be sent by certified mail. Copies must be sent to the parties to . the complaint. See Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 47, Section 1.115. Fz cc: Counsel for care ys contin semiay ft 2 oe Ee eee So the country 4s canprising an “entity,” known as the "tobacco industry." Such include Lorillard, R. J- Reynolds Tobacco, Brown and Williamson manufacturers Tobacco Co. and Phillip Morris. ir ttee, approximately 99.6% of CARE'S financing comes ; industry (the four major cigarette manufacturers and to a small distributors; whereas approximately 99.4% of the funds came a manufacturers). ‘The Committee's figures are derived from ‘ pufactureet that CARE filed in California pursuant 6 2 inancing osure statements coverting the per through 9/23/80" (executed 9/29/80) and "9/24/80 through 10/20/80" shows that the major cigarette manufacturers ’ CARE during the latter period, in the form of loans Or ’ to CARE arse does not dencnatrate that the cigarette » ¢ oe Se oe | re 9 OR SS... ~™ ) . ’ 2. , * 6/ The Committee atta.ued correspondence that it sent to all-the California broadcast Station licensees, advising them of their obligation to exercise "reasonable diligence” to ascertain the true identity of the entity on whose behalf adver- tisements are purchased. The Committee proceeded to explain that virtually all the funds received by CARE are from the out-of-state tobacco industry, and thus : _ the tag line “Californians Against Regulatory Excess" is deceptive and should be substituted with the "tobacco industry." In their response, CARE attached correspondence that it sent to the licensees which denied allegations that it was operating as a "front" for cny person, company or industry, admitted that it received "tobacco" funds, but emphasized that it maintained control over CARE advertisements and campaign strategies. The Committee forwarded letters received by several stations which essentailly denied their request for substitution of ; tag-lines on CARE advertisements. It should be noted that a sponsorship identi- fication statement referring to the "tobacco industry” may be deceptive and misleading, in that there is no particular entity known as such, and further er ee ne on its Board 7/ The Committee cites two studies, the Roper Poll of 1978 commissioned by the Institute and the Fairbanks/Canapary/Maullin Poll commissioned by CARE, which indicate that the tobacco industry's "credibility" is low. The Committee further claims that the tobacco industry is cognizant of their low esteem, which explains "their" desire to operate through a "front organization" like CARE. 8 ee aren 00 Sent te Soe ee & See ee 25, 1980, at her request. 9/ As mentioned before, Mr. Collins has denied that he was a member of CARE's Board of Directors. By declaration of Eileen Padberg, of Robert Nelson and Associates (Robert Nelson organized CARE), CARE represents that it was its understanding that Mr. Collins was, in fact, serving on the Board and that all notices of meetings and other informative data was forwarded to him, accordingly. Eileen Padberg also stated that Mr. Kiker participated in one telephonic Board meeting, on Mr. Collin's behalf and at his request. 10/ Both CARE and the Conmittee have furnished the Commission with newspapers articles which report the influx of the tobacco industry's financial support. YES ON 10 SMOKING AND NO SMOKING SECTIONS ACT OF 1980 SECTION 1 Chapter 10.7 is added to the Health and Safety Code to read: $25930 $2593) ‘Chapter 10.7 Smoking and No Smoking Sections find smoke for extended penods may cause disease in healthy nonsmor. (ats; ee Sena hand atin ome egpantie Ge condten of mare Gan 8 1/8 alien with heart or lung disease: (c) Second-hand smoke, like ali tobacco smoke, contains more than 4,600 chemicais, of which are to human health: (d) poliunon above Federal standards can occur in enciosed places because of 1 Members, American Lung Assn of Professor of Medicwre, UCSF) , i Ht HH i : F Wi i i ai 1: | i 1 Jesse .. Steinteid, M.D. U.S. Surgeon General, 1960-1979 Luther Terry, M.0. U.S. Surgeon General, 1961-1966 Gien T. Seaborg, Pn.0. Senator Diane E Watson Vieechau, Senate Health Committee Theodore A. Snyder, Jr President, Sierra Ciud Mayor Janet Gray Hayes San Jose Stanton A. Glantz, Pn.O Asst. Professor of Medicine, UCSF (Titles and organizations used for identification purposes onty) ENDORSING ORGANIZATIONS American Assen. of Retired Allan K Jonas $25937 Jack Kruschen 925938 Jonn Mathews §25939 Gary H. Spivey, M.0., M.P.H. $25939.1 $25939.2 $25939.3 SECTION 2: provision of this subject to a fine of $15 per viciation (b) Enforcement of this Chapter shail be by citation. No person may be taken into custody or Go eubygct to search by peace oMcere solely because GF the victation or violation It is Not intended that this Chapter preempt the field of smoking legisiation. The State ure, local governing bodies and state and local administrative agencies may enact legisiation and regulations to protect the health. comfort and environment of nonsmokers. This Chapter does not permit smoking where otherwise restricted by law. ’ ; those and areas which may be designated in thew entirety as smoking areas pursuant to Section Geeignelion of emahing and ne emoting seotene end areas in places of (¢) ary Chapter No special bureaucracy shail be created within the State t of Health Services or within any other governmental agency for the admurustration of this Chapter or the Stan- dards Definitions (a) “Place of Employment” means any area under the contro! of a public or private which employees normaily frequent during the course of employment, inciuding, Dut not limited to, work areas, employee lounges. meeting rooms, and employee cafeterias. A private residence is not a “place of employment. (b) “Public Place” means any area to which the public is invited or in which the pubiic is permitted, including, Dut Not limited to, restaurants, theatres, wailing rooms, reception areas and instrumentaiities of public transportation. A private residence is not a “public place” g 6 fe z ! Fi R carrying or holding of a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other lighted smoking equipment used for the practice com- monty known as smoking, or the intentional inhalation or exhalation of smoke from any such ed smok ' fon“ Baae Dasasunees ot Tsai Services means such Department or any successor or area which qualifies as both a “Place of Employment” and as a “Public oot ona treated for purposes of this Chapter as a “Public Place.” (g) The Standards adopted pursuant to Section 25939 shail contain such other definitions as the State Department of Health Services shail deem appropriate. See Ro cemeamen et tan Soston, Gaston S006) andSp prpsee and Weer onprneces Sections Re we nee Way re eames by Ce See Sane: provided, however, that any amendment to thus Chapter shail If any provision of this Chapter or the thereot to any person or circumstance is held invalid, any such invalidity shail not affect other provisions or applications of this Cap ONES CON 08 OD EN INS TERANE POTLEA Ot OREFERIAR, OS 10 OND end, the provisions of Chapter are severable” Effective Date Chapter 10.7 of the Health and Safety Code shail become effective 120 after approval by the elnctorate: provided. Nowevee, at fe duty of tee Sinie Deperrone of tisann Seniese the process of promuigating Standards thereunder shail become eftec- Exhbit E PAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES ComMsSICN Contact: JCEN KEPLINGER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 916/322-5662 Saturday, November 4 $5.6 MILLION CONTRIBUTED TO NO CN 5 CAMPAIGN Cepenents cf Proposition 5, the smoking regulation initiative cn Tuesday's ballot, have contributed a record $5.6 million to the campaicn to persuade Californians to defeat the measure. More than $700,000 was contributed to the anti-Proposition 5 effort in the past week alone by opponents who already have spent more money than Governor Brown and Attorney General Evelle Younger combined. In an analysis of the most recent campaign disclosure reports, the Pair Political Practices Comission said today that a new campaign contribution and speriing record apparently has been established by the Propositicn 5 foes. Frsal mports About 97 per cent of the money has been contributed by the naticn's major tobacco companies, and they are cutspending supporters of the initiative 7.7% by a 10 to 1 ratio. toad In their last campaign reports, filed an Cctober 23, copmments of ag | Propositicn 5 reported receiving $4,947,462 in contributions and spending $4,918,370. Since then, they have filed telegrams as required by law repcrt- ing an additional $701,000 in late contributions, for a total of $5,648,462. Supporters of Proposizicn 5 reported receiving $578,761 in contri>ct- ions and sperding $512,650. They received $17,030 in additional late contcribut- ions during the past week. J.A. 14 aks . a a 7 m 4 fae bf Snr oe, he % 8 ys OO a Ae ae Se et ia ws - ao "—! AS we eo. oe ek Age eee C . > z - ¥ ASE . : ¢.* 4 f Aa) uo In September we agreed to assist the No on 10 Committee and signed a written contract that requires us to draft scripts, submit them to the Board of Californians Against Regulatory Excess and their legal counsel for clearance, and upon receiving approved copy, to produce and place the advertising. Robert Nelson was on-site most of the time during casting, shooting and post produc- tion of this advertising. On page 12(a) of Mr. Lovedays letter, he states that the spots produced by this firm for Californians Against Regulatory Excess are similar to those produced this year in Dade County, ; Florida, to oppose an anti-smoking measure. I have no personal knowledge about any spots produced in Dade County for the 1980 campaign. I do not even know who is running either side of that , Campaign. What Mr. Loveday submitted in his Exhibits as the Dade = Os et a ee Re eee i ee County spots were spots produced by this firm in 1978 for Califor- nians For Common Sense. The same four partners who managed the Californians for Common Sense campaign two years ago are still the firm's partners and the similarity between the 1978 California spots and the present California ones are not coincidental or without design. The spots for Californians Against Regulatory Excess were planned to remind the voters that a similar measure had already been defeated. (Exhibit L) This firm contracted with a placement service to purchase media time. At no time was anyone ever told that no tobacco compa nies had contributed to the campaign. There has been considerable — publicity throughout California that tobacco companies now are e making substantial contributions to Californians Against : Excess. The participation of this firm in the No on Propoastion 10 campaign is recent and has only involved the creation, pr and placement of certain advertising. Consequently, I comment on other™facts stated in Mr. Loveday's letter; n + eee a 1 | conspiracy as alleged. I have no reason to believe that the cati=* 4 | s | cornians against Regulatory Excess Comittes is aot e bene rs) = pa a oe r Uci'ilt CO INSTITUTE SSaass: NO. ano aT acer civv met ATE Zit coo rere eta Pee Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 (202) 457-4800 SaAaa: ra Nielsen, Jr. ‘ "“SDaAiSS OF TALASUAGA: NO. ANO STASET Gtr STATE aivtooL AAD ee”S”*~*C oe -500, One Maritime Plaza San Francisco, CA 94111 ° (415) 362-1940 ~— “ELECTION (Circe ome ff appiemeney: CincLs iF APLICASLE: DATE OF ELECTION ING. DAY VAJ:] TOrAL PAS —y Genre) Soot = Real - a. __ 11/7/78 - 2 @: post qualification : 31TURES AND CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO: (Amount may be rounded off to whol dollars) ~ O=ESCAIPTION OF Name, OF CANOIOATE & OF FICE| ASACUNT * CusMU- LL NAMZ AND ACORESS~ EXPENDITURE OA De Rae OF Oe Mia TAINS LATIV: TION MAGS —" 7 uTIO? 's) . wncx Qael PERIOD AMOUR Su>j Cr+ @ woodward £ McDowell a ; | a“ - Dobbs & Nielsen™ posneees ae Ss a " x] 24,400 | 24,400 i me ee St: 2500 |. - 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 3 DEPARTMENT NUMBER ONE HON. ROTHWELL G. MASON, JUDGE . CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN INDOOR AIR, ) an unincorporated association; ) 6 PAUL LOVEDAY; EDDIE TABASH; ) PETER HANAUER; SUSAN KENNEDY ; ) ~T and JAMES WHITE, g Petitioners, ) ) 9 vs. ; No: 275588 10 MARCH FONG EU, SECRETARY OF STATE, } 11 Respondent, 12 CALIFORNIANS FOR COMMON SENSE, ) a nonprofit corporation; HOUSTON I. 3 FLOURNOY; KATHERINE DUNLAP ; 13] prrer J. PITCHESS; and VINCENT } Sec f* 14 TOOLAN, State Printer, ) ; sxe 15 eS SSSSSS SSS CO SSS x 16 ---000--- , 17 FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1978 | 18 ---000--- ) 19 REPORTER'S EXCERPT TRANSCRIPT | 20 TESTIMONY OF : 2 VIRGO G. NIELSEN, JR. “ 2 @--000--- | 23 | APPEARANCES: 24 For Petitioners: ROGER JON DIAMOND, Esq., 15415 Sunset Boulevard s Pacific Palisades, California ya For Respondents: VIRGO G. NIELSEN, Esq., Suite 2500, The Alcoa Bldg. rai 1 Maritime Plaza San Francisco, California zB eee ' Reported by: STEPHEN M. ROCHE, CSR €3429 | -—-—— oe —— eo . 6& ——— -_—— errr _-. . ’ a2 ww = oeoew8wWe ea So FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1978 =---000--- The matter of the Campaign For Clean Indoor Air, et al., Petitioners, versus March Fong Eu, Secretary of State, et al., Respondent, Number 275588, commenced on this day before Honorable Rothwell G. Mason, Judge of the Superior Court, in ané for the County of Sacramento, State of California, sitting in the said Superior Court, in Department One thereof. The said Petitioners were represented by Roger Jon Diamond, Esq., acting as their counsel. The said Respondents were represented by Vigo G. Nielsen, Jr., Esq., acting as their counsel. The following partial proceedings were had, to wit: MR. DIAMOND: He does have two other attorneys here to represent him, and -- Mr. Hodgson and -- WITNESS: Mr. Hodgson, would you like to represent us in my absence, please? THE COURT: Will you take a seat, please? He is being called under 776 of the Evidence Code. THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, 8° help you God? WITNESS: Yes, I do. THE CLERK: Please state your full name. WITNESS: Vigo G. Wielsen, Jr-, & resident of Marin County, California. TESTIMONY OF VIGO G. NIELSEN, JR.- witness called on behalf of the Petitioners herein: Petitioners herein: Q Mr. Nielsen, were you retained by the petitioners in this action to file @ lawsuit on their behalf? a I was retained by & =~ Californians For Common Sense to file an action on behalf of the three authors. Q So Dunlap, Flournoy, and Pitchess have not retained your firm to represent them in this action? A Other than in their official capacity as opponent signatories -- 1 don't understand your question. Q Californians For Common Sense and not the three petitioners have retained you ~~ oO has retained your firm to file the : lawsuit; correct? B The Election Code requires that persons submitting an argument shall do it as an organization and for the -~- that organization submit not more than three human beings to appear as the authors in the official ballot pamphiet. Californians For Common Sense submitted the argument and rebuttal and had three human beings serve as their authors just as your campaign aid and your three authors dic. Q Now, yes or nO, Dunlap, Flournoy, pitchess -- 4id they retain you to file a lawsuit for them? Yes OF no? a Individually, separate from their individual capacity within the context of being signatories, no. As being representatives of Californians For Common Sense, yes. nl F 2 am x . oot. ’ Q are they paying you anything to represent them in this | armen ——— a qnseeenre severmoves y sit ee — . .. rs ' bon ~ Par: rR SAG ee ee Ee Th Somer y 7 : oe -. - r - : . ob Boe ~e ‘ar ae 4 y a > a : i ee OM ey - ‘~ ‘ a ian 4 - eee! ¢ . - igs pp Pte 2 Ny alg sae Tie cae a » SC) \ - a i action? 2) * Separate from Californians For Common Sense, HO°- Q Okay. The study that you refer to, this economic study -- who did that study? a I believe it's done by an organization called Economic 3 4 5 ~g | Research associates. 71 @ And where are they based? 8 os According to the campaign report, San Francisco. 9} @ And when was that firm retained to prepare the study? 30} * I do not know. I am the attorney for the committee. I am 11 not the campaign management firn. I am not the person that 12 | makes those decisions. I represent the committee, Mr. Diamond. 13 | @ You have no information at all upon which to make & 14 | decision or an estimate as to when approximately the firm was 15 retained? #2} * The firm had to be yetained after -- whatever ~~ it was 17 | October, 1977, since there was no organization to retain it, it was retained sometime before the statement to Your Honor's Payment List, because they would have probably been paid either a progress payment or at the completion of their study. Q And when were they paid for their study? aA Between May 10, 1977 and June 30 -~ excuse me ~~ 1978 and June 30, 1978. Q and how much was that firm paid for the study? WITNESS: If your Honor would let me see that statement. ghey were paid at least $3000.00. THE COURT: Would Z interpret -- you made a previous and similar report from earlier reporting, but you don't have tha esxsxeees 2 8 Ss -5- €. 3 * oomownw aoweweeTe *:, here today or don't know if there was any additional payment? WITNESS: Correct. The law requires that both sides file a report in mid-May going through the 10th of May -- or is it March 10th of -- March, that report was filed, and that would have all previous income and expenditures. THE COURT: So our record is correct, you said May 8, May 10 a while ago. You probably meant March 107 WITNESS: I stand corrected. It was between March 10, 1978; Mr. Diamond, and June 30, 1978, in which the $3000.00 payment was made. Q [MR. DIAMOND] And when was the study completed? A I have no idea. I assume during that same period. It was made -- it was comple.2d prior to the submission of the opponent's official argument. Q You mentioned -~- THE COURT: Prior to the submission -~- WITNESS: ) SY, PAS ik hee 4 4 ’ focus of the studies has been on the passive smoking/non-sxcker's rights issue. | This survey updates all major csi areas and breaks significant nev ground in the passive smoking/non-smoker's rights area. A complete description of the survey methodology, sample size, inter- viewing dates, etc., as well as copies of the questionnaires used, may be found in the "Methodology" section following this “Analysis” section. - e+ een 88 ee ee meen THE TOBACCO oNDUSTRY tT 1978 Z May 1978 O | O ' RIGELICITS OF THE STUDY Approximately forty percent of this sixth study of public attitudes > toward cigarette s..sking consists of new questions which have never. before been asked for The Tobacco Institute. For this reason alone, many of the research findings contained in this report are of special interest. The study also con- 4 tains 8 systezatic review of trend data for questions which have been asked in the past. Taken together, the large body of new material and the comprehensive : wiew of changing attitudes over the las= ten years highlight resulis that we con- 7 : sider to be of extraordinary importance to the iidistey. | Wot all of these findings are encouraging. In fact, the major high- | > Lights of this report divide themselves into results which are sometimes promis- : ing but mostly foreboding as regards the very future of the tobacco industry. (To put it another way there are a certain number of “silver linings” to the 7 many “cleuds.") For this reason, we have decided to present the highlights of this report in the form of a balance sheet, measuring the optimistic and pessi- mistic entries, as it were, on opposite sides of the ledger. : These balance sheet “entries” are presented without documentation in the interest of conciseness. They are, however, “auditec" in the "Detaile2 Analysis" that follows. 4 _ a «-* ae ~— 4 ~ 5 > smoking. a = 3t-6y <> e *ASSETS" : . SLIABILITIES" 1. The overall saliency of the . 1. More than nine out of every ten *cigarette issue" is low, Compared Americans believe that smoking x to crime, drugs, pollution, and a is hazardous to s smoker's balf a dozen other items, smoking health. is at the botto= of the list of personal concerns. 2. A majority of Americans believes that it is probably hazardous to * 2. There is little sentiment for a be around people who smoke even a total ban on cigarette smoking in- if they are not smoking themselves. i, public places (but see #3 under “Liabilities"). 3. There is majority sentiment for separate smoking sections in all __—s3 ‘There is overwhelming approval of public places we asked about. Be, Placing notices outside places that UA, Eat “ke wal ears ‘es I . eg we al a ~ SZ Re so eee = ae aad. Fe oe tet ie ate = wee . 4 . oO ®ASSETS" (continved) Tew people favor job discrimination based on cigarette sroking. The percentage of smokers in the 17 to 24 year old age group is up, an4 the amount smoked per day per young emoker is also up (but see #5 under "Liabilities"). There is broad support for FIC regu- lation of “public service” adver- tising sponsored by nen-profit groups like the Cancer Society and Ralph Nader. There is less than majority senti- ment in favor of a graduated tar cigarette tax. id 4, 10. 11. *LIARILITIES” (eontinue2) There is majority acceptance of the idea that the cisarette warning label should be nade stronger end more specific. The percentage of people who smoke cigarettes is at the low cst level measured in the past ten years. A steadily increasing majority of Americans believes that the tobacco industry knows that the case against cigarettes is true. avor Favorable attitudes toward the tobacco industry are at their dowest ebb. There is widespread support for anti-smoking education in the schools--and at the very early years. Two-thirds of smokers would like to give up smoking. Nearly half the public thinks that smoking is an addiction. More people say they would vote for than against a political can- G@idate who takes a position favoring a ban on smoking in pub- lic places. - Vw ee = IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINOINGS The original Surgeon General's report, followed by the first “hazard” warn- dng on cigarette packages, the subsequent “danger” warning on packages, the removal of cigarette advertising from television and the inclusion of the danger warning in _ @igarette advertising were all “blows” of sorts for the tobacco industry. They e were, however, blows that the cigarette industry could successfully weather because they were all directed against the smoker himself. While the overwhelming majority ‘ of the public has been convinced by the anti-smoking forces that smoking is dangerous to the smoker's health, this has not perssaded very many cuckers to give up smokin;. The anti-smoking forces’ latest tack, however--on the passive smoking dssue--is ancther matter. What the smoker does to himself may be his business, but i what the smoker does to the non-smoker is quite a different matter, The anti-smoking forces have not yet convinced anything like as many nities diel smoking harms the health of the non-smoker as they have convinced people that smoking harms the health ‘J of the smoker. But this study shows that they are well on the way to making the Same sale about the effects of smoking on the non-smoker as they have already made with respect to the effects on the smoker. Nearly six out of ten believe that smok- : ing is hazardous to the non-smoker's health, up sharply over the last four years. More than two-thirds of non-smokers believe it, nearly half of all smokers believe it. This we see as the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurre¢. While there is little sentiment for an out- tight ban on smoking in public gathering places, there is already majority sentiment for providing separate facilities for smokers ané non-smokers. As the anti-smoking _ forces succeed in their efforts to convince non-smokers that their health is at stake too, ated facilities will e ‘ as ve see it. It is, of course, possible that once smokers and non-smokers alike ex- S.A. $3. oO o dials oe with the restrictions as they di¢ with the Volstead Act. Smokers who wart to dine, work or travel with non-smokers may become fed up with having to fcrego snoking. Bon-smckers who want to dine, work or travel with smokers may become fed up with having to endure the extra smoke that exists in pegregated cnstilng facilities. Both coulé say “to hell with it 211" and go back to a smoking anywhere sentinent. But if the anti-smoking forces are successful in convincing non-srokers that their health is in dancer, it's at least as likely that the sentirent for sesregated facilities will be strengthened. And if segregated facilities do rot accomplish the anti-sxcking forces’ desire of making segregated smoking so untenable that srokers will give it up, the next step could be an outright ban. If non- gmokers are by then convinced that it's their health that is at stake, the present sentiment for separate facilities could become support for a total ban. The strategic and long run antidote to the passive smoking issce is, as we see it, developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible, nedical evidence that passive guckirg is not harmful to the non-smoker's health. While that should be the fundamental objective of the tobacco industry in our opinion, this study suggests that there are some short term tactical approaches that may slow the «forts of the anti-smoking forces and buy the industry the necessary time to develop what we see as the fundamental evidence needed to reverse the trend. But they are tactical and short term in character. Among these short Tange tactics are the following: ° 2. Where Mew Jersey-tyee lecislation appears to bes.real possibility, the inéustry might propose that operators of restaurarts, cabs other c “institutions” be tted to estab tever qnehheg policy they csi sen ee ee See. eee J- A. eee 2 ae A. aa ee Po ee a Te Pa Ph Ma eae cae ee : - Se ee Se Oe ae permittes," "Separate facilities for emckers,“ or "Separate facilities for non-smckers"=-but with the requirement that the smoking conditions that apply be posted outside the premises for the convenience and pro- tection of smokers and non-smokers alike. : ° 3. In view of the widesrread public belief that public ser- wice advertising by non-profit organizations should be subject to the sane FTC scrutiny as commercial advertising, we think it might be desirable to noisily file an action with the FIC the next time public service ac¢vertising misquotes the facts about smoking and health, and to further Genané that the FIC require the offending organization to run “corrective” advertising as Listerine has been required to do. 4. While the public widely supports goverment programs to Giscourage cigarette smoking, a majority opposes spending tax dollars for such a program--which suggests such programs might be wulnerable if people were made aware of their costs. S. Several questions in this study suggest that where there is substantial support for government action against cigarette smoking, there is a discernible decline of such support when people are made aware of the other goverrment intrusions that might follow. °Where will it all end?" might be effective in blunting anti-smoking regulation. 6. Another short range tactic is suggested by the question concerning “fumaphobes." The findings suggest that there is the possi- bility of dividing those who are relatively unexcited about the passive , smoking issue from the anti-smoking zealots, by portraying these zealots as people with an unreasonable fear of cigarette smoking. we. * e e } . But we would repeat that since the anti-smoking forces have now gone a long way in convincing the non-smoker that his health, too, is at stake, the number one ob: as we see it, is no lo O Oo ective in our opinion is to develop authoritative and credible evidence with © pect to the effects of passive smoking on the non-smoker's health. The issue, nger what the gmoker does to himself, but what he does to 7 others. _ 4 The original Surgeon General's report, fol: - g the first “hazard” warn- dng on cigarette packages, the subsequent “danger” wa ag On packages, the removal e of cigarette advertising fro= television ané the incl -ion of the danger warning in cigarette advertising were all "blows" of sorts for the tobacco industry. They were, however, blows that the cigarette industry could successfully weather because they were all directed against the smoker himself. While the overwhelming majority of the public has been convinced by the anti-smoking forces that smoking is dangerous to the smoker's health, this has not persuaded very many cmokers to give up smoking. . The anti-smoking forces’ latest tack, however--on the passive smoking dssue--is ancther mattez. What the gnoker does to himself may be his business, Dut e what the smoker Goes to the non-smoker is quite a Gitferent matter. The anti-smoking forces have not yet convinced anything like as many people that smoking harms the health of the non-smoker as they have convinced people that gmoking harms the health ry of the smoker. But this study shows that they are well on the way to making the game sale about the effects of smoking on the non-smoker as they have already made with respect to the effects on the smoker. Nearly six out of ten believe that smok- @ ing is hazardous to the non-snoker's health, up sharply over the last four years. More than two-thirds of non-smokers believe it, nearly half of all smokers believe at. id This we see as the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurrec. While there is little sentiment for an out~- right ban on smoking in public gethering places, there is already majority sentiment ad for providing separate facilities for smokers ané non-smokers. As the anti-smoking forces succeed in their efforts to convince non-smokers that their health is at stake too, the pressure for segregated facilities will change from a ripple to 4 tide as we see it. It is, of course, possible that once smokers and non-smokers alike ex- perience all the inconveniences of separate facilities, people will become fed up — J.-A em . . "| ae oe aye ' A ; 7. , AL > } a ‘ , . ° " ‘ ~ 7% . ‘Salter APO Rae ae RRR 7k a onl D. hE ‘ 4 ae 7 VW NA with the restrictions as they did with the Volstead Act. Smokers who want to dine, work or travel with non-smokers may become fed up with having to ferego snoking. Mon-smokers who want to dine, work or travel with smokers may become fed up with having to endure the extra smoke that exists in eogregated .encking facilities. Bott could say “to hell with it all” and go back to a smoking anywhere sentinent. But if the anti-sncking forces are successful in convincing non-smokers that their health is in danger, it's at least as likely that the sentirent for sesregated facilities will be strengthened. And if segregated facilities do rot accomplish the anti-smoking forces' desire of making segregated smoking so untenable that scokers w/1l give it up, the next step could be an outright ban. If non- smokers are by then convinced that it's their health that is at stake, the present sentiment for separate facilities could become support for a total ban. The strategic and long run antidote to the passive smking issce is, as we see it, developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible, nedical evidence that passive smoking is not harmful to the non-smoker's health. “ While that should be the fundamental objective of the tobacco industry in our opinion, this study suggests that there are sone short term tactical approaches that may slow the efforts of the anti-smoking forces and buy the industry the necessary time to develop what we see as the fundamental evidence needed to reverse the trend. But they are tactical and short term in character. Among these short Tange tactics are the following: : 1. Where outright mien on smoking are proposed and appear likely of passage, the industry could propose separate facilities (as the lesser of two evils). 2. Where New Jersey-type legislation appears to be a real possibility, the industry might propose that operators of restaurants, cabs and other public “institutions” be perai to establish whatever smoking policy they desire--"Smoking permitted re," “%» smoking 2A, ne tire | oy * * Seas ee) SR i lee on Ra ¥ C apie ie ae = A . - permitted,” “Separate facilities for emckers," or “Separate facilities Zor non-emokers"--but with the requirement that the smoking conditions that apply be posted outside the premises for the convenience ané pro- e ; tection of smokers and non-smokers alike. : . 3. In view of the widespread public belief that public ser- wice advertising by non-profit organizations should be subject to the same FTC scrutiny as commercial advertising, we think it might be desirable to noisily file an action with the FIC the next time public service advertising misquotes the facts about smoking and health, and to further Genand that the FTC require the offending organization to run “corrective" advertising as Listerine has been required to do. ‘ 4. While the public widely supports goverment programs to discourage cigarette smoking, a majority opposes spending tax dollars for such a program--which suggests such programs might be wulnerable if people were made aware of their costs. S. Several questions in this study suggest that where there is substantial support for government ae against cigarette smoking, qhate > is a discernible decline of such support when people are made aware of the other goverment intrusions that might follow, “Where will it all end?" might be effective in blunting anti-smoking regulation. 7 6. Another short range tactic is suggested by the sabtittans concerning “fumaphobes." The findings suggest that there is the possi- bility of dividing those who are relatively unexcited about the passive smoking issue from the anti-smoking zealots, by portraying these zealots as people with an unreasonable fear of cigarette smoking. o . e e : . But we would repeat that since the anti-smoking forces have now gone a long way in convincing the non-smoker that his health, too, is at stake, the number one JA. 69 - ere —_— CO o - objective in our opinion is to develop suthoritative and credible evidence with © “ — gespect to the effects of passive as we see it, ds no longer what the smoker Goes to himself, but what he does to groking on the nor-smoker’s health. The issue, ethers. 4 NT ge eee Ce ey, a he OO Nee es ee! ns eee tee ee eee - a wes ’ ee ew ee Ree ye RS bl Exhibit K- 2 PPC SCHEOULZ £-2 Californians for Cssz0n Sense 10/24/78 TO 12/31/78 Pace 13 ‘AME AND ADDAESS DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT ° PERIOD AMOUNT THE SUM REPORTER - METRO REPORTER GROUP MISCELLANOUS ADVERTISING 2400.90 +366 Turk Street . an Francisco, CA 94115 J _ — \ a e ; -NITED DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE DIRECT MAIL 20990 .39 =D #76-1367 Atta: Williara Murray, . a 2/0 Senator 3111 Greene 5514 South Brcacway -38 Angeles, CA 96903 -3 POSTMASTER DIRECT MAIL 9000 .90 -/0 Don Harris rignal Data Corporation 1350 East Spring Street ong Beacn, CA 95800 * $S POSTMASTER ° DIRECT MAIL 9000.00 -/0 Don Harris ; “sgmal Data Corporation +59 East Spring Street 2Mg Beacn, CA 90806 3 POSTMASTER DIRECT MAIL 9090.90 e ‘O Don Harris ? ~gnal Data Corporation -50 East Spring Street ng Beacn, CA 90806 5 POSTMASTER DIRECT MAIL 14009 .00 9 Don Harris eg -gnal Data Corporation -50 East Spring Street 7Ag Beach, CA 90806 - POSTMASTER DIRECT MAIL 9240.00 2 Don darris gMal Data Corporation * 50 East Spring Street 2g Beach, CA 90806 “BER OF EXPENDITURES THIS PAGE: 7 SUBTOTAL : 72730 .00 Echt R-3 es AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 12, 1980 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 13, 1980 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 28, 1980 SENATE BILL No. 2026 Introduced by Senator Greene March 19, 1980 An act to add Article 3 (commencing with Section 1401) to Part 4 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, relating to smoking, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 2026, as amended, Greene. Smoking. (1) Existing law prohibits smoking in specified indoor laces of public assembly in public Buildings. in specified ocations in health facilities and clinics, and other public buildings, and in food preparation portions of restaurants and in retail food marketing establishments. This bill would require the establishment of smoking and no smoking sections or areas in enclosed public places, enclosed places of employment, enclosed health facilities, and enclosed ~ clinics and would prohibit tobacco smoking in no smoking sections or areas, as specified. The bill would require posting with signs in no smokin sections and areas, to be enforced by the Department of ° Industrial Relations. The department would be required to adopt standards to implement the bill, as specified. The bill would expressly preempt the field of smoking legislation after specified pepitiultons adopted pursuant to the bill become effective, excepting other state law existing on the effective date of this bill which specifically affects tobacco smoking, state or local law or regulations restricting smoking for fire SB 2026 —2— prevention, end local ordinances controlling smoking in theaters, as and specified provisions of the Health and Safety Code, as contained in SB 1108 Knowing violations of the provisions of the bill would be an infraction with specified penalties, (2) The bill would appropriate $750,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations for the purpose of administering the provisions of the bill (3) Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for costs mandated by the state. The section also specifies the manner for’ ying the reimbursement and requires any statute man ating the costs to contain an appropriation to pay for the costs in the initial fiscal year. This statutory provision will be supplemented by a constitutional requirement of reimbursement effective for statutes enacted on or after July 1, 1980. This bill appropriates an unspecified sum to the Controller for allocation and disbursement to local a encies and school districts for costs mandated by the state aad incurred by them pursuant to this act. (4) The bill would take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: *4. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated loca] program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that 2 smoking in certain enclosed areas may annoy or irritate 3 nonsmokers, that regulation of smoking in certain areas 4 is desirable to protect the comfort aa environment of S nonsmokers, and that it is not the intent of the 6 Legislature to deny persons the right tosmoke, but rather 7 to recognize the rights of all individuals regardless of 8 their use of tobacco products. 9 SEC. 2 The Legislature further declares that: 10 (a) The purpose of this act is to protect the health, 11 comfort, and environment of nonsmokers in certain 12 enclosed places. JA. 73 ww iin — or ee. - nae we re oma uNhoane ren a= 3=— SB 2026 (b) The intent of this act is to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of persons who smoke tobacco and the needs of nonsmokers. SEC. 3. Article 3 (commencing with Section 1401) is added to Part 4 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, to read: Article 3. Smoking and No Smoking Sections 1401. This article shall be known and may be cited as. the “Smoking and No Smoking Sections Act of 1980.” 1402. (a) Subject to the criteria set forth in Section 1403, smoking and no smoking sections or areas shall be established and designated in every enclosed public place, enclesed place of employment, enclosed heath facility, and euclosed clinic. Any such place, facility, or clinic may be designated in its entirety as a smoking or no smoking area. No person shall smoke tobacco in a no smoking section or area. (b) The provisions of this article shall not limit smoking in outdoor areas, in private residences, or in any place not established pursuant to the provisions of this article as a no smoking section or area, nor prohibit the sale of tobacco products. 1403. Smoking and no smoking sections or areas established and designated pursuant to this article shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this article and shall conform with the following criteria: (a) Smoking and no smoking sections need not be separated by walls, partitions, or other barriers. No construction or erection of ventilation devices, walls, partitions, or other barriers shall be required to comply with this article. (b) Facilities and areas_in which ii would be inappropriate _or impractical. to limit smoking may be designated in their entirety as smo ing areas. Impractical Tacilities and areas may include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) An enclosed room normally occupied exclusively by persons who smoke tobacco. . (2) Hotel or motel rooms designed and used for rental J.A. 77 +? SB 2026 —4— | ] 2 a SlmMAMUN AC to transient guests. (3) Areas used for Private social or business functions. (4) Vehicles and other mobile workplaces. (S) Areas wherein employee Workstations are transient or mobile. (6) Any other area in which it is determined it would be inappropriate to restrict smoking of tohacco ~~ However. the listing of impractical facilities and areas of this subdivision shall be deemed to be illustrative only and shall not be considered as restrictive, by an2‘ogy or otherwise. The Le islature intends that impracticality be a__function of com liance difficulty. economics, cost-benefit, and similar factors. (c) (1) Smoking sha prohibited in patient Care areas, waiting rooms, and visiting rooms of a health facility, except those areas specifically designated as smoking areas, and in patient rooms as specified in Paragraph (2). (2) Smoking shall not be permitted in a patient room unless all persons assigned to such room have requested ) Smoking shall be Prohibited in any elevator. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any facility or area may be designated in its entirety as a no smoking area by the owner or manager thereof, , 1404. (a) In any facilities subject to this article, clearly legible signs shall be conspicuously Posted in every no smoking section or no smoking area established oe ee 6 hs LL ~~ 4 to ~~ RLXSP SRENCEKCRECeeuibiws occ SREBSESBRNY - - & 19 —5— SB 2026 of premises which are not leased may adopt signs adapted to their business needs, decor, and the nature of clientele or other members of the public frequenting such premises, the number, quality, type, and size of the signs required pursuant to this article shall not be specified by the Department of Industrial Relations by order or regulation, except when an alleged violation of the Provisions of this section has occurred at the facility which is subject to such an order or regulation, any such order or regulation shall be issued after notice and hearing (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the standards adopted pursuant to Section 1408 shall designate areas and facilities where the posting of no smoking signs is unnecessary to fulfill the purpose of this article. No signs shall be requii 2d to be posted in such a designated area or facility. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any no smoking section or area in which signs indicating that smoking is not permitted are already conspicuously posted, signs otherwise required by this section are not required to be posted until such Preexisting signs are worn out or removed. 1405. (a) Knowing violation of any provision of this article is an infraction. Any person who violates any Provision of this article shall be subject to a fine of not more than fifteen dollars ($15) for each violation. (b) Enforcement of this article shall be by citation. No person may be taken into custody or be subject to search by peace officers solely because of the violation or suspected violation of a provision of this article. (c) Each day on which a knowing violation of the sign-posting requirements provided in this article occurs shall be a distinct and separate’ violation. (d) The Department of Industrial Relations and local law enforcement departments shall enforce the sign-posting requirements provided in this article. Local law enforcement departments shall enforce the other Provisions of this article. 1406. No person shall discharge or refuse to hire any % 110 J.A. 7b > SB 2026 —6— Oo BMn haonwre SSESSRLESSSBRBNERESB employee or applicant for employment because such om employee or applicant exercises any rights afforded in this article. 140,. (a)° Except as provided in subdivision (b), and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1408, it is intended that this article shall preempt and wholly occupy the field of legislation, or other regulatior, of smoking in enclosed areas. However, legislation and other regulation of smoking in effect on the effective date of this section shall not be preempted by this article until the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to ~ Section 1408. (b) (1) The provisions of this section shall not invalidate any orher state law specifically affecting tobacco smoking in effect on the effective date of this section. (2) The provisions of this section shall not invalidate any state or local law or regulation which restricts smoking for the purpose of preventing fires. (3) The provisions of this section shall not invalidate any local ordinance controlling smoking in any premises devoted primarily to the production or display of motion pictures or the performing arts. (4) The provisions of this section shall not invalidate Sections 1234, 1235, 1286, 1290, and 25942 of the Health and Safety Code, as amended or added by Senate Bill No. 1108 in the 1979-80 Regular Session of the Legislature. 1408. (a) On or before July 1, 1981, the Department of Industrial Relations shall adopt, and may therecfter amend, revise, or repeal standards in accordance with Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code to implement the provisions of this article. The standards shall, among oe things, specify those facilities and areas which may be designated in their entirety as smoking areas pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1408, provided no such standard shall be founded upon workplace safety. (b) The Department of Industrial Relations shall have exclusive administrative jurisdiction under the provisions J.-A. 7) CMSA Rees © ae oe ee )) f ' OOnNDUA ON = 31 SSERGERLEE a ) ow Fox SB 2026 of this article with respect to the issuance of standards for the establishment and designation of smoking and no smoking sections and areas. (c) Nospecial bureaucracy shall be created within the Department of Industrial Relations or within any other governmental agency for the administration of the provisions of this article or the standards adopted pursuant thereto. 14€¢9. Unless the. context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the provisions of this article: (a) “Place of employment” means any fully enclo.ed area under the control of a public or private employer which employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including, but not limited to, work areas, employee lounges, meeting rooms, and employee cafeterias. A private residence is not a “place of employment.” (b) “Public place” means any area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including, but not limited to, restaurants, theaters, waiting rooms, reception areas, and instrumentalities of public oo A private residence is not a “public piace.” (c) “Smoking” or to “smoke” means and includes the carrying or holding of a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other lighted smoking equipment used for the practice commonly known as smoking, or the intentional inhalation or exhalation of tobacco smoke from any such lighted smoking equipment. (d) “The Department of Industrial Relations” means . the Department of Industrial Relations or any successor thereof. (e) The standards adopted pursuant to Section 1408 shall contain such other definitions as the Department of | Industrial Relations shall deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this article. 1409.5. If any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, any such invalidity shall not affect other J.-A. 79 “ if laa ge Bi sy ee he Oe > ee eee, ee « ~” o-] OmonNOA UA ONS a 2026 a provisions or applications of this article which can be *) given effect without the invalid provision or applicction, and to this end, the provisions of this article are severable. SEC. 4. The sum of dollars ($__mm) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund as follows: (a) Seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) to the Department of Industrial Relations for the purpose of administering the provisions of this act. (b) ___. dollars ($_) to the Controller for allocation and disbursement to loca] agencies and school districts to reimburse them for costs mandated by the ~ state and incurred by them pursuant to this act. SEC. 5. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting such necesvity are: Breathing of second-hand tobacco smoke for extended periods may cause disease in healthy nonsmokers or aggrevate the condition of the millions of Californians with heart or lung disease. Second-hand tobacco smoke can cause irritation of eyes, nasal passages, lungs, and skin of allergic persons and causes unnecessary discomfort to nonsmokers. In order to protect the public health and safety and in order to reduce the disease of healthy persons and eliminate aggrevation of the condition of sick persons at the earliest possible time, it is necessary that this act take immediate effect. J.A. 79 Ne anne 04 : 3 S AFR 15 1$00 b Allen's 9. C. @. Est. 1888 =. .'; Another Smo t first glance, SB 2026 looks like a good step in the right direction. The bill being carried by Sen. Bill Greene of Los ‘Angeles, would establish smoking and non- . smoking sections in enclosed public places ‘and private places of employment. It thus appears to be trying to accomplish by leg- islation what Proposition 5, the smoking initiative defeated in 1978, sought to achieve and what the backers of Prop. 5, who are now circulating petitions for a new initiative, are trying to accomplish again. . But SB 2026 is not what it seems. On clos- er inspection, it turns out to be an attempt at a pre-emptive strike, a diversionary smeasure which, though worded in part . recisely like the proposed initiative, is so ull of exemptions and loopholes that its ‘net effect would be worse than no new leg- islation at all. . ides * Although the bill resembles the proposed | initiative in establishing smoking and no- smoking areas, it also provides that “‘facil- ities and areas in which it would be inap- propriate or impractical to limit smoking may be designated in their entirety as areas.” That provision would not only exempt like bars — where it may indeed “ina te” to ban smoking — but any place whose owner Exritit R- u "SACRAMENTO BEE - APRIL 15, 1980" OT eee ee nT « king Hazard =... doesn’t want to bother segregating smok- ers or where management is unwilling to ban smoking altogether. .~ There are other flaws. The bill pre-empts all local smoking control ordinances, thus repealing a number of local laws that are far more stringent, fails to give adequate protection to non-smokers in hospital rooms, and, in general, provides that where there is a conflict, there should be a “reasonable balance” between the rights of. smokers and non-smokers, a balance which, in the light of recent medical data, is a choice of neutrality between health _ and sickness. If passed, SB 2026 could easi- ly be used by the tobacco industry to prove that the Legislature had already provided the smoking regulations that the initiative calls for. ef a ee } |! would be nice if that were true, All things considered, it would be far better if control of smoking could be accom- plished through legislation rather than through the more cumbersome initiative ess. SB 2026, however, isn't it. Unless can be substantially amended when it comes up before the Senaie Industria! Relations Committee this week, it ought t -‘bedefeated. .. J.A FQ Miami Initiative Backers Charge Fraud | Backers of a strong nonsmokers’. rights initiative that will be pre- sented to the voters of Miami in November believe that a bill just introduced before the Board of County Commissioners (Metro Commission) is ‘a deliberate device to trick and confuse the voters.” Although the bill and the initia- tive have very similar names and both would regulate smoking, mitiative backers feel that the bill was deliberately made much weaker. If the bill is adopted by the Metro Commission before November, as expected, they are afraid that citizens wil! fail to vote for the initiative because they think that the bill has accom- plished the same objective or be- cause they confuse the two. _ Sponsors of the initiative say that the bill is far too weak and cite the following inadequacies: @ The bill would permit unlimited smoking in facilities that meet certain minimum ventilation re- quirements, although it has not been shown that such systems would eliminate the problems experienced by nonsmokers. The bill would permit unlimited smoking in most facilities of 1,500 square feet or less, thus wiping out protections that non- smokers already have under existing law. The bill provides that restaurants seating 50 or fewer people would Mot have to provide no-smoking sections. The bill permits al! facilities to establish smoking areas and does Not limit their size. The introduction of the bill to some people one of the recommendations the Roper Or- made to the tobacco was lesked to the public as a result ASH. investigation of she tobacco ir . Roper sug- that when confronted by a + Exnwr Re- Ss major industry could promote weaker protective legislation and thus avoid restrictions that might really hurt. Backers of the initiative, who are furious about th's latest develop- ment, urge Miami residents not to be confused and to learn the facts before voting in November. Fe- more information call (305) 448- 2433 or 858-1809. Californians To Vote on Nonsmoker Referendum Because proponents were able to gather more than 500,000 valid voter signatures in support, Californians will have a second chance this November to vote on a referendum that would require no-smoking sections in most public areas, including places of employ- ment. Proposition 5, a similar proposal, was defeated in 1978, when the tobacco industry out- spent proponents by more than 10 to 1: $6,400,000 to $600,000. The tobacco industry admits that it is sensitive to charges that they “cynically bought the election two years ago” and reportedly is now “studying the new proposal.” Perhaps a more serious threat to the initiative is a proposed law — SB 2026, calied the “Greene bill” after its sponsor — that is now being considered by the California legislature. This bill, like the initiative, recognizes that nonsmokers should be protected, but proponents of the initiative point to the following important differences: e@ The initiative specifies nat when the needs of smokers and non. smokers conflict, the needs of nonsmokers must take priority. The bill does not. threat to its interests, the — A Tale of Two Initiatives area becomes nonsmoking, while the bill would allow smoking. @ The initiative guarantees to every person who works indoors a non- smoking work section; the bill offers no such protection. @ The initiative applies to educa. tional facilities; the bill does not. @ The initiative permits toca! governments to enact further legislation to protect nonsmok. ers, The bill preempts that right and would -invalidate all local legislation now in effect, some of which is very far- reaching. An editorial in the Sacramento Bee called the Greene bill “ a di- versionary measure that, though worded in part precisely like the proposed initiative, is so full of exemptions and loopholes that its net effect would be worse than no legislation at all.” The initiative is sponsored by Californians for Smoking and No Smoking Sections, which has offices in both Northern and Southern California: P.O. Box 1061, Berkeley, CA 94701, (415) 841-3032; and P.O. Box 45876, Los Angeles, CA 90045, (213) 671-1492. * * * Chip off the old block? President Carter has six tobacco-grower caps, which he often wears for photo- graphs, and he has made state- ments minimizing the effect of tobacco on the health of smokers and nonsmokers. He also fired Joseph Califano, the antismoking head of the old Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. His son Chip recently heiped organize @ firm to defeat the Clean indoor Air Ordinance in Miami; a sizable chunk of the bankroll came from the tobacco industry. *- * *&* Exner Q- ) Declaration of Paul Loveday I, Paul Loveday, declare: I am an attorney licensed to practice law in al’ the courts of the State of California. My business address is Two Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111. I know of my own personal knowledge that the facts contained in this Declaration are true, and I will so testify under oath if called upon to do so. Shortly after sufficient signatures were filed with the applicable county clerks to guarantee that the Smoking and No Smoking Section Initiative would qualify for the November 4, 1980 ballot, I had lunch with Don Bradley, a professional campaign manager. We discussed the possibility of Mr. Bradley's managing the campaign favoring such initiative. Among other things, we discussed the potential opposition to the initiative and whether or not the Tobacco Industry would oppose th.. Initiative as strongly as they opposed Proposition 5. Mr. Bradley told me he would speak with Mr. Joe Cerrell to determine what the plans of the Tobacco Industry were. Mr. Bradley informed me ‘hat Joe Cerrel] was a paid political consultant for Philip Morris. On Tuesday July 1, 1980, I spoke with Mr. Don Bradley to inform him that the Yes on 10 Board of Directors had selected another person as campaign manager and to express my gratitude to him for the time he had given to me and my associates. Mr. Bradley told me during that conversation that he had spoken with Mr. Cerrel| who had informed him that the Tobacco Industry had decided to run a campaign in opposition to Proposition 10. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on October 16, 1980. Vy te OF al tere, -——e eee = ahi os ENDORSED | ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION JUN 12 1880 OF MARCH FONG EU, Secretary of State Phyllis E Biaggi CALIFORNIANS AGAINST REGULATORY EXCESS Deputy . I & The name of this corporation is CALIFORNIANS ST REGULATORY EXCESS. Ii bd A. This corporation is a nonprofit mutual denetit Brporaticon orcanizecé under the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit beperation Law. The purpose of this corporation is to ngace in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation y be organizec under such law. B. The specific purpose of this corporation is to ote the social welfare. In furtherance of this objective, corporation shall have the following purposes: (1) The corporation shall promote civic terment and social improvement by attempting to lessen he burdens of covernment. The corporation will seek to emote these cbiectives throucsh direct communication with public concerning ballot measures, legislation, aéminis- tive regulations ané judicial decisions. All such communi- tions shall be limitecé by the laws ané reculations pertainine Organizaticns with tax-exempt status uncer Internal Revenue pde Section 50l(c) (4). (2) The corporation shall seek to ecucate the blic concerning subjects which relate to covernment ané the pmmunity. In order to accomplish this objective, the corpora- m shall sponsor educational programs throuch public foruns, mel lectures, radio, television, direct mail and other lar activities. Iii The name ané adcéress in the State ct California of S corporation's initial acent for service ct srocess is: Robert Nelson 1€33 East 4th Street, Suite 144 Santa Ana, California $2702 EXEIBIT A J. A. 33 " » : ov . Iv “so. A. This corporation is organized and operated exclusively for social welfare purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code. > B. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles, the corporation shall not carry on eny other activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Secticn 50l(c) (4) of the Int:xsnal Revenue Code. . v The property of this corporation is irrevocably cecicated to social welfare purposes ané no part of the net income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer of mexber thereot, or 7 te the benefiz of any private person. vi Upon the Gissolution or windine up of the corpora- tion, its assets remaining after payment, cr provision for = payment, of all debts ané liabilities of this corporation, shail be distributed to a nonprofit funé, founéation or corporation which has established its tax exempt status under Section 50l1(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. ee Dateé: June ll, 1980 KENNETE SCENCLL, INCOFPORATOR S I hereby céeclare that I am the person whe executec the foregoine Articles of Incorporation, which execution is my act and deec. 4 ° Kann Arban tl KENNETH SCHNOLL, INCORPORATOR ol & -_ 2- ie Se ee ‘ ee f 4 . . urs y oe A a f 7 SES, . = aes ai eo ee: ee ee ree ee Te ee er +a ( ( - RECIPIENT COMMITTEE CAMPAIGN STATEMENT (Government Code Section 86200-84216) For use by recipient committees which receive a cumulative contribution of $100 or more from a single source. (Type or Print in ink) A tau . Statement covers period from__1/1/80* through _9/23/80 Wane er commirvee a ~~ CALIFORNIANS AGAINST REGULATORY EXCESS we ry ry ee CA___9270) 214. S58-8100 MAME OF TREASURER: PERMANENT =; £53 OF TREASURER: 0. an0 eTeGET ‘ivy “arate rrorryy) ase Coe8 §6Pmenes BUaeee —202=142 Opal Balboa Island 22662 214_SS8=210 TYPE OF ELECTION (CIRCLE ONE IF APPLICABLE): j CIRCLE IF APPLICABLE: DATE OF ELECTION (me.. sar, va)! yet} Pemaay erecias eecart SEerannvar CAmFaree STATENWERT Noverher é ‘a 1°R9 67 . ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURES BY CANDIDATES, OFFICEHOLDERS AND MEASURES (Allocate expenditures from Schedules E & F bv candidates, officeholders and measures: amounts may be rounded off to whoie doilars.) OFFICIAL NAME OF CANDIDATE OR O77!CEHOLDER AND OFFICE OR CHECK CNE | ¢ SLOUNT OF | CUMULATIVE USE GNLY MEASURE AND 34/97 NUMSEA OR LETTER Susport_Ospose | THIS PERIOD TO OATE Smoking and Non-Smoking Sections, Proposition 1° x 304.252. 80.394.252 2° *Committee formec July &, 1989 m4 Attach additional information on aporopriete/y lsoeied continuation sheets. VERIFICATION | deciare uncer penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge this statement anc its schedules are true, correc: ¢ complete and that | have used all reasonable diligence in their preparation. Executed on 9/29/80 __ gx _Los Angeles, CA wy TEx¥aT (ater ane we DANA, PSSS ASEISEENE Treasure: E A candidate or officehoider who controls a committee must aiso erity the Stenebtan statula 2 > ya 1 deciare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge this statement and its schedules are true, correc: 2 complete and the treasurer of this commitzee has used all reasonabie diligence in the preparation of this statement gee ey RE ae a, ca «ieee The campaign against Proposition 10 -- the anti-smoking initiative -- is well underway. Once again, the private sector is being subjected to a devastating blow that would impose stringent government regulations for compliance with this measure. The irony is that many companies are presently dealing with the smoker/ @ non-smoker problem on a voluntary basis. You may already have expended great effort and expense to set up segregated areas to handle this issue. _ No matter; you are now faced with mandatory regulations and the problem of meeting some very ambiguous bureaucratic standards. from using media; therefore we are ho need to express their displeasure with more government. This becomes an education process and, in order to achieve this, we need informed speakers who are leaders in the community, willing to speak out against this poorly-conceived measure. os bits the No on 10 ‘campai @ While we realize it is difficult for you to devote a lot of time outside your primary work effort, we are requesting your help in one of two ways: that you be available upon occasion to speak on this vital issue, or that you provide us with at least two names of potential speakers with high credibility. s Voluntary private sector vs. mandatory public sector: the differences are clear. Industry is known for solving problems - government is known for perpetuating them. Help keep the control of our internal business operations in the hands of private sector management. m olny be contacting you in the very near future. Thank you for your elp. Sincerely, ; 4; D2tex/ Ferg land Y, @ A Jere Gilmour David Bergland Houston Flournoy Director, Chairman, C.A.R.E. Former State Controller Speakers Bureau J. A. &6 Age . i a PE xe . oh Jes: et . 5 eS Ga Tiabe @ age 4 -_ sear 2 2 \ a f ro ees ei 4 + at i + rath HH ee -'- i ane a EAE RE 5 ‘iaiael i He ee | et Hier bility lit UU a bt Bal aur | ! einai Hains HEAL | Bil bide v4 ait capt Te Wagaya sues een ye ABH Bn eta Ee Han i] HE Se Hiei GLE cy HE EE) | ce rh ne t Hin I rely} lil ; ii i HH ieee ne : Aiea - 26 all TAL 4 F Ba ee i Ll ihe HU | afd tall a | is bi wie ©. J2 yp pul ifs al flrs isa ual Hag , | | ‘ssi pe tbe He th rele I, rt 7 ae Ce ey ee is a ms | * DECLARATION OF ROBERT DE VRIES I, Robert De Vries, declare: oh I am a May 1980 graduate of University of California, Hastings College of Law, and expect to be admitted to the California Bar in November, 1980. I know of my own personal knowledge that the facts contained in this Declaration are true, and I will so testify under oath if called upon to do so. Tie | Re: 1. I have been working on behalf sf Californians for Smoking and No Smoking Sections to assure that California broadcasters meet their Fairness Doctrine obligations regarding ballot Proposition Ten. hy 2. In tae ccurse of my work on behalf of Californians for Smoking and No Smoking Scctions, I have spoken with representatives of aR numerous California broadcasters that are running advertisements in opposition to Proposition Ten. 5 3. In the vast majority of cases, where the broadcaster was willing Xe to give information as to the schedule of the anti-Proposition Ten es spots, I was informed that the station had been broadcasting the r “3 anti-Proposition Ten spots continuously since September 30, 1980. . ‘3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and a correct and that this Declaration was executed on October 26, 1980. :. | ‘, fi fk p- hie vr) . i Robert De Vries cials and four radio spots began air- ing this weck. non-smoking. I'd be out of busi- ’ ness.” The other depicts a woman dis- moe | discarding the ballot mea- sure. “It “a a bad law,” she says. | “They didn’t have to trick us.” based, ga ; tory Excess (CARE) said tobacco have contributed the : TICs ceeces tend now on. eeeding $800,000 Sr Tee Foe "fairness doctrine to a eh tight-h i> eae y The radio commercials follow a similar theme, that “thix time it’s even sneakicr” than the measure two ycars ago. In one, a harbershop quartet har- monizes, “How many times do we have to say no?” and “sncaky” asa policeman with an Irish brogue complains that “us police should spend our time looking for barglars, not smokers.” The ads are designed to hammer away at (wo provisions of the initia- tive: one that would allow officials in the state Department of Health Services lo draft regulations to un- plement the measure if it passes and another that would require an establishment to bar smoking if se- parate sections are “Impractical.” / “Two years ago they told you sen ot ie diag caya drat lero Eileen Padberg, one of the organis- ers of CAILE. “Now they're saying, ‘Later, we'll tell you where you can smoke. Just trust me.’ ™ : Larry Levine, the political con- sultant for Californians for Smoking & No Smoking Sections, the Yes on raid the initiative calls for vv post -clection drafting of regulations to allow some flcxitility.” More than hkely, such reguiauons would exempt small saloons from (he law, he said. Mrenenr dy gm oper companics,” “Two years, ago they said we were 4 Now it’s not specific enough. Please Tura te Page 28, Col. 3 PROP. 10 Contioued from Third Page The Yes on 10 commercials avoid any strident denunciations cf_the tobacco industry. “It is an issue that is not life or death.” Levire said. ‘We think lightness and a seuse of humor are appropriate.” Besides, the Yes on 10 side has a 2-1 lead in the most recent opinion Levine said. “I don’t think a four- or five- week media campaign by the tcbac- co industry will be enough to erode our lead,” he said. Two Yes on 10 television com- mercials and two radio ads were sent to stations around the state this week in the hopes of getting free air time. All feature Lioyd Bridges as offstage narrator. In one television commercial. smokers are shown being given a ey time by non-smokers, inelud- &@ pouting. pigtailed little girl Then the smokers are Gees. smiling, to the Exwi8it 5 ‘ J. A. 10 A a ses 9/24/80 HUH? I SAID, SOMETIMES I THINK WE OUGHT TO DEVELOP A SPECIAL HEARING ae REGULATORS . HUH? YOU WONDER JUST HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE TO TELL ‘EM. OH YOU MEAN LIKE PROP 10? DIDN'T THEY HEAR US WHEN WE SAID NO LAST TIME? WELL, THEY SAY THEY'VE MADE IT BETTER THAN PROP 5. BETTER? CITIZENS ARRESTING CITIZENS? CITIZENS ARREST? AND A $15 FINE. FIFTEEN BUCKS? AND IF YOU DON'T ANSWER YOUR SMOKING CITATION YOU COULD GET A $500 FINE AND SIX MONTHS IN THE SLAMMER. YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS. AND WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN TO HARRY'S BAR. HEY, THEY BETTER NOT MESS WITH MY SALOON. PROP 10 SAYS: WHERE IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO HAVE SEPARATE SECTIONS... .LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERY SMALL BAR IN THE STATE... THEY MUST ALL BE NOK-SMOKING. THEY'D GO OUT OF BUSINESS. HERE'S THE SNEAKIEST PART. THERE'S MORE? YOU'RE NOT VOTING ON WHERE IT WOULD AND WOULDK'T BE LEGAL TO SMOKE WHADDYA MEAN? WELL, YOU'RE VOTING TO LET SOME BUREAUCRAT COME ALONG AFTER THE ELECTION TO DECIDE THAT FOR YOU. HUHHH ? THIS TIME 17'S EVEN SNEARIER. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 10. te PAID FOR BY CALIFORNIANS AGAINST RE CRESS ae a a re NF Envelope jn which fundraising miler was He AivereSs eS Californians Ageinst Regulatory Excess 1633 E. Fourth Street, #286 Santa Ana, CA 82701 .* a ‘ ° “2 a : 3 = Pd f = “he. e Euddi? J-l Californians Against Regulatory Excess | Fi. J nd fw. say le clcer— 4% parr 3 cate Cs/ors “YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!” Dear Californian: If California's new anti-smoking law is passed this November, @orsand All because you were “smoking in the wrong place”. That’s right. € Under the new anti-smoxing law, you will be suspect in every enclosed public place — it’s up to you to find out whether you're smoking legally or illegally! iiniincss maybe Do umite i retail shops, indoor sports arenas.. ous to you, let me tell you how serious the anti- If that sounds ridicul 0 want to pass this ludicrous new law. smoking supporters are wh First, the anti-smokers want to designate “smoking” and “no smoking” e sections ‘enclosed public place. (Of course, California taxpayers - would pay for the signs labe ery government office in the state). Then, if you're caught smoking in a section designated “no-smoking”, (over please...) 4 . 7 Seymour Beryierd Dorr Pucherd Aletorrs | ( ft iMernber of tre State Aszert'y Assocseuen of Reerlore Uperusnen Party Net) Councs Regvoscen Party ; 2". Mary Wendt Karen Peters Torn Bernsen eveten | Miamrele a yey’ of Peuern Serwces Brats Orector to) Mecca! Cereer Nevers! Orgerursucn of Wornen Assoc of Tepecco & Orgerureuens ond effaavors Bd Cardy Decreors for eeretcauen prposes Oy “os VES E Fear th Si out mAG, Seance Ane CA 92701 + (714) 558-8100 : oe = au ae a ast J.A. a we - w - % v nas - y? vat a Ft ¥ eres wet ad . ia a » 3 is 4 - 4 3 ° > Pee ie ¢ . e © ns. ~ J of . ieee ah a> « 7. en Exhsdi? J-] (2) you're subject too ance (OF course, the anti-smokers say you can't be thrown in jail or body ed, but you can still get # ticket and a fine). If this initiative sounds like something right out of George Orwell’ ibaa I hope you will join with me in urging its defeat. I don’t smoke. But I believe that people who do smoke have rights that are being tampered with. That's why I helped form “Californians Against Regulatory Excess” hose only purpose is to fight ridiculous laws like (C.A.RE.), & Committee w this which stop people from exercising their rights in a free society. And Political appointees and bureaucrats decide where they will allow you to smoke...and where they will forbid it. And if you smoke (FSU NAL Den FOnibitad trom smoxing anywhere the ractical” to separate into “smoking” and bureaucrats decide is “tmp “no-smoking” sections. Furtherf{any employee caff demand to be moved into a separate no-smoking section 0 their work area be declared a “no-smoking section”, even if other long- e area smoke! And when it come to hiring practices, you cannot refuse to hire & new employee who insists on working in & “no-smoking” section{regacdless.of the cost to YOU! The “bottom line” is that many small companies, shops and restaurants will have to be “off limits” to smokers — and that goes for the JA. 73 *- une ro Sy ee | Ex wor J-] (3) customers, employees and owners, tool Frankly, I'm damn mad that some small p has the unmitigated gall to using our I want to see police officers on the streets, fighting violent and serious crime. Their job is difficult enough without being told they have to ticket honest citizens for smoking in the “wrong place”. And if the police don’t have their hands full already, what about the courts? Every citizen who receives a “smoking ticket” can demand a hearing before a judge. feo think thelr nese Dat ‘et ITE nLL the Lo - TmoOking e564. ariiito Dok Loe Breed: : based on personal habits rather than personal efficiency. There's no telling how much employee time will be lost because an employee chose to fight his officer Who issues & tiokst “ ticket” £An0 Tor every pouve’ jr WHO Be ow BE Dne less lawmar on the streets protecting our homes and Well, what can be done? Sign the enclosed petition to the major television and news networks. Only by ale them now to this costly ir ringement on our personal freedom will get any publicity ine Presidential election year. We intend to use petitions from thousands of Californians at a news conference to show the anti-smokers who put this legislation on the ballot that (ETS DOL ROIs tose ne Pusat SOU Your $3 contribution will allow us to send out another 15 petitions like yours. ! grosgan-atford) today Oday. ; If we can send a petition like yours to every California voter, we'll have hundreds of thousands of petitions to show the anti-smokers they can’t play "id = ¥ 2 * hits AA. Exh bt J-l “ , iit (4) with our rights and get away with it! +r tninsS§Bls 2 amall price to pay to protect our personal freedom, don't you? T've enclosed a self-addressed, postage paid envelope for you to rush back yuan ado oe ihe se fhe for relurn Guelo, by Ci eoas 4 ~ x *. ni ~v Du! Bo heal | a wh AMI | ; David Bergland, Chairman . haiteiantil a Californians Against Regulatory Excess | fer Ch Stat b tanith oa ys Lig me ra PS. The anti-smokers have already launched a major media campaign => eal “5 against us. The issue is not who is supporting the initiative. The issue is th should this NO SMOKING LAW pass, every Californian’s rights will be Ss a” CTT OS , seriously jeopardized; and, Ke re ee ; 'y | oS. eee RNS / | Saw Whrerras, #f you are caught amoking Degally, you will be fined; and, hn he officers arrest honest citizens for smoking seriously weakens We Pilervas , our lfeady-undersatfed police departments and court; and, ig - .“ ae should their time patrol streets for burglars, Whyerras Pics hoa sPecings searching for Wega en egy we ) Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the signer(s) below, as citizens of California, do re petition the California news media to use their communication outlets to make voters : fi aware of this costly, unfair and discriminatory NO SMOKING LAW. % Date Signed: Bigned: yyy ne Sagned: abate ty “pated Ge Mt sone oes tom te a samen 8 ea on mca yr pe mae nw ee ee sitet Fe ’ CARE ’ y08s E. Fourth St... ©7206, Sanus Ana. Co Sf70 + 714/468-2000 (2) YES, 1 want to help C.A.R.E. because I don't like being pushed around! My officially certified petition (to be distributed to the California news media) is enclosed. © YER, tapos yon tae 1 end tho wrath end pein o ther Cedars 3 wan to enclosing my check for: - (will send 15 petitions) $12 (will send 60 petitions) (will send 30 petuons) $24 (will send 120 petitions!) —. 7 matty pow of your hearing dete arr! fiom. Une of this | . ~ — an theme for wrtal and fathers to appew at rial bo . Pes ” . De te cms 00 “oe * ‘ ° | GEt a eigs ~ . o «6% . BAR BPORMATION: Tho drt of the enwt b which pow have proniand to eppenr bs $ ore a? | ' wll howe wudbacted by check mark on the borrorn meh) weswcore are cwcelebte in the cmt te whech you ore Fed wet Sr @ i vot h tens AG MP. “| wHse. . 6° ye | ! JIVENILES (Under 18 Yoors of Age, Unmarried): You must appeer with driver’ Kcorae ot the date and time indicated, eocampanied by parent er guardian. ‘*° ” ” - had -_ —er’e - et fm @e@ap ¢ aoa ae eens eT iSite ys Pee er ee) _ . . . a ss — COMOAL STARON oz eat a Pe Ta oe oe » aon We Coe theme) mem af ’ ij .ta tom - aes ager: ~ a—" + --- hae oa ne funo . am * - ie 2... ; $. * ~~ ~ —_— Tek. T Fac >e atl e. E * ahi? Je a. ” td ‘2 a eee tN o id 4 dorm Sad 4 . > Fes , = J aoe a ‘ aS --.. . > @ of” wy . a. ; ae ° . ; a, F “- = - + : : » ate de 2 ¢ -) 4 2 P ; . ke vs : & RSS pase , @ nck Bb aa raced noe Dm eo er ee 5g? Oe ee gh bik cd mi s 4 Ss ‘i Le A DECLARATION CONCERNING DIRECT MAIL FUNDRAISING & I, Larry Levine, declare: 1. I ama professional election campaign manager and have worked at said profession exclusively for more than ten years. I am the owner of The Campaign Organization, 6308 Woodman Avenue, Suite 203, Van Nuys, CA 91401, an election campaign management & firm, During my professional experience I have planned, designed, written, coordinated and caused to be mailed and monitored for returns an excess of five million pieces of fundraising mail for political candidates and issues of public debate and concern. I know of my own personal knowledge that the facts contained in this Declaration are true, and I will testify under oath to each of these facts if called upon to do so. 2. I am in possession of and have been asked to review a fundraising mailer produced by Californians Against Regulatory Excess and to project the probable results of said mailer. * 3. Using an estimated cost of 20 cents per unit of mail for production, printing, postage, and mailing of mass mail fundraising, it has been my experience that a return of .015 percent (1 1/2%) of the total pieces mailed and an average contribution of approxi- mately $15 would be necessary for a mass fundraising mailer to break even. The 20-cent unit cost cited is the estimated averace cost of fundraising mailers The Campaign et ge eae has pro- . duced for various clients during the last 15 months. 4, Based on average commercial printing prices in today's market, the subject fundraising mailer of Californians Against Regulatory Excess would have cost far in excess of 20 cents per unit to prepare and mail for the following reasons: (a) the length * of the fundraising letter and the multiplicity of ink colors it employs; (b) the fact that a bulk rate postage stamp was used as opposed to an imprinted bulk rate permit or a postage meter, thus adding to the cost of preparing the mailf (c) the multiple colors and the picture used on the mailing envelope; (d) the fact that the return envelope does not require the contributor to supply e return postage and that the recipient organization would be responsi- ble for 25 cents postage per response; (e) the multiplicity of enclosures which include a multi-colored facsimile of a traffic ticket printed on two sides, a multi-colored endorsement card, and @ multi-colored facsimile of an over-sized petition. The number of pieces enclosed ir, this mailer, the design of the envelopes, the ‘= J.-A. 10) ae use of multiple ink colors, and the payment of return postage lead to an estimate that this mailer would have cost closer to 40 cents per unit to prepare and mail than to the benchmark 20 cents cited above. 5. Based on standard and accepted practices of soliciting funds through direct mail, there is no reasonable possibility that responses to this mailer could have averaged anywhere near the $15 benchmark cited above. In order to average $15, a mailer needs to offer donors a selection of "check off" options that begins with $15 and ranges up to $100. The subject mailer offers "check offs" of $3, $6, $12, and $24. In addition, the letter asking for contri- butions specifically asks for donations of $3 and so asks on four different occasions. No other specific donation amount is mentioned in the letter. It is highly unlikely that this letter would have produced an average of any more than $3 per actual contribution. 6. Based on an estimated cost of 40 cents per unit to produce and mail this solicitation and an average contribution of $3 per response, this mailer would have had to produce a response in excess of 13 percent of the pieces mailed in order to break even. In my experience of 11 years of direct mail fundraising, I have never seen or heard of a mailer approaching that response level. Of all of the mailers I have produced over the years, none have exceeded an 8.5 percent response and only one has exceeded 6 percent. In the case of those two mailers, both were to the so-called "house" list of a citizens' action organization, and every name on the list had a history of having made prior contributions to the groups asking for funds. Since Californians Against es gab of Excess did not form as an organization until July of 19 0, it could have no such house list. In my experience, no "prospect" mailer--one sent to a list other than a “house” list--has ever exceeded a 4 per- cent response. 7. Based on my experience with direct mail fundraising, including the experience of having monitored responses of direct mail appeals for percentage of return and average amounts of contributions, it is my estimate that the subject fundraising mailer of Californians Against Regulatory Excess would have returned contributions amounting to about 30 percent of the cost of preparing and mailing the solicitation. This would anticipate a cost of 40-cent per unit to mail the appeal and a 4 percent response with a $3 average contribution. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration is executed on October 7, 1980. ager/Consultant The Campaigr- Organization r U-A. 102 ee. ee) ae Oe ave ———— =e “- >’ ee - - - ‘° “+ en TN eel ll el A ll ll At a ti mm DECLARATION OF ROBERT NELSON I, ROBERT NELSON, declare: I have read the letter of Paul L. Loveday, dated October 16, 1980, to the Federal Communications Commission and am providing information about Californians Against Regulatory Excess to correct the nonfactual statements made by Mr. Loveday. In mid-summer of 1980, I met with a number of people in Orange County to try to organize a campaign against Proposition 10. I met with David Bergland, National Chairman of the Liber- tarian Party, John Seymour, a local government official and presi- dent of the California Realtors, Bill Dohr, Secretary of the California Republican Party, and Marvin Wendt, Jr., Assistant Director fatient Services, University of California at Irvine Medical Center. We all shared a personal conviction that Proposition 10 would be a terrible law. I was responsible for choosing the name Californians Against Regulatory Excess and selecting the first members of the Board of Directors. I now learn that I am criticized for my selection of the name and for creating an acronym. In previous campaigns that I have managed I sometimes found it helpful to use acronyms (Stop Taxes on Property (STOP) Committee and Apartment Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee (AIM) ) It is common for political organizations to use acronyms. Mr. Loveday's organizations are called Group Against Smoking Pollution (GASP) and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). I did not test this name or the acronyz. Upon creating the campaign committee as a California legal entity, done by Dobbs & Nielsen, my political law attorneys of many years and the only attorneys in California who specialize in ballot measure committee law, I solicited the Tobacco Institute JA. 103 AN» Tie! 4 - etre me re weer ae er were eS “} ee i i me : - ae a E * r and tobacco companies for support. I was told that my organi- zation would need to prove itself and be broad-based before they would consider more than seed money contributions. e one of our first acts was the taking of a statewide poll. Since there are only three competent firms in the United States, I quickly selected V. Lance Tarrance with whom I have done much work on California ballot measures congressional and _ county-wide campaign. Also in their favor the fact that they had done prior polling in California on anti-smoking measures. our committee has done an exceptionally fine job with volunteer spokespersons;letter writing campaigns, research and . grass roots organizing. However, through repeated contact with several persons throughout the state, 1 learned that the tobacco companies' decision to “stay out of California” was discouraging California industries from providing their financial commitments in hopes of attracting additional funds and left a fundamental doubt by California organizations about the effeccs of Proposition 10 if the tobacco companies did not feel it warranted opposition. I presented these facts to the Tobacco Institute's representatives ;. and representatives of several individual companies, presented the research done by, and on beha)f of, our organization that showed that people opposed this oppressive legislation once they understood it and suggested that funds be contributed to our cam~ > paign organization to assist the educational activity. I suggested that the media be created and produced by woodward, McDowell & ss Larson on contract to my committee. Our firm has worked closely ; vith Woodward, McDowell & Larson in other 1960 campaigns (Eileen Padberg, my Vice President also worked with them in 1976), and we feel they are extremely competent at producing effective broadcast ‘advertising. Upon learning that certain companies would make contri- butions to Californians Against Regulatory Excess, I employed Woodward, McDowell & Larson and oversaw their creation, production and distribution of media spots', approved copy content and was personally on the spot when Woodward, McDowell & Larson personnel casted, shot and edited the spots. Another of Mr. Loveday's letter discusses direct mail, in which ject I am considered among the state's leading experts. I am appalled to see the declaration by Mr. Levine, Mr. Loveday's campaign manager, which is nothing more than a self- serving document by a campaign management firm on behalf of its client. The mailings done by Californians Against Regulatory Excess are far exceeding national response averages and now that there is momentum and the election day approaches, I expect that the return from our direct mail will increase. - > be I have reviewed the alleged facts on page 12 of Mr. Loveday's letter. I do not believe any of the statements are factual. The media produced by Californians Against Regulatory Excess under my direction are totally accurate and have stood the . exacting scrutiny of legal counsel. For example, my match books _ are red and say “No on 10". My staff informs me that they have determined that the 1978 matchbooks were blue, said “Vote No on , Prop 5" and contained a written message. ‘ I cannot comment on any statements relating to Ed Grefe, : an executive at Philip Morris, since I have never met this gentle- man, or even seen his name before receiving Mr. Loveday's letter. The employment of William Dwyer and Connie Draff, both previously employed by the Tobacco Institute, and then a Presidential Campaign Committee, was made by me upon learning that they had established a consulting firm in Southern California. Their advice to our volunteers has been excellent. Set as , -3- urea, i , We 2 EMR I confess that I do not understand the relevance of the reference to Stu Spencer, a long-time friend, and mentor of sost of the young political managers in California. I believe Stu is a consultant to the Tobacco Institute since he did quiz me about how my Committee was proceeding early this summer. He is now a full-time campaign advisor and to the best of my knowledge he has had little or no contact with my staff since taking that position some months ago. The claim that the artwork designed by me and/or my staff is not original, and is infact plagiarism from other can- paigns, the Tobacco Institute, or anybody else, is sheer poppy- cock. You can call any of my staff and discuss how we designed every piece. The campaign has approached many major trade associa- tions, including the Tobacco Institute, and requested that its personnel assist in the distribution of literature throughout California. Two Tobacco Institute staff persons have met with my staff and agreed to receive and distribute literature. The value of these personnel services are periodically provided to us for our campaign reports. To my knowledge, there is no other involve- ment by the Tobacco Institute or any tobacco companies that has | not been set forth in this declaration. There is no question that campaign contributions are important to the success of my organization's public relations and advei\ising endeavers. Equally important is the volunteer work done by thousands of Californians to educate the voters about the real facts in this initiative. Many voters in California read the voter pamphlet and the editorial recommendations of their newspapers. The ballot pamphlet arguments and the education of newspapers has been exclusively through California volunteers and California staff persons hired by me. +o wine so + 9) & —— te me I hope the Federal Communication Commission reads Mr. Loveday's documents carefully. You will see that they took a poll on various ways to identify spots and have filed this com- plaint to scare stations against my Committee. Also please check Mr. Loveday's committee. We have been told by stations that they have received spots with no identification. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 27, 1980 in Santa Ana. a? eo For 1980, should be up modestly. _ however, that it may he cigarette industry should end this year on an up-tick, with a volume gain of some 1 per- cent. However, there is one extra working day in the fourth quarter and some pipelining: thus we feel that the actual increase will be more modest. For 1980, at best, we look for the industry to be up modestly, and John C. Maxwell Jr. is with Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loed Research, New York. Reprinted with permis: sion from the December 17 issue of Advertising Age. Copyrignt. Crain Communications inc., 1979. * Maxwell report: By John C. Maxwell Jr. there is a possibility that it may be slightly down. 1979 success story The success story of 1979 in the cigarette industry is American, Brands’ Carlton, which has in- creased its vulume almost 50 per- cent and is the fastest growing brand we have seen in many & year. At least part of this gain re- lates to a pronouncement about 18 months ago by Dr. Gio Gori. a sci- entist working with the Health, Education & Welfare Department, who implied that Carltons were not all that bad, and one could smuke 10 or more to one of the Exhidit K- 2 ‘ at best, the cigarette industry There is a possibility, be slightly down. more popular brands, such as Marlboro, Winston or Kool. We believe the Gori statement has helped to accelerate the trend toward low tar cigarettes, which now constitute more than 42 per- cent of total volume. Further, a good portion of the action seems to be in the 5 mg- and-under area, with the introduc- tion of Reynolds’ Doral Il, and Lorillard’s Kent 11] and Triumph this year. Movement encouraged Some industry observers seem encouraged by this movement to- ward low tar, as they consider tar J } Estimated domestic cigarette consumption ain gah | by company and brand (Billion units) units units Change 1 ip ccducccesccotessavecens _— 1.40 _— : Doral li MentNol ......0eee sere ree = 1038 = 270 249 = (7.8) Mow Menthol (soft Don) ...... +--+ Toon S| 1915 1384 (8.6) Total NOW ....s.scveereececeeeee 319 2389 374 Hi i f i Pe a ( to be the main factor contributing to disease in smokers. In fact. there are some who fee! that the industry had done such a good job of moving to low tar that anti- smoking forces would no longer need to be quite as adamant. It is interesting to recall that in the congressional hearings of 1957, there was a discussion and general 1976 unis ee Benson & Hedges Menino! Multi-Filter .. ‘ pesos 0.09 Benson & Hedges 100s Lignts...... 3.89 Benson & Hedges 100s Menthol Lights 4 3.20 Total Benson & Hedges : 27.58 9.41 2.14 agreements that a “safe™ tar level for cigarettes would be 20 mg, but that would he virtually impossible to obtain. Today, well over 90 percent of the cigarettes sold in the United Siates have less than 20 mg. So far as the individual compa- nies are concerned, Philip Morris registered the best absolute gain in 1979 units Change 1979 as it did in 1978. increasing 4.5 percent in units and one per- centage point in market share. Lorillard had the best percent- aye gain (8.6'.) and increased its market share by 0.7 percent. American Brands showed its first gain in more than a decade, a modest increase due primarily to the success of Carlton. 1978 1979 units unils American Brands 0.09 Cariton Filter 65s $.28 . Cariion Filter Bos 4.50 $44 60s oe eosasees 0.20 0.50 Cariton Filter Menthol 65s 1.85 209 4.33 . Carlton Filter 100s tekube ts 2.90 5.29 27.95 Carlton Filter Menthol 100's 064 «1.78 12.21 . Total Carlton 10.09 15.10 2.53 Tareyion Filter Ss... $.32 as 4.84 6.70 Merit Menthol 100s : 1.35 179 Total Merit. ; , 17.74 §=6.23.23 Virginia Sims 1008. $.08 4.98 Virgie Siims Menino! 100s.......- 4.67 4.87 Totai Virgina Slims ......- 9.75 98s Parhament (soll pack) .... ° 2.70 2.47 Pariament (hard Dox) ......------ 2.49 2.39 Parhament 100s 2.84 2.78 Total Parliament .......- ; 8.03 764 Seratogs ... iia ’ 1.45 1.47 Sarsiogs Menthol ......--..----> 0.70 0.69 Total Saratoga ......--- eee 2.15 2.16 DO, Se ee 0.66 0.53 Al Others ... «cece eeee , ‘ 0.13 0.16 Total Filter... 174.86 Philip Morris (hing) Prilip Morris (regular) Totai Domestic ....-. Kool (hard Dot) ....-- seer ee - Kool Miids Longs eeaawabee * Kool Super Lights Kings ......... Kool Super Lignts Longs Viceroy Rich Lights Kings ... Viceroy Rich Lights Longs % Filter... 6. sees: dcevceccccesaces % Market *eerr Tareyton Filter 100s .....--.---- +> . 4.07 Tareyton Lignts 85s... ‘ 1.26 Tareyton Ulira Low Menthol 54 . 0.11 Tareyton Low Tar 100s Total Tareyton Pali Mali 100s Pati Mall Lights 100s Menthol! Pall Mall Filler King 85s .......---- Pali Mali Extra Lights 65s .........-- Pall Mall Lights 100s............-- Total Pall Mall Silva Thins 100s a! Silva Thins Menino! 100s Total Silva Thins Tali 120s..... Tali Menthol 120s Tota! Tali 120s Lucky 10s Lucky Strike 100s Total Lucky Strike All Others ..... Total Fitter Pali Mali (king) Lucky Strike (regular) .....---+.->- Herbert Tareyton (king) (14.3)*« (11.3) Trgmph MEINE . one. eee ‘ Man 1208 ....- 0. -- seers eeeseeer if 1978 61979 1978 1979 units units Change units units Change 6.37 6.35 Eve Meninol 1008 ....----- sees 046 0.35 - 1.03 100 06©=.: (2.8) Total Ewe ....-.eeeceeeeer serene 1.15 0.94 - 6.15 0.12 = Decade .....-----eeerersceeeees 0.77 0.56 - 0.02 0.04 = Decade Menthol! .....--------50 6.25 6.21 - 64.70 $9.46 67 Total Decade ....----eeeererees 1.62 0.77 - 6.16 0.13 - Chestertieid 1018"... ------ sere 0.31 0.22 a 4.86 689.59 8.4% OGSe° ....- ev eeeeeceee 0.10 0.08 — 99.7% 99.8% Total Chestertield .....--+--5-+°* 0.41 0.30 - 8.1% 9.8% Al Others ... «---cceceeeer erent’ 6.10 6.10 = Total Filter ...... -eeeesersecrete 15.55 93.10 (15.8) Cresteriieid (hing)” -..---6- seo 3.39 3.18 (6.2) Cnestertieid (reguiat)’...--- +++ > 6.62 0.60 - Total Domestic. ...---------s8err 19.56 16.86 (13.7)% Liggett Group. We PUREE ws cane ceneneecccesceseees 795% %765 — LOM (soft pack)... .------see rrr $40 469 = (13.1)% % Market ....- Ps obabeugess 3.2% 28> — LOM (Nard DOE). .«---- eer er rr 0.14 6.10 — Total industry Consumption ...---- 604.82 610.70 1.0% LBM 1006... -- cece ee eee ree re eee 1.67 1.42 (18.0) Change in inventory... ----0- 5006 9.38 (0.70) LEM Menthol 100s ....--- sss 0.26 0.14 = Total Production ....-.-----s550"*" 614.20 610.00E (0.7)* LOM Lights ..... ca a ledase saps 1.30 1.24 (4.6) ; Total LEM ......--cee reer cree 8.77 7.59 (13.5) i. Lark 85s ....---- was i aka ghee sales . 2.70 2.16 (20.0) e Lark 100s .....---- sacecOpes céees 4.20 0.86 - Note: Percentage change 's nol computed for brands selling under } Lark Lights ......-.---+sreeee: o 280 °* «3 — oss - ss 2.00 we + 23 04s on - ey 17.38 ae 0+ 68 aso os = oe 23 ase 56 - 92 1079 . on - 82 bo oos a7 - 123 1.12 = %2 ~.*. - 3.90 = os0 an ~ eek ase 10020 + gat 22 1g = 8a i 230 aso 0Cle Gt Sed oe = ne 23s 2020+ 28 ad or - oss a2 86+ 648 5a ose = 200 2206+ 184 O18 Lead = 1.40 re) - 69 3» aw - 420 as 0Cti+ 088 o4s om - ‘ 123 20 0+ 48 ose 038 - 0 80 \ a0 = WAT Mo1 - a ‘ 253 220+ 138 m50 27s 0-48 1s? 1090 Oe 4? aco Te 0 0O= HS ; 090 an - 038 o2s pos : 2a7 OH . a2 rac2 7.47 = as cy. eos =_ es% ose e- 181.16 wise 0+ 18 =a 7S 17.00 tee * 2 34 oe me _*° @ ° . ni. we . 22% 8 29% i cab a7y «+ Se ee 1138 an? ane are a. ||” sennnnnnnennnnnan oe ox - 2 — a Kent 1008. sa se = 8s 2687 aati eC oss oz = 11.12 1.180 oe te aed ‘ss 0 = 138 Titenetrcdchecases 130 180m 88 = + 2 i hintindedscevs as 0.19 + me Marhero Ligne 100s... ... Riess - 1s = ae “sy ) + as oe oe on Wowie a13 sot 83 oss ~ = : be ae - ot sy) + ts ave ber - - , os2 ome + 8 ° 338 as 6 - 668 eg : Parteners (808 pac | 296 — - 2 Man 1805.......... Py oy anv - A, # : Pwtemert frard bes) 263 ae Ulf Manttenmtas $88e . bof os — oe = ¥ soaks 287 * 263 * 23 Yount Mas t230e. 7) 1 Ont °* a a rey am - Serve | Cos eeeeere an au - ss 1a @ 42 MODE... 000 eeee - - Pr } — a aeesesasasen an 288 pond FOUFTNT ooo cence nnnncnenns : i, | Hk farses’ | Be dala Hi s]Iazse2" | Bs I ‘ & gReU8 if i bas : [ie Hip 1 ; tis jua3s38323 A 1598 a ; daaeeets if i maniaenmm| ELLE it ie thy ed Autadatlstefala Ini uy E a ee 4 x Rroeep SE i ae al ¢ekc32 py a cl i Ha Hen ; HH i Sigiasagatigritirtigges ine 89 84 ' ae af a : ee 529995599332999 339592 vival iil F PLETE ELLE MRP PEELE ao UE AAG fs Hila at lll t Weill mh br bo ar eee ws 10.46 $06 247 ow os ay P.) 2681 oe 1288 v.41 3198 bap N33 $52 a17 ace 068 o3s 13 bape na 3 ons p> yt Seeoeoeos Voa teeta tgoave 66:2 ° 289 O's 2 Sees ee eaenee4e646686 0-8253060609 86 64 2 sO 2 229 Cae ® 0 6 6 @ 6's & 2.2 oe bs 66 09 8 FS Ore F O'S: 8 4 9 2.2 2a $a 60280 @ € 6's -28 2464.6 0 6.02 Feo 2 Bo 21° 22 22> aia &een 28 2S 2 OPS © 8.4 & 6. OO 0s 2.229 © SS 6b 6 & wie 6.6 6 2 6.6.2 2.6.6.2 Sea 8 Sa 2 Se. 4a 2 *) 8 abheea ae 6 8.68 6 8 8 o.0°O 4.078 6 2.2 2. oe 2.0 2 er? Se e008 8 6 0e.0 O89 82 8 OS & SH S- 2 29.7. 8 2.53 2 Se d 26 4:8 2:6 8S 64s. 823 OO 424° 8°9-7 20 2 Pe oss a Sb 2 6 © B.D Gct © 6 O82 eu8 S274 2 2 Ee ee les Sy 2 eS eee eeeneeeree MBit ——e a ane. o veer sineee nun. cece fen gran Longs roe". veseees THtE i f JA. I, stanton A. Glantz, P.1.D- declare: by Center at UCSF. My teaching re lities at UCSF include courses in statistics and mathematics. I know of my Own personal knowledge that the facts contained in this Declaration are trve, andl will so testify under cath if called upon to If the cigarette manufacturers joined together to act in concert in an organized effort to defeat proposition 5 ané 10, one would expect three things: i. Considering only the tobacco companies who contributed to the No on 5 less than one chance in 10,000 that the relative sizes of the cigarette manufacturers monetary expenditures against propositions 5 and 10 are not in proportion to their relative shares of the tobacco market. cigarette and other tobacco products gold (with the corollary that the general public would contribute wery little gince it does not receive 3. The relative sizes of contributions by the tobacco companies would be the che ralative siaet Oren § campaign as the 2900 #o on 3) uv SY two It is possible to estimate this level of certainty using & well-established statistical technique called linear regression which yields & correlation . coefficient. If two variables (like market share and campaign expenditures) wary in perfect proportion, the correlation coefficient 4s 1.00; if there is no relationship, the correlation coefficient is 0. Given the correlation coefficient, ne ia possible to look the conflsenes ee) ene ean have in the conclusion of a proportional relationship in standard statistical tables. Table | ghows the market shares of espace sales O42 %5 contributions by the major out-of-state tobacco companies, other tobacco interests (e.g-s Jocal distributors) . and the general public for the Wo on 5 and No on 10 campaigns. JA, WS. pege 2 fable 2 shows the relative market shares ané contributions for the out-of-state tobacco companies who actually contributed to the wo campaigns in 1978 ané 1980. The relative market shares vere computed as follows: In 1977 the five companies R.J. Reynolds accounted for 33.0% of the total market, 8° its relative market share among the contributing companies was 33.08/87.6% = 37.7%. The total monetary contributions of these four tobacco companies was $5,897,656 in 1978 of which R.J. Reynolds contributed $2,351,786 or 2,351, 786/5,897 656 = 39.9%. fhe relative market ghares and expenditures of the other companies was In both 1978 and 1980 there was & .99 correlation between relative market share and relative contributions among the contributing companies. Viewed this way, the contributions are in essentially exactly the sam proportions as the relative market shares. One can be more than 99.99% confident in this statement. The only way this correlation could be improved would be if most of the companies had net given contributions in round thousands of dollars. II. Market Share and Contributions The information in Table 1 allows one to te market share to dollar contributions, 4f all sources are included. The small contribution from the tobacco wholesalers In both 1978 and 1980 the correlation between market share and dollars contributed to "No” campaigns is .94. There is less than one chance in 1000 of obtaining this strong @ correlation by chance. Put another way, we can be more than 99.9% confident that companies (and the general public) contributed to the Bo campaigns in direct proportion to their market shares. Iii. Relationship between 1978 and 1980 Spending Patterns The correlation between contributions from each company in 1978 and 1980 is 1.00 (to two decimal places). This indicates that the pattern of support for the two No campaigns is virtually identical. One can be better than 99.99% confident of this statements’ accuracy. I declare under penalty of perjury that the forege ng and the tables attached hereto are true and correct and that thi Seclaration xecusec ob 14 » 1980. se nton at ntz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco e- @ ern are mere eeorer mesmrere © _—-—-* -_—_-——— = —_ -_—— oJ. Reynolds hilip Morris wmerican Brands ?, Lorrilard arown & Williamson Liggett Other tobacco? General Public” TOTALS NOTES: 1. "Other tobacco” includes in-California distributors On the assumpt.on that market share and profits break down in pr TABLE 1 ALL TOBACCO COMPANIES AND OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO NO ON 5 AND NO ON 10 1977 1978 No on 5 1979 1980 No on 10 Market Dollars Market Dollars Share Share 33.0% $2,351,786 32.6% $149,000 26.5% 1,760,000 28.8% 117,000 12.4% ) 11.6% 0 6.8% 587,845 9.8% 41,000 15.88 1,170,000 14.4% 65,000 3.5% 28,025 2.8% 0 - 84,015 - 4,500 O [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0398%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.