 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: Advertising and the Tobacco Industry - Page 3
By Monica Yung
Although some strongly affirm that advertising does not influence a product's use, it cannot be denied that industries expend a great deal of money and effort in ensuring their right to advertise. One of the most effective and indispensable means of external control that multi-million dollar corporations employ is political influence. A political associate is a prominent and invaluable ally for any corporation or business. Both the tobacco and beer industries have endeavored to extend their "external control" in politics as part of a marketing strategy (Scott 82). Ben Scott affirms, "Brewers have become involved in the political issues that affect the industry, sending lobbyists to Washington and state capitals. Power drawn from economic networking and political connections enables advertising on an ever-widening scale" (Scott 80). For many, the industry-government relationship may seem amoral and deceitful, but the public is unaware of it because "power transactions between corporations and government rarely take place in the public arena" and "corporations that are politically active deny critics the righteous authority to blow the whistle on improper action by donating to charities and underwriting public programs" (82). The mega-industries use their financial resources to conceal their political schemes in order to extend and secure control over cultural outlets, and are able to promote their products and maintain a steadfast grasp on the market. Tobacco corporations as well as the beer industry extend control into politics and other areas to promote its products. "[C]igarette companies have political allies," Elizabeth Whelan explains, "Believe it or not, two . . . directors of Philip Morris are trustees of medical institutions" (5). To most, it would appear inappropriate to be involved in both the promotion of tobacco products which are destructive to health and a medical institution designed to promote health, and it may seem outrageous that such a dual affiliation could be allowed. However, since tobacco companies, like beer companies, exert such tremendous power and possess immense resources, their assets enable them to establish political ties that ensure minimal governmental involvement, allowing them to continue wide-scale advertising and extend their control over market and culture. It must be acknowledged, however, that anti-smoking activists use similar political techniques: most of the researchers who claim that smoking initiation and prevalence are positively related to tobacco advertising "acknowledge funding from the Department of Health, which is unlikely to finance studies aimed at proving that there are no relationships between advertising and smoking" (Boddewyn 1255). As the tobacco industries have associates in medical institutions, researchers who release studies on the harmfulness of smoking have the interests of their financial supporters in mind, which may also impact the integrity of their studies.
Not only has the tobacco industry extended its control into medical institutions, it also uses its resources to influence prominent politicians. As Whelan reveals, "Tobacco companies have been highly successful in manipulating Senators and Congressmen who depend on them for support or who, through some wheeling and dealing and good old-fashioned Congressional horse-trading, can raise support for other issues by compromising themselves on the issue of cigarettes and health (6). In response to the anti-smoking movement, the US government has recently attempted to enforce a more stringent attack on the cigarette industry with laws that attempt to impede back-room deals. However, the cigarette industry still remains a prime force in politics and has a way of concealing its dubious transactions. Newsday .com reports documentation that "more than 100 state legislators were given meals, drinks and other considerations in 1996 worth more than the $75 limit by Philip Morris' chief lobbyist in Albany"; although "Philip Morris was fined $75,000 by the state Lobbying Commission and the legislators' cases were referred to the Legislature's ethics commission," the latter does not make public its investigations or punishments ( Newsday .com). It is evident that, like the mega-brewer Anheuser Busch, the large tobacco companies expend great resources to gain the favor of politicians and ensure that their underhanded transactions remain secret.