Let’s Face It: Federal Money Being Used To Lobby Saint Louis County
I do not smoke. But I am curious about radio ads that are advocating for stronger anti-smoking laws in Saint Louis County. The ads, which come from a group called Let’s Face It, are creative – and alarming. Consider this line from one of the ads:
There are still workplaces in St. Louis County that legally allow smoking. . . . let’s truly eliminate second-hand smoke in the workplace. It’s better for all of us.
Saint Louis County recently passed an expansive anti-smoking ordinance; the law includes exemptions for bars and casinos. The owners of those establishments felt that if smoking was not permitted, they would go out of business. I attended one of the hearings when the Saint Louis County Council was considering the partial ban. Several bar and restaurant owners told officials they feared their businesses would close or they would have to lay off employees if customers were not allowed to smoke.
Well, it turns out that more than $7.5 million in federal stimulus money is funding those radio ads and advocacy efforts to eliminate exemptions. According to the Recovery.gov website, federal stimulus money has gone to Let’s Face It’s anti-exemption campaign. In its report to the federal government, Let’s Face It noted that it hopes to “place amendment on council agenda,” “remove exemptions from current ordinance,” and ”increase the number of County municipalities that enact smokefree [sic] policies that exceed the comprehensive County-wide policy. . .”
The group has also partnered with the St. Louis Rams, and ran anti-smoking advertisements during the Rams’ Dec. 18, 2011, home game. In its report to the federal government, Let’s Face It claims to have created 38.16 jobs associated with this campaign. Some of those jobs are associated with $2 million that went to Fleishman-Hillard (four jobs) and $175,000 that went to the St. Louis Cardinals (actually, no jobs are claimed to be created with the money directed to the Cardinals).
The Show-Me Institute has made the case that customers (and employees) have the freedom to choose what bars and restaurants they frequent. The argument that customers or employees are somehow trapped at a venue that allows smoking is a smokescreen, at best.
But federal funding of advocacy efforts goes even further. If the anti-second-hand smoking argument is a good one, then why aren’t private associations and nonprofits stepping up to make the case? Why does the federal government have to fund an advocacy campaign?
What is next, Fannie Mae funding an organization that advocates for land banking legislation? Or federal stimulus money being used to fund similar advocacy campaigns throughout the United States against soda?
The concern of bar owners is not without merit. Many have gone out of business since the no-exemption ordinance became law last year in Springfield.
Oddly enough, the ban passed on a low-signature, low turnout ballot initiative, and now a low-signature initiative to repeal has already started to work its way onto a low-turnout ballot.
Comment by Brian J. — April 11, 2012 @ 1:52 p.m.
Brian J.
Its a political strategy to put smoking bans on low-turnout votes. In St Louis County, they had to get court approval to get on ballot because the council missed the deadline. The ban didn’t take affect for 16 months after the vote, why the hurry to rush it to a vote. They know that it has a far better chance of passing when few people vote.
Comment by Tony Palazzolo — April 12, 2012 @ 10:25 a.m.
Really, most USA smoking bans were enacted after 2003. Yet, CDC data indicate no change in adult nor teen smoking rates since then. Further, comprehensive public health studies show no improvement when smoking bans are implemented. (only cherry-picked public health studies of small jurisdictions do) Finally, according to Library of Congress research, the claim that secondhand smoke kills 53,000 nonsmokers annualy dates back to 1988. The 2006 Surgeon General’s Report, stated that by the year 2000, Americans were exposed to 90% less secondhand smoke than 1988. Yet, here, in 2012 antismoking groups still claim 53,000 deaths each year.
The only conclusion? For whatever reason, smoking bans or any other efforts to eliminate public smoke exposure are not sound, proven, evidence- based public health policy.
Comment by David W. Kuneman — April 12, 2012 @ 10:25 a.m.
Also, most voting is done by senior citizens, who have very low smoking rates, and don’t tend to patronize the kinds of establishments that young smokers usually do.
Comment by David W. Kuneman — April 12, 2012 @ 11:24 a.m.
Last I saw, smokers make up approximately 18% of the population, yet nanny state government officials still feel the need to step in and legislate personal freedom. I would think that any bar or restaurant owner would ant to cash in on the free market opportunity that exists, which is to ban smoking, themselves. I’m sure a fair stampede of people who abhor smoking would keep their establishments filled to the gills.
Likewise, employees could choose to work or not work at a place of business based upon their smoking policies. Free market solutions aside, I agree wholeheartedly that using federal funds (i.e. MY money) to pay for programs like this is absurd. In all honesty, though, the nearly $200,000 per job created is a bargain compared to the nearly $400,000 per job average that the federal stimulus produced.
Comment by johnnybbad — May 16, 2012 @ 7:38 a.m.