Introduction
The problem of both direct and indirect taxpayer
support for lobbying is a serious one. Even the theoretically best
of congressional intentions can be badly perverted by federal
grantors and activist grantees. For instance, in the name of preventing
alcohol abuse, the Department of Health and Human Services,
through the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (one of three
constituent parts of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration), has used public funds to promote media
and political campaigns for higher excise taxes, restrictions on
advertising, and destruction of private billboards. At times
officials appear to have skirted the ban on taxpayer-funded
lobbying, violating the spirit if not the letter of the law.
SAMHSA's formal objective is to improve "prevention,
treatment, and rehabilitation services for people with substance
abuse and mental illnesses." Similarly, CSAP's programs
"are designed to help eliminate or reduce alcohol, tobacco,
and other drug problems in our society. The Center supports
partnerships at all levels and with all sectors of society to
help create a national comprehensive prevention agenda for
everyone's benefit."
Few could disagree with such goals in theory. In practice,
however, CSAP is interested in far more than substance abuse. All too
often the agency has interpreted its mission--through its grant
process, research support, organizational activities, and public
pronouncements--as organizing local activists to attack people's
drinking preferences. Thus, CSAP treats political campaigns on
alcohol advertising, availability, prices, and taxation as if
they were nonpartisan health debates.
Among the leading beneficiaries of federal largesse in this area
is the Marin Institute. The Institute's formal mission, of
reducing "the toll of alcohol and other drug problems,"
is, again, one with which few could disagree. However, the Marin
Institute does far more than discourage problem drinkers. For
example, the organization explains that "effective
prevention must incorporate principles of social justice and a
special focus on populations that have been traditionally
disenfranchised" and emphasizes that it develops "new
resources and strategies that are on the forefront of the
prevention field and that do not shrink from controversy."
Similarly, Institute Senior Fellow James Mosher wrote in Annual
Review of Public Health that "the new alcohol policy
movement offers the entire public health field the opportunity to
reach new constituencies. In keeping with the nature of the
problems it is designed to prevent, the approach cuts across
ideological, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic divisions in our society
and provides the means to build a coalition for broad social
change in regard to health policy."
The Institute devotes significant resources to creating state and
national networks of community activists. Nor is the Institute shy
about offering political opinions: it opposed cutbacks in the
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control which, it
explained, would "severely limit the agency's ability to
enforce laws that are designed to support the health of our communities."
The Institute went on to urge readers to write letters, canvass
neighbors, and "build a local coalition" to "support
the ABC."
Politics the Intent
Politics is not merely a byproduct of CSAP grants to groups like
the Marin Institute. It often appears to be the agency's goal. CSAP
has, for instance, labored mightily to equip activist
organizations to lobby not only federal officials, but also state
and local governments. The agency provided nearly one million
dollars between 1990 and 1993 for the Marin Institute's youth Alcohol
Environment On-Line Information Project. The project was directed
against the alcohol industry which, of course, was considered to
be creating the "environment" with which the Institute
was disatisfied. According to the formal grant proposal, the
Institute intended to "compile the only special collection
of materials on the alcohol beverage industry in existence
outside of the industry itself." Indeed, the Institute's
Media and Policy Center, explained the proposal, "is
creating ALCNET, an on-line computer network to meet the needs of
media advocates in the alcohol field for rapid communication regarding
media opportunities." Federal funds underwrote the creation
of a daily on-line news summary regarding youth alcohol problems,
an on-line database consisting of industry materials
"relevant" to the prevention of such problems. The Institute
then planned to promote use of the network by the individuals and
organizations with which it had been working.
Although the project was formally directed at drinking by
children, it was clearly intended to assist political activists
in counteracting advertising by the alcohol industry.
Advertising, explained the Institute, "creates an
environment in which the messages of the alcohol beverage
industry's multibillion dollar promotional campaigns are
reinforced at every turn." Hence, enter Washington doling
out taxpayer funds. The federally-subsidized "media
advocacy" project, explained the Institute's grant proposal,
"tries to reframe health issues to focus on industry
practices as a primary problem, exposing them as exploitive and unethical."
Indeed, the Institute stated that this project would have been
useful in handling past queries from local "alcohol control activists."
Among the issues it cited were the industry's response to
activists' positions, industrial ownership patterns, industry efforts
to curtail sales to minors, state experience in amending dram
shop laws, the backgroud of industry spokesmen, industry
promotional expenditures, likely industry arguments, industry
product and promotional strategies, and industry philanthropic
activities. Explained the Institute, "This list gives some
representation of the kinds of questions activists need answers
to as they try to implement environmental change and practice
media advocacy." Virtually none of these questions have
anything to do with health or substance abuse; rather, almost all
involve political attacks on the alcohol industry and the very
idea of social drinking. In short, taxpayers are paying to help
activists lobby to, for instance, impose higher excise taxes on
the very same taxpayers.
Media Advocacy
CSAP has underwritten other Marin Institute "media
advocacy" projects. Similarly, the University Research
Corporation (URC) of Bethesda, Maryland, another agency grantee,
put together a set of "media advocacy case studies" at
CSAP's behest. The report-- which, naturally, explained that it
did not necessarily reflect the agency's position--highlighted
activists' use of the media in "reducing the presence of
alcohol and tobacco advertising and sales in their
neighborhoods." CSAP's underlying political agenda was
clear: local activists "had to take on government and
business. In some cases, they changed or created city and local
ordinances. In other cases, they changed the policies and
practices of advertising companies, stores, and even
manufacturers."
Among the examples compiled at taxpayer expense was a San Diego
campaign, involving ACT UP, among other gay groups, to link
alcohol with the transmission of AIDS, increase alcohol excise
taxes, expand condom availability, and eliminate advertising
tying alcohol to sex. Numerous media stunts were suggested,
including "using a gigantic blow-up beer bottle with a condom
over it." Alas, explained the URC, "this was an
appealing image but one not used." The report goes on to
quote one local activist who explained that: "We need sex,
kids, gays, motion, emotion, and real university
researchers." In the end, ACT UP members smashed beer
bottles for the press and one activist dressed in a beer can
costume, over whom someone else placed a body-size condom.
Although ACT UP and other organizations are obviously free to
stage a show like this any time they wish, Congress should review
the appropriateness of having a federal agency use public funds
to promote this sort of bizarre political activism.
Another questionable initiative, entitled "Media Advocacy in
African-American and Latino Communities and On-Line," was directed
at minorities. The publication offered a broadside against
alcohol and tobacco advertising. For instance, it celebrated community
activists who had "used the media like a searchlight,
pointing its beam in the direction of what they wanted changed."
The result was to reduce "the presence of alcohol and
tobacco advertising and sales in their neighborhoods," particularly
through billboards. But CSAP promoted more than just protests
against billboards. The Center included a chapter on
"Artfux," so-called guerrilla artists who deface
private billboards with alcohol advertising. The members of
Artfux, reported the CSAP publication, "did not fear taking
on corporate America." Since 1989 the group has illegally
altered 41 billboards, painting their own messages. Reported CSAP
approvingly:
While Artfux recognized that the billboards were private
property, these artists viewed their actions as the lesser of two
evils. They argued that their revision of the alcohol and tobacco
ads was in no way comparable to censorship, since their efforts had
an insignificant impact on the industries' combined five billion
dollar annual marketing campaigns. Furthermore, Artfux contended
that they were providing health information that was hidden from
the public by the alcohol and tobacco industries.
CSAP went on to list the "lessons learned," including
that "sensationalism makes news" and "even with a
sensational event, careful planning is necessary." The
report's following chapter discussed the political activities of
the Association for Responsible Alcohol Control, which campaigned
for approval of more restrictive land use regulations to reduce
the number of liquor stores. The Center then summed up the
lessons of ARAC's experience, including the importance of media
contacts in local political efforts.
Whether or not local groups are justified in using these and
other tactics, Congress should ask the question: why is the
federal government using tax money to promote their activities?
(CSAP's glowing presentation of the organizations' efforts belies
its disclaimer of support.) In the name of restraining abuse,
political activists, aided by the federal government, are
lobbying local officials to interfere with responsible drinking
by the vast majority of Americans.
Media Training
CSAP also touts the importance of media advocacy training, which
provides its staffers with "the necessary skills to enable them
to seek out and take advantage of media outreach opportunities
such as local radio or newspaper interviews as they travel."
This fall the Departments of Education and Health and Human
Services are sponsoring a symposium, "Covering Alcohol and
other Drug Issues on Campus" for college journalists, at
which the 1995 Journalism Competition winner will be announced.
Participation, students are assured, is "virtually free!
Airfare, lodging, and most meals cost you nothing!" The agenda
is highly political, with a presentation on "The Marketing
of Alcoholic Beverages" by a representative of the left-leaning,
regulatory-minded Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Other workshops cover "Editor as Advocate" and "When
Advertisers Protest." Equally important is the agency's
media work in training local activists. One CSAP publication cited
Ruth Ann Lipic, from Illinois, who stated that training by the
CSAP Communications Team gave her "a professional edge,
courage, and techniques to use." Last October CSAP sponsored
a conference on the Future of Media Advocacy. The purpose of the
meeting was to share information with media activists and
"to advance the practice of media advocacy and broaden
support for it."
The Center explained that: "Reducing [alcohol and tobacco]
advertising and limiting where and how these products may be served
or sold; decreasing the number and placement of alcohol
distribution outlets; limiting hours that alcohol distributors
are in service; increasing excise taxes of alcohol; and raising
awareness of the media's glamorous portraysl of [alcohol and tobacco]
use are examples of social or public policies that have been
advanced by community groups through the use of media advocacy
techniques." Every one of these goals involves lobbying and
political activism.
Organizing Political Activists
The agency also helps organize activists whose objectives are
more political action than public health. For instance, CSAP helped
develop and promote the National Prevention League (recently
renamed the National Drug Prevention League), made up of private
organizations, and the National Prevention Council, consisting of
state and local groups. Federal money has also been used to
assist activists in attending NDPL functions, even though the
League considers itself to be a "supergroup" advocacy
organization intending to create a national network to
"allow for and support effective action." Meaning
excise tax hikes and the like.
The NDPL, in turn, is devoted to promoting CSAP's bureaucratic
agenda. One element of that is social activism. According to the
minutes of the initial meeting, prepared by Executive Director
Sue Rusche, "a general consensus emerged that a need exists
for a united effort to basically change societal norms."
This naturally requires local political campaigns directed
against legal and responsible drinking. Indeed, CSAP's
predecessor agency, OSAP, sponsored a national conference on
Media Opportunities on Alcohol in October 1988, at which
"smoking control and alcohol control activists"
discussed "creative epidemiology," which "brings
together research and media advocacy, reworking data so they can
be presented in a new and interesting form," and criticism
of the industry, which allow "health advocates to create
controversy which can illuminate the need for review and reform
of public health policies, and energize communities and
promotional targets (i.e. youth) to act to achieve these
reforms." In other words, a federal agency with taxpayer
funds helped alcohol neo-prohibitionists learn political lessons
from opponents of tobacco.
Thus, the ultimate result of many CSAP grants is lobbying, albeit
often at the local level. For instance, in a study funded by CSAP,
James Mosher, with the Marin Institute, and Ellen Frank, of the
University of California at Berkeley, laud the increased
willingness of state and local governments to reduce minimun
drinking age laws, pass legislation reducing blood alcohol
content levels (even though the latter actually do little to
address the problem of drunk drivers, who normally have BAC
levels far above the minimum), and increase restrictions on
alcohol availability. Nevertheless, they remain frustrated because
"policy enactment has been stalled on other fronts notably
on measures that would directly affect alcohol marketing practices,"
often because of intense alcohol industry lobbying."
Not to fear, though. The activist groups subsidized by CSAP
usually push this political agenda. Explain Mosher and Frank: "alcohol
policy activists have sought to build support among citizens'
groups and professional organizations. This effort has had many
successes, most notably in the building of national coalitions
for the enactment of warning label legislation, alcohol advertising
reform, and increases in alcohol excise taxes." Although
federal funds are not to be used to directly aid such endeavors,
supporting groups that lobby, assisting their "media
advocacy" campaigns, and paying for reports such as that from
Mosher and Frank, which assesses "the extent to which the
alcohol policy agenda has reached new constituencies" and critiques
industry financial support for nonprofit groups, is effectively
the same thing. Indeed, Mosher and Frank observe that "in at
least two cases, our telephone inquiries appeared to spur
consideration of the policies within the organization."
Preserving Funding
Finally, CSAP, like most federal agencies, works hard to use past
funding to preserve future funding. Of course, it is not supposed
to formally lobby but CSAP appears to consciously skirt the law.
One strategy involves creating new lobbying organizations, such
as the National Drug Prevention League. According to Dr. Michael
Dana, CSAP's Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and
External Affairs, the NDPL "will create mechanisms to
discuss ways to educate the appropriate individuals, to make the
case that prevention is the way to have an effect on drug use
over the long haul." Among the "appropriate
individuals" are congressmen and congresswomen. As Executive
Director Sue Rusche puts it: "Hardly anybody understands
what prevention is, and certainly that has to apply to the United
States Congress." Among NDPL's official positions are
opposition to block grants and funding cuts. In early January
Rusche responded to proposals to eliminate government bureaus:
"It seems totally foolhardy to dismantle federal agencies,
but I'm afraid that might happen." It is no wonder, then,
that the NDPL "is rushing to action now because of a
perceived congressional threat to the very foundation of prevention
programs." The group's activities were further described as
"intended to enable prevention to reach a new level of influence
in the public policy arena."
CSAP also attempts to turn program beneficiaries into lobbyists.
The Center's 1993 Prevention Conference devoted two sessions to
the operation of congressional authorization andappropriation
processes. While a session on how to apply to CSAP for a grant of
money appropriated by Congress would be legitimate, a review of
the appropriation process acts as an open invitation for grantees
to press Congress for more grant money for CSAP--and, ultimately,
to conference participants.
Moreover, CSAP employees play an important role in advocacy
groups that support continued federal funding of SAMHSA, CSAP,
and similar agencies. For example, a half dozen federal workers
play significant roles in the Alcohol, Tobacco, and other Drugs
Committee of the American Public Health Association: Laura
Flinchbaugh of CSAP is Secretary; Bettina Scott of SAMHSA chairs
the Committee on Advocacy for Empowerment; Bob Volliner of CSAP
is co-chair of the Resolution Committee; and Nelia Nadal and
Patricia Wright, both of CSAP, are Section Councilors. Along with
supporting the proposal to turn Washington, D.C., into the state
of New Columbia, APHA also endorses stricter local regulations on
alcohol and tobacco and discourages health organizations from
accepting funds from alcohol and tobacco companies. Moreover,
after last November's election, APHA issued "A Call to
Action!" and warned "Public Health THREATENED" on
the front page of its newsletter. The organization went on to
report on threats to SAMHSA funding and give advice on how to
lobby policymakers and write letters to the editor and opinion
pieces for newspapers. Finally, Association Executive Director, Fernando
Trevino, closed with a call for contributions for the Public
Health Advancement Fund. Explained Dr. Trevino: "the challenges
presented by the new 104th Congress mean that we, the public
health professionals of the United States, must come together
once again for action--this time perhaps for the survival of
public health as we know it."
In fact, CSAP (then OSAP) has been reprimanded for illicit
political activities. Two years ago the General Accounting Office concluded
that: OSAP did not violate the law restricting use of
appropriated funds for lobbying in it publications or in any of its
own activities. However, an OSAP grantee violated the lobbying
restriction in connection with the Alcohol Policy VIII conference.
Also, grass roots lobbying took place at the Healthy
People/Healthy Environments conference, funded by HHS, although
without any prior knowledge or complicity by either OSAP or HHS.
Having received this official warning, CSAP would, if concerned
about the law, have been exercising greater caution in its own
activities and tighter oversight of its grantees' projects. In
fact, the Center seems willing to operate as close to the line of illegal
lobbying as possible.
Conclusion
The days of sacred budget cows, however popular their purpose, is
over. The yawning deficit alone requires reconsideration of every
expenditure, especially if agencies are misusing federal monies
for political purposes.
The experience with CSAP suggests that Congress needs to
carefully review the record of all agencies that make discretionary
grants to private and nonprofit groups. More intensive inspector
general investigations, attention to lobbying of state as well as
federal officials, and, most importantly, a willingness to cut
off miscreants, would all help reduce the problem.
[Home]