Dori Gilels, spokesman for the CEP, stated that “in her first 100 days, Gov. Martz has rolled back key environmental protection laws, paving the way for out-of-state industries to exploit Montana’s resources at the expense of our communities and quality of life.”Also at the Center for Environmental Politics news conference on April 25, 2001, former Republican Secretary of State Verner Bertelsen, who represented Montana’s senior citizens on the Governor’s Advisory Council on Tobacco Use Prevention, continued criticisms of Gov. Martz’ attitude towards the TUPP. Bertlesen told the press that “the actions of Gov. Martz show disregard for public support of this very important program,” and that the administration “show a clear and blatant departure from her commitment to prevention efforts.”Anastasia Burton, Press Secretary for the Governor’s office, responded to the criticism by stating that Gov. Martz’ action were simply a response to the demands of the Legislature.However, the administration again failed to mention that it was Gov. Martz who originally proposed reducing the tobacco prevention budget and claimed that the program was ineffective. Public opinion regarding the tobacco use prevention programs also appeared to support the state health advocates. A poll conducted for Lee Newspapers of Montana by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc. of Washington D.C. between April 30 and May 2, 2001 showed that, out of 625 registered voters questioned, 79% disapproved of the decision to reduce funding for the state’s tobacco-use prevention program, 14% approved of it, and 7% were undecided . On March 5, 2002, the coalition of 12 health care groups called the Alliance for a Healthy Montana submitted a proposed initiative to the Secretary of State and the State Attorney General for review, the required first step in qualifying an initiative for the November ballot.207, 208 The proposed initiative,shelving system which would become Initiative 149 , would ask Montana voters to require the state to allocate Montana’s $30 million annual MSA payment as follows : 32% of the annual MSA payment for tobacco use prevention programs, with another 17% towards increased funding for the Children Health Insurance Program and the Montana Comprehensive Health Association government health programs for the poor.
The state general fund would receive 11% of the annual MSA payment, and 40% would go to the health care trust fund approved by voters under CA-35 in 2000. In addition to specifying the allocations of the MSA payments, I-146 would also establish a tobacco prevention advisory board. The board would consist of 15 members to be appointed by the director of the DPHHS, which would make recommendations for tobacco use prevention programs and be administratively run by the DPHHS. Furthermore, I-146 specified that the Department of Public Health would manage the tobacco prevention program.The health organizations in the AHM brought the initiative forward because they believed they had wide public support for using more MSA money for tobacco prevention efforts. As early as May 2001, a poll of 625 registered voters conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research of Washington, D.C for Lee Newspapers of Montana showed that 79% opposed the Governor’s recommended cuts of tobacco use prevention programs.Kristin Page Nei of the American Cancer Society stated, “[w]e think most Montanans want the settlement money to be spent for its intended purpose, so we’re taking the issue directly to the people of Montana.” In a 2005 interview, Dick Paulsen of the American Lung Association explained that the idea for I- 149 came from the wide public support seen by the health groups: “…the larger group [the Alliance for a HealthyMontana] had decided that because we did some polling, we found that Montana is aware on this issue and felt that we could win this on a ballot. And so with that, we went to work – all the work that it takes to get a ballot initiative put together and passed and it was hugely successful.”Gov. Martz’ administration criticized I-146, claiming that it would take money from other government programs and limit the administration’s flexibility to allocate money within a constrained budget. Chuck Swysgood, Budget Director for the Governor, stated that I-149 was “a detriment to our ability to address all the needs of government services.”Swysgood, like Gov. Martz, was personally communicating with R.J.
Reynolds lobbyist Jerome Anderson, as evidenced by a May 15, 2001 letter from Lynn Huthens, an administrative assistant in the R.J. Reynolds Public Issues Department, to Jerome Anderson, Montana lobbyist for R.J. Reynolds. The letter asks Anderson to review lobbying expenses on an attached report, and describes a “[d]inner with Chuck Swysgood , Jerome and Rita Anderson… and Mark Staples ..,” which occurred at the Green Meadows Country Club in Helena, Montana.Gov. Martz, in a March 8, 2002 opinion letter to the Helena Independent Record, reiterated that the state was not financially able to recommend that the Legislature give more funding to the MTUPP, but made a commitment to “give careful consideration to the funding level of tobacco use prevention.”On February 20, 2003, a serious threat to the voter approved allocation of MSA funds presented itself in the form of Senate Bill 451. Sen. John Esp wanted voters to take another look at a earmarking the state’s tobacco settlement money, and told the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee at a February 25, 2003 hearing that voters didn’t have enough information at their disposal when they approved I-146 by a 65% to 35% margin. He proposed a measure for the November 2004 ballot that would let the next Legislature spend some of the tobacco prevention money on mental health programs.Under the proposed referendum, the 32% of MSA money dedicated to the tobacco settlement account could be used for “programs to help adults with a sever mental illness… who want to quit tobacco use and to treat their illness.”At the hearing before the Senate Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Safety on February 24, 2003, testimony against SB 451 was given by representatives from several health groups and individuals. The arguments from opponents emphasized the toll of tobacco on Montanans, the high cost of health care resulting from tobacco related illness,farming cannabis the effectiveness of tobacco use prevention programs, and the popularity of I-146. Former Attorney General Joe Mazurek, representing ProtectMontanaKids.org, commented, “Before the ink is dry on that initiative, here you are looking at changing it.”
Mazurek also noted that voters were perfectly aware that the state was in the middle of a budget crisis when they approved I-146 and took control of the settlement money away from the legislature.Mazurek further added that, while he recognized those with serious mental problems had problems with tobacco addiction, it did not make sense to fund the entire mental health system with tobacco settlement proceeds.Only one person gave public testimony in support of SB 451 at the February 24, 2003 hearing, which was joined by testimony from the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Esp. Dr. Gary Mihelish, President of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, spoke about the extremely high rate of smoking addiction among the mentally ill, and said the money could best be used by preventing people with mental illness from developing tobacco addictions.Sen. Esp argued that many states with budget deficits had rerouted some of the tobacco settlement money, and that voters didn’t have enough options when they voted to earmark the settlement money. “I’m not asking us to overturn what the voters did,” and that, “this gives them a chance to look at it, and another way to use it.”Sen. Esp also said the deficit was forcing harsh cuts in programs for the mentally ill, including a plan to slash money for medication, while the anti-tobacco program was ballooning into a state bureaucracy. Esp further argued that “the voters would have looked at it a little differently if they had known the way things were going.”SB 451 was approved by the Senate Committee by a 5 to 1 vote. On February 27, 2003 senators preliminarily endorsed SB 451 by a vote of 27-23, just four months after voters approved the initiative dedicating $14 million to programs aimed at preventing tobacco use. SB 451 was now set for a final Senate vote. Sen. John Bohlinger supported the bill, and said he believed voters would have wanted to use some of the tobacco settlement payment for this purpose had they realized that such programs would have to go without money.Other senators, however, thought that lawmakers should not be questioning the wisdom of Montana voters in passing the initiative. Sen.
Emily Stonington , who in the previous month proposed reallocating MSA funds to health care programs because she believed they would eventually be raided anyway, said the proposed change in the law isn’t needed because advocates for tobacco-prevention efforts may be willing to support diverting the money for two years, and that “to go out and say, ‘Gee voters, you don’t know what you’re talking about,’ flies in the face of the initiative process.”When word spread that opponents to SB 451 might be willing to accept a two-year diversion of MSA money, SB 451 sponsor, Sen. Esp, asked that his bill be returned to the Senate Finance and Claims Committee. On February 28, 2003, the day after giving tentative approval to SB 451, the state Senate voted 30-20 to send the measure back to the Senate Finance and Claims Committee for more work. Senator Esp decided the bill could be reworked after hearing in the previous day’s debate that prevention advocates would be willing to negotiate where settlement money is spent.Once SB 451 was put on hold, both supporters of SB 451 and tobacco control advocates seemed willing to negotiate to find some compromise. Sen. Esp stated “I want to negotiate something the tobacco prevention people can live with for a few years,” and told reporters that the Senate sent the bill back to committee in deference to the tobacco prevention groups.Tobacco prevention advocates appeared glad that the senate had delayed SB 451 in order to pursue further negotiations. Joe Mazurek stated that, “we’re pleased they sent it back,” and that, “we do want to work with the Legislature on these issues.”However, no compromise was met on SB 451, which would be approved unchanged by the Senate Finance and Claims Committee, 12 to 7, on March 26, 2003, and then approved by the full Senate 35 to 14 on March 29, 2003.After being approved by the full Senate, SB 451 was transmitted to the House, where a hearing was held before the House Appropriations Committee on April 2, 2003. At the hearing, several representatives from health groups and health advocates again spoke against SB 451, while no supporting testimony was offered. Joe Mazurek testified to the committee that the bill’s changes were not temporary , but rather made permanent changes in the allocation of the MSA funds. Mazurek further stated that, under I-146, money for cessation would already be available to assist the mentally ill who wanted to stop smoking, and that the only real effect of SB 451 would be to limit the funds for statewide tobacco prevention efforts.The House Appropriations Committee tabled SB 451, thus killing it, on April 7, 2003.The strong efforts to reallocate the MSA funds away from tobacco prevention led Rep. Christine Kaufman to sponsor House Bill 756, introduced on March 19, 2003. On March 25, 2003, a hearing was held before the House Appropriations Committee, where 15 health advocates gave supporting testimony. Among the testifying proponents, Joe Mazurek, representing PMK, noted that “[s]ince the legislature has convened, most of the major newspapers have continued to endorse the notion that we need to fully fund the tobacco prevention program and it ought to be implemented as the voters have indicated.”Chris Devany, also representing PMK, handed out to committee members a chart that compared the Tobacco Use Prevention Program in past years to the projected programs if I-146 were to be fully implemented. Only one person gave opposing testimony to HB 756 at the House Committee hearing.