Competing initiatives: a new tobacco industry strategy to oppose statewide clean indoor air ballot measures

Abstract

To describe how the tobacco and gaming industries opposed clean indoor air voter initiatives in 2006, we analyzed media records and government and other publicly available documents and conducted interviews with knowledgeable individuals. In an attempt to avoid strict "smoke free" regulations pursued by health groups via voter initiatives in Arizona, Ohio, and Nevada, in 2006, the tobacco and gaming industries sponsored competing voter initiatives for alternative laws. Health groups succeeded in defeating the pro-tobacco competing initiatives because they were able to dispel confusion and create a head-to-head competition by associating each campaign with its respective backer and instructing voters to vote "no" on the pro-tobacco initiative in addition to voting "yes" on the health group initiative.

FIGURE 1

Advertisements in the 2006 campaign for competing antismoking initiatives from (a) the Ohio health group campaign (“Who Do You Support?”), (b) the Arizona pro-tobacco campaign (“How Ridiculous is Prop 201?”), (c) the Arizona health group campaign (RealvsFakeBan.com”), (d) the Arizona pro-tobacco campaign (“Yes on 206”), (e) the Nevada health group campaign (“The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act”), and (f) the Nevada pro-tobacco campaign (“Yes on 4”).

FIGURE 2

Polling and election results for competing antismoking initiatives in (a) Arizona, (b) Nevada, and (c) Ohio in 2006. Note. Health group campaigns are represented by solid lines and pro-tobacco campaigns by dotted lines. Polls in September 2006 showed the competing initiatives in all 3 states passing. As the campaigns progressed, support for the health group campaigns stayed consistent while support for the pro-tobacco campaigns eroded. Source. For Arizona data, see references 39–42; for Nevada data, see references 42–45; for Ohio data, see references 46–50.