Fervor fuels the courage of anti-smoking group D.J. Tice St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial writer March 27, 2002 "It is quite true that Americans value democracy," wrote Englishman G.K. Chesterton in 1923. "It is quite false," he added, "that they value liberty. "Whole sects and societies [of Americans] would treat tobacco not merely as a poison but as a sort of infernal drug invented by demons. All the American virtues and vices mingle in this national instinct for persecution. It has the democratic spirit, in the spontaneous movement of the masses. It has the optimistic spirit, in the facile faith in the result of a new law or regulation. But to say that it has the spirit of individual liberty is claptrap." Eight decades later, a society called the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco is vividly exhibiting this American "instinct for persecution." The instinct continues to be mingled with virtues--defiant courage, say, and moral zeal. MPAAT was created as a private, nonprofit organization in the 1998 settlement of Minnesota's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry. It was granted some $200 million out the state's settlement to combat the harms of smoking. In recent months, the group has come under increasing criticism for two things complained of in this column since MPAAT's founding: (1) an organizational structure, devised by anti-smoking activists, that results in MPAAT grants routinely being given to organizations with which MPAAT board members are affiliated, and (2) the group's increasing focus on funding efforts to impose legal restrictions on smoking, as opposed to helping willing smokers quit. Last week, the MPAAT board announced that it has considered these criticisms and has decided to continue backing smoking bans in bars, restaurants and elsewhere, although it will somewhat limit its funding of direct political "advocacy." No fundamental change in the group's governing structure is planned. MPAAT's determination to stay its course is rather remarkable, if only because it puts the group at odds with Attorney General Mike Hatch--a critic who strikes fear in fainter hearts (which is to say, most hearts). Hatch has voiced concerns about MPAAT's structure and mission ever since he succeeded former Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III, who pressed the tobacco suit and created the group. Hatch has called on MPAAT to "get out of the political business" and is now expressing disappointment with the group's response. As he often does, Hatch is demonstrating his displeasure by demanding disclosure of voluminous documents--in this case, records concerning MPAAT grants. In a court hearing scheduled for May, a Ramsey County judge will be asked to decide whether MPAAT's current activities are properly fulfilling the court order that created the organization. I have on other occasions questioned Hatch's expansive view of his office's powers, but the attorney general's responsibility for regulating charities is clear. In any case, a number of formidable entities--insurers, banks, etc.--have retreated in the face of a Hatch offensive. But not MPAAT's leaders, fired as they are by moral certitude. And it's not just Hatch who has concerns. Last week, two MPAAT board members resigned, expressing dissatisfaction with the group's pattern of making grants to board members' organizations. One of the resigning directors was Sandra Gardebring, who says the "appearance" of conflicts of interest at MPAAT is "overwhelming." Hardly a lightweight, Gardebring is a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice and currently vice president for institutional relations at the University of Minnesota. (University entities, by the way, have been frequent recipients of MPAAT funding.) One simply gets the feeling that MPAAT's leaders are so sure of the ultimate justice of their crusade, they cannot entertain the possibility that their methods might be unjust. MPAAT leaders explain, with an almost touching sincerity, that smoking restrictions are for smokers' own good--that bans are simply an excellent tool to help smokers decide to quit. They define political "advocacy" in a narrow, legalistic fashion--direct lobbying or electioneering, only--and describe elaborate campaigns to build public support for restrictions as "education" or "research" efforts. Among MPAAT's recent grants along these lines are: • $212,126 to "investigate" smoking bans in parks and other outdoor locations. • Two grants, totaling more than $375,000, to measure and change attitudes about tobacco and "secondhand smoke" in the gay community. • Three grants, totaling more than $1 million, to study and influence attitudes about tobacco and "secondhand smoke" among young adults. • $298,000 to a weekly newspaper to promote "smoke-free" events at Twin Cities bars. • $283,000 to fund "public art" and other efforts to promote no-smoking policies in homes and public places in a Minneapolis neighborhood. All this and more has been approved even as MPAAT has postponed action on another $1.3 million in grants that are considered actual "advocacy." To the average person, an awful lot of what MPAAT is doing might look like wooing constituencies and building networks, linking them with the powerful adhesive of dollars, while preaching far and wide the benefits of smoking restrictions. In short, it might look like political activism. Whatever its virtues, it has little to do with liberty. Copyright © 2002 FORCES Duluth. All rights reserved.