Master Settlement Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Info icon This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers.
Please improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. This article has been tagged since March 2007.
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
This section lacks information on the importance of the subject matter.
Please help improve this article by providing context for a general audience, especially in the lead section. This article has been tagged since February 2007. (help, talk)

The Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA") is a settlement agreement originally negotiated between the four largest tobacco companies and 46 U.S. States and 6 U.S. Territories. The original legal actions brought by the States addressed the potential liability of the tobacco industry for costs incurred by the States to pay for smoking-related diseases of their inhabitants through Medicare. The MSA ultimately exempted the companies from tort liability from state governments in exchange for a combination of yearly settlement payments to the states and voluntary restrictions on advertising and marketing of tobacco products. The MSA also created and currently funds The American Legacy Foundation, an anti-smoking advocacy group that is responsible for such campaigns as The Truth. The agreement is meant to provide state governments with compensation for smoking related medical costs and to help reduce smoking in the United States. There is no limit to the yearly settlement payments; they are perpetual.

The MSA was originally signed in November, 1998 by the four largest tobacco companies, Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and Lorillard Tobacco Company. The agreement was later joined by over 40 other tobacco companies. Every U.S. State and 6 U.S. Territories signed the agreement. Florida, Minnesota, Texas and Mississippi had already reached individual agreements with the tobacco industry.

Some anti-smoking advocates, such as William Godshall, have criticized the MSA as being too lenient on the major tobacco companies. In a speech at the National Tobacco Control Conference, Godshall made claims that "[W]ith unprecedented future legal protection granted by the state A.G.'s in exchange for money, it appears that the tobacco industry has emerged from the state lawsuits even more powerful."[1]

An article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute described the MSA as an "opportunity lost to curb cigarette use", citing public health researchers' views that not enough of the MSA money was being spent on anti-smoking measures.[2] Dr. Stephen A. Schroeder wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that "Although U.S. smoking rates are slowly declining, progress toward that end [decreasing smoking] would be faster if federal policymaking matched both the rigor of the scientific evidence against tobacco use and the resolve of antitobacco advocates."[3] Cigarette consumption in the United States fell to a 50 year low in 2004.

Another criticism is the alleged favoritism shown to the major tobacco companies over smaller independent tobacco growers and sellers. Proponents of this argument claim that certain restrictions on pricing make it more difficult for small growers to compete with "Big Tobacco". 12 states have successfully fought against this argument in court during the last two years and the enforcement of the MSA continues throughout the United States in perpetuity.

The MSA was the largest civil settlement in United States history.[4]

Contents

[edit] Criticism of the MSA by Free Market Think Tanks

Fellows within the Cato Institute, such as Robert Levy, assert that the lawsuit that brought on the Tobacco settlement was instigated by a need to make beneficiary payments to Medicare recipients. Following the passage of laws that eliminated the tobacco companies' ability to provide evidence in court for their defense, the tobacco companies were forced to settle. The big four tobacco companies agreed to pay the state governments several billion dollars but the government in turn was to protect the big four tobacco companies from competition. The Master Settlement Agreement, they argue, created an unconstitutional cartel arrangement that benefited both the government and big tobacco.[5][6]

Robert Levy states,

"For 40 years, tobacco companies had not been held liable for cigarette-related illnesses. Then, beginning in 1994, led by Florida, states across the country sued big tobacco to recover public outlays for medical expenses due to smoking. By changing the law to guarantee they would win in court, the states extorted a quarter-trillion-dollar settlement, which was passed along in higher cigarette prices. Basically, the tobacco companies had money; the states and their hired-gun attorneys wanted money; so the companies paid and the states collected. Then sick smokers got stuck with the bill."[7]

[edit] See also

[edit] External link

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Giving 10% to gain eternity, Tobacco Control 1999;8:437-439 (Winter)
  2. ^ Renee Twombly, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 96, No. 10, 730-732, May 19, 2004 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/96.10.730 [1]
  3. ^ Steven A. Schroeder, M.D., Tobacco Control in the Wake of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, New England Journal of Medicine, January 15, 2004.
  4. ^ Milo Geyelin. "Forty-Six States Agree to Accept $206 Billion Tobacco Settlement", Wall Street Journal, November 23, 1998.
  5. ^ http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa371.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.reason.com/news/show/27558.html
  7. ^ http://www.cato.org/speakers/levy.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Master_Settlement_Agreement_3e25.html"