I should be receiving a massive salary from Greenpeace and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. But let me explain.
Volokh.com notes that the American Cancer Society accuses a Cato Institute expert of opposing tobacco regulation in part because he has received money from the tobacco company Altria (Philip Morris) but the American Cancer Society overlooks the fact that Altria vocally favors FDA regulations, since they make Altria the de facto industry standard for cigarettes, making it harder for Altria's competitors to comply with regulations.
But to predict the Cato Institute's position on any issue, it would probably be wiser to look at their very explicit, very clear ideology libertarianism than to track the myriad pet causes of their funders. Libertarians oppose regulation, so...Cato opposes tobacco regulation. This is not a surprise.
Blaming their view on Altria is just one demonstration of the shortcomings of the pervasive post-Watergate impulse to follow the money. Following the money began as a means of solving real-life mysteries and uncovering hidden agendas but has turned into pundits' all-purpose substitute for grappling with people's arguments. Sometimes, when desperate pundits, particularly left-wing activists, can't find a sinister money trail, they will resort to simply pointing to their enemies paying themselves, as in the case of a recent article that lamented the funding of conservative magazines by...conservative foundations! I guess that's a conspiracy, sort of. (Well, it'll have to do. After all, unless you can show some money changing hands somewhere, how can you possibly formulate an argument?)
If you use the follow-the-money analysis to the exclusion of all other explanations, you must be left thinking Cato isn't very adept at serving its corporate masters. First, Cato differs with Altria on the desirability of tobacco regs. Next, it appears to be passing up an opportunity to please the notoriously wealthy fat cats of the pharmaceutical industry. After all, the pharmaceutical industry currently faces the specter of price-controlled (and thus cheap although sometimes counterfeit) drugs being imported from other countries. Surely, if Cato just wanted to please industry and stick to their libertarian ideology while they're at it they could easily make a case for the drug imports being a bad idea, indeed for importation being the de facto imposition of foreign price controls on the domestic pharmaceutical trade. That is, in fact, our view here at ACSH. We disagree with Cato's actual position on the matter which is that importation should be allowed while the eventual repeal of other countries' price controls is pursued. We think complex trade agreements make the repeal of the price controls unlikely and don't want them extended to the U.S., imperiling pharmaceutical profits and the research those profits fuel but we like the fact that Cato seems to have reasoned to its conclusion from principles. They see a ban on imports as simply an additional restraint on trade. That's an oversimplification of the price control mess, but reasonable people can disagree on the issue, and we don't rush to accuse Cato of being bribed by drug importers, Canadians, or cash-strapped senior citizens.
Similarly, ACSH periodically faces accusations from people like the food-scaremongers at the Center for Science in the Public Interest of being a tool of industry rather than a proponent of sound science. A few lines of defense against this argument are possible:
(1) Why do we pass up all the dollars that apparently could be had if we were willing to defend, for example, cigarette manufacturers? For that matter, makers of vitamin supplements and organic food have billions of dollars why do we pass up that loot? Could it be because we know the science isn't on their side? And by criticizing them, we don't just miss out on the chance to make new friends in unsavory industries we also alienate some people who might seem our natural ideological allies, such as some of the folks at the aforementioned conservative foundations and libertarian thinktanks, who may worry that by condemning the health effects of smoking or side effects of supplements, we appear too pro-regulation.
(2) Most of the people working at ACSH have shown their willingness to keep repeating our message about sound science and the need to avoid regulating, suing, or scaring people over trivial or non-existent risks (such as cancer from pesticide residues on vegetables, the main fear that underwrites the organic food industry) regardless of how or whether we're being paid. ACSH founder and president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's views on the insignificance of environmental chemical exposure were formed some three decades ago while she was studying epidemiology, before ACSH even existed, and despite the impression to the contrary given by the media, there has been no sea change in the thinking of serious epidemiologists or toxicologists since then environmental chemical exposure is still not seen as a likely cause of cancer. I've only been at ACSH for two years, but if intrepid money-followers dig into my background, they'll find that I've basically been espousing the importance of scientific evidence and the need to avoid paranoia and superstition since roughly the age of fourteen, when I first started reading superstition-debunking articles in Skeptical Inquirer magazine and, sadly, no one was paying me to read Skeptical Inquirer (nor do I know who funds them the powerful anti-Bigfoot lobby, perhaps?).
(3) Since actions speak louder than words, though, I've come up with a great way for doubters to test my integrity and ACSH's. If you disagree with our positions and believe they are dictated even subconsciously by a portion of our donations coming from industry, and thus believe we're malleable and corruptible, why not try giving us a massive donation and seeing if we change our tune? Come on, Greenpeace, you've got many millions donate to ACSH and let's see if we suddenly start sharing your doubts about the safety of biotech. Center for Science in the Public Interest, want me to vomit up a retraction of my past defense of Quorn, the meat-substitute that you find so frightening? Send a few hundred thousand my way and we'll find out if I see things differently. I will file your check next to a money-filled letter from the organic food industry asking me to condemn evil synthetic pesticides. Either you think I'm corruptible and logically ought to send me some cash to get your message out...or else you know as well as I do that ACSH's views are dictated by science, not public relations contracts.
I suspect that if you're part of one of the groups who hate us your check is not in the mail, and thus unfortunately ACSH won't be buying a snazzier office space just yet. But I thank you for your faith in my integrity, and in ACSH's.
Movie note: On another cigarettes-and-money note, the documentary BRIGHT LEAVES will open in New York City on August 25th at Film Forum, describing the director's lifelong mix of guilt and envy for coming from a family one of whose branches has gotten very wealthy growing tobacco.