Is Smoke Free Indy Playing with Fire?
Unless you’ve been living in a cave or under a rock you know I am not a big fan of expanding the current Indianapolis smoking ban because, like 81-percent of the rest of Marion County, I think the current compromise works just fine. Adults can exercise their choice and decide whether they want to work or patronize one of the one-percent of the places in Marion County that allow smoking. So with that said, allow me to ask what’s up with Smoke Free Indy (SFIndy), the main proponents of the smoking ban.
I ask this because SFIndy is getting up to $71,000 of your money for its activities, which lately have started to look a lot more like politically attacking elected officials and going after political parties rather advocating a smoke free workplace. Allow me to explain.
First of all, SFIndy is not your usual advocacy group. It’s not a not-for-profit, nor a registered lobbying group. It’s not even a 527. It’s a collection of about 30 organizations who are registered somewhere, but SFIndy itself isn’t. So first of all we have an organization that’s not registered anywhere getting up to $71,000 of taxpayer money.
Second, the $71,000 in taxpayer money comes from Indiana tobacco settlement dollars. Pay close attention, because this part can get confusing. Indiana dolls out tobacco settlement dollars and one of those agencies that distribute money is Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation. Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation gives money to the Marion County Health Department. The Marion County Health Department gives money to the Indiana Academy of Family Physicians and Clarian Health Partners. Clarian has a contract to promote anti-tobacco activities, but the Indiana Academy of Family Physicians is the home office for the non-registered SFIndy on Monument Circle and employs SFIndy’s staff. The Academy of Family Physicians contract runs through September 2010.
So what, you might say. There are lots of groups that aren’t “registered” with any state, federal or local office and engage in community activism. True . But how many of those unregistered groups are getting up to $71,000 of your money to lobby your government to promote ending an activity that a significant majority of you don’t think is a problem? Exactly!
And to make life even more interesting, It appears SFIndy has been engaging in activities that some people might think would warrant a look by the Marion County Prosecutor’s office or at the least the State Board of Accounts to make sure they’re kosher. There’s this rule that government funds can’t be used for political purposes, especially when it comes to politically attacking elected officials and political parties.
By my count SFIndy looks like it’s done both. SFIndy used its Facebook page to go after Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard on the smoking ban; some of which I’ve seen could have been written by Ed Treacy. And SFIndy used its blog page to do a pretty blatant political attack on the Libertarian Party of Indiana. And Lord only knows what they’re doing on Twitter. No offense folks, but I thought SFIndy was supposed to engage in advocacy not political activity. And what’s really interesting is that all of sudden the questionable material started to disappear when I started making phone calls asking for copies of invoices SFIndy has submitted to local governments for reimbursement. And if I was one of those 30 organizations that received federal funding, SFIndy’s activities might be jeopardizing my status because the federal government doesn’t like it when organizations get federal funds which could be channeled to political activity no matter how remote the connection may appear to be; that little thing called the Hatch Act.
For the record, I did place a call to the Indiana Academy of Family Physicians. So far my message has not been returned.
Now if SFIndy wants to use taxpayer money to promote a smoke-free workplace, that’s one thing. I have no problem with education, encouraging bar owners to go smoke free, doing job boards that promote smoke free workplaces, etc. But when you cross the line and engage in what look like pretty blatant political attacks on elected officials and political parties, that’s something else. In some places it’s called criminal. At the very least here in Indianapolis, it should be called highly suspect and warrant an investigation.
Smoke Free Indy Organizational Partners
November 12th, 2009 at 7:03 am
I was trying to double check Smoke Free's status with the Secretary of State's Office but the section I need is down right now. I'll take you at your word that they're not showing up as a non-profit with the SOS.
Not every business entity has to be registered with the SOS. But every Corp. and LLC does. To be a non-profit, Smoke Free would have to registered with the SOS.
My guess is Smoke Free Indy is an offshoot of a national group, that may very well be a nonprofit corp. If so, they need to be filing a dba with the SOS if they are going to do business in Indiana as “Smoke Free Indy.” Business entities are very sloppy about doing this though and there is not much in the way of penalties when they don't.
Usually the receipient of grants of the sort you mention are non-profits. You would think the government would more closely check the background of the groups they give our money to and how that money is used, but they don't.
If Smoke Free is not a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, or part of a non-profit corp, then there is no problem with them engaging in political activity. Rather the tax problem will be that the money the group is receiving is going to be income to someone, maybe the founder of Smoke Free Indy.
If Smoke Free Indy is part of a national non-profit corp, then the fact they haven't identified their organization as such could be a red flag for the IRS. Regardless it is not clear whether their political activities would exceed what is allowed by a 501(c)(3) or even a 501(c)(4).
Personally I think the whole thing stinks. It is ridiculous for some group to take our tax dollars and engage in political activity with that money. That's reason alone to pull the plug on Smoke Free Indy seeing another dime of our taxes.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Stay tuned…they'll be in your home next.
Well, more accurately, they will try to get government employees into your home — the bottom-feeders at SFI don't have the guts to get in your face about this.
Got anyone in your PRIVATE HOME that doesn't smoke? Look for laws against this, coming soon.
Live in an apartment? Look for laws banning smoking in your apartment. After all, that evil smoke might penetrate the walls, and outright KILL non-smokers who might get a whiff of the evil smoke.
I'm still wondering where government will tax us to make up what they are losing in tobacco tax revenue. I propose that the SMI folks, and their supporters, pay for this 'shortfall' in tax revenue.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Non-profit status what?!?!?!?! Abbie Abbie Abbie. Non profit status means nothing whether you support a political candidate (or position) or not. Case in point, most (if not all) religious institutions. Read Time Magazine recent article regarding the Catholic Church. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,...). Church officials withholding sacraments because you don't vote a certain way, the churchs way. Better yet, former Indy think tank the Hudson Institute. 501c3, yeah right. There position (and money) has been and continues to this day to be conservative and actively supporting conservate/GOP functions. Remember, Hudson gave a convicted felon Libby Scooter a job for VP Dick Cheney. In fact most Unions (AFL-CIO for example) is non-profit, however, provide financial support for political candidates. And yes, tax-exemption is a form of federal monies (benefit) Frankly, the Hatch Act that you speak so highly of is a joke.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:21 am
I understand your opposition to further smoking bans, Abdul. Respect it. Disagree with it. So be it.
But I understood this group's money came in large part from the tobacco companies' settlement with the government. If that's the case, “the government” acts as only a transfer agent of the funds, to groups or organizations, hospitals, etc., who apply and are awarded funds. Or orgs which meet the criteria of the settlement agreement.
Can someone clarify the source of these funds? I don't think they're “taxpayer” in the strictest sense. I could be wrong.
As for the Ballard attack, let him carry his own water to the buffet, where he's obviously been spending a lot of time. He promised voters in 2007 he'd support a smoking ban. I was at a neighborhood meeting where those exact words came out of his mouth. He has since changed his mind–he's entitled, and he may even be right. The real problem is, he was a free-wheeling candidate, whom nobody expected to win. He said a lot of things I bet he wished he hadn't said. A real political trickbag.
But when a candidate flips like this, on such an emotional issue, he needs to put on his big boy pants and doesn't need Abdul or anyone else to explain things for him. Opposition groups of all kinds, on all issues, resort to more hardball than this cheesy attack on the mayor.
My objection to his change-of-heart, was the backroom manner in which he did it at the last minute. A real low-rent political hardball game. I'm told the GOP caucus had four or five more votes for this ban, but he did a closed-door caucus threat. It was some sort of “VFW guy can't smoke at his post.” “I'm not gonna tell an Iraqi war vet he can't smoke a cig at the VFW.”
I really hoped this guy wasn't a part of that knuckleball politics. This issue gained him some street cred in the medical and professional community, and now, for whatever reason, good or bad, he's flipped.
He has further cemented his political future with this move. And at least one GOP council member has told friends (s)he was out on a limb supporting the ban, but had to back off…and there's very hard feelings for the last-minute rug-pull.
He burned a veto card on this stupid issue. Mayors don't get many of those in an entire term.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:27 am
TA,
Are you sure the Mayor didn't say he would support a smoking ban, assuming it would come with obvious exceptions such as for cigar bars, etc. The problem is these Smoke Free people are such zealots – they won't agree to any sort of compromise. Of course we already have a compromise in place that is working quite well.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say the Mayor had gotten creditibility in the professional community by his position on the ban. So you think only blue collar working types are against the ban? I don't know what professional community you're hanging around, but the one I'm in, most are happy with the law in place now.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Actually, although the line is very gray, you can lose the tax deductible status of contributions given to a non-profit 501(c)(3) if they engage in political activity on behalf of a candidate. As long as you support a particular idea and don't get into opposing or supporting particular candidates, you're probably okay. It can be a very gray are athough.
FYI, I am Catholic and I've never know the Church to withold “sacraments” because a person did not “vote” the right way. You're exaggerating.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Didn't mean to be an elitist with my comment, and after I read it, I realized it could've come off that way, Paul.
I know many doctors and researchers at Lilly and IU Hospital. Most are moderates, a few wild-eyed libs. Ballard gained tremendous cred in that community with his smoking ban stance.
Many in this community were disenchanted with Peterson and were looking for an alternative, but a few weeks out, it was Bart's to lose, and he did. Nobody had heard of this Marine who was running for mayor. And almost no one gave him a chance in hell.
And no, Ballard didn't mean the current compromise. He said a full ban.
Doesn't it bother you Paul, as a process issue, that the Mayor called his GOP council caucus into a room and flipped, and demanded their lock-step endorsement of the flip? One of the stupider political moves I've seen in recent years…ranks up there with Peterson's complete and total locked palace doors, and his failure to react quickly to Monroe Gray's nonsense.
The current compromise is better than we had, but I'm for a total ban in all public places, like many large urban areas, and entire states, like California. One of the few things I admire about the west coast. Their law has been in place since 1979, and I've posted this here many times, but it's true: their lungs are healthier as a result. That directly translates to lower health care costs and actuarial savings galore.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Welcome to the club of aggravation! This isn't the first “public health organization” to do this. It's only the first time these organizations are being called onto the carpet.
Here is another enlightening fact for your post: http://www.in.gov/itpc/files/research_264.pdf Page 107 and on are what you will be most interested in. This report is from 2004-2005, but it will certainly give you a wonderful overview of where the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Agency get's their financing and to whom it is dispersed throughout the state. Considering that they to their own admission are “The Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Agency is part of the executive branch of government”, well all of your assertions are absolutely correct. (You will also notice on page 121 SmokeFree Indy is listed as a “Community-based Tobacco Control Coalition” who received “community funding”.
Aside from taxpayer dollars being used to fund political agenda, look at some of the other businesses who are behind this push for the anti-smoking agenda. Pfizer, for instance, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the United States, funds many of these groups and also makes HEALTHY donations to our political figures. http://www.smokershistory.com/IndSmoke.html
Now, why would they do this? Because they want to corner the nicotine market and push everyone to buy their nicotine replacement products like the gum, the patch, the nasal sprays, the nicotine inhaler, and even the suicidal Chantix, which have been proven time and time again that they do not work.
This smoke free ordinance has NOTHING to do with public health. If it did, there wouldn't be an amendment allowing smoking in certain establishments. There also wouldn't be a free pass for a combustion product like incense, which has been studied and proven to contain the same harmful by-products of second hand smoke as tobacco cigarettes! There also would not be the inclusion of a product that doesn't produce any second hand smoke whatsoever, but only carries the appearance of smoking.
Yes. SmokeFree Indy has included the electronic cigarette in their current ordinance. All of the councilors were given scientific data to help them exclude this personal fog machine from the ordinance and from the three responses we were given, they openly admitted that they didn't even know what it was! Wait? You are going to vote to ban something and you don't know what it is?
I spend HOURS a day researching these “companies” like SmokeFree Indy and yes, you are definitely on the right track. These organizations are so far removed from the best interest of the public at this point, it is painful. This has to do with MONEY and nothing else.
The bottom line is that smoking is not healthy for the user nor those around the user. We all know this. This is scientifically backed by years and years of studies, both fraudulent studies and wholesome studies. We all know that the same can be said about alcohol consumption, sexual intercourse and other adult activities. We also know that in the right places, these adult activities are legal, should be allowed, and participation in such activities can actually be safER to bystanders who do not wish to participate.
Banning smoking on the open streets and playgrounds and in cars with children, I can certainly get behind those types of bans. Those ARE in the best interest of public health and it certainly does not disrupt the small business owners rights to offer the establishment they so choose to offer their patrons, who make the decision to frequent such an establishment or not.
It's time these “public health organizations” be called out for who they really are… and I for one, found your post truthful, enlightening and one that EVERYONE should read. Feel free to contact me for more!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Political leaders in the executive offices do this, whether Ballard, Peterson, or Obama with his Congressional House caucus and health care. Did you oppose Obama's 'little chat' with the House Dems prior to the health care vote, also?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:06 am
I think, as Paul said, SFI status needs to be clearly defined. He is right that non-profits can engage in political and social movements, as long as they don't engage in partisan politics, as in supporting a specific candidate and/or party.
If a pro-life group promotes their beliefs, that's fine. If a pro-life group acts as an arm of the GOP to slam Democrats, that is bad.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:03 am
The Indianapolis Star News reports: “According to city code, an ordinance has to go on the agenda at the next meeting if the initial vote on it is indecisive — an issue that was overlooked by Republican Bob Cockrum, the council president, and council attorney Bob Elrod.” http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A... “Against overturning the tabling vote: Republicans Virginia Cain, Jeff Cardwell, Bob Cockrum, Susie Day, Bob Lutz, Janice McHenry, Mike McQuillen, Marilyn Pfisterer, Lincoln Plowman, Christine Scales, Mike Speedy; Libertarian Ed Coleman.”
On a 16-12 vote, the council voted to correct its code violation, but that leaves the above 12 who voted against it as individuals who feel they are above city code and have no wish to correct themselves. Whether the smoking ban itself passes or fails on its own merits is another issue, the fact remains that the issue should have followed the city code to be reinstated on the agenda and 100% of the Council should have been intellectually honest to recognize their violation. Where are the members who honor principle, procedure, fairness, the rule of law, and does anyone take their oath seriously?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Gosh, why is not the anti-patriot demanding rule of law from smoke free indy?
November 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
For those who say “it can't happen here”, you must realize that a well funded “war on smokers” is underway. Here's where it started:
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the “inside -out”, provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. You may need to CTRL and scoll to enlarge it.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf
Here's the “model ban” from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the “smoking ban for dummies” It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community. As you can see. compromises are absolutly not acceptable.
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229
November 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
They're already in your home in some places. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1M9ENyWXIA
November 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
If Ballard truly broke a campaign promise then I would agree TA. I figured he just wanted some narrow exceptions that the smoking zealots wouldn't go along with.
But if you want to talk broken Ballard campaign promises, the smoking ban would rank about 99th. 1-98 involves his selling out reform-minded Republicans. So maybe he's just trying to even the score…sell out people on the other side of the political fence.
FYI, I didn't take your comment as “elitist.” I just thought maybe you believed professional people were all on board on this total ban.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I heard today of a school ban somewhere on chocolate milk. San Francisco wants (or has) an added tax on 'unhealthy' soft drinks.
That's where this stuff leads. First one, then another, then another. While it's true we already have a smoking ban, that's not reason enough for me to want a more restrictive one to replace it. I would rather they not have the current one, actually.
And as I always note, I am a lifelong non-smoker who thinks it is a vile, nasty habit. I just think my government delving into such areas is even MORE vile and nasty. I simply have the smarts to not go where I know there is smoking. Simple really. And it works so well.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Let Ballard veto this. The public wants it. If Ballard vetoes it then he will have yet another nail in his political coffin.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
The money to keep paying them, keep them in the spotlight, make them feel important about themselves only keeps flowing so long as the task is not complete.
Unfortunately, there is rarely very much money in opposing the advance of tyranny.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:05 am
When even the anon comments aren't echoing MCDP/Indianapolis Times, then I somehow doubt it's something the public wants.
http://indianapolistimesblog.blogspot.com/2009/...
November 13th, 2009 at 3:15 am
GP38, you asked, and here's the logic:
Yes, I supported the President's bullying of House Dems last week. Because Obama campaigned on a platform of national health care. Using a tax on the richest 2% to help fund it. The House bill last week lowers that to the top 1.35-1.55%.
Anyone who didn't realize he'd use his political muscle to wrestle this huge problem to the ground, is dumber than dirt. He's following through. No surprises.
Yeah, Paul, I did hear Ballard make a promise to support the smoking ban. Nobody in the whole damned room thought he'd win, and I sure didn't base my mayoral vote on that answer. But he said it. And then, at the 11th hour, he works the phones in his own council caucus, and threatens a veto. There were a few votes in that caucus for the ban.
767. The number of days Ballard has left.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Think Again- I don't think you're a councillor, at least not a Republican one. The stories about what went on when Ballard talked to the R councillors in caucus are probably being circulated by one of the sore loser sponsors. Councillors followed what the the mayor demanded in”lockstep” fashion? What a hoot! The mayor dreams about his independent thinking R councillors doing that. Were you there? People on all sides of the issue who were there knew that Ballard had been talking about a veto for days. He didn't twist any arms, or influence any last minute decisions. People voted the way they always intended to. The first round was lost by the smoking ban brats and they have been having a temper tantrum ever since. “Waah-Waaah! I hate you Mayor! You're a mean mayor! Gimme my smoking ban! I want my smoking ban, and, and, I'm gonna scream and kick and call you bad names until you give it to me!”
November 14th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Think Again- I don't think you're a councillor, at least not a Republican one. The stories about what went on when Ballard talked to the R councillors in caucus are probably being circulated by one of the sore loser sponsors. Councillors followed what the the mayor demanded in”lockstep” fashion? What a hoot! The mayor dreams about his independent thinking R councillors doing that. Were you there? People on all sides of the issue who were there knew that Ballard had been talking about a veto for days. He didn't twist any arms, or influence any last minute decisions. People voted the way they always intended to. The first round was lost by the smoking ban brats and they have been having a temper tantrum ever since. “Waah-Waaah! I hate you Mayor! You're a mean mayor! Gimme my smoking ban! I want my smoking ban, and, and, I'm gonna scream and kick and call you bad names until you give it to me!”