Campaign funding – why transparency is the best policy

Readers will be familiar with the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

Founded in 2017, it was reported that the global tobacco giant Philip Morris International was to give the Foundation a billion dollars over 12 years, or $83 million annually.

Since then PMI has doubled down on its anti-smoking strategy, announcing that not only would the company like to stop selling cigarettes in the UK by 2030 but urging the government to ban the sale of all cigarettes – including those of rival companies – within a decade.

The fact that Philip Morris has less than ten per cent of the UK market and trails in fourth place, way behind the market leaders JTI and Imperial, has nothing to do with it of course.

But at least PMI is transparent about its support for the Foundation. In contrast it's been reported that the World Vapers Alliance, which also campaigns against smoking, has been funded 'secretly' by British American Tobacco.

If the WVA stuck to advocating vaping as a safer alternative to smoking I would have no objection to the initiative. However the 'Back Vaping Beat Smoking' campaign – with its boxing-related imagery – oversteps the line, as I explained here ('The gloves are off').

When I published that post I had no idea that BAT was funding the project, although according to Vaping360.com it has been an open secret among members of the vaping community for some time.

It would be hypocritical of me to criticise the WVA for accepting tobacco money (so I won't) but I'm surprised BAT didn't insist on complete transparency because that's the arrangement we've always had with the tobacco companies that support Forest.

In my experience it's the best policy because if you try to keep your corporate donors secret the outcome is endless questions and occasional investigations that are potentially far more damaging to the integrity and credibility of your campaign.

The truth will come out eventually so why not be upfront and open about it?

In Forest's case the only people who bang on about our funding are spokesmen for ASH who seem to have it drilled into their heads, ready to unleash as soon as they open their mouths on air, but it's a non-story because we've never hidden it.

The information is on every page of our website and every submission to government. If anyone asks I am happy to confirm it and we move on.

This, by the way, is how I addressed the issue during my short speech at Forest's 40th anniversary dinner in London in 2019 which was attended by 200 people including journalists, broadcasters and MPs:

Finally, I’d like to thank the tobacco companies who have supported Forest for 40 years. We don’t take the companies’ support for granted and we know that society‘s relationship with smoking has changed and will continue to change, and we also know that the companies are changing and moving towards safer nicotine products, as indeed they should.

I then went on to say:

Forest’s focus is also evolving to embrace and support risk reduction products but as long as there are adults who choose to smoke, enjoy smoking, and don’t want to quit, we will NEVER abandon them because it’s our belief that choice and personal responsibility are paramount.

Back vaping by all means but 'beat' smoking? No thanks. In my view all nicotine consumers are equal and no organisation that claims to support consumer choice should favour one group over another.

Educate but don't discriminate. Those that do will be treated with the contempt they deserve.

See: Daily Beast: BAT Backing ‘Grassroots’ Vape Group (Tobacco Reporter)
Guess Who’s Secretly Backing This ‘Anti-Smoking’ Vape Group (Daily Beast)
Astroturf Vaping Group Exposed (For the Second Time) (Vaping360.com)