From the NY Times -
Mr. Sylvia, the Altria spokesman, said the company had been seeking F.D.A. regulation of tobacco since 2001, shortly after the Supreme Court rejected an F.D.A. effort to assert legal authority over nicotine as a drug. The court, in a 5-4 decision, said F.D.A. lacked Congressional authority.
So, Philip Morris wanted the recent tobacco legislation to pass so they could keep cases out of the courts or at least tied up in them longer. This year they got it. Finally.
So? So what does this have to do with Kirsten Gillibrand? Kirsten used to represent Philip Morris as an attorney in many high level capacities. And it's not just the fact that she chose to put her law degree to use for cigarette dealers that call her time there into question, but it's the culture in which tobacco's attorneys operated. They
used the attorney-client privilege to hide documents never intending to give full disclosure,...a fraud to mislead the public.
The fact that she's received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Altria/Philip Morris and their many law firms also raises questions Gillibrand has refused to answer. Instead she and her supporters use misleading comments and turn to her voting record.
MISLEADING COMMENTS
Some of their comments on record are 1. "little control over the cases", 2. "limited involvement in defending (Philip Morris)" 3. "It is a small part of her 15-year legal career."
Let's break these down - 1. She chose to work for a Law Firm that for decades has publicly represented their "whale" client Philip Morris. 2. "limited" is a pretty vague word considering she was on high level committees and in direct contact with Tobacco brass 3. Her career as an attorney spanned 15 years. All working for 2 law firms - one representing Phillip Morris and one representing the parent company, Altria. Tobacco was her ENTIRE CAREERas an attorney.
VOTING RECORD
100% if by 100% you mean 50%(with a qualifier)
Bian Keeler, , who manages a New York political operative, and contributor at Huff Po neglected this salient point in his tobacco filtering analysis of Gillibrand's Tobacco voting record -
The short analysis is that Gillibrand has a 100% anti-tobacco voting record in Congress and the Senate,
That really and truly is short analysis, because if Keeler had looked at the data he used in his article, he'd see that her 100% is based on essentially two pieces of legislation.
Her record is being exaggerated, so let's see how a 100% is really more like a (qualified)50%.
One piece of legislationwhich Gillibrand co-sponsored was originated on behalf of her former employer Philip Morris so they could begin efforts to bypass state lawsuits and freeze out their competition. So, when your former paycheck tells you they want legislation passed and you help give it to them, how is that not a conflict of interest?
The second piece she had little choice but to vote for, because it would have meant voting against S-CHIP(health coverage for poor children) if she didn't.
If not for the S-CHIP factor, how would she have voted? I don't like having to worry about that.
Here’s a more detailed account of that record
As you may see it consists of repeated votes on only two pieces of legislation. Again, one co-authored by Philip-Morris and the other attached to S-CHIP funding.
Gillibrand may not be influenced by the hundreds of thousands she has received from Big Tobacco, their PAC's and their law firms, but I don't think these two pieces of legislation make a strong case for her.
I think it would be interesting to look at topics peripheral to tobacco, like medical marijuana , industrial hemp. I know she voted against the Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment which sought to bar use of appropriated funds to arrest or prosecute in States with medical marijuana laws. Has she been influenced by her previous employer and current benefactor?
FYI - Regarding the NY Senate Primary Race - I am connected in no form or fashion to any candidate. I have supported Maloney's legislation on this site and her stance on Single Payer. The truth is, I think we can do better than the current crop that's out there. Forgive me for wanting more Frankens and Sanders.