Taxpayer dollars never should have funded an anti-conservative liberal screed masquerading as a new study about curbing smoking.
Two National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants underwrote the study by University of California San Francisco researchers. It claims the tea party “was actually created in the 1990s by conservative groups fighting anti-tobacco policies with money ... received from tobacco companies,” The Washington Free Beacon reports.
This supposedly nicotine-stained lineage begins with Citizens for a Sound Economy — a free-market group that received $5.3 million from tobacco companies before its 2004 dissolution begat FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. Those groups predate the tea-party movement with which they've since become associated. And the study doesn't claim that the tobacco industry has continued to fund them.
Yet the study — which cites the George Soros-funded Center for Media and Democracy among its sources — paints legitimate personal-liberty concerns about restrictions on smoking as “Astroturf”-style fronts for Big Tobacco. And that betrays the study's liberal bias and political motivation.
Saying it “played no role” in the study's topic, research or writing, the NCI — at best — was asleep at the switch it should have thrown to short-circuit this publicly subsidized propaganda piece. This study's taxpayer dollars must be the last that the NCI spends to advance leftists' agenda, not actual medical research.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.