Clearing the Air Study Notes

Clearing the Air

Chapter 1: The Campaign for Smokefree Air

April 2005

  • The Campaign for Smokefree Air is launched at a news conference on April 2005, aiming to eliminate smoking in Michigan workplaces.

  • The campaign faced significant challenges, including:
      - Hostile opposition groups.
      - Difficulty in garnering support from lawmakers.
      - A poorly organized coalition of advocates.

  • Initial efforts were complicated by negative public perceptions that equated smokefree legislation with anti-business sentiments.

  • Nationwide context: By early 2005, only eight states had comprehensive smokefree laws (California, Delaware, Connecticut, Florida, New York, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts).

  • Key figure: Sen. Ray Basham, a Democratic senator from Taylor, was one of the few lawmakers focused on smokefree air.

  • The Campaign was spearheaded by prominent health organizations: American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association.

  • Prior success in tobacco advocacy included the "Hike it for Health!" campaign which effectively raised Michigan's tobacco taxes.

  • The need arose to shift focus from economic policies (taxes) to legislative measures for smokefree environments.
      - Lobbying Firms Engaged:
        - John Bailey & Associates for media relations.
        - Wiener Associates for lobbying and legal guidance.
        - Support from the Michigan Health and Hospital Association and Michigan State Medical Society.

  • The opposing coalition included well-funded entities:
      - Big Tobacco, Michigan Restaurant Association, Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, and multiple powerful lobbying firms.

  • Outcome: The campaign felt like a David vs. Goliath challenge but was buoyed by favorable public sentiment regarding tobacco policies.

Search for Sponsors

  • Context: Year three of Granholm's gubernatorial administration with a Republican-controlled legislature.

  • Efforts to find a sponsor for the smokefree bill focused on:
      - Sen. Basham as a potential advocate, despite flaws in his previous smokefree bill proposals (e.g., exemptions).
      - Internal divide within the coalition about having a compromise about sponsors and legislative changes.

  • The campaign decided to propose two separate bills:
      - One for smokefree workplaces.
      - One for smokefree bars and restaurants.

  • Broader bipartisan engagement was crucial, leading to the inclusivity of Sen. Tom George, a Republican doctor.

  • Co-sponsorship:
      - Basham's earlier bill attracted three co-sponsors.
      - George's comprehensive proposal received limited support.

  • The search for House sponsors was arduous, needing a blend of experienced advocates and first-term lawmakers.

  • Challenges Faced:
      - Resistance and unwillingness of some lawmakers to support broad smokefree legislation.
      - Need for a multi-faceted strategy to involve grassroots advocates alongside legislative efforts.

Chapter 2: Building the Coalition

Key Players

  • The steering committee, comprising main representatives from the core health organizations, directed campaign strategy.
      - Key Figures: Judy Stewart (American Cancer Society), Katherine Knoll (American Heart Association), Carol Christner and Susan Schechter (American Lung Association).

  • Regular meetings facilitated real-time updates on campaign strategies, legislative movements, and media outreach.

  • Coalition expansion involved:
      - New Partnerships: Including Michigan health insurers and faith-based organizations.
      - Effective messaging against legislative leadership which was resistant to smokefree initiatives.

  • Legislative setbacks occurred due to lack of action from Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema and House Speaker Craig DeRoche.

  • A significant external pressure affecting the coalition was Big Tobacco's financial and lobbying influence ($700,000 in the 2005-06 cycle).

  • Despite obstacles, the coalition was focused on grass roots mobilization and public awareness through extensive polling and educational outreach about the health impacts of secondhand smoke.

Grassroots Strategy

  • A grassroots approach was essential, leading to an unexpectedly vast coalition growth from seven initial organizations to more than 270 groups involved.

  • The campaign emphasized building local community support and legitimacy by creating an actionable, relatable name and objectives.

  • The coalition website served as a communication hub, tracking progress and storing vital information.

  • Poll data revealed strong public support for smokefree laws, emphasizing health impacts and economic viability arguments to sway skepticism among lawmakers.

  • Analogies drawn between tobacco regulation and alcohol and drunk driving legislation were aimed at solidifying arguments for smokefree environments.

  • Despite these efforts, legislative support remained fragmented, emphasizing the need for expanded grassroots advocacy.