SMOKING AND THE ’96 ELECTION: CLINTON AD BLASTS DOLE

      In an attempt to portray President Clinton as "kid-
 friendly," the Clinton/Gore reelection campaign released a
 television ad Monday "accusing rival Bob Dole of blowing smoke
 when it comes to kiddies lighting up," NEW YORK POST reports
 (Rauber, 7/9).  The ad begins with a scene of several teens
 lighting cigarettes.  An announcer says, "These children are
 trying smoking for the first time.  One will die from the habit. 
 President Clinton says stop ads that teach our children to smoke. 
 But Bob Dole opposes a FDA limit on tobacco ads that appeal to
 children; says cigarettes aren't necessarily addictive; some say
 milk is bad for kids too, Dole says.  But three thousand children
 start smoking everyday.  One thousand will die from it -- one of
 three.  Bob Dole or President Clinton -- Who's really protecting
 our children?" (Clinton/Gore '96 release, 7/8).
      FACT CHECK:  The Republican National Committee (RNC) refuted
 the ad, stating, "A look at the record clearly shows that Bob
 Dole has been protecting children since 1970 when he voted to ban
 cigarette advertising on TV and radio, and again in 1992 when he
 voted to ensure that states enact laws prohibiting the sale or
 distribution of tobacco products to teenagers."  The RNC also
 notes that the Clinton administration did not implement the 1992
 law, also known as the Synar amendment (see AHL 1/19/96) until
 January of this year (RNC release, 7/9).  According to the POST,
 the Clinton/Gore ad states that Dole opposes FDA regulation of
 tobacco, but fails to mention his support for state regulation. 
 Dole spokesperson Nelson Warfield said in response to the ad,
 "For Bill Clinton, distortion is habit-forming" (7/9).
      SMOKING CAMPAIGN MONEY:  An editorial in USA TODAY looks at
 the influence of the tobacco industry on national politics:  "One
 fact is clear:  Tobacco money is one of the fastest-growing
 sources of campaign dollars.  Even though 1995 was not an
 election year, big tobacco contributed a record $4.1 million in
 political action committee money."  The editorial concludes, "The
 same outspoken public concern that forced limits on second-hand
 smoke is needed to curb the poisonous effects of special-interest
 money in politics."  In the "Opposing View" column, California
 economist Patrick Cox writes, "The tobacco industry would be
 insane to withdraw from the political process and hand its fate
 over to politicians and bureaucrats pandering to the health
 Nazis. ... In truth, our liberty is not embodied in fat-free
 foods, low-impact aerobics and political rhetoric.  Freedom is
 about making adult choices that sometimes don't translate into
 the longest, most uneventful life possible" (7/10).