Tobacco self-interest

From Mikey Siegel, Esq., who uses me as an example of the 'misguided public'...

Political Campaign to Denigrate McCallum Working: Public Buying Misleading Information

From my recent review of internet postings related to Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum, it appears that the public is largely confused about the exact nature of McCallum's prior employment with respect to tobacco industry clients.
...
Do I think McCallum should be spared from harm to his character and career? I don't know. I think we need to wait until the investigation has been completed to cast judgment on him and his role in the case. But what I do think is indisputable is that he deserves to be judged based on the facts. And in this case, the fact is that he never represented R.J. Reynolds in litigation. But in my opinion, the majority of the public who is familiar with this story believes that he has.

I do not think that is just. And I do not, therefore, find it acceptable that anti-smoking groups may have contributed to the public's misperception in a way that may inappropriately denigrate the reputation and character of an individual.

As a member of the general public, with no legal experience, I am confused by your analysis. I don't think the problem is that the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (who is an unknown organization to me) have misrepresented Robert McCallum's prior employment with various tobacco companies. I think the problem is one of perception: namely, why did the previously agreed upon tobacco settlement suddenly change in a manner which benefits the tobacco industry after closed-door discussions with Bush appointees? I'm not sure this alteration passes the 'smell test'. Actually, this settlement seems more akin to previous 'business-friendly' deals, such as with Microsoft. Where did all those campaign contributions go anyway?

Footnotes:
original article excerpt
some print ad run by the ANR
My little smoker-poster

Technorati Tags: Business