In the letter, Sen. Miller identifies himself as “Montana’s State Public Chairman of ALEC ,” a national advocacy group made up of conservative state lawmakers. The Helena Independent Record, in an October 21, 2000 article, described Sen. Miller as leading the opposition to CA-35.Sen. Miller’s argued that the spending of MSA money would be better dealt with by the Legislature, and that the proposed trust-fund was too restrictive. Sen. Miller also stated that the trust fund “doesn’t belong in the Constitution,” and that he believed “it’s so wrong that we keep muddying the Constitution with this kind of stuff.”Miller even expressed his disagreement with the practice of using litigation against tobacco companies to recover health related costs.Sen. Miller’s opposition to CA-35 was also reported by the Associated Press in an October 23, 2000 article. In discussing the support given to CA-35 by multiple health groups, Sen. Miller said, “[o]f course they support it. It gives them a constant revenue source.”Sen. Miller added that “[t]his money should go to care for the best needs of the people. As to the health issues, we need to be able to spend that money now, partly to reimburse the taxpayers who’ve been footing those bills.”163 Sen. Miller’s association with the tobacco industry was not mentioned in the articles reporting his opposition to CA-35. Overall opposition to CA-35, however was not heavy, and the proponents were confident that the initiative would be passed by voters. Miller himself had tempered his personal opposition to it, telling the press that while he didn’t think the trust fund was a great idea, it “wouldn’t be the end of the world” if CA-35 was approved.Sen. Keenan,vertical indoor farming who sponsored the initiative, did not seem very worried by the opposition’s effect on voters, stating confidently that the proposed amendment was “a slam dunk,” and “it’s going to pass.”The November 2000 election proved that Sen.

Keenan’s confidence in the voter’s was well founded. The measure was overwhelmingly approved by a nearly 3-to-1 margin, 73% to 27%.Despite this clear expression of voter will, however, it became apparent very quickly that the expenditure of tobacco settlement funds would still be a major point of political contention, especially in the incoming administration of Republican Governor Judy Martz, who replaced Racicot when term limits prevented him from running for re-election a third time.Martz, who had served as Racicot’s Lieutenant Governor from 1996 to 2000, was elected Governor of Montana on November 7, 2000. Even before Governor Elect Martz took office, it became clear she would not be the ally to health advocacy groups that Gov. Racicot had been. According to reports by the Associated Press and the Helena Independent Record on December 30, 2000, Chuck Swysgood, Budget Director for Governor-elect Judy Martz , told outgoing Attorney General Mazurek that the $3.6 million that was supposed to go into the health care trust fund under CA-35 was instead going into the state’s general fund.The first MSA payment of $9 million was to arrive at the beginning of the 2001, but the tobacco companies, looking for a tax break, wanted to send the payment before the year’s end. Since the payment of $3.6 million would have come in before the January 1, 2001 start date of the trust, Martz could have deposited the payment into the general fund rather than the trust. Thus, payment into the trust would have been subject to available money in the general fund, alongside all other program funding that normally came out of the general fund.Mazurek explained to reporters that upon learning about Martz’ plan to divert the money into the general fund, “I tried to persuade the budget office that they really shouldn’t do that,” and that, “I think everybody expected that the money would go to the trust.”When Mazurek found out that none of the money would be going into the trust, he contacted Gov. Racicot, who wrote a letter to the tobacco companies asking that the entire $9 million be held the start of the new year and of the trust fund. Thus, Mazurek and Racicot blocked Martz from raiding the trust. Mazurek told reporter’s “Marc’s still the governor, he made the call,” and that, “frankly this was the right thing to do.” Lieutenant Governor Martz gave no sign to reporters of disagreement over Gov. Raciot’s blocking her attempts to divert trust fund money, saying that “they can do what they need to do, and we’ll do what we need to do.”

Martz also claimed to reporters that she supported the trust fund, but was facing an unexpectedly tight budget as she prepared to take office,a common argument used by pro-tobacco industry government officials as an excuse for pro-tobacco industry policy decisions.Gov-elect Martz had already announced $43 million in proposed cuts from spending increases that Racicot proposed in his final budget proposal, and she had dropped plans for $20 million in tax cuts that she promised in her campaign.Also during that final week of December 2000, Governor-elect Martz announced her plan to recommend that the legislature cut the Tobacco Use Prevention Program budget to $1 million for the 2002-2003 biennium, a $6 million reduction from the $7 million 2000-2001 biennium budget proposed by outgoing Gov. Marc Racicot.The actions taken by Martz made anti-tobacco advocates both nervous and angry.Kristin Page Nei, Director of State Government Relations for the American Cancer Society, told reporters that she had written a letter to Martz to protest the $6 million cut from the Tobacco Use Prevention budget. Both the budget cut and the letter were then widely reported by local newspapers.Martz told reporters that she was offended that the health groups would criticize her without talking with her first: “I don’t think this is any way of starting a relationship.”In response, Nei told reporters that the new governor shouldn’t be surprised by the health groups’ criticisms, especially when it comes to tobacco settlement funds. Nei stated, “Our job is to be watchdogs of this money,” and that, “we’re going to be watchdogs and be critical if it’s not used in the appropriate manner.”Despite arguments made by the health groups, Gov. Martz continued to state that she did not believe in the effectiveness of the Tobacco Use Prevention Program , saying “I want to see some results,” and that the state was “throwing good money away.” Cliff Christian, a lobbyist for the American Heart Association,shelving racks responded that it would be irresponsible to dismiss a program before it was given a chance to work.Dr. Shepard, along with C.B. Pearson , also pointed to a possible tobacco-tax increase as a way to solve the state’s budget deficit, which would also serve as a positive step for public health policy since it would reduce smoking in the state.

Pearson explained that the health groups would not be concerned with cigarette tax money going towards financing other government programs, since the tax itself would decrease tobacco use.Gov. Martz told the health groups that she did not believe in taxing unhealthy behavior as the way to prevent it.168 The idea for an increased cigarette tax would later return as a successful health group initiative in 2004. Furthermore, although the state’s tobacco use prevention program had not yet recorded results in 2001, information released 4 years later in the “Montana Tobacco Use Prevention Plan” showed that youth tobacco use from 1999 to 2003 had decreased from 23% to 13% among students in grades seven and eight, and from 35% to 23% among high school students.Since Gov. Racicot was firm in her recommendation to drastically reduce the TUPP 2002-2003 biennium budget to $1 million , it was thus left to the 2001 State Legislature to decide whether to accept her recommendation. Since there had not yet been any interest income from the voter-approved trust fund , the prevention program needed to be funded from other sources. The 2001 Legislature would also have to decide how to spend the remaining 60% of MSA money that wasn’t secured in the trust fund.Gov. Martz’ budget proposal would first go to the Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, which is initially responsible for health-care expenditures. Sen. Dave Lewis , chairman of the subcommittee, made early indications that some skepticism existed over the effectiveness of the tobacco-prevention program: “I just want to see a lot of really hard evidence that we’re getting something,… If it works, grand.”Such results-oriented demands on tobacco prevention programs were common tobacco industry rhetoric and, in actuality, political factors have a greater influence than program results in determining tobacco control appropriations.The policy argument between the health groups and the governor continued to be covered in newspaper reports. Martz repeated to reporters that, though she supported tobacco prevention, the state budget was too tight for the state to spend money on unproven efforts.Health advocates, in response, continued to tell reporters that the tobacco use prevention program had not been given enough time to show results, and that other states with similar plans had been able to curb smoking.At the January 30, 2001 hearing before the Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, 12 individuals testified against Gov. Martz’ proposal to reduce the TUPP budget, including representatives from Governor’s Advisory Council on Tobacco Use Prevention and health advocacy groups . No public testimony was given in support of Gov. Martz’ decreased budget proposal.Dr. Sargent testified that smoking related diseases cost Montana more than $150 million a year, plus $12 million in direct costs to the Medicaid program, and that Montana smokers spend an estimated $190 million per year on cigarettes.Joan Miles, director of Lewis and Clark City-County Health Department and member of the Governor’s Advisory Board, reminded the committee that the MSA money was in the state because Montanans had died and suffered from tobacco use.The next Joint Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services hearing regarding the TUPP budget occurred on February 1, 2001, where Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Lewis  told the Committee that if Gov. Martz’ recommendation was not accepted, the state budget would be short by $6 million. Lewis further stated that under the Governor’s recommendation, there would be $1 million in the state general fund for the TUPP program in the biennium, plus $870,000 per year from the CDC.Rep. Joey Jane attempted to push forward a substitute motion for a $9 million biennium budget , but the motion was defeated on party lines, with 4 Republicans voting against and 2 Democrats voting in favor. Gov. Martz proposed budget was then approved by the committee by a vote of 4 to 2, also on party lines.After the Joint Appropriations Committee approved the reduced budget at the February 1, 2001 hearing, Sen. John Cobb , Vice Chairman of the Committee, moved to put forward a committee bill that would take money from the voter-approved MSA health-care trust fund in order to increase the budget of the TUPP program.Sen. Cobb explained that he did not want to cut the existing program, reasoning that the program might fall by the wayside without money from the trust fund.Both Democrats on the committee blocked the motion , arguing that it would be a violation of the public trust to so quickly “bust the trust” that was only recently approved by the voters.Sen. Mignon Waterman stated, “I think this is real disingenuous,” and noted that, “the people of Montana spoke three months ago.” Waterman added, “it’s a tight budget, but I’m not ready to bust the trust.”The health groups would now have to continue their pursuit for funding as Martz’ budget proposal moved forward in the legislature. During the last month of February, health groups tried to reach legislators by purchasing a billboard advertisement that sent a message directly to them. The billboard stated, “Legislators: the tobacco settlement money is for health care. PLEASE DON’T DIVERT IT.G. Brian Zin, Executive Vice President of the Montana Medical Association, told reporters that it was the first time the Montana Medical Association had lobbied through a billboard, and that is was put in a prime location where people continually saw the message and were reminded about the issue.