TABLE 9.1 SOME ORIGINAL TEXT AND LAWYER'S EDITORIAL COMMENTS ON THE BLACKMAN PAPER

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

2

Despite a great deal of research there are no clear answers as to why people smoke. Some reasons which have been suggested are:

Delete Donald Gould reference. The article identifies cigarettes as a drug.

Donald Gould in the 'New Scientist' (4.3.1976): "Cigarettes calm, they comfort, they give pleasure, they act as a kind of stockade, a visible barrier between the naked individual and a hostile and perplexing world."

3

Dr. W. S. Cain of the Yale University School of Medicine (1979 Cold Spring Harbour Conference):

Delete reference to Dr. W. S. Cain. The article identifies short term and longer term pharmacological and physiological factors as important in the derivation of "habitual cigarette smoking."

"Full flavour serves as a sign of effects soon to follow—such as a sense of

• Relaxation

• Reduced Anxiety

• Power to Concentrate

• Self Confidence

• Social Facilitation or any of the many other positive features that smokers attribute to smoking."

"Without the benefits of such features, most smokers would never establish the habit in the first place."

4

Atsuko Chiba in the New York 'Tribune' (25.4.1983):

Suggest reconsideration of the Chiba reference. ... it is risky to rely on newspaper accounts for scientific information. The scientific article may equate the effects of smoking with those of heavy drinking.

"The prevalence of smoking in Japan, 70.1% of men and 16.2% of women, is a result of the tensions in the country, social psychologists said. Men in particular, locked in fierce competition to succeed, smoke and drink heavily as a release from stress."

5

Whatever the reason, smoking is a very stable practice: Ruth Roemer, a lawyer from the School of Public Health in Los Angeles, reviewed the legislation against smoking for the World Health Organisation. As stated in an editorial article in 'The Lancet' (24.7.1982):

Delete. The point made here might be said to run counter to arguments that cigarette smoking is not addictive. Thirty million people in the U.S. have quit smoking voluntarily. Cigarette excises [taxes] have dramatic impacts on consumption. Also, BAT should avoid uncritical reference to the work of Roemer, who is dedicated to anti-smoking views.

"A frustrating part of her review is the lack of evidence that particular laws—on advertising, selling to young people, or smoking in public or at work, for example—have had much impact."

TABLE 9.1 (continued)

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

6

From R. Doll and R. Peto—British Medical Journal (25.12.76) ...

Suggest reconsideration of the point that the annual mortality rate for heart disease in nonsmokers is greater than for lung cancer in smokers. The purpose of this statement is unclear and it emphasizes the large number of deaths due to heart disease attributed to smoking.

2. The computed annual mortality rate for heart disease in nonsmokers is some 5 times that for lung cancer in smokers. <The study and its application have been criticised and the BAT does not endorse it but discusses it here as background.>

8

Though Professor Doll and Mr. Peto maintain that smoking is a direct cause of certain illnesses, they acknowledged in their publication that statistical association does not imply causation. Thus, apropos the published table of diseases, they stated:

Delete Doll and Peto reference. Doll and Peto have published a table which shows "cancer of the lung" is "caused by cigarette smoking" and have concluded that "much of the excess mortality in cigarette smoking can be attributed with certainty to the habit ..."

"To say that these conditions were related to smoking does not necessarily imply that smoking caused (or prevented) them."

"The relation may have been secondary in that smoking was associated with some other factor, such as alcohol consumption or a feature of the personality, that caused the disease."

9

This scientific fact was supported in the July 1983 issue of the consumer magazine 'WHICH?' in an article concerned with cancer—where the following cautionary statement was made regarding epidemiology:

Delete reference to the consumer magazine. The quoted statement was made in connection with diet. The article advocates, as the first example of "the kind of thing they believe will prove to make a difference are: stopping smoking. Tobacco is a factor in about one-third of all cancers."

"This kind of research does not prove that particular features of lifestyle cause cancers, but can point to possible causes. Even when these appear to be plausible in the light of what is known about how the body works, and how cancers form, further research is needed."

10

<Similarly,> Mr. R. Peto when speaking at a conference on nitrosamines and human cancer (Banbury Report No 12, 1982) <said>:

Delete reference to Peto. In the next sentence in the cited Report, Peto mentions "the carcinogenic components of tobacco smoke. ..." Peto is convinced that the causal hypothesis is proven and, therefore, his opinions are at odds with the position of the "Controversy" section of the Draft, which is that the causal hypothesis is not proven.

"... this idea that you can analyse the chemistry of tobacco smoke and marijuana and predict what their human effects are going to be is completely inappropriate."

TABLE 9.1 (continued)

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

12

The following comment was made apropos lung cancer:

Without explanation, the quotation from the cancer atlases does not stand as an anomaly. The quotation is consistent with lung cancer causation by cigarette smoking and other exposures.

"The maps for lung cancer indicate that excessive mortality is not limited to highly populated urban areas where cigarette smoking and air pollution are most prominent. In fact, the rates are highest along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in Louisiana."

"Further studies are needed to identify the environmental and demographic factors contributing to the increased risk of lung cancer in these predominantly rural and port areas."

14

The Epidemiological Research Unit of the Medical Research Council published in late 1983 a detailed analysis on "Trend in Cancer  <Mortality>" in England and Wales for women and men aged 25–69 years, who were born between 1880–1950 and died between 1951–1980.

The material should be rewritten. The current version fails to distinguish between the 1983 and 1976 articles [referring to the 1983 article by the Epidemiological Research Unit of the Medical Research Council analysing the "Trend in Cancer Mortality" in England and Wales for specified groups of people, and a 1976 TRC Occasional Paper, by G. F. Todd et al., also evidently analysing cohort data], which is a problem because the 1983 article concludes that the cohort data is consistent with the causal hypothesis [that smoking causes cancer] and states that "even among young people, who have been smoking safer cigarettes, lung cancer remains a major problem."

For both women and men, the risk factor for a given "cohort", relative to the average for the whole period covered, varied strongly and systematically, building up to peaks in the early decades of this century and then declining.

The interpretation of cohort data is complex, but it may be noted, in relation to cigarette smoking, that the 1951 cohort of women, most of whom are still alive, have already smoked about twice as many cigarettes as the 1880 cohort smoked in their entire lifetime—yet both groups have similar risk factors. For men, also, there is no direct correlation of the rise and fall of the risk factor with cigarette consumption (G.F. Todd et al, 'TRC Occasional paper 3', 1976).

18

More recently, Professor G. Cumming, Medical Director of the Midhurst Research Institute and a noted lung research specialist, stated on BBC Radio 4 on 12.1.1983:

Suggest delete reference to Professor Cumming. In the broadcast, Cumming indicated he believed that a substantial group (perhaps 30% of smokers) "are at risk from smoking."

"What's interesting about cigarette-related diseases is that the majority of people who smoke cigarettes don't suffer ill-effects."

TABLE 9.1 (continued)

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

"... particularly some American work has shown that in cancer of the lung in smokers, this is related to another environmental cause, and the environmental cause that they have identified is the level of Vitamin A in the blood of the smoker."

"... if the Vitamin A level if high then they don't get cancer. Their risk is the same as if they were non-smokers."

21

Friberg and co-workers reported in 1973 ('Archives of Environmental Health', vol 27) an 11-year monitoring from 1961 to 1972 of 572 Swedish twins (both sexes). The results were:...

Recommend delete references to Friberg and the Bibliography on Smoking and Health. Unfortunately, Friberg, Cederlof and Lundman published a monograph in 1977 which stated that "lung cancer is closely related to the amount smoked ...," that associations were confirmed between smoking and respiratory, cardiovascular and other symptoms of disease or ill health, that there is no doubt about a causal link between smoking and lung cancer, and that the results from the Swedish monozygotic twin studies are contrary to the constitutional hypothesis advanced by [Sir Ronald] Fisher.

Six years later in 1979 the work was reviewed in the 'Bibliography on Smoking and Health':

"The findings seem to be yet another indication of the incomparability of smokers and non-smokers. The results from the twin study clearly demonstrate the importance of genetic, behavioural and psychosocial factors which have not been considered in conventional epidemiological studies. Such factors should as far as possible be included in future epidemiological research, not only in the context of smoking and health, but also in studies on other similar exposure factors that may be linked to risk factors of this type or to genetic predispositions."

26

This disease [chronic obstructive lung disease], often loosely termed 'bronchitis' <and emphysema>, is frequently cited as being causally related to smoking. It is of significance, therefore, to note the striking social class dependence for England and Wales in 1961 when, according to the 4th Report of the Royal College of Physicians, "smoking habits were fairly similar in all social classes."

Consider deleting the section dealing with COLD [chronic obstructive lung disease]. The title of the section focuses on lung cancer. The same paragraph in the fourth Report which presents the table reprinted in the Draft states "it must be emphasized that at present only the effects of tobacco are reliably known to be of substantial importance."

27

A similar result was found in earlier international comparisons of the effect of diet and smoking intervention on the incidence of coronary heart disease. As reported in "Circulation", (Volume 1, Supplement 1, 1970):

Suggest deletion of reference to work by Keys and the secondary article from the Lancet. In March, 1984, Keys and others published a

TABLE 9.1 (continued)

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

"In an international cooperative study on the epidemiology of coronary heart disease, international teams examined 12,770 men aged 40 through 59 years in Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, and Yugoslavia. Strictly standardized methods and criteria were used. <Note: this is paraphrase but not a quote.> Cigarette smoking was one of the risk factors studied and it is concluded that smoking cannot be involved in the incidence and deaths from this disease."

study which concluded that "For coronary death, age, serum cholesterol, blood pressure, and smoking were highly significant in all regions except Japan, where coronary deaths were too few for evaluation." Keys, et al., The Seven Countries Study: 2289 Deaths in 15 Years, Preventive Medicine (1984), p. 141. In 1983, the Tobacco Institute published a letter which cited Keys in support of the position that cigarette smoking is not a cause of cardiovascular disease. Keys responded with a vitriolic letter complaining of "an unending stream of misrepresentations and distortions from the Tobacco Institute and the cigarette companies that attempt to persuade the public to disregard the overwhelming evidence that cigarette smoking is a major health hazard and cause of premature death."

As further reported in The Lancet (12.12.1981):

"In the seven-country study there was no significant association between coronary heart disease incidence and smoking in the different countries, and in the prospective necropsy series of the Oslo study a significant correlation between prevalence of coronary raised atherosclerotic lesions and smoking could not be shown."

28

The largest <A large medical study ever mounted was completed and reported in the 'Journal of the Medical Association'. The editorial comment in 'Health Services' (15.10.1982) stated:

Reconsider. We do not have the source for the quote pertaining to the MRFIT study. At least one well-known scientist in the U.S. has studied the MRFIT data and stated his conclusion that the study failed to prove smoking was a major factor in coronary heart disease. However, comments in health related publications generally have repeated the claims by HHS that the [MRFIT] study showed smoking reduction caused a decrease in CHD incidence.

"A massive, $110m trial of prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has given disappointingly inconclusive results." "Nearly 13,000 men at high risk of CHD were selected from 360,000 men aged between 35 and 57 who underwent health screening."

"The 13,000 men were divided into two groups. One, the 'intervention' group, was given counseling to help them stop smoking, a diet with only 10 per cent of the food intake as saturated fats, and drug treatment for raised blood pressure."

"Seven years later 265 of the men in the 'intervention' group had died, 138 of heart disease, and 260 of the control group had died, 145 of heart disease."

TABLE 9.1 (continued)

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

29

Hypertension and heart disease are frequently cited as being causally related to smoking. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the time trends for hypertension in the UK closely parallel those for the US and Australia—whereas, as shown above <opposite>, the same does not obtain for heart disease.

Delete the material presented pertaining to hypertension. Smoking is, but hypertension is not , frequently cited as being causally related to heart disease.

30

In a review in the journal 'New Scientist' (23.2.1984), reference was made to the findings of Professor J. Morris of the Medical Research Council unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health:

Suggest reconsider. ... Is the material gratuitous? The statement [that "'vigorously' exercising men suffered fewer heart attacks whether they were fat or lean, cigarette smokers or not, and with or without a family history of disease"] is not necessarily inconsistent with smoking as a major risk factor. Our adversaries will insist that we be as careful in making any statements about health (such as the benefits, if any, of exercise) as we are about deciding whether it has been proven that cigarette smoking causes disease.

"'Vigorously' exercising men suffered fewer heart attacks whether they were fat or lean, cigarette smokers or not, suffering from high blood pressure or not, and with or without a family history of the disease."

33

In 1983, the 3rd Report of the Independent Scientific Committee stated:

Revise. The Committee also stated as a conclusion that "there are significant health grounds to require substantial reductions in carbon monoxide yields of cigarettes."

"Carbon monoxide is suspected of having a role in their [heart disease] development but it is not clearly established that it is a factor in their causation."

35

Many independent doctors, scientists and government/health authorities believe that the use of filters and other changes in the product have been directly responsible for the significant reduction in recent years in smoking-associated diseases (especially lung cancer) in younger age groups, in countries such as the UK, US and Finland. Certainly the pioneer of smoking and health research Professor R. Doll strongly believes that this is the case. At a recent Royal College of Physicians conference in Edinburgh (3.12.82), he stated regarding the drop of about 50% in lung cancer among men under 50 years of age:

Revise. The Draft can present the scientific exposition of low delivery/low risk only within a framework of an accurate description of the current status of scientific and government positions. The BAT draft mentions government and health authorities only in connection with the belief that lower delivery has been responsible for a reduction in smoking-associated disease. However, the 1983 U.S. Surgeon General's Report stated the following conclusions:

TABLE 9.1 (continued )

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

"This reduction can be attributed to people giving up smoking altogether, but probably even more to changing to low-tar cigarettes which, without doubt, produce less harmful effects."

Epidemiological evidence concerning reduced tar and nicotine or filter cigarettes and their effect on CHD rates is conflicting. No scientific evidence is available concerning the impact on CHD death rates of cigarettes with very low levels of tar and nicotine.

Doll's conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer should be stated as well as his opinion about low delivery cigarettes. Doll's opinion about low delivery cigarettes is that they reduce the smoker's risk of lung cancer but do not reduce, and may increase, the risk of mortality from CHD. Parenthetically, any reference to Doll must be crafted carefully because he is a dedicated advocate of the causal hypothesis. ... If the BAT article cites uncritically Doll's position on low delivery cigarettes, we must be prepared to explain why we reject his treatment of delivery levels and cohort analysis.

36

Apropos such views, an interesting comment was made by Mr. R. Peto at a Ciba Foundation meeting on preventative medicine held in London (as reported in the 'New Scientist', 19.4.1984):

Revise or delete. The same article [in the New Scientist , April 19, 1984, regarding a comment made by Mr. R. Peto at Ciba Foundation meeting on preventive medicine in London] presents Peto's position that low-tar cigarettes could increase mortality due to heart disease and COLD [chronic obstructive lung disease]. If the Peto reference is retained, these views also should be stated in the BAT article as well as Peto's endorsement of the causal hypothesis. Why invite the reaction of an adversary when it is not necessary to an exposition of our position?

"Even the World Health Organisation won't advocate lowering the tar content of cigarettes. They don't want to believe that lower tar means lower death rates from lung cancer."

Thus, as in virtually all areas of smoking and health, there is continuing controversy.

TABLE 9.1 (continued )

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

37

AMBIENT SMOKE AND "PASSIVE SMOKING" There is a large literature on both ambient smoke and 'passive smoking'. Until recently there was little suggestion that there might be a health risk in non-smokers breathing other people's smoke. Thus:

Revise and reconsider. The purpose of the quotes with 1978 and 1979 dates is not clear. The authors made the statements after suggestions had been publicized that smoking caused disease in nonsmokers, not before such suggestions as implied by the introductory text. All four of the quotes are outdated and the U.S. NCI and Surgeon General have substantially changed their positions from these quotes.

1978. Draft Status Report of the US National Cancer Institute:

"The risk of cancer of the respiratory tract, emphysema, or cardiovascular disease does not appear to be increased by passively inhaling smoke generated by others."

1979 US Surgeon General's Report

"Healthy non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke have little or no physiological response to the smoke, and what response does occur may be due to psychological factors."

1979 Chairman of the American Heart Association Task Force on the Environment and Cardiovascular Disease

"Studies indicate that non-smokers have negligible levels of carboxyhemoglobin under good conditions of ventilation, and with no ventilation have acceptably low levels."

1978 C. Hugod, K. Hawkins and P. Astrup <'International Archive of Occupational and Environmental Health, 42'>

"It is pointed out that in spite of an often considerable subjective discomfort, exposing non-smokers to tobacco smoke under realistic conditions will not cause inhalation of such amounts of the components of tobacco smoke traditionally considered harmful, that a lasting, adverse health effect in otherwise healthy, grown up individuals seems probable."

38

—the Japanese as a race are very different from the Western world in terms of living environment and social cultures.

The first listed "criticism" of the Hirayama article must be deleted. The statement that perhaps only Japanese nonsmokers get lung cancer from cigarette smoke is little comfort to the Japanese.

—smoking habits <patterns of wives> were determined only at the beginning of the period

—the majority of the cancers (17 out of 23 in a sample) were not of the type most commonly found in lung cancer <smokers>

—the two-fold increased risk in wives of heavier smokers is similar to that found by Dr. Hirayama for women actively smoking about 5 cigarettes a day—whilst their heavy smoking husbands averaged only about 8 cigarettes a day at home.

TABLE 9.1 (continued)

Item

Original Text {1833.02}^[1]

Lawyer's Comment {1833.01}

40

Dr. <Mr.> L. Garfinkel, <Munchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, 1981>

Delete. Dr. Garfinkle has published a letter in the New York Times (June 5, 1984) which protests R. J. Reynolds' use of the passage quoted in the Draft and states:

"Passive smoking may be a political matter, but it is not a main issue in terms of health policy."

It is irresponsible of Reynolds to attempt to create a false sense of security about the potential dangers of passive smoking, especially at a time when incriminating evidence continues to accumulate.

TABLE 9.2 TOBACCO INSTITUTE, 1987 BUDGET: CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

1986 Budget

1986 Estimated

1987 Budget

National headquarters

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

$7,500

$10,000

$12,000

American Society Legislative Clerks & Secretaries (ASLC&S)

$1,500

$1,500

$1,500

Council of State Governments (CSG)

CSG Annual Meeting

$4,000

$4,000

$4,000

Corp. Associates Program (national)

$2,500

$1,500

$1,500

Eastern Regional CSG

$2,000

—

$2,000

Southern Regional CSG

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

Midwest Regional CSG

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

Western Regional CSG

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

CSG Committee Hearings

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

National Assoc. of Attorneys General (NAAG)

$2,000

—

—

National Assoc. of Counties (NACO)

$3,000

$2,000

$2,000

National Assoc. of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO)

$1,000

$1,000

$1,000

National Assoc. of State Depts. of Agriculture (NASDA)

$500

$600

$500

Southern Assoc. of State Depts. of Agriculture (SASDA)

$300

$300

$300

National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL), prorated among national & state Black Caucuses in AL/CT/FL/GA/LA/MA/MD/NY/SC/TX

$7,000

$6,000

$7,000

National Center for Initiative Review (NCIR)

$5,000

—

$5,000

TABLE 9.2 (continued)

1986 Budget

1986 Estimated

1987 Budget

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)

Foundation for State Legislatures

$2,500

$2,500

$2,500

Annual Meeting

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

NCSL—State/Federal Assembly

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

NCSL—Assembly Legislature

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

NCSL Committee Meetings

$1,000

$2,000

$2,000

Regional Governors' Assoc.

Northeast Governors' Assoc.

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

Midwestern Governors' Assoc.

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

Southern Governors' Assoc.

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

Western Governors' Assoc.

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

NGA Annual Meeting

—

$2,500

$2,500

National League of Cities (NLC)

$1,500

$1,500

$1,500

National Legislative Services & Securities (NLSS)

$1,000

$1,000

$1,000

National Order of Women Legislators (NOWL)

$1,000

—

—

Public Affairs Council (PAC)

$500

$500

$500

State Governmental Affairs Council (SGAC)

$2,500

$2,500

$2,500

State Legislative Leaders Foundation (SLLF)

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

US Conference of Mayors (USCM)

$1,500

$1,500

$1,500

Allies/Coalitions

Amusement and Music Operators Assoc. (AMOA)

$4,000

$5,000

$5,000

National Assoc. of Convenience Stores (NACS)

$2,000

—

—

National Assoc. of Neighbors (NAN)

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

National Licensed Beverage Assoc. (NLBA) (prorated among state chapters)

$4,000

$3,000

$3,000

Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE)

$1,500

$2,000

$2,000

State/local festivals in tobacco producing states

$2,000

$2,000

$2,000

Contingency (special events and meeting expenses)

$20,000

$15,000

$15,000

Totals

$118,300

$104,900

$114,800

SOURCE : Cost Center, State Activities Division, Headquarters No. 1401, Account 7520 {2229.01, pp. 9056–9057}.

TABLE 9.3 THEATRE CHAINS FOR "KOOL JAZZ" ADVERTISEMENT, 1984

Theaters

Screens

Yearly Attendance

United Artist

937

75,000,000

Gulf State Theatres

139

7,500,000

FLW Theatres

23

2,100,000

Universal Amusement

8

530,000

Theatres West

7

575,000

Cineplex Theatres

67

3,900,000

Kent Theatres

33

2,800,000

LAM Theatres

15

1,000,000

Davis Theatres

6

432,000

Martin Theatres

421

20,800,000

AMC Theatres

712

55,000,000

Georgia Theatres

100

5,600,000

Fairlane Litchfield

135

12,000,000

Santikos Theatres

65

5,000,000

Mann Theatres

275

27,000,000

General Cinema

1,054

100,000,000

Cobb Theatres

188

15,700,000

Total

4,185

334,937,000

Currently Screening

1,235

93,837,000

SOURCE : {2400.06}

TABLE 9.4 AUDITOR REPORT ON B&W PAYMENTS TO ASSOCIATED FILM PROMOTION (AFP) FOR SPECIAL MOTION PICTURE PLACEMENTS

Date

Movie

Amount

8/81 & 3/82

Tempest^[1]

$70,000

4/82

Shaker Run

5,000

4/82

Blue Skies Again

7,500

7/82

Smokey & Bandit III

10,000

8/82

Never Say Never Again

20,000

1/83

Harry & Son

100,000

3/83

Tank

25,000

3/83

Where the Boys Are

100,000

4/83

Killing Ground

50,000

6/83 & 8/83

Sylvester Stallone (5 movies)^[2,3,4]

300,000

Total

$687,500

SOURCE : {2400.23, p. 2}

TABLE 9.5 AFP PAYMENTS FOR B&W PRODUCT PLACEMENTS, AS REPORTED IN B&W AUDIT, 1983

Movie

AFP Check Payable^[1]

Amount

Description^[2]

Never Say Never

Arta Diamond

$ 7,170

Jewelry for Sean Connery

Again

Robinsons

5,545

" " " "

Fisher Corp.

2,782

Television for Production Mgr.

Robert Kovoloff

4,000

Mr. Kovoloff stated that he would rather not say what this payment was for.

Bally Aladdin Castle

1,248

Pac Man Machine for Property Master

Total AFP Payments

$ 20,745

B&W Payment

$ 20,000

Harry & Son

Pan Am. Air Travel

$ 50,000^[3]

Henry Kaye

9,850

Jewelry for Property Master

Auto Stiegler

42,307

Car for Paul Newman

Edward & Sons

1,185

Jewelry—Mr. Kovoloff could not remember who this was for.

Total AFP Payments

$103,342

B&W Payment

$100,000

Tank

David Levy

$ 13,000

Payment to Assistant Producer

Beverly Hills Camera Shop

1,132

Camera for Property Manager

La Brea Dodge

5,535

Car for Crowd Drawing^[4]

Lorimar Production

5,000

Prize for Crowd Drawing^[4]

Total AFP Payments

$24,667

B&W Payment

$25,000

Where the Boys Are

Henry Kaye Jewelers

$ 7,500

Watch for producer

Coral Cadillac

31,063

Car for producer

Martin Cadillac

16,762

Car for assistant producer

Robert Kovoloff

6,000

Cash for production coordinator

Joe Amega & Co.

25,000

Jewelry for producer

Beverly Hills Camera

10,552

Camera for production coordinator

Total AFP Payments

$ 96,877

B&W Payment

$100,000

Killing Ground

Cash

$ 10,030

Cash for production coordinator

Evans, Inc.

6,500

Jewelry for Producer

Auto Stiegler

22,047

Car for Clint Eastwood

Auto Diamond

4,452

Jewelry for Producer

Phil Adams

5,988

Payment for Property Master

Total AFP Payments

$49,017

B&W Payment

$50,000

TABLE 9.5 (continued)

Movie

AFP Check Payable^[1]

Amount

Description^[2]

Sylvester Stallone Movies

Tom Saccio

$ 2,000

Payment to Property Master

Falconer Jewelry

24,200

Jewelry for S. Stallone

Cash

8,000

Cash for Producer

Autistic Children's Foundation

25,000

Contribution

Wenpe Jewelry

7,290

Watch for S. Stallone

Sub-total

66,490

American Saddlebred

80,000^[5]

Stallone Automobile

97,000^{[ 6]}

Total AFP Payments

$243,490^{[ 7]}

B&W Payments

$300,000

SOURCE: {2404.04, pp. 2–4}. Emphasis in original.

TABLE 9.6 FILMS AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS WITH B&W PRODUCT PLACEMENTS, AS REPORTED IN B&W AUDIT, 1983

Movies

1.

Cheaper to Keep Her

2.

Honky Tonk Freeway

3.

Nine to Five

4.

Wacko

5.

Night People (All Night Long)

6.

Body Heat

7.

Body & Soul

8.

All the Marbles

9.

Kill & Kill Again

10.

Two for the Price of One

11.

Only When I Laugh

12.

Making Love

13.

Sharkey's Machine

14.

The Entity

15.

Jinxed

16.

First Blood

17.

Love Child

18.

Blue Skies Again

19.

Star Chamber

20.

Private School

21.

Summertime

22.

Savannah Smiles

Television Show

The A-Team

SOURCE: {2400.23, p. 10}.