Bootleggers, Baptists & Televangelists: Regulating Tobacco by Litigation

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW University of Illinois Law Review Pub Date : 2007-08-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1010695
B. Yandle, Joseph A. Rotondi, Andrew P. Morriss, Andy Dorchak
{"title":"Bootleggers, Baptists & Televangelists: Regulating Tobacco by Litigation","authors":"B. Yandle, Joseph A. Rotondi, Andrew P. Morriss, Andy Dorchak","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1010695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The bootleggers and Baptists public choice theory of regulation explains how durable regulatory bargains can arise from the tacit collaboration of a public-interest-minded interest group (the Baptists) with an economic interest (the bootleggers). Using the history of tobacco regulation, this Article extends the bootleggers and Baptists theory of regulation to incorporate the role of policy entrepreneurs like the state attorneys general and private trial lawyers who joined forces to regulate tobacco by litigation. We denominate these actors televangelists and demonstrate that they play a pernicious role in regulation. The Article begins by showing how tobacco regulation through the 1980s fit the traditional bootleggers and Baptists public choice model. It then explores the circumstances that made it possible for the emergence of the televangelists as a regulatory partner that the bootleggers would prefer. The Article then criticizes televangelist-bootlegger bargains as likely to result in substantial wealth transfers from large, unorganized groups to the coalition partners. It also shows how televangelist-bootlegger coalitions are more pernicious than bootlegger-Baptist coalitions. Finally, it concludes with suggestions for how to make televangelist-bootlegger coalitions less durable.","PeriodicalId":47018,"journal":{"name":"University of Illinois Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Illinois Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1010695","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

The bootleggers and Baptists public choice theory of regulation explains how durable regulatory bargains can arise from the tacit collaboration of a public-interest-minded interest group (the Baptists) with an economic interest (the bootleggers). Using the history of tobacco regulation, this Article extends the bootleggers and Baptists theory of regulation to incorporate the role of policy entrepreneurs like the state attorneys general and private trial lawyers who joined forces to regulate tobacco by litigation. We denominate these actors televangelists and demonstrate that they play a pernicious role in regulation. The Article begins by showing how tobacco regulation through the 1980s fit the traditional bootleggers and Baptists public choice model. It then explores the circumstances that made it possible for the emergence of the televangelists as a regulatory partner that the bootleggers would prefer. The Article then criticizes televangelist-bootlegger bargains as likely to result in substantial wealth transfers from large, unorganized groups to the coalition partners. It also shows how televangelist-bootlegger coalitions are more pernicious than bootlegger-Baptist coalitions. Finally, it concludes with suggestions for how to make televangelist-bootlegger coalitions less durable.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
走私者,浸信会教徒和电视布道者:通过诉讼调节烟草
私酒走私者和浸信会教徒的公共选择监管理论解释了,持久的监管交易是如何从具有公共利益的利益集团(浸信会教徒)与经济利益集团(私酒走私者)的默契合作中产生的。利用烟草监管的历史,本文扩展了走私者和浸信会的监管理论,以纳入政策企业家的角色,如州检察长和私人审判律师,他们联合起来通过诉讼来监管烟草。我们将这些演员称为电视布道者,并证明他们在监管中扮演了有害的角色。文章首先展示了20世纪80年代的烟草管制如何符合传统的走私者和浸信会教徒的公共选择模式。然后,它探讨了使电视布道者成为走私者所青睐的监管伙伴成为可能的情况。文章接着批评电视布道者和私酒走私者的交易很可能导致大量财富从大型、无组织的团体转移到联合伙伴手中。它也显示了电视布道者和私酒走私者的联合比私酒走私者和浸信会的联合更有害。最后,报告总结了如何使电视布道者和走私者的联盟不那么持久的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Education Contracts of Adhesion in the COVID-19 Pandemic Justice on the Line: Prosecutorial Screening Before Arrest #MeToo, Time’s Up, and Theories of Justice Solving 'Problems No One Has Solved': Courts, Causal Inference, and the Right to Education Human Rights in the British Constitution : A Prisoner of History
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1