"Project Rainbow" was
conceived by Philip Morris' lawyers in 1990-91 in the wake of the
Rose Cipollone case in the United States. The idea was to pass
federal legislation that would confer immunity on the tobacco
industry from future personal injury lawsuits in exchange for
accepting severe marketing and advertising restrictions--and even a
total ban--on advertising and promotion of tobacco products.
The tobacco industry has long felt that
increasingly severe restrictions on advertising, and even a total
ban on all forms of advertising and promotion of cigarettes, was
inevitable. This document makes it clear, though, that they
would not concede to such restrictions without extracting something
very valuable in return.
[From Page 3, Bates No. 2023027867]:
"Clearly, if we felt it was inevitable that Congress is
likely to pass an ad ban or other major restrictions on
advertising in the future, then it would make sense to seek a
legislative compromise now while we still have bargaining power
and leverage..."
Among other things, PM considered Project
Rainbow as a way to defuse growing criticism of the company and the
tobacco industry as a whole:
[From page 3, Bates No. 2023027867]:
"II. Possible Objectives of Project Rainbow
...D. To reduce the level of criticism directed toward
Philip Morris and the rest of the industry... the elimination or
severe restriction of cigarette advertising would diminish one of
the principal focal points of our antagonists' criticism. This
could lead to a diminution of the attacks against us and of the
level of hostile rhetoric..."
Philip Morris was prepared in 1991 to accept a total
ban on advertising: [From Page 4, Bates No. 2023027868]:
"Bill Campbell has some concerns about agreeing to
major concessions that might hamper our marketing efforts.
Nevertheless, he and the other members of the working group are
prepared to recommend all of the concessions set forth on the
attachment, including a total ban on advertising and event
promotions -- provided that any ban be phased in over a
five-year
period."
[Italicized emphasis
added]
This is a particularly important
document now, in light of Philip Morris'
ongoing plan to enact Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regulation of tobacco. The list of
objectives PM laid out for Project Rainbow match almost
perfectly with its current objectives for FDA regulation
[From Page 2, Bates No. 2023027866]:
Possible Objectives of Project Rainbow:
We have identified four possible objectives of Project
Rainbow; they are listed below...
A. Reaffirmation of Preemption -- We believe that
this is the most important objective and the only one which would
justify making significant advertising and promotion
concessions...
B. To forestall legislative action that would be
at least as bad or worse than the concessions we are
contemplating...
C. To secure a competitive advantage...
D. To reduce the level of criticism directed
toward Philip Morris and the rest of the industry...
-------------------
Notes Information on
Project Rainbow was first posted on Doc Alert on 23 April
2001.
---------------
Quotes:
[From
Page 1, Bates No. 2023027865]:
This memorandum and the attachment are being sent
to you in anticipation of our meeting on February 4 to
discuss Project Rainbow... Essentially, we have agreed to
recommend to you that we initiate steps to explore with
appropriate Congressional leaders the possibility of
achieving a legislative compromise in this session which
would, with our acquiescence, impose significant future
restrictions on cigarette advertising, and event promotions,
in return for which Congress would, in the same legislation,
reaffirm the preemption of alleged tort claims related to
smoking...We would also anticipate a five-year period of
"legislative peace" with respect to marketing issues.
[From Page 2, Bates No. 2023027866]:
Possible Objectives of Project Rainbow
We have identified four possible objectives of
Project Rainbow; they are listed below...
A. Reaffirmation of Preemption -- We believe that
this is the most important objective and the only one which
would justify making significant advertising and promotion
concessions...
B. To forestall legislative action that would be
at least as bad or worse than the concessions we are
contemplating...
C. To secure a competitive advantage...
D. To reduce the level of criticism directed
toward Philip Morris and the rest of the industry...
[From Page 4, Bates No. 2023027868]:
III. Recommendation
Attached to David Greenberg's memorandum is an
appendix which sets forth three possible scenarios,
including a description of the specific concessions that
will likely be required under each scenario. The
working group has reached a consensus as to the concessions
we should be willing to make in return for a reaffirmation
of preemption and a five-year period of "legislative peace"
with respect to advertising and marketing
restrictions. The working group is not unanimous in
its recommendations. One member, Guy Smith, believes it
would be a mistake for us to offer any concessions that are
not absolutely necessary at this time. In addition, Bill
Campbell has some concerns about agreeing to major
concessions that might hamper our marketing efforts.
Nevertheless, he and the other members of the working group
are prepared to recommend all of the concessions set forth
on the attachment, including a total ban, on advertising and
event promotions -- provided that any ban be phased in over
a five-year period.
President and Chief Operating Officer, Philip
Morris Companies Inc., USA. Served on Board of Directors
for PM from 1987-89. Australian. Was President and CEO
in 1992; Chairman 1994.
Named Person:
Smith, Guy L. IV (Employed by PMI; Chair of
TI Communications Comm.)
Guy Smith was employed with PMI. Smith was
Chairman of the TI Communications Committee. (Source:
CNM Tobacco Companies Personnel
List)
President and Chief Operating Officer, Philip
Morris Companies Inc., USA. Served on Board of Directors
for PM from 1987-89. Australian. Was President and CEO
in 1992; Chairman 1994.
VP of PM Inc. from 1984 to 1985. President and
CEo of PM in 1986 and then again from 1992 to 1995. He
was on the Board of Directors for Philip Morris, Inc.
from 1986 to 1987 and then again from 1992 to 1995. He
stated, "I believe that nicotine is not addictive, yes."
Cipollone,
Rose Dingle Gerstner Goldberg, M. Greenberg, David (VP, Gov't Affairs PM 1990,
VPCorp. Affairs, PM EEMA Region 9)
Took over at time of Cippolone. Cleaned house.
Carried company into a strong defensive
position.
Named Organization:
RJR, R.J.Reynolds Supreme Court PM,
Philip Morris TI, Tobacco Inst Congress
Litigation:
Okag/Privilege Withdrawn Okag/Produced
Type:
MEMO,
MEMORANDUM
This service is provided
by LandmanTobacco Document Research &
Consulting, facilitated by Tobacco Documents
Online and funded by
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, www.rwjf.org
The archives are contain
over 900 past postings of Doc-Alert. The entire text
of the archives are searchable by keyword, a very useful feature
for quickly locating document information on virtually any
topic.
