Citizens Against Government Encroachment (CAGE) is a small lobbying group in Canada which has acknowledged depending primarily on corporate donations, and which employs highly questionable tactics and arguments for opposing legislated smoking restrictions as well as various other tobacco control measures.
On May 31, 2006, Bill 112 came into effect in Quebec, banning indoor smoking in public places.
David Romano formed Citizens Against Government Encroachment (CAGE) in January 2005 – the same month in which Quebec's government began holding public consultations to amend the Tobacco Act – as a vehicle through which to access the media, influence public opinion, and rally smokers and business owners against an impending smoking ban. CAGE's other founding directors are David Romano's brother Daniel Romano, a Montreal lawyer with Kalman Samuels Q C & Associates; and Lucy Brown, a former McGill University undergraduate student who worked directly under David Romano at McGill prior to her activities with CAGE.
Over the next year and a half, the Romanos vigorously lobbied the media and politicians, but could not convince even one member of Quebec's National Assembly to oppose Bill 112 (it was passed unanimously). They did, however, help create the appearance of public controversy in the months leading up to the smoking ban's implementation.
Corporate lobbyist David Romano is an assistant professor of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He was previously a post-doctoral fellow (researcher) and faculty lecturer at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec and is still involved there as a senior research fellow with the Interuniversity Consortium for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies (ICAMES).
FINANCING
CAGE continues to solicit donations on its website, as it has done since at least the summer of 2006, saying: "Large donations go into a savings account that we are building up for...Legal challenges against the government. We have two challenges and one anticipated defence that we are currently raising funds for." Since CAGE does not appear to be involved in any other legal actions against the government, these donations can only be to support the Quebec Bar Owners Association's legal actions against the smoking ban. In May 2006, the Montreal Gazette reported that CAGE had "hired constitutional legal eagle Julius Grey to challenge the legislation as an infringement of Charter rights."
Until December 2006, Citizens Against Government Encroachment (CAGE) stated on its website that it accepted corporate members "who support our cause, consisting of any corporate entity or private business with an interest in our mission" and that "it is on the corporate members that we depend the most for financing."
CAGE has never clearly stated that it has never received money from any tobacco company, nor are they in a position to. CAGE now invites donations via a PayPal account, saying: "If you would rather make a donation via PayPal, please click the button to the left and follow the directions." This would presumably allow any individual or corporation to provide financial support anonymously.
While it is not known if CAGE has received funding directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly, from tobacco companies, it is worth noting that the tobacco industry has a history of supporting such activities. In Canada, the tobacco industry has admitted to paying $800,000 a year to purpose-built tobacco-financed and tobacco-friendly front groups.
TACTICS AND ARGUMENTS
In its opposition to Quebec's smoking ban, Citizens Against Government Encroachment (CAGE) has employed a variety of tactics and arguments which have been used by smoke-free opposition groups elsewhere, some of which received funding or other assistance from tobacco companies. The Non-Smokers' Rights Association states that "CAGE uses all of the tactics commonly employed by tobacco industry funded groups." These include:
1. Claim smoking is a fundamental right, introduce other issues
2. Claim second-hand smoke isn't dangerous
3. Propose ventilation alternatives
4. Claim economic loss, initiate litigation
5. Foster tobacco use among young people
6. Incite anger and resentment among smokers (the “Nazi” argument)
7. Create the impression of public dissent
8. Point to academic/professional credentials ("Appeal to authority" argument)
9. Ad hominem attacks
CONCLUSION