Tobacco money -- and other spending plans

At long last we have what the lawyers call "state-specific finality" in the tobacco litigation.

With this week's unanimous ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court, Missouri becomes the last of the 46 states to reach this finality, which means all appeals and litigation have been exhausted. Such finality is a necessary pre-condition for money from the national tobacco settlement to start flowing into state coffers.

It has long been said that Missouri's share is expected to be $ 6.7 billion over 25 years. Informed observers, however, warn that Missouri's share will almost certainly be less, perhaps far less.

Indeed, among the unresolved issues are scores of continuing lawsuits against the tobacco companies, the continuation of which could mean bankruptcy court for the once-mighty tobacco kings. Now that Missouri, along with most other states, is essentially in partnership with the tobacco companies, any such fate for them would reduce Missouri's share by some presently unknowable but significant amount.

Ideas for spending the money are as plentiful as blackberries in July, and each of the 197 members of the Missouri Legislature probably has his or her own. While lawmakers mull their options in advance of next month's beginning of the 2001 session, a group of special interests has upped the ante by beginning a well-funded and highly organized initiative petition campaign. This effort, which is being spearheaded by hospitals and life-science companies in our major cities will ask voters to write into the Missouri Constitution how this money is to be spent, literally seeking to set specified percentages as to how much goes for this and how much for that.

We haven't studied in detail the proposed constitutional amendment, for which the petition has just been filed with the secretary of state's office. Still, we think it fair to comment on the dubious nature of this proposal.

Why do we have state lawmakers in the first place? Don't we elect them to go to Jefferson City and, working through the lengthy and arduous appropriations process, decide when, how and where to spend our tax money?

Isn't this an attack on the lawmakers' constitutional responsibility to establish state policy and priorities through their constitutional authority to appropriate revenue and write the budget?

Why should we write into the Constitution arbitrary percentages concerning how this loot is to be spent?

Concerns along these lines have already been expressed by respected state Sen. Wayne Goode, a St. Louis Democrat who is Senate Appropriations Committee chairman. His concerns, which are shared by many in both parties, cry out for an answer from proponents of this constitutional change.