The Tobacco Caucus

I haven't seen any numbers on this directly, but according to the NCDA's statistics, we exported $409,600,000 of raw tobacco in 2007. If that is included in the total cash receipts for tobacco (~$586,451,000), then it can be assumed that nearly 70% of tobacco profits come from exports out of the state.

I would still say that $186 million is a large amount of money for certain eastern counties,and there's possibly a generalized interest that the legislators that represent all tobacco counties might have in seeing no state adopt such regulations. The regulations are, let's admit it, ultimately aimed at reducing smoking by making it more inconvenient to be a smoker (as well as the short-term benefit of reducing second-hand smoke). That attenuated concern, however, is probably why ~45% of legislators from "Grower" districts voted for a smoking ban.

While I understand this post to a degree, you must understand that the "tobacco caucus" is actually much larger. Because Reynolds American has thousands of current employees and a lot more retirees (for the most part who are ardently loyal) that live in several counties surrounding Winston-Salem. I believe any legislator from Forsyth, Davie, Davidson (excluding Holliman), Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin could easily be included in the tobacco caucus.

Here's a good link for cash receipts, by county, for tobacco (including burley, but as you can see from the counties listed, we're talking solely about flue-cured):

http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/economic/cashreceipts/tobacco.htm

As far as tobacco growers' concern comes into play, I think it actually would have a significant effect in certain ares.

As far as I understand (and I am liable to be wrong), since 2004 or so, the contract system has developed such that in some areas (Wilson county I believe to be one of them), the actual number of tobacco farms and farmers have decreased, but tobacco acreage, output and cash receipts have expanded -- only in the hands of a smaller number of growers.

On the other hand, many areas have seen tobacco growers, acreage and receipts fall severely (Wake county being the most obvious example).

In the wake of this legislation, as well as corresponding legislation in other states, I feel that manufacturers would be forced to charge more for the product, pay less for the tobacco, or buy less tobacco. While the first option would be easiest for growers, I think its somewhat less likely, given tax trends on cigarettes.

It seems to me that the other two options would therefore disproportionately affect certain legislators' districts, and because of the concentrated nature of tobacco production, would have both an equal or greater percentage impact on the local economy relative to the revenue decrease (modified by overhead costs), as well has have a large, although much shallower secondary impact on the local service economy.

Now, I fully believe my economics could be backwards like a demolition derby, but it makes sense in my head. I guess this sort of thinking should be left for the economists, because I've left out the whole host of government funding for alternative crop programs, CRP benefits, etc, etc.

Although the soybean and corn are taking over, it might also be prudent to see what legislators have high amounts of direct-contract tobacco money going into their district. Certainly there are some legislators down east (not to flare up a nomenclature debate) who have quite a large stake in how much golden leaf Reynolds, PM, Lorillard, et al are able to purchase. This is not even touching on smaller, independent tobacco co-ops.