By Saundra Torry and John Schwartz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 8, 1998; Page A02

The hoped-for electoral bounce of anti-tobacco sentiment never materialized Tuesday for many of the candidates who believed that suing cigarette makers would help propel them to higher office.

Two of tobacco's most outspoken foes -- attorneys general Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III (D) of Minnesota and Scott Harshbarger (D) of Massachusetts -- lost bids to become governors of their states. Humphrey wrung a $6 billion settlement out of the industry, and Harshbarger has a case pending to recover the costs of treating sick smokers.

Tobacco ended up working for Democrats just about as well as Monica S. Lewinsky did for Republicans: Each side believed it had latched onto a potent campaign issue, but the voters' response was mixed and tepid.

"There ain't a lot of lift in tobacco," said Scott Williams, a public relations consultant to the industry with the Bozell Sawyer Miller Group. "If you get $6 billion for your state and you come in third, what does that tell you?" Williams referred to Minnesota, where Humphrey finished far behind the surprise winner, Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura, and Republican Norm Coleman.

Democrats and health advocates warned against reading too much into the results. "I think tobacco was about as relevant to voters this week as Monica's beret," said James Tierney, a former Maine attorney general who advises current attorneys general on political and legal issues. He noted that anti-tobacco attorneys general Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, the first Republican to file a suit against the industry, and Democrat Tom Miller of Iowa won resounding victories. Trying to pin a loss on tobacco is "tempting, but it's a huge oversimplification," Tierney said.

Matthew L. Myers of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids said, however, that "weak positions on tobacco may have hurt some candidates like Dan Lungren [in California] or Ellen Sauerbrey" in Maryland, two Republicans who lost gubernatorial bids.

Health advocates also pointed to victories in places where voters spoke directly to an anti-tobacco issue. In Portland, Maine, for instance, more than 60 percent of the voters favored a ballot initiative upholding a ban on smoking in certain restaurants. In Corvallis, Ore., voters defeated an initiative that would have exempted bars from a smoking ban.

In California, where the industry spent millions to defeat a 50-cent-per-pack cigarette surtax, the vote remained too close to call. The measure was ahead by 13,000 votes, but more than 700,000 absentee ballots remained uncounted.

A White House official said the tobacco issue had become "muddied" because the vote by Senate Republicans to kill the national tobacco bill occurred last June and had lost its potency. The industry's continuing advertising campaign also made it difficult for Democrats to use tobacco as a weapon, because it painted tobacco foes as candidates in favor of high taxes.

White House adviser Paul Begala said Republicans had defeated so much of the Democratic congressional agenda, particularly the patients' bill of rights, that a Democratic candidate was "like a mosquito in a nudist colony." There were so many issues to choose from in attacking the GOP that tobacco was not the most obvious or powerful one, he said.

At least one GOP candidate, following the tobacco industry's lead, managed to turn the tobacco issue against his opponent. In Massachusetts, Acting Gov. Paul Cellucci (R) accused his anti-tobacco opponent, Harshbarger, of being a taxer and spender because Harshbarger supported a tobacco tax, already in effect, that funds Medicaid coverage for about 100,000 residents. Harshbarger ended up defending the tax.

In Massachusetts, tobacco is "not a defining element when [voters] determine who they want to support," said Boston-based Democratic consultant Mary Anne Marsh. "It is only effective as an example of something larger like, 'I am going to fight to make schools better, health care better, day care better. . . . Look at my record: I fought against tobacco.' " But Harshbarger "unfortunately did not use it that way," she said.

Harshbarger spokesman Ed Cafasso agreed that tobacco "just wasn't a defining issue" in the campaign. After the national tobacco bill died in the Senate last summer, interest in the issue seemed to wane. Moreover, the Massachusetts lawsuit against the industry has not gone to trial. "There was a lot of sizzle, but there was no bacon," Cafasso said.

Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said that just as other issues must be part of a larger strategy, tobacco is "no silver bullet."

"Is it a useful issue? Yes," he said. "In and of itself, can it turn an election around? No. But neither can any other issue."

The election results could affect efforts by several attorneys general to reach a group settlement of their lawsuits against the industry -- one that could serve as a framework to settle more than three dozen remaining state suits. The talks, taking place in an environment in which the industry has regained its negotiating advantage, have been attacked by some members of the public health community.

Now two of the attorneys general leading those talks have become lame ducks: Lungren, who lost his bid to be California's governor, and Dennis Vacco, who was not reelected in New York. Activists have seized the opportunity to urge those attorneys general and others to reconsider a settlement they say would do little to curb smoking.

California Attorney General-elect Bill Lockyer has written Lungren urging him to provide "for full and thorough public disclosure and review" of the proposed settlement, which has been kept confidential by negotiators. Veteran smoking foe Stan Glantz, of San Francisco, called the letter a "big boost" for those who oppose the settlement. He said slowing action on the proposed deal would either improve it or kill it.