2 and public relations groups to promote favorable policy positions. One persuasive argument that the tobacco industry employed to gain support from the hospitality industry, particularly the gambling industry, was that smoke-free laws would harm profits for such establishments. Macy and Hernandez (2011) , in their research on the effect of smoke-free policy on wagering at off-track betting facilities in Indiana, found that, while wagering did decrease during the 2002-2009 period at the OTB

more »

... lities, there was no difference found in the analysis between facilities that went smoke-free and those that did not. There is evidence that more people are becoming aware of such evidence and changing their views on smoke-free policy. Tang, Cowling, Stevens, and Lloyd (2004) found a significantly higher percentage of bar employees preferred a smoke-free environment and expressed concerns about the effects of second-hand smoke on their health after a California smoke-free law had been in place for a number of years. Campaign contributions from the tobacco industry continue to be a force in smoke-free policy. According to Rosenbaum, Barnes and Glantz (2011 ), between 1994, the tobacco industry contributed $560,000 to political campaigns in Indiana. Many of those receiving contributions held leadership positions, and those contributions were found to be associated with legislative behavior favoring the tobacco industry. Between 2000 and 2009, the tobacco industry spent $4,029,262 on lobbying, while prevention and cessation groups spent $490,626 on advocacy during the same period (keep in mind that state tobacco cessation and prevention coordinators are prohibited from lobbying under the law) (Rosenbaum, Barnes, and Glantz 2011). The influence of campaign donations on political activity may be why, as Cairney, Studlar, and Mamudu (2012) suggest, tobacco control has stronger support in civil society, including community coalitions, than political institutions.