In response to questions from the Guardian, Americans for Prosperity said: "We strongly and consistently oppose all policies that punish Americans with higher taxes – especially the most vulnerable – or give an unfair advantage or disadvantage to any specific industry."

Atlas Network did not respond to multiple requests for comment via email, phone and in-person.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Beacon Center of Tennessee said it “respects the privacy of our supporters and never answers questions about who has or has not donated to our organization". The Beacon Center also said it has "never lobbied for or worked on any bills related to tobacco and has only mentioned it on rare occasion, specifically when referring to over-taxation or government overreach generally".

In response to questions from the Guardian, Lisa Gates, a spokeswoman for the Buckeye Institute, said, the group “is staffed by attorneys, economists, and public policy experts who calculate and assess the impact of various economic and tax policies on Ohio's economy. Our independent research is conducted in order to inform policymakers of the effects their decisions have on Ohio’s economy and Ohioans. We leave research on health effects to medical experts."

In response to questions from the Guardian, a spokesperson for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Scott Hennig, said the group opposes plain packaging because it “removes barriers for those who want to produce contraband tobacco that, again, would be available at low prices to minors and price-sensitive adult smokers". The Taxpayers’ Federation said it does not disclose its donors as part of a “robust privacy policy", but that most donations are of less than $1,000. “Our interest in tobacco, relates primarily to the tax revenue lost by Canadian governments through contraband," Hennig said. “We believe the greatest public health concern around tobacco is the availability of tax-free, inexpensive, un-marked bags of contraband tobacco."

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Cascade Policy Institute said it opposed tobacco excise taxes and not tobacco controls, and that it had done the same for products such as beer and wine, although it did not receive donations from companies in that industry. “Our statements of opposition are based on principled concerns about the proper role of government in a free society," the group said. The group also said, “In any given year, donations received from Altria never exceed 1% of our total revenue. It’s not plausible that this level of funding would influence our decision-making." The group also said because of Oregon’s clean indoor air laws, secondhand smoke has been virtually eliminated, and therefore smoking is not a public health problem. “Smokers may create health problems for themselves, which may eventually impose costs on the public, but that is why tobacco users already pay taxes for the [lawsuit settlement] payments that Oregon receives."

In response to questions from the Guardian, the spokeswoman for the Cato Institute, Khristine Brookes, said: “We are a libertarian organization – we support legalizing marijuana as well as rolling back the regulatory burdens placed on the sale and use of tobacco products, liquor, sugar, and various other legal products." She said Cato is “quite grateful for the support we receive from individuals and organizations who believe in these free market and limited government principles". She added: “Corporate contributions have consistently made up less than 3% of our operating budget," though Cato does not disclose individual donors.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Center of the American Experiment said: “We never discuss donors with the media" and that “donors both big and small do not set the Center’s policy positions". The group also said it had not commented on tobacco taxation in “several years", but in the past the Center “has indeed opposed the ‘sin taxes’ championed by anti-tobacco lobbyists". The group said its focus was on “promoting good tax policy, as opposed to weighing the evidence on whether these ‘sin taxes’ have had the desired effect on the rate of smoking among teens or adults". “The cost of the tobacco tax, in our opinion, does not justify the benefits," the group said.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said: “Over the decades that CEI has worked on tobacco regulatory issues, our position has been that smoking is a very risky activity. In recent years we have taken the position that non-combustible forms of nicotine are less harmful compared to cigarettes. In all cases, CEI’s stance is that adults should be free to make their own decisions about what risks they are willing to take, including those related to nicotine use." The group declined to disclose its donors, and said it is “funded by thousands of donors worldwide, and we respect their privacy".

The group's director of labor policy, Max Nelson, said the group "does not currently engage in or take positions on issues related to tobacco use or regulation." Regarding donations, Freedom Foundation has a “longstanding practice of not naming specific donors due largely to concerns over donor harassment by special interest groups".

In response to questions from the Guardian, the foundation said it responds to cigarette tax increase proposals “in a way that you would expect from an organization whose core principles include limited government and personal responsibility ... We advocate for limited government and personal responsibility, period." The foundation does not disclose its donors, but said it does not perform contract research or accept donations in exchange for specific commentary.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Goldwater Institute’s CEO, Victor Riches, said the group “is a public interest legal organization whose primary mission is to defend constitutional principles and individual liberty, through litigation and the advancement of public policy. The Institute has a long history of opposing tax increases, governmental restraints on the free market, and overregulation. “The Goldwater Institute does not disclose its donors and strongly defends their right to freedom of speech. In fact, we are advocating nationally against mandatory donor disclosure laws which violate the constitution, invite harassment and retaliation against donors, and chill speech and association."

In response to the Guardian’s questions, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii said: “In general, the Grassroot Institute has always opposed regressive taxes, and probably some of our unsolicited donations are from parties who agree with us for taking that position – Altria possibly among them. "No policy work or activism by the Grassroot Institute has been influenced by Altria. In 2013, Altria’s contributions made up less than 0.2% of the Grassroot Institute’s budget; in 2012, less than 0.1%. "The Grassroot Institute has not campaigned on Altria’s behalf – or the tobacco industry in general."

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Heritage Foundation said “total corporate support of Heritage is less than five percent of total operating contributions". “Our work clearly recognizes the public health concerns with cigarette smoking," while also opposing “sin taxes", said Daren Bakst, an agricultural policy fellow at Heritage. “These taxes, including cigarette taxes, can lead to black markets that increase criminal activity. “We need to have thoughtful discourse on how the federal government can remove unnecessary obstacles to less harmful nicotine delivery products that could help people stop smoking, while taking appropriate steps to ensure that youth do not have access to such products," said Bakst.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the James Madison Institute said its “position on taxes, or any policy issue for that matter, is guided by our principles of limited government, economic freedom and liberty". “It is our long-held view over more than 30 years in existence that low taxes create economic prosperity, and that free markets are the greatest anti-poverty program in the history of mankind," said Logan Padgett, spokesman for the institute. “Organizations like Altria have been among the dozens of sponsors of the James Madison Institute’s annual dinner over the years and we are incredibly thankful for their generous support."

In response to questions from the Guardian, CEO Kory Swanson said: “The John Locke Foundation pursues policies of limited constitutional government and personal responsibility. “Other than the impact on taxation and regulation, we have generally avoided positions that would endorse or condemn tobacco use," Swanson said. “We have regularly advocated broad-based taxes with low rates, rather than selective taxes targeting particular products or industries." Swanson said the John Locke Foundation commented to regarding IQOS because “the Food and Drug Administration was considering rules that would limit consumer choice and freedom".

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Kansas Policy Institute said Altria was “one of many sponsors" of annual dinner in 2011 and 2012. “The basis for our opposition to a tobacco tax increase is the same as any other tax increase: Kansas has a spending problem, not a revenue problem," the group said. “Our testimony that cigarette taxes are also ‘inherently regressive’ is supported by multiple research studies," the group said, and referred to a 2004 article from the American Journal of Public Health.

In response to questions from the Guardian, Pioneer Institute executive director Jim Stergios said: “Education reform is our highest priority" and: “This organization has never published information taking a position on tobacco use." The Pioneer Institute publishes a list of its donors annually, and that over three years Altria has given the organization $6,000, or far less than one percent over a decade. “The gifts were unrestricted and, therefore, not tied into any specific policy work," said Stergios. Stergios said it is staffed with “individuals with varying political views" including prominent Democrats.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Reason Foundation’s director of consumer freedom, Guy Bentley, said Reason “believes in individual choice and policies that encourage individuals and voluntary institutions to flourish". “We also believe in consumer choice," said Bentley, “and that adults who make an active decision to smoke should be free to do so." The organization opposed raising the smoking age to 21 because “adults who are old enough to enlist in the military and fight in wars are old enough to buy cigarettes should they so choose". The group said it opposed some e-cigarette regulations because “misguided regulations which restrict access to safer products, such as e-cigarettes, are a threat to public health that could contribute to more smoking-related deaths occurring than would if governments let the market and safer alternatives develop and thrive".

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Rio Grande Foundation said it “opposes all net tax hikes, so we oppose raising taxes on cigarettes as well as vaping". The group also said: “The foundation sees vaping as the best alternative to cigarette smoking and has worked to support that as a less harmful alternative to smoking in recent years." The foundation did not respond to questions about its donors.

In response to questions from the Guardian, SPN said its member thinktanks are “fiercely independent" and that any “presumption of a conspiracy is unfounded and tenuous at best". “SPN in no way directs which policy issues they advocate for or against or which policies they will research," the group said. “In general, all thinktanks in our network promote policies based on free market principles that create a level playing field and safeguard personal freedom, economic liberty, rule of law, property rights and limited government." The group said it, “strongly believes in respecting the privacy of donors", which it said was a safety issue, “especially in the current political climate".

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Washington Policy Center said: “It shouldn’t take much investigation to discover that Washington Policy Center opposes new and higher taxes. What you define as a ‘tobacco policy’ we see as a tax policy. “There are many reasons to oppose an increase in cigarette taxes that do not involve a desire to see more people take up or continue smoking," the group said, It added some of those reasons are "impacts on the poor, nanny state controls, volatility of the revenue of a proposed tax, possible precedent on other businesses, and one-size fits all unnecessary mandates, to name a few". The group declined to disclose its donors, and said while some choose to be public, “we allow donors to speak for themselves and respect donor privacy. Our research is independent and we do not contract out studies."

In response to questions from the Guardian, Imani said it had accepted donations from tobacco companies, “probably four years ago" for its general fund, but had not since. The group said those donations did not go directly to lobbying against tobacco controls. As well, it said those who criticized the group’s financial transparency did “a totally shoddy job", and anti-tobacco campaigners often “resort to allegations, blackmail and shrills". Imani said it opposed bills to limit indoor smoking “to simply recognize the rights of smokers (as long as it has not been banned in Ghana) and ask that they be given designated places away from others, including children, to smoke". The group said it no longer denies that smoking causes lung cancer. The group said if public health campaigners wanted to continue to regulate tobacco, “perhaps they should simply ban the product".

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Institute said it is an “independent thinktank and we do work in areas which are significant to us”. Although the group said it does not disclose its funding, British American Tobacco said it had not supported AIP. “Plain packaging is not a control. Neither is calling for greater transparency,” AIP said. “We have also called for vaping to be legalised in Australia and New Zealand, as it is in the United Kingdom. However, we do oppose bad policy, and much of what is proposed in the area of tobacco is bad policy which damages the health (opposition to vaping) [and] welfare (excessive excise rates which due to demand inelasticity have little effect on smoking rates) of smokers whilst being ineffective in decreasing smoking levels.”

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Australian Taxpayers Alliance said it is a, "75,000-plus member advocacy group" which has not accepted tobacco industry funding, and did not plan to do so in the future. The group said, "we are opposed to plain packaging and were proud to sign that letter because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that it has failed (and has come at a considerable price)."

The Center for Indonesian Policy Studies said tobacco companies had “never funded any of our policy research and advocacy work". The group said it opposed plain packaging “based on our view that imposing plain packaging on any product infringes on intellectual property rights as protected by the Declaration of Human Rights". The group also said: “We view that alternative approaches other than imposing plain packaging should be pursued to reduce the negative health effects associated with smoking, and to encourage consumers to make informed and responsible choices for the promotion of public health and safety."

In response to questions from the Guardian, Ideas said it follows “a strict policy of editorial independence, which is a part of our contracts with all donors". Because of this policy, “no donations influence our research and analytical outputs". Further, the group said: "It is incorrect to say that we attribute smuggling to taxes alone." The group said it also advocates against selling duty-free cigarettes in Malaysia. The group said its reliance on tobacco industry-funded research was not considered, "of relevance". Further, the group said it has always published its annual financials online. “Ideas is perhaps the only civil society organization in Malaysia which maintains this level of transparency."

In response to questions from the Guardian, Andrew Shuen, director of the Lion Rock Institute, said: “The LRI does not dispute the science about smoking and its negative health effects. It is very bad and smokers on average die much younger than non smokers for sure." Shuen said the Institute fights “against government actions on tobacco" for the same reason, “those who support abortion rights or voluntary euthanasia shares. The sovereignty over one's own body." He added: “We simply want smokers to have a right to kill themselves with dignity. We don't support people choosing to smoke, but we do believe to respect their choices." In relation to donors, Shuen said: “We do not disclose our donors unless they choose to be revealed."

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Adam Smith Institute said it “does not comment on individual donations". “Our research papers and positions are fully independent and not funded by companies or lobbies," said Matt Kilcoyne, head of communications at Adam Smith. “We campaigned on health grounds on plain packaging." Kilcoyne said plain packaging has not reduced smoking rates, and leads smokers to use illicit cigarettes, which are often contaminated with “asbestos, mould, dead flies, rat droppings, even human excrement". “I'm more than happy for us to be on record attacking such a dreadful policy that fails to achieve its desired results and places people at risk."

The Center for Social and Economic Research denied it received money fron Japan Tobacco, despite disclosures by Japan Tobacco. The group said it "stands for predictable taxation policy", which "should consider smuggling trends in the region". The group said it has "no idea" about plain packaging.

In response to questions from the Guardian, editor of Ekonomichna Pravda Dmytro Dienkov said the group had not received "donations" from Japan Tobacco. Instead, it said the group partnered with Japan Tobacco in an advertising campaign. "The goal of the project is to show how difficult it is to run a business in Ukraine and how many documents, unnecessary permits and licenses they need," the group said. "This project is not about the tobacco industry, and tobacco products are not advertised." The group said it believed tobacco controls, including plain packaging, were not necessarily bad policy, "if it leads to a reduction in the number of smokers".

In response to questions from the Guardian, a spokesperson for the Institute of Economic Affairs said: "The majority of your queries pertain to IEA donations. We respect the privacy of our donors and do not disclose who they are. If our donors wish to make their donations known, they are free to do so. A cornerstone of a free society is being able to associate freely and we strive to uphold that, by both supporting those who wish to make their donations public and those who do not. "The Institute’s editorial and policy output is decided by our research team and academic advisory council only. The insinuation from your line of questioning is that we only purport certain views because we are paid to. This is categorically untrue and slanderous. The funding follows the research, not the other way round. "Specifically on your point about plain packaging and the joint letter, it is hardly surprising that free market think tanks are opposed to policies that trample on property rights. Plain packaging is designed to make markets function less well by removing an important driver of competition. The ‘public health’ lobby in general favours state control over market transactions and therefore frequently finds itself on the opposite side of the argument to organisations that believe in freedom. "Incidentally it is a matter of verifiable fact that plain packaging has reduced neither smoking rates nor cigarette consumption in the handful of countries that have been foolish to experiment with it."

In response to questions from the Guardian, director of the Liberální Institut Martin Pánek said the group “proudly co-signed" a letter against plain packaging, as it “emphatically does not reduce smoking". Pánek said the group has not accepted donations from the tobacco industry.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Libek president, Miloš Nikolić, said: “Libertarian Club Libek has never received funds from the tobacco industry. We do not perform research in the field of tobacco regulation, and our public comments in this field rely on third party research." Nikolić said the group “promotes individual liberty and defends the right of individuals to self – ownership, private property and voluntary interactions with others. Often, these rights are infringed upon by actions of governments, or special interest groups using governments as their vehicle. “We do not a priori side with any private company, government or special interest group – our actions are based in principles that lead us as an organization."

In response to questions from the Guardian, the Warsaw Enterprise Institute said: "We believe that governments can prevent smoking. They have all the necessary tools. Just put a ban on smoking and selling cigarettes like it is done in the case of drugs." However, the group said if governments choose not to ban cigarette, they should stop "the policy of harassing entrepreneurs". The group also argued tobacco taxes cause smuggling from nearby states, that plain packaging limits freedom of speech, and education would be more effective in both cases. "The suggestion that WEI sells its analyzes for the money of tobacco companies is false and offensive. Our opinion is the result of our own insightful research and industry."

Contribuyentes por Respeto has split into two organizations since it signed the 2016 letter to the WHO. The group told the Guardian: "We did not and do not defend or protect tobacco industry. We did not receive any money for signing it. Atlas did not finance our signature or impulse us to do it." The group signed the letter based on an "evidence-based position", leader Jose Ignacio Beteta said.

In response to questions, president of the Alternate Solution Institute told the Guardian it is a “Pakistan first market economy thinktank" and “supports policies favoring market oriented government actions". “Government actions of taxing tobacco and plain packaging prove individual [sic] as irresponsible of its health and well being. If it is so, then the government restriction and actions will never end and all businesses will get closed one day." The group said it has not received donations from the tobacco industry.

In response to questions from the Guardian, the India Institute’s founder Baladevan Rangaraju said the group had “never" worked in “the area of tobacco policies" despite Rangaraju signing the anti-plain packaging letter. He also said the group had, “never published any view point on tobacco policies" and had “never taken any donation from any tobacco company ever". “Any position that we have expressed on any regulatory policy is a reflection of our belief in market based solutions for policy challenges," Rangaraju said. The group declined to comment further.