Spending at unprecedented levels, America’s two largest tobacco companies are waging all-out battles to defeat ballot measures in several states that would sharply increase cigarette taxes or impose broad bans on smoking in public places.

Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco have given more than $54 million to the campaign opposing California’s Proposition 86, which would quadruple state cigarette taxes to the highest level in the nation and boost the average price of a cigarette pack to $6.55. All their opponents combined have raised less than $13 million.

The companies have contributed or pledged millions more to fight proposed tobacco tax increases in Missouri and South Dakota, and to promote milder alternatives to sweeping smoking bans on the ballots in Arizona and Ohio.

In each case, the industry-backed campaigns appear to be raising far more money than the campaigns of anti-smoking groups, which have scored many victories in recent years.

“The tobacco industry now recognizes there’s broad support for measures that reduce tobacco use, and they know they can’t win without outspending the opposition,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “They’re treating these ballot initiatives almost like Custer’s last stand.”

Philip Morris has focused on California, contributing $31.9 million as of Sept. 30 to fight Proposition 86.

“We oppose excessive cigarette excise taxes,” said company spokesman Bill Phelps, who indicated Philip Morris also would fight tax hikes in other states but declined to give an overall spending target.

Reynolds said in July it would spend $40 million on ballot campaigns this year. It has given $22.7 million thus far in California, and is spending millions more in Ohio and Arizona to promote partial smoking bans that are less strict than rival measures.

A Reynolds spokesman, David Howard, confirmed it was the most his company had ever spent on ballot measures in a single year. He said factors in the decision included a belief that the proposed California tax hike was unreasonable, and a perception that anti-smoking measures were proliferating to the point where a counterattack was needed.

Dan Smith, a vice president of the American Cancer Society, was hopeful anti-smoking forces could prevail over the tobacco companies in each state.

“But I don’t kid myself,” he said. “We don’t have the resources they have.”

In the past, the tobacco industry has campaigned for “No” votes on various anti-smoking measures, but this year, in Ohio and Arizona, it has tried a new strategy of supporting rival proposals. Those milder measures are backed by groups with names that anti-smoking activists see as deliberately confusing to voters.

In each state, the measures backed by anti-smoking forces would ban smoking in most indoor public places, while those supported by the tobacco industry contain more exemptions.

In Arizona, Reynolds has provided 99 percent of the funding – $5.75 million to date – for the Non-Smoker Protection Committee, which is pushing a measure that would exempt bars. It is competing against a tougher measure, with no such exemption, that has raised $1.62 million from the American Cancer Society and other anti-smoking groups.

If both measures are approved, the one with the most votes becomes law. A recent poll showed them with near-equal support.

In an open letter this week, Reynolds executive vice president Tommy Payne said his company wasn’t trying to hide its role in the campaign and touted the milder measure as “a common sense solution that will benefit nonsmokers, children, smokers, and small businesses.”

A spokesman for the rival campaign, Troy Corder, was skeptical.

“Since when do they care about nonsmokers and kids?” he asked. “They’ve got a proven track record for protecting one thing – their profits.”

In Ohio, a Reynolds-backed campaign called Smoke Less Ohio is pushing Issue 4, which would permit smoking in bars, bowling alleys, racetracks and enclosed areas of restaurants. It also would override tough anti-smoking laws in 21 municipalities.

Anti-smoking forces are pushing Issue 5, with far fewer exemptions. If both measures pass, the Reynolds-backed issue would prevail because it amends the state constitution; the tougher measure would simply change Ohio statutes.

Neither campaign has released financial data, but Smoke Less Ohio spokesman Jacob Evans confirmed that Reynolds is the biggest contributor to his side. He rejected complaints that the campaign’s name was chosen to deceive voters.

“They don’t see it as confusing,” he said. “They see it as bringing common sense and a moderate proposal into the discussion.”

Tracy Sabetta of Smoke Free Ohio, which backs the tougher measure, said her side can’t simply strive for majority support – it needs the outright defeat of Issue 4.

“Ohio voters are smart enough to see through the smoke screen,” she said.

California’s Proposition 86 would boost cigarette taxes by $2.60 a pack, raising a projected $2 billion a year for anti-smoking programs and other health initiatives. Its biggest supporter, contributing $9.5 million, is the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. The tax hike, supporters say, would prompt 500,000 Californians to stop smoking.

The opposition campaign funded by the tobacco companies depicts the measure as a windfall for the health care industry; it also says high cigarette prices will hurt retailers in poor neighborhoods and encourage tobacco smuggling.

Says Carla Hass, a No campaign spokeswoman: “Prop 86 would make cigarettes more valuable than illegal drugs.”

AP-ES-10-13-06 1550EDT