State officials and the foundation's leaders said compiling the list was intended by Proposition 99, which raised cigarette taxes by 25 cents a pack to pay for information campaigns on smoking and health.

But critics said California voters never intended for tax dollars to be spent monitoring and distributing information about people who speak at city council meetings, or investigating a judge as the foundation did.

Officials from groups as diverse as the California Medical Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said the money should be spent on hard-hitting publicity campaigns about the dangers of smoking -- not monitoring people engaged in lawful activities.

"This is politics, not education," said Steve Thompson, vice president for government affairs for the California Medical Association. "The public believed that this money would be used for TV and billboard campaigns -- that's the best use of these funds. We are hardly apologists for tobacco, and want to see a reconcerted effort toward what works."

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association went further, saying the collection of the information was "smacking of Gestapo tactics."

"The compilation of this list is well outside the purview of what Proposition 99 intended," he said. "It's inappropriate that taxpayers are paying for it. Taxpayers are actually financing an abuse of government power."

When voters passed Proposition 99 in November 1988, the public was told that the tax would be used for smoking prevention programs, hospital and physician services, tobacco-related disease research and providing money for public resources.

Between Jan. 1, 1989, and June 30 of this year, the tax raised $5.2 billion, according to state figures.^

@Since 1995, the state Department of Health Services has awarded yearly grants totaling more than $1.2 million to a Berkeley public advocacy group, the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights Foundation, to provide community education programs. Records show that its top priority has been collecting information on groups and individuals that the foundation believes are secretly working for Big Tobacco.

With state revenue from Proposition 99, the foundation undertook a number of actions including:

-- Monitoring people who attended and spoke on tobacco issues at city council meetings in cities throughout the state.

-- Investigating a federal judge in North Carolina who issued a ruling in a case involving second-hand smoke.

-- Incorrectly accusing John Nelson, a spokesman for former Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle, of being on the payroll of the tobacco industry. After Nelson complained, the foundation apologized.

Officials from the state Department of Health Services and the department's tobacco control section defend their decisions to give Proposition 99 revenue for such activities, which they call appropriate to provide information to combat Big Tobacco.

"The public's mandate was that we tell the truth about tobacco, and that's what we're doing," said DHS spokesman Ken August.^

@Donald Lyman, chief of the health department's Chronic Disease and Injury Control division, which oversees the tobacco section, said the tactics of pro-tobacco groups need to be made public. He said it is "an old American practice" for a state agency to "track" an industry.

Despite those public assertions, however, state officials privately have raised concerns about the activities.

A state memo describing a July 23, 1997, meeting between state officials and the foundation's employees noted that Mike Genest -- at that time the deputy director of DHS prevention services -- was concerned that "people are nervous about government paying for those things (i.e. attacking organizations)."

The memo added that Genest was worried that "politicians are sensitive . . . nervous about these things. Are we over the line?"

Julia Carol, the executive director of the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights Foundation, defended her organization in an interview. She said the group did nothing improper and carried out the intent of the ballot measure.

Carol said informing local government and health agencies about "underhanded tactics" of the tobacco industry has proven to be an effective anti-smoking strategy.

"If you're fighting malaria, you go after the vector -- you do mosquito abatement," she said. "There's plenty of documentation that the tobacco industry is at war with public health agencies."

She said her group unmasked organizations and individuals that pretended to be independent of the tobacco industry but actually were linked to it. At the same time, she said, public opinion turned against tobacco use.

But critics like Coupal wonder if the foundation's tactics will backfire, perhaps helping supporters of a March ballot measure that aims to repeal a more recent cigarette tax -- Proposition 10, the 1998 measure championed by actor-director Rob Reiner.^

@Proposition 10 raised cigarette taxes by 50 cents a pack to pay for early childhood programs. The initiative to repeal it will be on the March ballot as Proposition 28.

"I suspect it is information like this list that will be used by proponents working to repeal the tax," Coupal said.

Jack Nicholl, a consultant who worked with Reiner's campaign and also worked for the Proposition 99 campaign, now is leading the effort to block the repeal of Proposition 10.

Nicholl predicted "no negative fallout" from the disclosure of the foundation's list.

"This group has been effective in educating and training people how to advocate for change," Nicholl said. But he acknowledged that ballot information on Proposition 99 never mentioned investigating "front groups."

Some observers say the disclosure of the enemies list could trigger a public outcry, particularly following a political firestorm that erupted in 1998 when state lawmakers discovered they were targets of an investigation by water agencies using public funds.

Bracing for a tough political fight over water policies, a number of Southern California water agencies including the Metropolitan Water District paid for an investigation of more than 100 state and local officials. The probe included research into political contributions and possible conflicts of interest which could make the public officials biased against the water agencies.

After the investigation became public knowledge, furious legislators passed a state law to prohibit water agencies from spending public funds to do political research on elected officials and people with matters before the Metropolitan Water District's board.

However, some lawmakers say it is acceptable to use public money to research the tactics of Big Tobacco.

"To protect the public interests, there must be independent monitoring of these front groups -- the job cannot be left to newspapers or public officials," said Sen. Tom Hayden,