Sorenson, a local favorite with the tea party movement, has made clear that he’ll be supporting Bachmann if she decides to enter the 2012 presidential fray. An anonymous source has also told CNN that Sorenson would “likely be hired” as Bachmann’s state political director.

Speaking with ThinkProgress, Sorenson, an Indianola Republican who is not a stranger to controversial beliefs, stated flatly that arguments pairing the public health risks of homosexuality to second-hand smoking are “absurd.”

Watch the exchange:

While Sorenson was only expressing his personal views on the topic, and not acting as a spokesman for Bachmann, the exchange remains significant.

In February, Bob Vander Plaats — the man at the helm of The Family Leader — attempted to distance himself from an anti-gay seminar series hosted by the Iowa Family Policy Center, a socially conservative group that falls under the umbrella of The Family Leader. Links promoting the seminars, “The Second-Hand Effects of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’” were removed from The Family Leader website, and Vander Plaats publicly indicated such sessions were completed well before he was hired to lead the political action arm of the organizations.

Although Vander Plaats was adamant that he and The Family Leader organization had no role in the seminar series, which is still being advertised online, he never indicated during the previous exchange if he personally believed that homosexuality and same-sex marriage were as much of a public health threat as second-hand smoke. That changed late last week when ThinkProgress released a taped exchange with Vander Plaats where he appears to embrace the claims made on the “second-hand effects” site that homosexuality is a curable public health risk.

Monday, at stops in Pella and Iowa City, Bachmann will be appearing on behalf of The Family Leader as part of the organization’s “Presidential Lecture Series.”

But Paul Smalera, writing in Slate this week, has another approach to the legislation that’s worth a look.

First, he points out, the bill acknowledges the dangers of nicotine but prohibits a ban on the drug. Second, flavored tobaccos are banned, except for menthol cigarettes, which just happen to be favored disproportionately by African-Americans. Third, the bill makes it nearly impossible for tobacco companies to introduce new products, all but solidifying the market-share advantages enjoyed by industry giants today. And fourth, the nation’s largest tobacco company (i.e. market-share leader) is a proud cheerleader for the bill.

Money quote:

“It is a dream come true for Philip Morris,” Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told me. “First, they make it look like they are a reformed company which really cares about reducing the toll of cigarettes and protecting the public’s health; and second, they protect their domination of the market and make it impossible for potentially competitive products to enter the market.” Other tobacco companies have taken to calling the bill the “Marlboro Monopoly Act of 2009.”

It’s the ole “do-you-take-a-half-loaf-or-nothing” question. (And if you like it here, you’re gonna love the looming health reform debate.) But Smalera has a few words about that as well.

“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” has been the old saw the administration uses to admonish interest groups dissatisfied with compromise legislation. But opponents of this bill on both sides are asking, What’s the enemy of terrible? Isn’t it this bill, which is racist, protectionist, cynical, and misguided?

And, he adds, soon to be law.

Yesterday he signed a budget that did just that.

Florida’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year includes about $2 billion in tax and fee increases, including a $1 per-pack hike in the cigarette tax.

Crist is still trying to have his cake and eat it too, claiming that he still hasn’t supported a broad-based tax increase, since not everybody smokes — it is estimated that about 2 million Floridians smoke, or roughly one in five residents over 18.

The Americans for Tax Reform pledge for congressional candidates requires signers to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses … and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

Crist could get off on a technicality here since he’s not in Congress and the budget doesn’t raise income taxes. But wait, he did sign a different ATR pledge — one for governors — that requires signatories commit to “oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

Last month, ATR jumped all over Florida House leaders who signed the pledge and allowed the state budget to include tax increases.

Responsible legislators don’t raise taxes on their constituents, especially when they can least afford it.  Responsible people look to solve problems (cutting excessive spending), rather than looking to patch them with taxes on a declining source of revenue (cigarette taxes).

The Orlando Sentinel notes Crist invokes conservative demigod Ronald Reagan in his defense:

I view it more as a health issue than a tax issue … Ronald Reagan used to say if you want to kill something, tax it. It wouldn’t be bad if we killed smoking. It would save a lot of lives.

Crist might want to avoid comparisons to Reagan, lest Florida voters draw a connection to his vice president, George H.W. Bush, and the “Read my lips: No new taxes” debacle.

Update: Americans for Tax Reform spokesman Adam Radman emails the following statement:

[W]ith the signing of these bills, Crist has broken his Pledge at the state level. We’re disappointed Crist has broken his state pledge which he took to oppose all tax increases of whatever kind. He’s right though about the Federal pledge–it applies only to Federal income taxes. We’re hoping he’ll recommit himself to Florida taxpayers and do better with his Federal pledge than he has with his state Pledge.