There is no nationwide MSA as such, there are individual settlement agreements between the participating manufacturers and each state. As part of those agreements, each state has passed a model escrow statute.
Who can complain about how the states spend the money? Probably no one. At most a manufacturer can refuse to pay into the state's escrow account (or pay taxes if it's a non-participating manufacturer). Otherwise the money is no different than any money that the states collect via taxes and fees.
One can view this as a matter of standing if one wishes, but I think this obscures the fundamental nature of the problem. Anyone with standing can complain about what a state
does with its money. But since money is fungible, claims can't be premised on the fact that the state took the money from
pocket A versus
pocket B.
(Yes, perhaps one could imagine a hypothetical in which a state has specific laws governing how its internal books are kept. And perhaps state Agency X can file an action against state Agency Y or the state gov't on that state law basis ... but we're getting into fantasy land here.)
***
Could a state "bribe" a local jurisdiction to pass anti-vaping ordinances? Sure, why not? Seems a bit silly, though. The legislature might as well pass the same legislation statewide, and keep the dough at the statewide level
A legislature might even pass different types of vaping statutes for different local jurisdictions. (I know that in my home state of IN, there are statutes which are
specifically written so that they apply differently to counties of different sizes. This is due to Lake & Marion Co.s usually.)
There might be a state which has certain provisions in its constitution limiting the power of the state gov't over local jurisdictions, I suppose. But in most states, local jurisdictions are "creations" of the state gov't, so-to-speak. State and local gov'ts are generally not considered "separate sovereignties," in the same way as the states and the nat'l gov't are. (To put it another way, comity and fed'lism are excusively national concepts. Consider the classic example: the fed'l gov't can't tell a state where to locate its capital. But I suspect most state legislatures could tell their co.s where to put the co. seat.)
***
One picky quibble: I don't think any claimant can ask a fed'l court to order any jurisdiction to
repeal a statute or ordinance - viz. no such remedy exists. A court could enjoin enforcement of the statute or any action taken pursuant to it, of course.
(It's possible that such an animal exists on the state level: i.e. maybe there's some state court somewhere which is empowered under state law to order a state legislature and governer to repeal a state statute, or order a local jurisdiction to repeal a local ord.)
