AN ADVERTISING blitz funded by tobacco companies has eroded Californians’ support for a ballot measure to be voted on today to raise taxes on cigarettes, putting the vote’s outcome in doubt.
Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds have flooded airwaves with warnings that the proposed $1 tax on cigarette packs is a flawed idea which would bloat government bureaucracy and funnel money out of the state.
The energetic $47.7 million campaign – more than triple the Yes campaign – has been fronted by anti-tax activists and has dramatically reduced support for proposition 29, a measure backed by anti-cancer groups.
“We are still ahead but it’s very close, big tobacco has a bottomless budget to tell lies,” said David Veneziano of the American Cancer Society. “They are trying to protect their profits.”
Two months ago, about two-thirds of voters backed the measure, but that has tumbled to just over half, according to a Public Policy Institute of California survey.
A coalition of pro-business and anti-tax groups has warned voters that the tax would benefit health industry lobbyists and do little for people with cancer. “You have to step back from the emotional appeal and look at the big picture here,” said David Spady of Americans for Prosperity. “You’re going to have a nine-member unelected board that will determine how tax dollars are spent.”
The No campaign said the tax revenue would duplicate existing programmes and be spent outside the state. It ran an advert in which a real doctor, La Donna Porter, wearing a white coat, urged viewers to vote No, saying needless bureaucracy would result. Dr Porter also fronted an ad for the chemical industry in 2002.
Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds have been largely invisible but according to watchdog group maplight.com, they have bankrolled almost the entire No campaign. Dr Porter, and groups fronting the campaign, have denied receiving tobacco funding.
Stanton Glantz, a prominent anti-smoking activist and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, said there were multiple ways for tobacco companies to mask payments.
The initiative’s sponsors say it would raise more than $750 million for cancer research and stop 220,000 children from taking up smoking.
“Within five years, the idea of smoking as a socially tolerated behaviour could simply collapse,” said Dr Glantz. “This is a tremendously important fight. It could make California the first state where where the tobacco epidemic has been ended.”
The Yes side has mustered $12.2 million to fight back with its own television campaign in which characters satirically endorse the other side.
“I support big tobacco because I like their ads,” smiles one mother. “And so do my kids.” A farmer in a field says: “I support big tobacco because they killed my wife. And that’s one less mouth to feed.”
A cyclist adds: “I support big tobacco because spending $9.14 billion on tobacco-related healthcare costs is exactly what California needs right now.” – (Guardian service)