Difference between revisions of "Washington Repeal Tax Law Amendments, Initiative 1107 (2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - ""." to "."")
(22 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}The '''Washington Repeal Tax Law Amendments Initiative''', also known as '''I-1107''',  is on the [[Washington 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010]] ballot in [[Washington]] as an {{witpfull}}. The proposed measure would reverse certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws including a sales tax on candy and bottled water and a temporary excise tax on soda pop.<ref name="I1107"/><ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/211530.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"Food fight: Push to repeal taxes is a 'con,' foes say," June 17, 2010]</ref>
+
<table style="float: right;">
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td>
 +
{{tnr}}
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
{{Taxes}}
 +
{{WAConstitution}}
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>The '''Washington Repeal Tax Law Amendments Initiative''', also known as '''Initiative 1107''',  was on the [[2010 ballot measures#Washington|November 2, 2010 ballot]] in [[Washington]] as an {{witpfull}} where it was '''approved'''. The measure reversed certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws including a sales tax on candy and bottled water and a temporary excise tax on soda pop.<ref name="I1107"/><ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/211530.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"Food fight: Push to repeal taxes is a 'con,' foes say," June 17, 2010]</ref>
  
On [[BC2010#July|July 2, 2010]] initiative supporters submitted an estimated 395,103 signatures, exceeding the 241,000 minimum requirement.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/direct-democracy-a-six-pack-for-2010/ ''Washington's: From Our Corner'',"`Direct democracy’ — A six-pack for 2010," July 2, 2010]</ref>  On July 28, election officials reported that I-1107 had qualified for the ballot.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/initiative-checks-done-i-1107-qualifies/ ''From Our Corner'', "Initiative checks done, I-1107 qualifies", July 28, 2010]</ref>
+
On [[BC2010#July|July 2, 2010]] initiative supporters submitted an estimated 395,103 signatures, exceeding the 241,000 minimum requirement.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/direct-democracy-a-six-pack-for-2010/ ''Washington's: From Our Corner'',"`Direct democracy’ — A six-pack for 2010," July 2, 2010]</ref>  On July 28, election officials reported that I-1107 had qualified for the ballot.<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/initiative-checks-done-i-1107-qualifies/ ''From Our Corner'', "Initiative checks done, I-1107 qualifies," July 28, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
:: ''See also: [[2010 ballot measure election results]]''
+
{{Short outcome
 
+
| title = Washington Initiative 1107 (Repeal Tax Laws)
'''Stay tuned for election results on November 2, 2010:'''
+
| yes = 1,522,658
 
+
| yespct = 60.44
{{Outcome
+
| no = 996,761
| title = Initiative 1107 (Repeal Tax Laws)
+
| nopct =  39.56
| yes =  
+
| total = 2,519,419
| yespct =  
+
| no =  
+
| nopct =   
+
| total =  
+
 
| turnoutpct =  
 
| turnoutpct =  
| image =
+
| image = {{approved}}
 
}}
 
}}
  
Results via [http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/Default.aspx Washington Secretary of State].
+
[[Category:Approved, 2010]]
 +
Election results via: [http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/ Washington Secretary of State]
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
===Title===
+
The ballot title read:<ref name="I1107">[http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2010 ''Washington Secretary of State'',"Initiative 1106 and 1107 brief description," retrieved June 3, 2010]</ref>
The ballot title reads:<ref name="I1107">[http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2010 ''Washington Secretary of State'',"Initiative 1106 and 1107 brief description," retrieved June 3, 2010]</ref>
+
  
 +
{{Quote|
 
::<u>Statement of Subject:</u>  Initiative Measure No. 1107 concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws.
 
::<u>Statement of Subject:</u>  Initiative Measure No. 1107 concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws.
  
 
::<u>Concise Description:</u>This measure would reduce tax rates for certain food processors; end the sales tax on candy; and end the temporary sales tax on some bottled water and temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages.
 
::<u>Concise Description:</u>This measure would reduce tax rates for certain food processors; end the sales tax on candy; and end the temporary sales tax on some bottled water and temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages.
  
::<u>Should this measure be enacted into law?</u> Yes [ ] No [ ]
+
::<u>Should this measure be enacted into law?</u> Yes [ ] No [ ]}}
  
 
===Summary===
 
===Summary===
Line 37: Line 44:
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
Initiative 1107 was proposed by the American Beverage Association in reaction to the April 2010 approval of temporary taxes on soda and other sugary beverages. The tax amounts to 2 cents on every 12 ounces of soda. Similar taxes were implemented in Maine and Colorado but beverage industry lobbyists quashed efforts to pass a soda tax in 2010 in Mississippi, New Mexico and New York state. The tax generates revenue in order to ease the $2.8 billion budget gap. The tax is estimated to raise $94 million.<ref name="StateJuly7"/><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/13/AR2010071303494.html ''The Washington Post'',"Soda taxes fizzle in wake of industry lobbying," July 13, 2010]</ref>
+
Initiative 1107 was proposed by the American Beverage Association in reaction to the April 2010 approval of temporary taxes on soda and other sugary beverages. The tax amounted to 2 cents on every 12 ounces of soda. Similar taxes were implemented in Maine and Colorado but beverage industry lobbyists squashed efforts to pass a soda tax in 2010 in Mississippi, New Mexico and New York state. The tax was expected to generat revenue in order to ease the $2.8 billion budget gap. The tax was estimated to raise $94 million.<ref name="StateJuly7"/><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/13/AR2010071303494.html ''The Washington Post'',"Soda taxes fizzle in wake of industry lobbying," July 13, 2010]</ref>
  
 
===Effects if measure passes===
 
===Effects if measure passes===
 
{{Taxes2010map}}
 
{{Taxes2010map}}
I-1107 repeals the 2010 temporary excise tax on carbonated beverages in addition to a three year temporary sales tax on bottled water that lasts from 2010 to 2013. The sales tax on candy would also be repealed in addition to a revision of a tax on certain processed foods.<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'' "2010 Voter Guide, Initiative 1107"]</ref>
+
I-1107 repealed the 2010 temporary excise tax on carbonated beverages in addition to a three year temporary sales tax on bottled water that was scheduled to last from 2010 to 2013. The sales tax on candy was also repealed in addition to a revision of a tax on certain processed foods.<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'' "2010 Voter Guide, Initiative 1107"]</ref>
  
 
===Conflicts with R-52===
 
===Conflicts with R-52===
I-1107 conflicts with [[Washington Schools Energy Efficiency Projects, Referred Bill 52 (2010)|R-52]] because the initiative abolishes the temporary sales tax on bottled water if approved.  R-52 calls for a temporary expansion of the bottled water sales tax until 2013 if approved<ref name="candy">[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'' "Summary of I-1107 (2010)"]</ref>. Abolishing sales tax revenue through I-1107's approval including bottled water would make it difficult for the state to pay for energy efficiency projects that are contingent on that revenue.<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'' "2010 Voter Guide, Referred Bill 52"]</ref>
+
I-1107 conflicted with [[Washington Bonds for Energy Efficiency Projects, Referendum 52 (2010)|R-52]] because the initiative abolished the temporary sales tax on bottled water if approved.  R-52 called for a temporary expansion of the bottled water sales tax until 2013 if approved<ref name="candy">[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'' "Summary of I-1107 (2010)"]</ref>. Abolishing sales tax revenue through I-1107's approval including bottled water would make it difficult for the state to pay for energy efficiency projects that are contingent on that revenue.<ref>[http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2010/general/Pages/OVG_20101102.aspx#ososTop ''Washington Secretary of State'' "2010 Voter Guide, Referred Bill 52"]</ref> However, according to official election results R-52 was defeated.
  
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
In support of the proposed measure, the [http://www.ameribev.org/ American Beverage Association] (ABA), is reported to have spent an estimated $1 million gathering petition signatures for the [[BC2010#July|July 2]] statewide deadline.<ref name="StateJuly7">[http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=496567 ''Stateline.org'',"Industry lobbying turns soda taxes from fizzy to flat," July 7, 2010]</ref> According to October reports, supporters of the proposed measure have reportedly raised more than $16 million, making this the most expensive initiative campaign in Washington state history.<ref>[http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/12/your-state-is-being-humiliated-on-stage ''The Stranger'' "Even more money from the soda lobby?" October 12, 2010]</ref> Members of ABA include Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc.<ref name="APOct19">[http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/18/1377830/soft-drink-industry-takes-stand.html ''Associated Press'',"Soft-drink industry takes stand against tax hikes," October 19, 2010]</ref>
+
In support of the proposed measure, the [http://www.ameribev.org/ American Beverage Association] (ABA), was reported to have spent an estimated $1 million gathering petition signatures for the [[BC2010#July|July 2]] statewide deadline.<ref name="StateJuly7">[http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=496567 ''Stateline.org'',"Industry lobbying turns soda taxes from fizzy to flat," July 7, 2010]</ref> According to October 2010 reports, supporters of the proposed measure reportedly raised more than $16 million, making this the most expensive initiative campaign in Washington state history.<ref>[http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/12/your-state-is-being-humiliated-on-stage ''The Stranger'' "Even more money from the soda lobby?" October 12, 2010]</ref> Members of ABA included Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc.<ref name="APOct19">[http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/18/1377830/soft-drink-industry-takes-stand.html ''Associated Press'',"Soft-drink industry takes stand against tax hikes," October 19, 2010]</ref>
  
===Donors===
+
===Contributions===
According to August 2010 reports, supporters spent an estimated $2.5 million to get signatures and put I-1107 on the 2010 ballot. In August 2010 the American Beverage Association has reportedly made at least two $3.5 million contributions The campaign is reported to have had $10.2 million in total donations.<ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/218562.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"Anti-soda tax campaign tops $10 mil," August 18, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/ap_state/20100723/More-than-$6.6M-spent-on-initiative-signatures/ ''Associated Press'',"Wash. initiative campaigns draw big campaign cash," August 17, 2010]</ref> However, as of early September 2010 the supporting campaign has reportedly raised an estimated $14.4 million, which according to news reports makes I-1107 the most expensive initiative campaign in state history.<ref name="TribuneSept3">[http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/03/1326230/soda-makers-raise-ante.html ''The News Tribune'',"Soda makers raise ante, contribute again to tax-rollback measure," September 3, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/09/01/1597659/soda-industry-ante-on-i-1107-hits.html ''The Bellingham Herald'',"Updated: Soda industry ante on I-1107 hits $14.4 million," September 1, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/news_chick_blog/20100928/Most-funded-initiative-in-state-history/ ''MyNorthwest.com'',"Most funded initiative in state history," September 28, 2010]</ref>
+
According to August 2010 reports, supporters spent an estimated $2.5 million to get signatures and put I-1107 on the 2010 ballot.  
  
'''The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in support of I 1107:<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Q0lUSVJTIDUwNw====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "Citizens for Responsible Spending-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>'''.
+
In August 2010 the American Beverage Association reportedly made at least two $3.5 million contributions. The campaign was reported to have had $10.2 million in total donations.<ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/218562.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"Anti-soda tax campaign tops $10 mil," August 18, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/ap_state/20100723/More-than-$6.6M-spent-on-initiative-signatures/ ''Associated Press'',"Wash. initiative campaigns draw big campaign cash," August 17, 2010]</ref> However, as of early September 2010, the supporting campaign reported raising an estimated $14.4 million, which according to news reports made I-1107 the most expensive initiative campaign in state history.<ref name="TribuneSept3">[http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/03/1326230/soda-makers-raise-ante.html ''The News Tribune'',"Soda makers raise ante, contribute again to tax-rollback measure," September 3, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/09/01/1597659/soda-industry-ante-on-i-1107-hits.html ''The Bellingham Herald'',"Updated: Soda industry ante on I-1107 hits $14.4 million," September 1, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/news_chick_blog/20100928/Most-funded-initiative-in-state-history/ ''MyNorthwest.com'',"Most funded initiative in state history," September 28, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
'''The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in support of I 1107:<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Q0lUSVJTIDUwNw====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "Citizens for Responsible Spending-Campaign Detail," Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>'''.
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
Line 75: Line 84:
  
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
Opponents, including advocates for children, education and health care, argue that I-1107 is "misleading and deceptive." The main campaign group in opposition to the proposed measure is '''Citizens to Protect Our Economic Future''' and the [http://protectwashington.org/no1107.html Protect Washington] coalition. Opponents said they want to preserve the taxes on soda pop and candy in order to avoid drastic cuts to health care and education.<ref name="TribuneSept3"/>
+
Opponents, including advocates for children, education and health care, argued that I-1107 was "misleading and deceptive." The main campaign group in opposition to the proposed measure was '''Citizens to Protect Our Economic Future''' and the [http://protectwashington.org/no1107.html Protect Washington] coalition. Opponents said they wanted to preserve the taxes on soda pop and candy in order to avoid drastic cuts to health care and education.<ref name="TribuneSept3"/>
  
In regard to initiative campaign efforts opposition spokesperson Sandeep Kaushik said, "I think this reinforces what we’ve been saying all along – that it’s clear the beverage association understands that in an equal debate, they would lose. So they’ve decided to try to buy the election with extraordinary record amounts of cash...They are interested in protecting their massive profits and spend extraordinary amounts to preserve them."<ref name="TribuneSept3"/>
+
In regard to initiative campaign efforts, opposition spokesperson Sandeep Kaushik said, "I think this reinforces what we’ve been saying all along – that it’s clear the beverage association understands that in an equal debate, they would lose. So they’ve decided to try to buy the election with extraordinary record amounts of cash...They are interested in protecting their massive profits and spend extraordinary amounts to preserve them."<ref name="TribuneSept3"/>
  
 
"This is about large soda companies coming into our state and trying to get a tax break. I really, really doubt that the American Beverage Association put more than $14 million in Washington because they’re worried about how much Washingtonians pay in taxes," said Celia Schorr, spokeswoman for No on I-1107.<ref name="APOct19"/>
 
"This is about large soda companies coming into our state and trying to get a tax break. I really, really doubt that the American Beverage Association put more than $14 million in Washington because they’re worried about how much Washingtonians pay in taxes," said Celia Schorr, spokeswoman for No on I-1107.<ref name="APOct19"/>
  
===Donors===
+
===Contributions===
 
According to September 2010 reports, '''Citizens to Protect Our Economic Future''' raised $304,229 to fight the repeal measure.<ref name="TribuneSept3"/>
 
According to September 2010 reports, '''Citizens to Protect Our Economic Future''' raised $304,229 to fight the repeal measure.<ref name="TribuneSept3"/>
  
'''Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the campaign in opposition of I-1107:''' <ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Q0lUSVBPIDExMQ====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "Citizens to Protect our Economic Future-Campaign Detail", Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>.
+
'''Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the campaign in opposition of I-1107:'''<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Q0lUSVBPIDExMQ====&year=2010&type=initiative ''Washington PDC'' "Citizens to Protect our Economic Future-Campaign Detail," Retrieved October 19, 2010]</ref>.
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
Line 104: Line 113:
  
 
==Reports and analysis==
 
==Reports and analysis==
 +
===OFM impact report===
 +
In 2010 the [http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/default.asp Washington Office of Financial Management] released fiscal impact statements for initiatives scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot, including Initiative 1107. Below is an excerpt:
 +
<blockquote>''Over five fiscal years, the initiative reduces State General Fund revenues by an estimated $352 million and state performance audit revenue by an estimated $359,000. Revenue for local jurisdictions authorized to impose a sales tax is reduced by $83 million over five fiscal years. Taxpayer noncompliance and confusion could result in additional state and local government revenue decreases up to $8.7 million and $1.8 million, respectively, in fiscal year 2011. Net state costs to administer the tax revisions are $98,200 over five fiscal years.''</blockquote>
 +
 +
<center>'''[http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/2010/1107.pdf Read the full report here]'''</center>
 +
 
===Budget and Policy Center===
 
===Budget and Policy Center===
The [http://budgetandpolicy.org/ Washington State Budget and Policy Center] released [http://budgetandpolicy.org/reports/2010-initiatives-could-impact-public-services an analysis of several Washington 2010 initiatives], including I-1107. According to the study, the impact of I-1107 to the state's general fund over a 5-year period is estimated at $352 million. The study concludes that the initiative would reduce state resources in current and future fiscal years. Such resources would include repealing revenue increases approved in 2010 which the organization describes as having "played a pivotal role in preventing painful and economically damaging cuts to essential public services."<ref>[http://othellooutlook.com/?p=13446 ''Othello Outlook'',"Ballot measures could have significant impacts on state - Washington State Budget and Policy Center," August 24, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://budgetandpolicy.org/schmudget/new-ofm-analyses-show-potential-costs-of-2010-initiatives ''Washington State Budget and Policy Center'',"New OFM Analyses Show Potential Costs of 2010 Initiatives," August 11, 2010]</ref>
+
The [http://budgetandpolicy.org/ Washington State Budget and Policy Center] released [http://budgetandpolicy.org/reports/2010-initiatives-could-impact-public-services an analysis of several Washington 2010 initiatives], including I-1107. According to the study, the impact of I-1107 to the state's general fund over a 5-year period was estimated at $352 million. The study concluded that the initiative would reduce state resources in current and future fiscal years. Such resources would include repealing revenue increases approved in 2010 which the organization described as having "played a pivotal role in preventing painful and economically damaging cuts to essential public services."<ref>[http://othellooutlook.com/?p=13446 ''Othello Outlook'',"Ballot measures could have significant impacts on state - Washington State Budget and Policy Center," August 24, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://budgetandpolicy.org/schmudget/new-ofm-analyses-show-potential-costs-of-2010-initiatives ''Washington State Budget and Policy Center'',"New OFM Analyses Show Potential Costs of 2010 Initiatives," August 11, 2010]</ref>
  
 
[[File:I-1107petition(WA, 2010).jpg|thumb|I-1107 petitions  Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]]]
 
[[File:I-1107petition(WA, 2010).jpg|thumb|I-1107 petitions  Photo credit: [[Washington Secretary of State]]]]
Line 113: Line 128:
  
 
===Support===
 
===Support===
* '''The Pacific Northwest Inlander''' supports I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "...the package of taxes our leaders pulled together as a kind of legislative Hail Mary pass — on everything from soda to bottled water to (some) candy bars — was flat-out bad policy. They knew it wasn’t a long-term solution; in fact, the Band-Aid package would expire in 2013. These are the worst of the regressive taxes Washington is known for. Big Soda doesn’t pay a penny; it gets passed along to consumers, hitting those who can least afford it hardest. And in border counties, it’s tough to compete with Idaho and Oregon."<ref>[http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-15667-decision-time.html "The Pacific Northwest Inlander","Decision Time," October 6, 2010]</ref>
+
* '''The Pacific Northwest Inlander''' supported I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, ."..the package of taxes our leaders pulled together as a kind of legislative Hail Mary pass — on everything from soda to bottled water to (some) candy bars — was flat-out bad policy. They knew it wasn’t a long-term solution; in fact, the Band-Aid package would expire in 2013. These are the worst of the regressive taxes Washington is known for. Big Soda doesn’t pay a penny; it gets passed along to consumers, hitting those who can least afford it hardest. And in border counties, it’s tough to compete with Idaho and Oregon."<ref>[http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-15667-decision-time.html "The Pacific Northwest Inlander,""Decision Time," October 6, 2010]</ref>
  
* '''The Yakima Herald-Republic''' supports I-1107. "Among the tax increases approved in the past session were an excise tax on soda, a sales tax on bottled water and candy, and an increased B&O tax on some food processors. This initiative would repeal them, and rightfully so. Advocates say there is a three-year "sunset" provision in the taxes. But as we editorialized in July, lawmakers may be more tempted than a kid in a candy store to expand them to other edible items," said the editorial board.<ref>[http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2010/09/27/on-tax-initiatives-keep-your-money-and-keep-it-away-from-lawmakers ''The Yakima Herald-Republic'',"On tax initiatives, keep your money and keep it away from lawmakers," September 27, 2010]</ref>
+
* '''The Yakima Herald-Republic''' supported I-1107. "Among the tax increases approved in the past session were an excise tax on soda, a sales tax on bottled water and candy, and an increased B&O tax on some food processors. This initiative would repeal them, and rightfully so. Advocates say there is a three-year "sunset" provision in the taxes. But as we editorialized in July, lawmakers may be more tempted than a kid in a candy store to expand them to other edible items," said the editorial board.<ref>[http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2010/09/27/on-tax-initiatives-keep-your-money-and-keep-it-away-from-lawmakers ''The Yakima Herald-Republic'',"On tax initiatives, keep your money and keep it away from lawmakers," September 27, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The '''Bellevue Reporter''' was in support. "The Legislature needs to stop the taxing. A 'Yes' on I-1107 will reverse the taxes and force the Legislature to do its job," said the board.<ref>[http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/bel/opinion/105480698.html ''Bellevue Reporter'',"Vote 'Yes' on I-1053, to control taxes | editorial," October 21, 2010]</ref>
  
 
===Opposition===
 
===Opposition===
* '''The Seattle Times''' opposes I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "It would create a $200 million hole in the state's next two-year budget — and already that budget appears to be at least $3 billion short."<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012865077_edit12initiative1107.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Voters should reject I-1107 and keep tax increase on candy, water and pop," September 10, 2010]</ref>
+
* '''The Seattle Times''' opposed I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "It would create a $200 million hole in the state's next two-year budget — and already that budget appears to be at least $3 billion short."<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012865077_edit12initiative1107.html ''The Seattle Times'',"Voters should reject I-1107 and keep tax increase on candy, water and pop," September 10, 2010]</ref>
  
* The '''Tacoma News Tribune''' opposes I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "Now the American Beverage Association has come to Washington to mount the same assault that it’s successfully pushed elsewhere. It has contributed almost every penny of the $14 million the I-1107 campaign has in the bank. That campaign has tried mightily to bill the initiative as a fight against “grocery taxes” – a spin job that hangs by such a small thread of truth as to be nearly fraudulent."<ref>[http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/19/1347581/dont-make-state-crisis-worse-with.html ''The News Tribune'',"Don't make state crisis worse with Initiative 1107," September 19, 2010]</ref>
+
* The '''Tacoma News Tribune''' opposed I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "Now the American Beverage Association has come to Washington to mount the same assault that it’s successfully pushed elsewhere. It has contributed almost every penny of the $14 million the I-1107 campaign has in the bank. That campaign has tried mightily to bill the initiative as a fight against “grocery taxes” – a spin job that hangs by such a small thread of truth as to be nearly fraudulent."<ref>[http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/19/1347581/dont-make-state-crisis-worse-with.html ''The News Tribune'',"Don't make state crisis worse with Initiative 1107," September 19, 2010]</ref>
  
* '''The Olympian''' opposes I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "Or do we, instead, want to make a small sacrifice and spend an additional 2 cents for a 12-ounce soda pop to keep necessary services in place? The choice seems obvious."<ref>[http://www.theolympian.com/2010/10/07/1395341/dont-be-misled-i-1107-will-be.html ''The Olympian'',"Don't be misled: I-1107 will be devastating to state coffers," October 7, 2010]</ref>
+
* '''The Olympian''' opposed I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "Or do we, instead, want to make a small sacrifice and spend an additional 2 cents for a 12-ounce soda pop to keep necessary services in place? The choice seems obvious."<ref>[http://www.theolympian.com/2010/10/07/1395341/dont-be-misled-i-1107-will-be.html ''The Olympian'',"Don't be misled: I-1107 will be devastating to state coffers," October 7, 2010]</ref>
  
* The Walla Walla '''Union-Bulletin''' opposes I-1107.<ref>[http://union-bulletin.com/stories/2010/10/07/state-can-t-afford-loss-of-candy-and-water-tax ''Union-Bulletin'',"State can't afford loss of candy and water tax," October 7, 2010]</ref>
+
* The Walla Walla '''Union-Bulletin''' opposed I-1107.<ref>[http://union-bulletin.com/stories/2010/10/07/state-can-t-afford-loss-of-candy-and-water-tax ''Union-Bulletin'',"State can't afford loss of candy and water tax," October 7, 2010]</ref>
  
* '''The Stranger''' is opposed to the proposed initiative. The editorial board wrote, "The reason this tax exists at all is because the state has a budget shortfall, despite cutting billions from departments for the last two years. Lawmakers had to either pass this tax or cut health care for kids, essential funding for public schools, or other programs that help the poorest people in the state. So while it's an arguably regressive tax—sales taxes consume a larger percentage of poor people's income than rich people's—it produces roughly $130 million per year to help the poor. And it's their only hope for funding those programs."<ref>[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-stranger-election-control-board/Content?oid=5142885 ''The Stranger'',"VOTE, BABY, VOTE!," October 13, 2010]</ref>
+
* '''The Stranger''' was opposed to the proposed initiative. The editorial board wrote, "The reason this tax exists at all is because the state has a budget shortfall, despite cutting billions from departments for the last two years. Lawmakers had to either pass this tax or cut health care for kids, essential funding for public schools, or other programs that help the poorest people in the state. So while it's an arguably regressive tax—sales taxes consume a larger percentage of poor people's income than rich people's—it produces roughly $130 million per year to help the poor. And it's their only hope for funding those programs."<ref>[http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-stranger-election-control-board/Content?oid=5142885 ''The Stranger'',"VOTE, BABY, VOTE!," October 13, 2010]</ref>
  
* '''Publicola''' opposes I-1107. "PubliCola urges voters to oppose this initiative, which would eliminate reasonable taxes that were passed this year to help preserve critical programs that would otherwise have been cut. A few cents on a can of soda is a small price to pay for environmental, health, and education programs that benefit all Washington residents," said the editorial board.<ref>[http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/16/publicola-picks-no-on-initiative-1107/ ''Publicola'',"PubliCola Picks “No” on Initiative 1107," October 16, 2010]</ref>
+
* '''Publicola''' opposed I-1107. "PubliCola urges voters to oppose this initiative, which would eliminate reasonable taxes that were passed this year to help preserve critical programs that would otherwise have been cut. A few cents on a can of soda is a small price to pay for environmental, health, and education programs that benefit all Washington residents," said the editorial board.<ref>[http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/16/publicola-picks-no-on-initiative-1107/ ''Publicola'',"PubliCola Picks “No” on Initiative 1107," October 16, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* The '''Kitsap Sun''' opposed the measure. "We oppose I-1107 because it pulls the plug on needed revenues midway through the state’s 2009-2011 budget. The Legislature also should amend the candy tax so it is more understandable and uniform," said the board.<ref>[http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/oct/21/our-view-sorting-out-the-ballot-issues/ ''Kitsap Sun'',"OUR VIEW | Sorting Out the Ballot Issues," October 21, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==Polls==
 
==Polls==
 
:: ''See also: [[Polls, 2010 ballot measures]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[Polls, 2010 ballot measures]]''
  
* An '''August 26-August 29, 2010''' poll of 650 likely voters by [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=094e5f06-2cfd-4d4f-93e7-986902ebc73b Survey USA] showed that 42% of voters were certain they would support I-1107, 34% were certain they would oppose the measure, and 24% were undecided. <ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=094e5f06-2cfd-4d4f-93e7-986902ebc73b ''Survey USA'', "Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #17011" August 30, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.publicola.net/2010/08/31/surveyusa-poll-could-spell-bad-news-for-progressive-coalition/ ''PubliCola'',"SurveyUSA Poll Could Spell Bad News for Progressive Coalition," August 31, 2010]</ref>
+
* An '''August 26-August 29, 2010''' poll of 650 likely voters by [http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=094e5f06-2cfd-4d4f-93e7-986902ebc73b Survey USA] showed that 42% of voters were certain they would support I-1107, 34% were certain they would oppose the measure, and 24% were undecided.<ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=094e5f06-2cfd-4d4f-93e7-986902ebc73b ''Survey USA'', "Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #17011" August 30, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.publicola.net/2010/08/31/surveyusa-poll-could-spell-bad-news-for-progressive-coalition/ ''PubliCola'',"SurveyUSA Poll Could Spell Bad News for Progressive Coalition," August 31, 2010]</ref>
  
* A '''September 9-12, 2010''' poll of 500 likely voters by [http://www.elwayresearch.com/elwaypoll.html Elway Poll] revealed that 47% support the proposed measure, while 38% are opposed and 15% are undecided.<ref>[http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/09/16/wa-ballot-measures-polling-under-50-so-much-for-that-anti-tax-less-government-wave/ ''FireDogLake'',"WA Ballot Measures Polling Under 50% – So Much for That Anti-Tax, Less Government Wave," September 16, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/221486.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"Skeptical public? All initiatives under 50 percent in poll," September 15, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/sep/20/initiative-support-tepid-in-poll/ ''The Spokesman Review'',"Initiative support tepid in poll," September 20, 2010]</ref>
+
* A '''September 9-12, 2010''' poll of 500 likely voters by [http://www.elwayresearch.com/elwaypoll.html Elway Poll] revealed that 47% supported the proposed measure, while 38% were opposed and 15% were undecided.<ref>[http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/09/16/wa-ballot-measures-polling-under-50-so-much-for-that-anti-tax-less-government-wave/ ''FireDogLake'',"WA Ballot Measures Polling Under 50% – So Much for That Anti-Tax, Less Government Wave," September 16, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/221486.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"Skeptical public? All initiatives under 50 percent in poll," September 15, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/sep/20/initiative-support-tepid-in-poll/ ''The Spokesman Review'',"Initiative support tepid in poll," September 20, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* A '''September 30-October 3, 2010''' poll of 639 likely voters by [http://www.surveyusa.com/ Survey USA] revealed that 52% supported the proposed measure, while 29% were opposed and 19% were undecided. The poll was sponsored by KING-TV Seattle. The margin of error was +/- 4 percentage points.<ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=1cdeb4c8-c99a-4c2e-898f-9c428114030f ''SurveyUSA'',"10 Days Until WA Ballots Mailed, New Support for Initiative 1107, Steady Support for 1053, Faltering Support for Referendum 52," October 4, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* An '''October 7-10, 2010''' poll of 400 likely voters by [http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/11/poll-candy-tax-repeal-gains-ground-four-initiatives-losing/ Elway] showed that 54% supported the proposed measure, while 33% opposed it and 13% were undecided.<ref>[http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/11/poll-candy-tax-repeal-gains-ground-four-initiatives-losing/''Publicola'',"Poll: Candy Tax Repeal Gains Ground, Four Initiatives Losing" October 11, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* An '''October 4-14, 2010''' poll of 500 likely voters by [http://www.publicola.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/KCTS9_KPLU_WashingtonPoll.pdf The Washington Poll] showed that 56% supported the proposed measure, while 36% opposed it and 7% were undecided. The margin of error was +/- 4.3 percentage points.<ref>[http://www.publicola.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/KCTS9_KPLU_WashingtonPoll.pdf''Publicola'',"KCTS-9/KPLU/Washington Poll" October 15, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
* An '''October 24-27, 2010''' poll of 504 likely voters by [http://www.king5.com/community/blogs/politiking/Final-KING-5-poll-shows-where-initiatives-stand-106166868.html SurveyUSA] showed that 56% supported the proposed measure, while 36% opposed it and 9% were undecided. The margin of error was +/- 4.4 percentage points.<ref>[http://www.king5.com/community/blogs/politiking/Final-KING-5-poll-shows-where-initiatives-stand-106166868.html''SurveyUSA'',"Final KING 5 poll shows where initiatives stand" October 28, 2010]</ref>
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
<tr><td>{{2010BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
+
<tr><td>{{BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
* A '''September 30-October 3, 2010''' poll of 639 likely voters by [http://www.surveyusa.com/ Survey USA] revealed that 52% support the proposed measure, while 29% are opposed and 19% are undecided. The poll was sponsored by KING-TV Seattle. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.<ref>[http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=1cdeb4c8-c99a-4c2e-898f-9c428114030f ''SurveyUSA'',"10 Days Until WA Ballots Mailed, New Support for Initiative 1107, Steady Support for 1053, Faltering Support for Referendum 52," October 4, 2010]</ref>
 
 
{{Washington1107Poll}}
 
{{Washington1107Poll}}
  
Line 145: Line 171:
 
:: ''See also: [[Washington signature requirements]]'' and ''[[2010 ballot measure petition signature costs#Washington|2010 ballot measure petition signature costs]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[Washington signature requirements]]'' and ''[[2010 ballot measure petition signature costs#Washington|2010 ballot measure petition signature costs]]''
  
On [[BC2010#July|July 2, 2010]] initiative supporters submitted an estimated 395,103 signatures, exceeding the 241,000 minimum requirement.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012264062_apwawashingtoninitiatives2ndldwritethru.html ''The Associated Press'',"Opponents of soda, candy taxes turn in signatures," July 2, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=27268 ''The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader'',"Initiative 1107 aims to repeal food and beverage tax with Nov. ballot," July 13, 2010]</ref> According to the [[Washington Secretary of State]] supporters scheduled an appointment with the state elections office for 8:30 a.m. on [[BC2010#July|July 2]].<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/06/its-raining-initiatives-2/ ''Washington Secretary of State's Blog: From Our Corner'',"It’s raining initiatives...," June 24, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_soda_initiative.html ''Associated Press'',"Soda initiative expected on Washington ballot," June 23, 2010]</ref> In order to qualify for the November ballot, supporters are required to submit a minimum of 241,153 valid signatures by [[BC2010#July|July 2, 2010]].<ref>[http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/06/27/1500312/could-be-6-citizen-initiatives.html ''The News Tribune'',"Could be 6 citizen initiatives on ballot in November," June 27, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://heraldnet.com/article/20100628/NEWS01/706289915 ''The Daily Herald'',"Up to 7 initiatives could make ballot in Washington," June 28, 2010]</ref>
+
On [[BC2010#July|July 2, 2010]] initiative supporters submitted an estimated 395,103 signatures, exceeding the 241,000 minimum requirement.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012264062_apwawashingtoninitiatives2ndldwritethru.html ''The Associated Press'',"Opponents of soda, candy taxes turn in signatures," July 2, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=27268 ''The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader'',"Initiative 1107 aims to repeal food and beverage tax with Nov. ballot," July 13, 2010]</ref> According to the [[Washington Secretary of State]] supporters scheduled an appointment with the state elections office for 8:30 a.m. on [[BC2010#July|July 2]].<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/06/its-raining-initiatives-2/ ''Washington Secretary of State's Blog: From Our Corner'',"It’s raining initiatives...," June 24, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_soda_initiative.html ''Associated Press'',"Soda initiative expected on Washington ballot," June 23, 2010]</ref>  
 +
 
 +
In order to qualify for the November ballot, supporters were required to submit a minimum of 241,153 valid signatures by [[BC2010#July|July 2, 2010]].<ref>[http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/06/27/1500312/could-be-6-citizen-initiatives.html ''The News Tribune'',"Could be 6 citizen initiatives on ballot in November," June 27, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://heraldnet.com/article/20100628/NEWS01/706289915 ''The Daily Herald'',"Up to 7 initiatives could make ballot in Washington," June 28, 2010]</ref>
  
 
The signature check for I-1107 began [[BC2010#July|July 26]].<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/another-initiative-hurdle-cleared/ ''Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner'',"Another initiative hurdle cleared," July 26, 2010]</ref>  On July 28, election officials reported that it had been certified for the November ballot.<ref>[http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/07/28/1546332/pop-tax-repeal-is-6th-initiative.html ''The Bellingham Herald'',"Pop tax repeal is 6th initiative to qualify for ballot," July 29, 2010]</ref><Ref>[http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/aub/news/election/99507994.html ''Auburn Reporter'',"Initiative checks done; I-1107 qualifies," July 28, 2010]</ref>
 
The signature check for I-1107 began [[BC2010#July|July 26]].<ref>[http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2010/07/another-initiative-hurdle-cleared/ ''Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner'',"Another initiative hurdle cleared," July 26, 2010]</ref>  On July 28, election officials reported that it had been certified for the November ballot.<ref>[http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/07/28/1546332/pop-tax-repeal-is-6th-initiative.html ''The Bellingham Herald'',"Pop tax repeal is 6th initiative to qualify for ballot," July 29, 2010]</ref><Ref>[http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/aub/news/election/99507994.html ''Auburn Reporter'',"Initiative checks done; I-1107 qualifies," July 28, 2010]</ref>
Line 183: Line 211:
  
 
[[Category:Washington 2010 ballot measures, certified]]
 
[[Category:Washington 2010 ballot measures, certified]]
[[category:Taxes, Washington]]
+
[[Category:Taxes, Washington]]
 
{{certinitstat2010}}
 
{{certinitstat2010}}
[[category:Certified, taxes, 2010]]
+
[[Category:Certified, taxes, 2010]]
 +
[[Category:Constitutional language, Washington]]
 +
[[Category:Constitutional language, 2010]]

Revision as of 08:00, 25 March 2014

Voting on Taxes
Taxes.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Washington Constitution
StateConstitutions Ballotpedia.jpg
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIIXIIIXIVXVXVIXVIIXVIIIXIXXXXXIXXIIXXIIIXXIVXXVXXVIXXVIIXXVIIIXXIXXXXXXXIXXXII
Amendments
The Washington Repeal Tax Law Amendments Initiative, also known as Initiative 1107, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People where it was approved. The measure reversed certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws including a sales tax on candy and bottled water and a temporary excise tax on soda pop.[1][2]

On July 2, 2010 initiative supporters submitted an estimated 395,103 signatures, exceeding the 241,000 minimum requirement.[3] On July 28, election officials reported that I-1107 had qualified for the ballot.[4]

Election results

Washington Initiative 1107 (Repeal Tax Laws)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 1,522,658 60.44%
No996,76139.56%

Election results via: Washington Secretary of State

Text of measure

The ballot title read:[1]

Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 1107 concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws.
Concise Description:This measure would reduce tax rates for certain food processors; end the sales tax on candy; and end the temporary sales tax on some bottled water and temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ][5]

Summary

According to the description prepared by the Washington Secretary of State:

This measure would reverse certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws, thereby: ending the sales tax on candy and the temporary sales tax on some bottled water; and ending temporary excise taxes on the activity of selling certain carbonated beverages, not including alcoholic beverages or carbonated bottled water. It would also reinstate a reduced business and occupation tax rate for processors of certain foods.

Background

Initiative 1107 was proposed by the American Beverage Association in reaction to the April 2010 approval of temporary taxes on soda and other sugary beverages. The tax amounted to 2 cents on every 12 ounces of soda. Similar taxes were implemented in Maine and Colorado but beverage industry lobbyists squashed efforts to pass a soda tax in 2010 in Mississippi, New Mexico and New York state. The tax was expected to generat revenue in order to ease the $2.8 billion budget gap. The tax was estimated to raise $94 million.[6][7]

Effects if measure passes

Taxes on the ballot in 2010
Nevada 2010 ballot measuresUtah 2010 ballot measuresColorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 (2010)New Mexico 2010 ballot measuresArizona 2010 ballot measuresMontana 2010 ballot measuresCalifornia 2010 ballot measuresOregon 2010 ballot measuresWashington 2010 ballot measuresIdaho 2010 ballot measuresOklahoma 2010 ballot measuresKansas 2010 ballot measuresNebraska 2010 ballot measuresSouth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresNorth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresIowa 2010 ballot measuresMissouri 2010 ballot measuresArkansas 2010 ballot measuresLouisiana 2010 ballot measuresAlabama 2010 ballot measuresGeorgia 2010 ballot measuresFlorida 2010 ballot measuresSouth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIllinois 2010 ballot measuresTennessee 2010 ballot measuresNorth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIndiana 2010 ballot measuresOhio 2010 ballot measuresMaine 2010 ballot measuresVirginia 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresMassachusetts 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresAlaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (2010)Hawaii 2010 ballot measuresCertified, taxes, 2010 Map.png

I-1107 repealed the 2010 temporary excise tax on carbonated beverages in addition to a three year temporary sales tax on bottled water that was scheduled to last from 2010 to 2013. The sales tax on candy was also repealed in addition to a revision of a tax on certain processed foods.[8]

Conflicts with R-52

I-1107 conflicted with R-52 because the initiative abolished the temporary sales tax on bottled water if approved. R-52 called for a temporary expansion of the bottled water sales tax until 2013 if approved[9]. Abolishing sales tax revenue through I-1107's approval including bottled water would make it difficult for the state to pay for energy efficiency projects that are contingent on that revenue.[10] However, according to official election results R-52 was defeated.

Support

In support of the proposed measure, the American Beverage Association (ABA), was reported to have spent an estimated $1 million gathering petition signatures for the July 2 statewide deadline.[6] According to October 2010 reports, supporters of the proposed measure reportedly raised more than $16 million, making this the most expensive initiative campaign in Washington state history.[11] Members of ABA included Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc.[12]

Contributions

According to August 2010 reports, supporters spent an estimated $2.5 million to get signatures and put I-1107 on the 2010 ballot.

In August 2010 the American Beverage Association reportedly made at least two $3.5 million contributions. The campaign was reported to have had $10.2 million in total donations.[13][14] However, as of early September 2010, the supporting campaign reported raising an estimated $14.4 million, which according to news reports made I-1107 the most expensive initiative campaign in state history.[15][16][17]

The following is a list of the top five donors to the campaign in support of I 1107:[18].

Contributor Amount
American Beverage Association $16,501,000
Willams Inland Distributors $100
Francis Jennigs $50
Jack Karsten $50
Daniel Kraft $50

Tactics and strategies

In September 2010, according to Kathryn Stenger, spokesperson for the campaign, said that supporters were preparing to launch a statewide campaign.[15]

Opposition

Opponents, including advocates for children, education and health care, argued that I-1107 was "misleading and deceptive." The main campaign group in opposition to the proposed measure was Citizens to Protect Our Economic Future and the Protect Washington coalition. Opponents said they wanted to preserve the taxes on soda pop and candy in order to avoid drastic cuts to health care and education.[15]

In regard to initiative campaign efforts, opposition spokesperson Sandeep Kaushik said, "I think this reinforces what we’ve been saying all along – that it’s clear the beverage association understands that in an equal debate, they would lose. So they’ve decided to try to buy the election with extraordinary record amounts of cash...They are interested in protecting their massive profits and spend extraordinary amounts to preserve them."[15]

"This is about large soda companies coming into our state and trying to get a tax break. I really, really doubt that the American Beverage Association put more than $14 million in Washington because they’re worried about how much Washingtonians pay in taxes," said Celia Schorr, spokeswoman for No on I-1107.[12]

Contributions

According to September 2010 reports, Citizens to Protect Our Economic Future raised $304,229 to fight the repeal measure.[15]

Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to the campaign in opposition of I-1107:[19].

Contributor Amount
Community Health Network of Washington $60,000
SEIU Washington State Council $60,000
Washington Federation of State Employees $60,000
Washington Education Association $40,000
Group Health Cooperative of Washington State $25,000

Reports and analysis

OFM impact report

In 2010 the Washington Office of Financial Management released fiscal impact statements for initiatives scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot, including Initiative 1107. Below is an excerpt:

Over five fiscal years, the initiative reduces State General Fund revenues by an estimated $352 million and state performance audit revenue by an estimated $359,000. Revenue for local jurisdictions authorized to impose a sales tax is reduced by $83 million over five fiscal years. Taxpayer noncompliance and confusion could result in additional state and local government revenue decreases up to $8.7 million and $1.8 million, respectively, in fiscal year 2011. Net state costs to administer the tax revisions are $98,200 over five fiscal years.
Read the full report here

Budget and Policy Center

The Washington State Budget and Policy Center released an analysis of several Washington 2010 initiatives, including I-1107. According to the study, the impact of I-1107 to the state's general fund over a 5-year period was estimated at $352 million. The study concluded that the initiative would reduce state resources in current and future fiscal years. Such resources would include repealing revenue increases approved in 2010 which the organization described as having "played a pivotal role in preventing painful and economically damaging cuts to essential public services."[20][21]

I-1107 petitions Photo credit: Washington Secretary of State

Media Editorial Positions

See also: Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2010

Support

  • The Pacific Northwest Inlander supported I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, ."..the package of taxes our leaders pulled together as a kind of legislative Hail Mary pass — on everything from soda to bottled water to (some) candy bars — was flat-out bad policy. They knew it wasn’t a long-term solution; in fact, the Band-Aid package would expire in 2013. These are the worst of the regressive taxes Washington is known for. Big Soda doesn’t pay a penny; it gets passed along to consumers, hitting those who can least afford it hardest. And in border counties, it’s tough to compete with Idaho and Oregon."[22]
  • The Yakima Herald-Republic supported I-1107. "Among the tax increases approved in the past session were an excise tax on soda, a sales tax on bottled water and candy, and an increased B&O tax on some food processors. This initiative would repeal them, and rightfully so. Advocates say there is a three-year "sunset" provision in the taxes. But as we editorialized in July, lawmakers may be more tempted than a kid in a candy store to expand them to other edible items," said the editorial board.[23]
  • The Bellevue Reporter was in support. "The Legislature needs to stop the taxing. A 'Yes' on I-1107 will reverse the taxes and force the Legislature to do its job," said the board.[24]

Opposition

  • The Seattle Times opposed I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "It would create a $200 million hole in the state's next two-year budget — and already that budget appears to be at least $3 billion short."[25]
  • The Tacoma News Tribune opposed I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "Now the American Beverage Association has come to Washington to mount the same assault that it’s successfully pushed elsewhere. It has contributed almost every penny of the $14 million the I-1107 campaign has in the bank. That campaign has tried mightily to bill the initiative as a fight against “grocery taxes” – a spin job that hangs by such a small thread of truth as to be nearly fraudulent."[26]
  • The Olympian opposed I-1107. In an editorial, the board said, "Or do we, instead, want to make a small sacrifice and spend an additional 2 cents for a 12-ounce soda pop to keep necessary services in place? The choice seems obvious."[27]
  • The Walla Walla Union-Bulletin opposed I-1107.[28]
  • The Stranger was opposed to the proposed initiative. The editorial board wrote, "The reason this tax exists at all is because the state has a budget shortfall, despite cutting billions from departments for the last two years. Lawmakers had to either pass this tax or cut health care for kids, essential funding for public schools, or other programs that help the poorest people in the state. So while it's an arguably regressive tax—sales taxes consume a larger percentage of poor people's income than rich people's—it produces roughly $130 million per year to help the poor. And it's their only hope for funding those programs."[29]
  • Publicola opposed I-1107. "PubliCola urges voters to oppose this initiative, which would eliminate reasonable taxes that were passed this year to help preserve critical programs that would otherwise have been cut. A few cents on a can of soda is a small price to pay for environmental, health, and education programs that benefit all Washington residents," said the editorial board.[30]
  • The Kitsap Sun opposed the measure. "We oppose I-1107 because it pulls the plug on needed revenues midway through the state’s 2009-2011 budget. The Legislature also should amend the candy tax so it is more understandable and uniform," said the board.[31]

Polls

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures
  • An August 26-August 29, 2010 poll of 650 likely voters by Survey USA showed that 42% of voters were certain they would support I-1107, 34% were certain they would oppose the measure, and 24% were undecided.[32][33]
  • A September 9-12, 2010 poll of 500 likely voters by Elway Poll revealed that 47% supported the proposed measure, while 38% were opposed and 15% were undecided.[34][35][36]
  • A September 30-October 3, 2010 poll of 639 likely voters by Survey USA revealed that 52% supported the proposed measure, while 29% were opposed and 19% were undecided. The poll was sponsored by KING-TV Seattle. The margin of error was +/- 4 percentage points.[37]
  • An October 7-10, 2010 poll of 400 likely voters by Elway showed that 54% supported the proposed measure, while 33% opposed it and 13% were undecided.[38]
  • An October 4-14, 2010 poll of 500 likely voters by The Washington Poll showed that 56% supported the proposed measure, while 36% opposed it and 7% were undecided. The margin of error was +/- 4.3 percentage points.[39]
  • An October 24-27, 2010 poll of 504 likely voters by SurveyUSA showed that 56% supported the proposed measure, while 36% opposed it and 9% were undecided. The margin of error was +/- 4.4 percentage points.[40]
Legend

     Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
August 26 - 29, 2010 Survey USA 42% 34% 24% 650
Sept. 9-12, 2010 Elway Poll 47% 38% 15% 500
Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2010 SurveyUSA 52% 29% 19% 639
Oct. 7-10, 2010 The Elway Poll 54% 33% 13% 400
Oct. 4-14, 2010 The Washington Poll 56% 36% 7% 500
Oct. 24-27, 2010 SurveyUSA 56% 36% 9% 504


Path to the ballot

See also: Washington signature requirements and 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

On July 2, 2010 initiative supporters submitted an estimated 395,103 signatures, exceeding the 241,000 minimum requirement.[41][42] According to the Washington Secretary of State supporters scheduled an appointment with the state elections office for 8:30 a.m. on July 2.[43][44]

In order to qualify for the November ballot, supporters were required to submit a minimum of 241,153 valid signatures by July 2, 2010.[45][46]

The signature check for I-1107 began July 26.[47] On July 28, election officials reported that it had been certified for the November ballot.[48][49]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Articles

External links

Additional reading

Editorials

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Washington Secretary of State,"Initiative 1106 and 1107 brief description," retrieved June 3, 2010
  2. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Food fight: Push to repeal taxes is a 'con,' foes say," June 17, 2010
  3. Washington's: From Our Corner,"`Direct democracy’ — A six-pack for 2010," July 2, 2010
  4. From Our Corner, "Initiative checks done, I-1107 qualifies," July 28, 2010
  5. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Stateline.org,"Industry lobbying turns soda taxes from fizzy to flat," July 7, 2010
  7. The Washington Post,"Soda taxes fizzle in wake of industry lobbying," July 13, 2010
  8. Washington Secretary of State "2010 Voter Guide, Initiative 1107"
  9. Washington Secretary of State "Summary of I-1107 (2010)"
  10. Washington Secretary of State "2010 Voter Guide, Referred Bill 52"
  11. The Stranger "Even more money from the soda lobby?" October 12, 2010
  12. 12.0 12.1 Associated Press,"Soft-drink industry takes stand against tax hikes," October 19, 2010
  13. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Anti-soda tax campaign tops $10 mil," August 18, 2010
  14. Associated Press,"Wash. initiative campaigns draw big campaign cash," August 17, 2010
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 The News Tribune,"Soda makers raise ante, contribute again to tax-rollback measure," September 3, 2010
  16. The Bellingham Herald,"Updated: Soda industry ante on I-1107 hits $14.4 million," September 1, 2010
  17. MyNorthwest.com,"Most funded initiative in state history," September 28, 2010
  18. Washington PDC "Citizens for Responsible Spending-Campaign Detail," Retrieved October 19, 2010
  19. Washington PDC "Citizens to Protect our Economic Future-Campaign Detail," Retrieved October 19, 2010
  20. Othello Outlook,"Ballot measures could have significant impacts on state - Washington State Budget and Policy Center," August 24, 2010
  21. Washington State Budget and Policy Center,"New OFM Analyses Show Potential Costs of 2010 Initiatives," August 11, 2010
  22. "The Pacific Northwest Inlander,""Decision Time," October 6, 2010
  23. The Yakima Herald-Republic,"On tax initiatives, keep your money and keep it away from lawmakers," September 27, 2010
  24. Bellevue Reporter,"Vote 'Yes' on I-1053, to control taxes | editorial," October 21, 2010
  25. The Seattle Times,"Voters should reject I-1107 and keep tax increase on candy, water and pop," September 10, 2010
  26. The News Tribune,"Don't make state crisis worse with Initiative 1107," September 19, 2010
  27. The Olympian,"Don't be misled: I-1107 will be devastating to state coffers," October 7, 2010
  28. Union-Bulletin,"State can't afford loss of candy and water tax," October 7, 2010
  29. The Stranger,"VOTE, BABY, VOTE!," October 13, 2010
  30. Publicola,"PubliCola Picks “No” on Initiative 1107," October 16, 2010
  31. Kitsap Sun,"OUR VIEW | Sorting Out the Ballot Issues," October 21, 2010
  32. Survey USA, "Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #17011" August 30, 2010
  33. PubliCola,"SurveyUSA Poll Could Spell Bad News for Progressive Coalition," August 31, 2010
  34. FireDogLake,"WA Ballot Measures Polling Under 50% – So Much for That Anti-Tax, Less Government Wave," September 16, 2010
  35. Seattle Post-Intelligencer,"Skeptical public? All initiatives under 50 percent in poll," September 15, 2010
  36. The Spokesman Review,"Initiative support tepid in poll," September 20, 2010
  37. SurveyUSA,"10 Days Until WA Ballots Mailed, New Support for Initiative 1107, Steady Support for 1053, Faltering Support for Referendum 52," October 4, 2010
  38. Publicola,"Poll: Candy Tax Repeal Gains Ground, Four Initiatives Losing" October 11, 2010
  39. Publicola,"KCTS-9/KPLU/Washington Poll" October 15, 2010
  40. SurveyUSA,"Final KING 5 poll shows where initiatives stand" October 28, 2010
  41. The Associated Press,"Opponents of soda, candy taxes turn in signatures," July 2, 2010
  42. The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader,"Initiative 1107 aims to repeal food and beverage tax with Nov. ballot," July 13, 2010
  43. Washington Secretary of State's Blog: From Our Corner,"It’s raining initiatives...," June 24, 2010
  44. Associated Press,"Soda initiative expected on Washington ballot," June 23, 2010
  45. The News Tribune,"Could be 6 citizen initiatives on ballot in November," June 27, 2010
  46. The Daily Herald,"Up to 7 initiatives could make ballot in Washington," June 28, 2010
  47. Washington Secretary of State's: From Our Corner,"Another initiative hurdle cleared," July 26, 2010
  48. The Bellingham Herald,"Pop tax repeal is 6th initiative to qualify for ballot," July 29, 2010
  49. Auburn Reporter,"Initiative checks done; I-1107 qualifies," July 28, 2010