Echoes of the tobacco wars: Why is Big Soda afraid to publicly oppose the Richmond soda tax?

printer friendlyprinter friendly

The city council of Richmond, Calif., has made headlines by putting a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages before voters this November. The ballot measure has become an opportunity to raise awareness about the health harms of sugary drinks and, if passed, could become a model policy for other cities looking to put their community's health above soda corporations' profits.

All of this has the beverage industry running scared and once again borrowing tactics from Big Tobacco -- this time in an effort to deceive voters.

In a classic tobacco industry move, soda companies are using a front group to publicly lead the fight against the tax. In Richmond, the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes claims to be a local grassroots organization against the ballot measure. The Coalition, however, is funded primarily by the American Beverage Association, a soda industry trade group. So far, the ABA has spent over $350,000 fighting the measure; that's more than 10 to 1 what proponents of the tax have spent.

All of this allows soda companies to attack policies they oppose while protecting their brands.

But the soda industry isn't stopping where Big Tobacco did. It is taking its attempts to anonymously influence our democratic process even further. Thanks in large part to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that declared corporations associations of people and granted them speech rights under the first amendment, soda companies are enjoying a regulatory context that allows them to flex extraordinary political muscle.

In Richmond, the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes allegedly has been distributing mass mailings in violation of city campaign-disclosure rules that require campaigns to prominently reveal their top five funding sources. When the city ordered the Coalition to comply with the ordinance, they responded by filing a lawsuit challenging the action as unconstitutional on first amendment grounds. Coalition spokesman Chuck Finnie claimed that the ordinance hurt free speech.

Last month, Big Soda got its way. On Sept. 7, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the city of Richmond's ability to enforce its ordinance. As a result, Richmond's city council has since reworked and approved a watered-down version of the ordinance, which only requires that three major sources of funding be revealed and less conspicuously. The new ordinance has also been stripped of criminal penalties.

Rulings like this make it harder for voters to see who is funding the campaigns influencing the policy decisions that shape their own neighborhoods.

Public health advocates and journalists need to call out the soda industry's double-speak. Publicly, soda companies want to appear as friends of low-income communities and communities of color, including in Richmond. But when communities organize to remove the unhealthy influence of industry in their area, soda companies fight back. They are not only using Big Tobacco's tactics to hide their opposition, they are even trying exploit the Citizens United decision to downplay their influence.

Exposing this contradiction is fundamental to protecting our democracy from corporate control: No matter where you stand on the tax policy, we all should be able to know who seeks influence in our political process.


cervical cancer (1) Texas (1) Happy Meals (1) Twitter (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) cannes lions festival (1) snap (1) Merck (1) Proposition 47 (1) paper tigers (1) community (1) sexism (2) news coverage (1) online marketing (1) food deserts (1) Gardasil (1) soda industry (4) Pine Ridge reservation (1) Sam Kass (1) food industry (4) abortion (1) ssb (1) alcohol (5) strategic communication (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) diabetes prevention (1) Colorado (1) nanny state (2) Wendy Davis (1) apha (3) tobacco (5) health care (1) george lakoff (1) sports drinks (1) health equity (10) Penn State (3) regulation (2) PepsiCo (1) cap the tap (1) chronic disease (2) values (1) nonprofit communications (1) beauty products (1) race (1) public health policy (2) media bites (1) paula deen (1) women's health (2) sexual assault (1) Berkeley (2) Big Food (2) emergency contraception (1) built environment (2) seat belt laws (1) Big Soda (2) Twitter for advocacy (1) junk food marketing (4) food environment (1) equity (3) mental health (2) beverage industry (2) food justice (1) childhood lead poisoning (1) Golden Gate Bridge (2) McDonald's (1) suicide nets (1) Food Marketing Workgroup (1) news strategy (1) default frame (1) Telluride (1) Chile (1) violence prevention (8) breastfeeding (3) violence (2) reproductive justice (1) Johnson & Johnson (1) liana winett (1) environmental health (1) SB-5 (1) community organizing (1) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) Dora the Explorer (1) privilege (1) sugary drinks (10) community violence (1) public health (71) world water day (1) tobacco industry (2) sexual violence (2) food access (1) Whiteclay (4) food marketing (5) auto safety (1) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) inequities (1) social justice (2) prison phone calls (1) SSBs (1) new year's resolutions (1) childhood obesity (1) choice (1) media advocacy (23) messaging (3) california (1) cosmetics (1) stigma (1) tobacco tax (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) Catholic church (1) sandusky (2) social math (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) sexual health (1) Nickelodeon (1) child sexual abuse (5) Rachel Grana (1) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) water (1) Black Lives Matter (1) advocacy (3) San Francisco (3) communication strategy (1) racism (1) personal responsibility (3) campaign finance (1) elephant triggers (1) autism (1) gender (1) food (1) filibuster (1) white house (1) food and beverage marketing (3) Bill Cosby (1) tobacco control (2) naacp (1) FCC (1) social change (1) gatorade bolt game (1) soda taxes (2) journalism (1) Coca-Cola (3) news monitoring (1) HPV vaccine (1) Bloomberg (3) measure N (2) framing (14) Citizens United (1) prevention (1) structural racism (1) children's health (3) institutional accountability (1) Tea Party (1) safety (1) news (2) obesity prevention (1) sanitation (1) El Monte (3) media analysis (6) education (1) industry appeals to choice (1) front groups (1) Amanda Fallin (1) suicide barrier (2) diabetes (1) American Beverage Association (1) marketing (1) junk food (2) product safety (1) gun control (2) target marketing (9) summer camps (1) Marion Nestle (1) language (6) childhood trauma (3) youth (1) cancer research (1) political correctness (1) SB 402 (1) corporate social responsibility (1) community safety (1) suicide prevention (2) Michelle Obama (1) gun violence (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) Sandy Hook (2) cigarette advertising (1) Measure O (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) SB 1000 (1) Big Tobacco (3) news analysis (3) obesity (10) government intrusion (1) Proposition 29 (1) physical activity (1) public health data (1) Richmond (5) soda tax (11) vaccines (1) election 2016 (1) Donald Trump (2) authentic voices (1) prison system (1) media (7) weight of the nation (1) soda (12) Joe Paterno (1) soda warning labels (1) social media (2) cancer prevention (1) Connecticut shooting (1) digital marketing (3) Let's Move (1) water security (1) childhood adversity (1) Aurora (1) ACEs (2) democracy (1) communication (2) Oglala Sioux (3) community health (1) Newtown (1) indoor smoking ban (1) food swamps (1) healthy eating (1) collaboration (1) genital warts (1)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: