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.


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

get e-alerts in your inbox: