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.

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

get e-alerts in your inbox: