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.

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

get e-alerts in your inbox: