Big Tobacco gearing up for cigarette tax fight
Barb ShellyAnd so it begins.
Campaign finance disclosures on file at the Missouri Ethics Commission show that Cheyenne International, of Grover, N.C., has donated $181,000 to a political action committee called Enough Taxes Already.
Cheyenne International is — you guessed it — a “full line tobacco product manufacturer.” Enough Taxes Already is the committee set up to confront the expected initiative petition campaign to raise Missouri’s lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax.
Expect the Cheyenne International donations to be the first in a gusher of funds aimed at keeping Missourians from raising their tax on cigarettes from a ridiculous 17 cents a pack to 90 cents a pack — still low but more in line with other states.
In California, Big Tobacco spent more than $47 million this year to convince state voters not to add a dollar to the price of a pack of cigarettes. Support among voters dropped as the tobacco industry’s campaign ramped up.
Here’s how U.S. News & World Report summed it up:
California’s Proposition 29, a ballot initiative to add a $1 tax to packs of cigarettes, was defeated by a narrow margin in a statewide vote Tuesday. The vote was so close it has taken more than three days to determine the result. That the vote was so close—the two sides were separated by around 53,000 votes out of 3.8 million ballots casted as of Thursday—speaks to the powerful influence of cash in swaying voters.
I would expect the same onslaught here. Hopefully, the fact the Missouri’s tax is so much lower than anyone else’s will have some impact. Money from an increased tobacco tax would provide valuable funding for schools, colleges and health-related causes.
For now, the campaign will mean money for political operative Jeff Roe and his company, Axiom Strategies. Axiom has received $170,000 from Enough Taxes Already for “voter education” purposes.
We will know in early August if supporters of the higher tax gathered enough valid signatures to get their issue on the ballot. I expect that they did, and after that the battle royale will begin.
George Hunsucker
Northland
10 months, 1 week agoAnother “Prrogressssssssssssssssive” screwing of the poor. Don’t you people ever get tired of screwing the poor ms. Shelly???????
Hopefully, we will be as smart as CA was and say NO to yet another tax increase!!!
Jeremy Deeken
10 months, 1 week agoI hope they keep the taxes at 17 cents, this is a good way to encourage smokers to come to the state, and God knows we need more smokers. However, I am afraid that Jeff City needs to up the promotional campaign, maybe placing spots on radio and t.v. in out-state markets extolling the virtues of Missouri living and its cheap $mokes. Imagine the talent we could draw!
Charles Purvis
10 months, 1 week agoThere it is, step number one in the liberal playbook.
First, you have to demonize something by labeling it “Big,” as if size itself connotes bad.
Stephen Platt
10 months, 1 week agoBarb, the other side of the equation is - how much is the inititive petition campaign spending to put this on the ballot and what is it costing the state to verify the signitures? I agree the tax should be raised, we are the lowest at $.17. Let’s compete with the neighboring states though at $.60-.79 per pack or phase the increase in over a two - three years. It is hard to go cold turkey. Like the gas tax as usage decreases, revenue will keep up. The governor and the legislature are responsible for balancing the budget, it would be nice if they did what they were elected to do rather than let this end up in a wasteful public initibe campaign.
Charles Purvis
10 months, 1 week agoYou do understand that the cigarette tax is a ‘regressive’ tax, meaning it disproportionately affects lower income people? Why is it you want to punish those who can least afford it?
I’d be very surprised if most of the support for raising this tax didn’t come from people who don’t smoke. Very generous position—raise the taxes on somebody else, not me. The remainder of those supporting this are people who ‘know what’s best’ for other people.
Why can’t we just leave those people alone? How can a tax be too low when the state has nothing whatsoever invested in the production or marketing of the product?
FWIW, I’m a non-smoker.
George Hunsucker
Northland
10 months, 1 week agoIt is a perfect tax for the lib fascists Charles… They “know” better then we mere mortals, and it is a new pot of money they can piss away…. Nirvana
Paul Austin
10 months, 1 week agoMr Platt, to try answer your question, it is a a bunch! You can see who and how much here: http://mec.mo.gov/EthicsWeb/CampaignFinance/CF_CommInfo.aspx?MECID=C121042&Year=2012 Shelly and the Kansas City (RED) Star are very, very, good at railing against money put into the opposition to their social engineering fiasco but when it comes to the tax-exempt contributions made to their Angels of our better nature……you can hear the crickets chirp.
Stephen Platt
10 months, 1 week agoMr. Austin,I reviewed the Campaigning Report link. Very enlightening. A well balanced reporter would indicate Tobacco interests are battling against the American Cancer Society. The cost of canvassing which I am assuming is for this petition is in excess of $75,000 last quarter. It puts the Tobacco interest’s contribution in perspective.
My position remains the same. Economically the tax increase is huge and the legislature should fix the tax instead of a political action group petition. The amount should be competitive to surrounding states. It will decrease cigarette sales and the increased revenue will slide accordingly. As noted the tax will be regressive by nature of the product. As a footnote, I am not a smoker.
Kent Mueller
10 months, 1 week agoMy question is this. “Big Tobacco”…as apposed to what? “Little Tobacco”?
Why the “Big”, other than to be consistent that “big” business is somehow bad just by being big. Examples are big oil and big pharma. I wonder why we never hear of “big media”. Oh, I know.
Charles Purvis
10 months agoOr how about “Big” Government, Kent?