Healthy Kids Plan Update
Oregon justices side with tobacco companies
5/1/2008
by Chris Rizo
by Chris Rizo
SALEM, Ore. (Legal Newsline)-The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday let a lower court ruling stand, rejecting a class action lawsuit seeking to force tobacco companies to pay the medical monitoring bills of smokers.
The lawsuit sought to force the nation’s five biggest tobacco companies to pay for healthcare expenses for up to 400,000 Oregonians by paying for such things as tests to detect lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases attributed to smoking.
The lawsuit sought to force the nation’s five biggest tobacco companies to pay for healthcare expenses for up to 400,000 Oregonians by paying for such things as tests to detect lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases attributed to smoking.
Patricia Lowe filed the lawsuit argued that cigarette makers were negligent in not recognizing earlier that smoking can lead to cancer.
She said cigarette makers either “knew or should have known that their cigarettes contained toxic and hazardous substances likely to cause lung cancer.”
Named in the lawsuit were R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett Group Inc.
The high court unanimously rejected the suit, saying that the Lowe failed to demonstrate that she had suffered any ill effects from smoking cigarettes.
The justices found that she only alleged the threat of future harm, and that is not sufficient to level a negligence claim.
They added that for a negligence claim against tobacco companies to stick, plaintiffs must show actual harm.
“Oregon law has long recognized that the fact that a defendant’s negligence poses a threat of future physical harm is not sufficient, standing alone, to constitute an actionable injury,” Justice Rives Kistler wrote for the court.
“As this court has explained, ‘the threat of future harm, by itself, is insufficient as an allegation of damage in the context of a negligence claim,'” he wrote.
In a statement, Martin Holton III, general counsel for Winston-Salem, N.C.-based R.J. Reynolds, said the company is “pleased” with the justices’ decision.
?
Thanks Jan!
Poster to print out and hang in store windows
Handout to print out, 4 to a page
Wu tries to contain damage to SCHIP
By Jeffrey Young
November 14, 2007
Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) is hoping to prevent the defeat of a children’s healthcare ballot initiative in his home state from gaining national momentum and is taking on the tobacco industry to do it.
Normally a low-profile lawmaker, Wu lashed out on Tuesday at cigarette makers and Republican opponents of federal legislation to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as he sought to reverse the spin on the failure of the Oregon SCHIP initiative.
The ballot initiative, known as Measure 50, went down 60 percent to 40 percent on Nov. 6.
Despite the considerable margin of this defeat, Wu portrayed the outcome as the result of a tobacco industry-funded advertising campaign that sowed doubt in voters’ minds — not a rejection of a tax hike to fund children’s healthcare.
By Jeffrey Young
November 14, 2007
Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) is hoping to prevent the defeat of a children’s healthcare ballot initiative in his home state from gaining national momentum and is taking on the tobacco industry to do it.
Normally a low-profile lawmaker, Wu lashed out on Tuesday at cigarette makers and Republican opponents of federal legislation to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as he sought to reverse the spin on the failure of the Oregon SCHIP initiative.
The ballot initiative, known as Measure 50, went down 60 percent to 40 percent on Nov. 6.
Despite the considerable margin of this defeat, Wu portrayed the outcome as the result of a tobacco industry-funded advertising campaign that sowed doubt in voters’ minds — not a rejection of a tax hike to fund children’s healthcare.
Voters dropped the ball with recent measures
November 9, 2007
All of the votes have been tabulated, and the results are in for Oregon Special Election 2008. For the most part, voters were definitive in voicing their preferences on the state and local ballot measures. None of the measures were decided by a margin smaller than 12 percent.
Oregon voters passed Measure 49, the controversial land-use law. But the state cigarette tax, Measure 50, was rejected. In fact only three Oregon counties – Multnomah, Wasco and Gilliam – voted in favor of it. Eugene Measures 20-132 and 20-134, the city gas tax and urban renewal plan, were also voted down.
The results in this election, in most respects, ran counter to the better interests of the state. It’s enough to make anyone leery of the influence special interests have on our electoral process.
Take Measure 50, for instance. Had it passed, the 84.5 cents per-pack increase on cigarettes would have gone toward funding Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s Healthy Kids Plan. Revenue from the cigarette tax would have provided some 100,000 uninsured children with health and medical coverage.
But big tobacco bought the vote. Phillip Morris and Reynolds American, two major cigarette manufacturing companies, poured millions of dollars into the campaign against Measure 50. According to an article in the Thursday, Nov. 8 Register-Guard, cigarette companies dished out $6 in advertising money for every registered voter in Oregon. Judging by the results – 60 percent opposed, 40 percent in favor – big tobacco’s campaign against uninsured children was well worth it.
While healthcare is a contentious political issue, it’s not the only arena in which voters dropped the ball. Eugene Measure 20-132 would have addressed the city’s massive road maintenance backlog by raising the local gas tax from 5 cents per gallon to 8. As it stands, the city is faced with around $170 million in unrealized construction costs because of the substandard conditions of many of its roads. But the Oregon Petroleum Association lobbied hard against the bill, insisting a local gas tax increase was an unfair burden on local gas sellers, and a statewide gas tax was preferable. Measure 20-132 was not supposed to be the cure-all end-all to Eugene’s construction backlog. But with the measure’s failure, Eugene City Councilors will have to look elsewhere to close the gap.
Measure 20-134 was doomed in part by its own convolution. Nearly two-thirds of Eugene voters chose to vote against the downtown urban renewal proposal; a shame, considering the positive impact 20-134 would have had on the community. If passed, $40 million in funds already allocated would have been provided to the city for its downtown revitalization plan.
In other words, none of the money would have come through new taxes.
The heart of downtown Eugene is riddled with homelessness, drug abuse and petty crime. The measure would have secured funding to build new stores, with apartments constructed above them. This influx of commercial and residential activity could have reinvigorated the once-lively downtown community; instead, the city will have to make improvements with what scarce resources it has.
Oregonians finally chose to rein in the disastrous Measure 37. But in other respects, Eugene and Oregon voters alike missed a number of chances to make cost-efficient improvements for the community.
S-CHIP WRECK
November 8, 2007
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski recently blamed the failure of a state children’s health insurance program (S-CHIP) — paid for by cigarette taxes — on the tobacco industry buying the election.? In reality, voters didn’t want tax increases, says the Wall Street Journal.
Health plan gets burned after state’s costliest race
November 07, 2007
JANIE HAR, The Oregonian Staff
JANIE HAR, The Oregonian Staff
After the most expensive political campaign in Oregon history, voters Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a tobacco tax increase to pay for children’s health care.
The 3-to-2 vote against Measure 50, which would have increased Oregon’s cigarette tax by 85 cents a pack, follows similar defeats in California and Missouri after tobacco makers spent millions to oppose the measures.
In Oregon, Reynolds American and Philip Morris, the makers of Camel and Marlboro cigarettes, spent a record $12 million, primarily on a TV commercial blitz.
The decisive failure kicks a complex public health issue back to the Legislature and Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who have been unable to make health care more accessible for an estimated 576,000 Oregonians who lack insurance.
Opponents downplayed the amount of money they spent to defeat the measure, saying voters didn’t like sticking a tax in the constitution and weren’t convinced bureaucrats needed the money.
“The primary reason is there’s not an appetite out there for more taxes,” said Russ Walker, Oregon director of the anti-tax group FreedomWorks.
Disappointed supporters, who were outspent 4-to-1, chalked up their loss to the tobacco money and vowed to continue working on health care.
“I think that this is just a battle in a long war,” said Gov. Ted Kulongoski before making a concession speech before 100 supporters at downtown Portland’s Benson Hotel.
Later in the evening, Kulongoski said: “The tobacco industry basically bought an election. I don’t think it’s a reflection of what Oregonians think about health care and children.”
In rejecting the tax, Oregonians broke with tradition. They approved cigarette tax increases in 1996 and 2002.
After spendy campaign, Oregon cigarette tax trailing
Nov 6, 2007
By BRAD CAIN, Associated Press Writer
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — After a campaign marked by record amounts of tobacco industry money pouring into TV advertising, a cigarette tax increase to pay for children’s health care was soundly defeated by Oregon voters in Tuesday’s special election.
With 54 percent of the expected vote counted, Measure 50 was being rejected by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent. Among Oregon’s 36 counties, the cigarette tax passed only in populous Multnomah County, but was crushed in most other places.
It was a stinging defeat for backers of the “Healthy Kids” plan. They had spent the campaign’s final days going door-to-door, pleading with voters to ignore the cigarette makers’ $12 million ad blitz and approve the increase to extend health coverage to 100,000 uninsured children.
Tobacco puffs $900,000 more into M 50 fight
October 12, 2007
Dave Hogan
Dave Hogan
The makers of Camel cigarettes added $905,000 to the fight against Measure 50’s proposed cigarette tax increase today, putting tobacco contributions at a record $10 million so far.
Reynolds American, headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., has now contributed $4.2 million to the campaign against the 85-cents-a-pack increase that would be used to pay for children’s health insurance and other health programs. Richmond, Va.-based Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboros, and its parent company have contributed $5.8 million to the effort.
Measure 50 is one of two statewide measures that will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, and ballots will be mailed to voters next week.
While at least 10 other Oregon ballot measure campaigns have raised more than $5 million in adjusted-for-inflation dollars during the past 20 years, only one raised more than $7 million and none raised more than $8 million, according to state records and Democracy Reform Oregon, which tracks campaign finance.
The campaign for the proposed cigarette tax increase, Yes on the Healthy Kids Plan, has reported raising $1.9 million so far.
THE MEASURE 50
September 23, 2007
David Reinhard
David Reinhard
First they came for the smokers. Unable to get by on a 20 percent boost in the state tax revenues, Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Democratic Legislature decided they needed even more taxpayer cash to pay for their favorite programs. So they set their sights on smokers. Make them pay. It’ll be good for them — an extra 841/2 cents in taxes on a pack of cigarettes will give them added incentive to quit smoking — and good for the state treasury.
When Republicans argued it wasn’t fair to single out a group or product for taxation and refused to provide the votes to raise taxes or send a statutory referral to voters, the Democrats pressed on. They decided to evade these constitutional requirements by asking voters to amend the Constitution. No, not by repealing the Constitution’s supermajority requirement for raising taxes. Instead, they opted to etch the tobacco tax hike into the Constitution, right there with the articles on the three branches of government and the Bill of Rights.
Never mind that some of these same people have spent years complaining that citizen initiatives have gummed up the Constitution with items that have no business being there. What’s the Constitution when you’re itching to raise taxes to fund a new program?
Especially when you’re itching to raise taxes on smokers. After all, isn’t their filthy habit costing taxpayers big bucks in higher health-care costs? That’s the core argument for taxing them so Salem can buy health-insurance for poor kids, and it’s largely true.
But smokers aren’t the only ones jacking up the state’s health-care costs. Start singling out specific groups for tax increases — start evading constitutional safeguards and writing tax hikes into the Constitution — and who knows what group will be the next target?
I know, I know: Oregon’s junk-food fatties.
They’re super-sized targets if you go in for the kind of selective taxation that Measure 50 fans favor.
For starters, it’s hard to sit down to a hearty breakfast and the morning paper without being informed of the nation’s “obesity epidemic” — what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called the No. 1. health threat facing America. Walk outside and the word is made flesh. We’re one fat people, and getting fatter by the year. And like cigarette smoking, our overweight and obesity are costing us all. The total economic costs come to about $123 billion a year — a figure comparable to the costs of smoking.
What does an obese patient mean for a health-care plan? Average costs that are 25 percent to 35 percent higher than those for the non-obese patient, according to a Kaiser Permanente study. Dealing with the coronary disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer and other diseases and conditions related to obesity will do that.
Nor is Oregon immune to these trends. Obesity among adult Oregonians shot up by 118 percent from 1990 to 2005. According to Oregon’s Department of Human Services, just under 60 percent of adult Oregonians in 2005 were either obese or overweight. (Compare that to the 20 percent of Oregon adults who smoke.) Almost a quarter of our 8th- and 11th-graders were tubby or at risk of becoming so.
In 2003, medical costs tied to adult obesity came to $781 million, or almost 6 percent of Oregon’s total health care bill. Oregon’s Medicaid program paid $180 million, pushing 9 percent, of the total costs for this state-federal health-care program for low-income folks,
How to address our state’s crisis of corpulence? Public education is part of the solution. So are nutrition standards for school lunches. But if you accept the logic of Measure 50 — if you’re ready to target groups or products that drive up the costs of state-funded programs in order to fund new government benefits — the next step is clear: The Twinkies tax.
Yes, tax baked goods, candies and chips. Tax all fast and fatty foods. Tax soda pop and ice cream. Tax them at the same rate Oregon taxes cigarettes.
Eat a Big Mac — for the children.
True, pigging out on rich foods and pop doesn’t explain every weight problem. Body chemistry can play a role. So does being sedentary.
Could a tax on Oregon’s couch potatoes be far behind a tax on french fries? If Measure 50 passes and the precedent of writing tax rates on unhealthy products into our Constitution is set, Salem Democrats could well take a take a run at taxing our TV remotes.
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@ news.oregonian.com.
Lighting Up The Constitution
October 3, 2007
On one side of Measure 50, Lance Armstrong and poor kids. On the other, Big Tobacco. In the middle? Just the Constitution.
Two measures, one big vote
Measures 49, 50 bound to kick up two intense, high-dollar campaigns
By James Sinks / The Bulletin
Published: October 03. 2007 5:00AM PST
SALEM — Voters will decide the fate of just two statewide measures on the Nov. 6 special election ballot.
Measures 49, 50 bound to kick up two intense, high-dollar campaigns
By James Sinks / The Bulletin
Published: October 03. 2007 5:00AM PST
SALEM — Voters will decide the fate of just two statewide measures on the Nov. 6 special election ballot.
Campaign bucks from big tobacco hit record
Measure 50 – Cigarette companies ante up $6.6 million — so far — to try to defeat a tax increase intended for children’s health Wednesday, October 03, 2007DAVE HOGAN and JANIE HAR The Oregonian Staff
Backers of tax hike saying Big Tobacco may break spending record
Sep 18, 2007
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Backers of a proposed increase in Oregon’s cigarette tax said Tuesday that the tobacco industry has spent $4.5 million on radio and TV ads so far to defeat the increase.
Sep 18, 2007
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Backers of a proposed increase in Oregon’s cigarette tax said Tuesday that the tobacco industry has spent $4.5 million on radio and TV ads so far to defeat the increase.
State’s health care goal rests on noxious habit
Oregon smokers would shoulder the bill if Measure 50 passes
September 16, 2007? DON COLBURN The Oregonian Staff
Depending on whom you ask, smokers are a picked-on minority — or their habit is the biggest preventable cause of death, disability and rising medical bills.
Probably both.
But as debate swirls around Oregon’s proposed tobacco tax increase and where the money would go, there’s no doubt about where it would come from first: smokers.
Read More
Reynolds tweaks ads against cigarette tax
September 12, 2007
Under pressure from several television stations, Reynolds American has changed two on-air ads opposing a cigarette tax increase to make it more explicit to voters that the tobacco company is paying for the campaign.
Under federal rules, all political advertising must include a tag line that says who paid for the ad. The tag line on the commercials originally read: “Paid for by Oregonians Against the Blank Check and Reynolds American Inc.” The revised commercials, which started airing Tuesday, say they were paid for by Reynolds American, the parent company of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and authorized by Oregonians Against the Blank Check, the campaign that’s funded entirely by the cigarette maker.
The cosmetic fix is a small — and easy — victory for backers of Measure 50, a Nov. 6 ballot proposal that would raise tobacco taxes to extend health care to uninsured children in Oregon. Much harder will be stamping out other claims in Reynolds’ ads. The broadcasters’ group is looking into those claims — but chances a station will nix the commercials are slim.
“It’s somewhat complicated,” says Bill Johnstone, president of the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, which advises stations on industry standards. “Both sides of the story have enough factual information that they can say, ‘Hey, we’re telling the truth.’ “
At least three stations, in Medford and in Eugene, refused to air the commercials Monday, saying the original tag line was not accurate in light of a 1996 Federal Communications Commission ruling that requires on-air financial disclosure. The broadcasters association agreed.
Cary Jones, manager for KMVU (26) in Medford, said it did not air tobacco-backed ads scheduled for Monday; the station planned to make up the lost time Tuesday. Mark Metzger, manager for KLSR (34) and sister station KEVU (23) in Eugene, also said the stations will make up time lost.
The tax measure’s supporters, who call themselves the “Healthy Kids” coalition, painted the victory as more evidence of tobacco companies’ deceitful campaign tactics.
The group, backed by labor unions, nonprofit health groups, hospitals and insurance companies, launched its first television ad Tuesday as part of a $255,000 media buy. The 30-second spot is a direct response to the cigarette maker’s ads, which it calls a “pack of lies.”
“Big Tobacco is trying to make it sound as if somebody else in Oregon is standing alongside them,” said Cathy Kaufmann, spokeswoman for the campaign.
Reynolds American has contributed more than $1.7 million to Oregonians Against the Blank Check, which is headed by Mark Nelson, the tobacco company’s chief lobbyist in Salem. The campaign launched a $227,000 statewide ad blitz a week ago.
Nelson dismissed the flap as “much ado about nothing,” the work of picky opponents. The campaign is also confident it will prevail on the other claims.
Measure supporters criticize the tobacco company’s ads for claiming 71 percent of the money from the tobacco tax will not be spent on uninsured children. Technically, that’s true: Some of the new revenue will go to reserves to cushion the program in the future, and legislators can appropriate the money for other health programs. Supporters add that’s only after they determine the insurance program has enough money.
Measure supporters also object to claims that the proposal will mean no-bid contracts for insurance companies and health maintenance organizations.
This also is technically true in that the bill exempts the state from public contracting laws requiring the state to pick the best bidder. But state officials say that ignores how the state provides free health insurance, which is usually to agree to reimburse any qualified provider that accepts the state’s rates.
That claim bothers Jones, the station manager in Medford. Their lawyer is checking out whether that violates the station’s standards.
But station managers may differ in how they rule.
“If we pulled every spot the opposing side said was inaccurate,” said John Manzi, station manager for KRCW (32) in Portland, “we’d never be running any political ads.”
Janie Har: 503-221-8213; janiehar@news.oregonian.com
Janie Har: 503-221-8213; janiehar@news.oregonian.com
Healthy Kids group runs first TV ad statewide in Oregon
Sep 11, 2007
And, they’re off. Just days after the tobacco industry released its first statewide television ad bashing the proposed 84.5-cent rise in Oregon’s cigarette tax, proponents of the initiative on the November ballot have struck back with their own big ad buy. The “Yes on Healthy Kids Plan” group is backing the tax, which would pay for health insurance for about 100,000 uninsured children, and other health care programs.
TITLE: “Pack of Lies”
LENGTH: 30 seconds
AIRING: In television markets around Oregon.
SCRIPT: A female announcer: “Big Tobacco is at it again, lying about Measure 50, the Healthy Kids initiative. The Oregonian calls their ads “utterly untrue…outright false.” The truth? Measure 50 provides health care to 100,000 kids, prevents thousands more from smoking and has accountability guarantees required by law. That’s why the American Cancer Society and Heart and Lung Associations endorse 50. Don’t let Big Tobacco sell Oregonians a pack of lies. Vote yes on Healthy Kids.”
KEY IMAGES: A pack of cigarettes, with the unlikely brand name of “Pack of Lies,” and a mock warning statement that reads: “Big Tobacco TV ad contains lies and distortions. Dangerous to Oregon’s kids.” Also, images of kids gamboling through fields, and being examined by doctors.
FACT-CHECKING: The ad is a direct response to the tobacco industry ad that began running around the state last week, which contended that most of the money raised by the tax would not necessarily go to children’s health care programs. In fact, about 70 percent of the money raised in the first 18 months of the tax is likely to go to the children’s health program. An estimated $43 million will immediately be used to expand coverage, while about $65 million more will be placed in reserves for the program’s future needs, to cover inflation, growing caseloads and modest projected declines in revenues from cigarette sales.
It’s not definitive that thousands of people would quit smoking, or decide not to start, because of the Oregon cigarette tax hike. But some of the money will go to smoking cessation programs, and national reports have suggested that higher prices are an effective deterrent for smokers.
The tobacco industry’s ad suggested that there would be “no competitive bids.” But a bidding process is slated for the portion of the program that would offer subsidized insurance to children who live in households with monthly incomes of up to $62,000. The blanket insurance coverage for children who live in households with incomes of not more than $41,000 a year would undergo efficiency audits by the Secretary of State’s Office.
Sep 11, 2007
And, they’re off. Just days after the tobacco industry released its first statewide television ad bashing the proposed 84.5-cent rise in Oregon’s cigarette tax, proponents of the initiative on the November ballot have struck back with their own big ad buy. The “Yes on Healthy Kids Plan” group is backing the tax, which would pay for health insurance for about 100,000 uninsured children, and other health care programs.
TITLE: “Pack of Lies”
LENGTH: 30 seconds
AIRING: In television markets around Oregon.
SCRIPT: A female announcer: “Big Tobacco is at it again, lying about Measure 50, the Healthy Kids initiative. The Oregonian calls their ads “utterly untrue…outright false.” The truth? Measure 50 provides health care to 100,000 kids, prevents thousands more from smoking and has accountability guarantees required by law. That’s why the American Cancer Society and Heart and Lung Associations endorse 50. Don’t let Big Tobacco sell Oregonians a pack of lies. Vote yes on Healthy Kids.”
KEY IMAGES: A pack of cigarettes, with the unlikely brand name of “Pack of Lies,” and a mock warning statement that reads: “Big Tobacco TV ad contains lies and distortions. Dangerous to Oregon’s kids.” Also, images of kids gamboling through fields, and being examined by doctors.
FACT-CHECKING: The ad is a direct response to the tobacco industry ad that began running around the state last week, which contended that most of the money raised by the tax would not necessarily go to children’s health care programs. In fact, about 70 percent of the money raised in the first 18 months of the tax is likely to go to the children’s health program. An estimated $43 million will immediately be used to expand coverage, while about $65 million more will be placed in reserves for the program’s future needs, to cover inflation, growing caseloads and modest projected declines in revenues from cigarette sales.
It’s not definitive that thousands of people would quit smoking, or decide not to start, because of the Oregon cigarette tax hike. But some of the money will go to smoking cessation programs, and national reports have suggested that higher prices are an effective deterrent for smokers.
The tobacco industry’s ad suggested that there would be “no competitive bids.” But a bidding process is slated for the portion of the program that would offer subsidized insurance to children who live in households with monthly incomes of up to $62,000. The blanket insurance coverage for children who live in households with incomes of not more than $41,000 a year would undergo efficiency audits by the Secretary of State’s Office.
New Jersey Proves Oregon Tax Limits – Tobacco Tax Up, Revenues Drop
September 7. 2007?
New Jersey example shows Oregon this discrimination tax has its limits
New Jersey example shows Oregon this discrimination tax has its limits
Gregg Edwards recently wrote, New Jersey “is the first state in the nation to experience a decline in cigarette tax revenues after increasing the cigarette tax.” This phenomenon is of import to Oregonians.
Why? Because this fall Oregonians will vote on Measure 50, which seeks to increase taxes on demonized tobacco, and cements it in the state constitution. Over the next few years, the tax increase will supposedly raise hundreds of millions of dollars for new and old government programs. But New Jersey shows, revenues can drop. And, once the government programs grow and should tobacco tax revenue fall, expect other taxes to be increased. It will be mandated by the Oregon Constitution.
In 2006, Center for Policy Research of New Jersey president Edwards and crew predicted that the Garden State revenue drop would occur. A year later, Edwards reviewed the facts in an August 19, 2007 Asbury Park Press commentary:
To support the Fiscal Year 2007 state budget, [NJ] Gov. Corzine successfully proposed increasing the cigarette tax by 17.5 cents, from $2.40 to 2.575 per pack. It was the fourth tax increase in a six-year period and it made New Jersey’s tax the highest state tax in the nation.
Here was the result: In FY 2006, the cigarette tax raised more than $787 million. In FY 2007 — after it was hiked by almost 7 percent — the tax raised only $764 million, or $23 million less than the previous year.
According to Edward’s commentary, the Center’s prediction that the tax had reached a tipping point, “in part, relied upon a clear pattern in cigarette sales. As New Jersey increased its tax, cigarette sales declined.”
Gregg explained, Some of the sales decline was due to smokers giving up an expensive habit, but that can’t explain its magnitude. Many smokers don’t buy cigarettes from New Jersey retailers. Instead, some purchase cigarettes in the states that border New Jersey, all of which have lower cigarette prices. While New Jersey’s sales are plummeting, Delaware’s are increasing. And it’s certainly not the case that more Delaware residents are becoming smokers. Also, some smokers make purchases via the Internet. Others even buy in the black market, which owes its very existence to New Jersey’s steep tax.
If Measure 50 passes, Oregon’s cigarette tax would be among one of the highest in the country. Our neighboring states – Idaho, California, and Nevada – could expect increased sales as Oregonians cross the border to buy: All of their cigarette taxes are lower than Oregon’s and they would be much, much lower after Measure 50. In sum, a tax revenue drop for Oregon is highly plausible.
New Jersey has shown Oregon that we’re seemingly reaching the butt, if you will, with taxing smokers. The question remains: When they’ve been taxed to the point where it serves no political purpose, which Oregon sub-group is next? Fear not, as history has shown, there are plenty of other human activities that can be easily demonized and politically exploited – and enshrined in the state Constitution.
Philip Morris sues to stop Measure 50
August 29, 2007
-Janie Har
Oregon Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg, and a group of tobacco users and retailers have sued to stop a cigarette tax increase proposal from appearing on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Measure 50 is a constitutional amendment that would raise taxes on tobacco to boost children’s health insurance coverage.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in Marion County Circuit Court against Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, claims the measure violates the constitution on several fronts. Mainly, it violates the “separate vote” provision of the constitution by making one vote cover three distinct taxes on cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products, said James Dumas, a Portland attorney who is representing plaintiffs.
Altria Corporate Services,
part of the parent company that owns tobacco maker Philip Morris USA, is paying legal fees. Dumas defended Philip Morris in a lawsuit over the 1999 death of a Salem woman that resulted in an initial record punitive damage award of $150 million.
Tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds this week dumped $1.7 million into The Oregonians Against the Blank Check Committee. The campaign has spent about $365,000, with most of the money going to Salem lobbyist Mark Nelson’s company.
Measure supporters have raised nearly $900,000 in cash and commitments, and spent about $60,000. Contributors include unions, nurses, doctors and hospitals.
Big tobacco to battle Measure 50
August 21, 2007
By Chris Rizo, Ashland Daily Tidings
SALEM — As tobacco companies prepare to fight a cigarette tax increase aimed at providing health insurance for children, the stage is set for what could become the one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns in Oregon history.
Tobacco giants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA separately filed papers late last week with the state Elections Division to form political action committees to fight Measure 50, slated to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot.
August 21, 2007
By Chris Rizo, Ashland Daily Tidings
SALEM — As tobacco companies prepare to fight a cigarette tax increase aimed at providing health insurance for children, the stage is set for what could become the one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns in Oregon history.
Tobacco giants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA separately filed papers late last week with the state Elections Division to form political action committees to fight Measure 50, slated to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Tobacco giants take up fight to squash tax
Ballot – Two makers form committees to pour millions into Oregon to defeat an insurance plan
August 18, 2007
JANIE HAR The Oregonian Staff
Big tobacco will spend big money trying to persuade Oregon voters to reject a cigarette tax increase this fall that would insure more needy children in what looms as one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns in state history.
Ballot – Two makers form committees to pour millions into Oregon to defeat an insurance plan
August 18, 2007
JANIE HAR The Oregonian Staff
Big tobacco will spend big money trying to persuade Oregon voters to reject a cigarette tax increase this fall that would insure more needy children in what looms as one of the priciest ballot measure campaigns in state history.
Cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed papers Friday with the state Elections Division to form the “Oregonians Against the Blank Check” committee opposing Measure 50 on the Nov. 6 ballot. Philip Morris USA, which makes Marlboro products, also registered its “Stop the Measure 50 Tax Hike” campaign.
Last year, tobacco companies spent roughly $100 million to fight cigarette tax increases and smoking bans on ballots in several states, according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. They failed to defeat tax increases in South Dakota and Arizona but succeeded in Missouri and California. Tobacco companies spent $65 million in California alone, said Cathy Kaufmann, policy director for the nonprofit Children First of Oregon, which is part of the coalition backing the measure.
“They’re going to bring a lot of money to the state, and they’re going to try to make this vote go their way,” Kaufmann said, “but we’re pretty confident Oregonians aren’t going to be fooled.”
Measure 50 would amend the state constitution to increase cigarette taxes by 84.5 cents a pack, raising an estimated $153 million for the current two-year budget and $233 million for 2009-11, most of it to provide health care for more than 100,000 Oregon children. Democrats who control both arms of the Legislature couldn’t muster the votes to pass a straight-up cigarette tax increase, but they had enough Republican support to put the issue before voters.
Opponents call the proposal unsustainable, unfair to smokers and inappropriate to put into the constitution. They say the law gives legislators flexibility to spend as much as $68 million on other health services.
“Our contention is that it’s not so much about insuring kids as it is about providing blank checks for various interest groups,” said J.L. Wilson, a spokesman for the R.J. Reynolds campaign.
“When you see the money doesn’t go to healthy kids, perhaps it’s not appropriate to be saying it’s a healthy kids measure.”
Wilson said he expects his campaign to spend $3 million. “Of course,” he added, “we reserve the right to spend more.”
Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris, wouldn’t comment on campaign strategy or how much the company plans to spend in Oregon.
Last week, a group of supporters calling itself the “Healthy Kids Oregon” coalition said it had raised $700,000 in cash and commitments from hospitals, nurses, unions and health groups.
Spending by cigarette makers could rival or top that of Liberty Northwest, the workers’ insurance company that spent a record $5.6 million in 2004 on a ballot measure to get rid of rival Saif Corp. That same year, doctors and others in the health care industry spent $5.2 million trying to limit medical malpractice awards.
Last fall, insurance companies ponied up $5 million to successfully fight a ballot measure that would have banned the use of credit scores in setting insurance rates.
Janie Har: 503-221-8213; janiehar@news.oregonian.com
HMOs could be target in fight to defeat new tobacco tax
STEVE LAW
August 17, 2007
Remember the backlash against HMOs, those health care providers/insurers that worked to save money on health care, but led to much bashing by patients for restricting their options?
Oregonians may be treated to more HMO bashing in the upcoming Measure 50 campaign. That’s the cigarette tax increase placed on the ballot by the Legislature, and dubbed by supporters as the Healthy Kids Plan.
The tobacco industry sought to demonize HMOs and hospitals in its $70 million blitzkrieg that killed a cigarette tax increase on California’s ballot last year. Judging from the early salvos of tobacco industry lobbyist Mark Nelson, we can expect the same here.
Hospitals and health providers will get much of the money if Oregonians vote for the 84.5-cents-a-pack cigarette tax increase, which will expand health care for children, youths, and poor adults. Not surprisingly, the would-be beneficiaries are putting up much of the money to pass Measure 50.
It’ll be up to campaign wizards like Nelson to make the case that HMOs and their ilk have selfish motives and are not to be trusted.
You’d think Oregonians trust hospitals and HMOs a tad more than tobacco companies.
But last year’s campaigns in four other states show the tobacco industry can have its way, despite the declining popularity of smoking.
Four tobacco tax increases were placed on state ballots through the initiative process in 2006, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.
Measures were defeated in California and Missouri, where the tobacco industry spent heavily. Measures passed in Arizona and South Dakota, but neither measure was “heavily contested,” the institute reported.
STEVE LAW
August 17, 2007
Remember the backlash against HMOs, those health care providers/insurers that worked to save money on health care, but led to much bashing by patients for restricting their options?
Oregonians may be treated to more HMO bashing in the upcoming Measure 50 campaign. That’s the cigarette tax increase placed on the ballot by the Legislature, and dubbed by supporters as the Healthy Kids Plan.
The tobacco industry sought to demonize HMOs and hospitals in its $70 million blitzkrieg that killed a cigarette tax increase on California’s ballot last year. Judging from the early salvos of tobacco industry lobbyist Mark Nelson, we can expect the same here.
Hospitals and health providers will get much of the money if Oregonians vote for the 84.5-cents-a-pack cigarette tax increase, which will expand health care for children, youths, and poor adults. Not surprisingly, the would-be beneficiaries are putting up much of the money to pass Measure 50.
It’ll be up to campaign wizards like Nelson to make the case that HMOs and their ilk have selfish motives and are not to be trusted.
You’d think Oregonians trust hospitals and HMOs a tad more than tobacco companies.
But last year’s campaigns in four other states show the tobacco industry can have its way, despite the declining popularity of smoking.
Four tobacco tax increases were placed on state ballots through the initiative process in 2006, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.
Measures were defeated in California and Missouri, where the tobacco industry spent heavily. Measures passed in Arizona and South Dakota, but neither measure was “heavily contested,” the institute reported.
Anti-tobacco groups muster campaign funds
$700,000 will back Measure 50 to raise cigarette tax
August 16, 2007
STEVE LAW, Statesman Journal
STEVE LAW, Statesman Journal
Get ready for a multimillion-dollar rumble between health care advocates and big tobacco.
Backers of a proposed 84-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase to expand health care coverage have launched their campaign with $700,000 in cash and pledges, mostly from hospitals, health insurers and the lung, heart and cancer associations.
The proposal, known as Measure 50, is on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Support from the health care industry could enable backers to stay reasonably competitive with tobacco companies, which spent an eye-popping $70 million to defeat a 2006 cigarette tax increase in California.
Cigarette companies and their allies are doing polling on Measure 50 and are expected to decide soon whether to enter the fight.
“It’s going to be a matter of just a few days,” said Salem lobbyist Mark Nelson, who would manage the tobacco industry-funded opposition campaign. “I believe they will proceed.”
He expects his coalition to include multiple tobacco companies, convenience stores that sell tobacco and chambers of commerce.
Measure 50 would provide universal health care for children and youths under age 19, expand health coverage for low-income adults and bolster tobacco-use prevention.
State lawmakers placed Measure 50 before voters after failing to muster enough votes to pass it outright.
A coalition of health industry companies, health care associations and labor groups recently hired Carol Butler to manage the yes on Measure 50 campaign. She led a successful 2006 campaign to defeat Measure 43 in Oregon, which would have required parental notification before minors could have abortions.
Butler is hiring additional campaign staff.
Labor groups were among the most vocal supporters of the so-called Healthy Kids Plan during the 2007 legislative session, but health care groups are leading the charge financially.
The newly formed political action committee, Yes on the Healthy Kids Plan, has garnered contributions or pledges of $50,000 or more from six health care groups, including Kaiser Permanente and Regence BlueCross.
The American Cancer Society pledged $100,000 and the lung and heart associations each pledged $50,000, according to reports filed with the Oregon Elections Division.
SEIU Local 503 pledged $50,000, the largest labor donation so far.
Initial polling shows strong voter support for Measure 50, Butler said. And voters don’t seem overly concerned that the measure is a constitutional amendment, despite earlier fears among supporters, she said.
So far, all the money to support the measure has come from Oregon-based interests, Butler said. But if tobacco companies enter the fray, supporters will turn to national sources for financial assistance, she said.
Four tobacco tax increases were placed on state ballots through the initiative process in 2006, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.
slaw@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6615
slaw@StatesmanJournal.com or (503) 399-6615
Lawmakers should have gone further to improve medicine
August 12, 2007
?
The governor has signed Senate Bill 3, which he says “creates the Healthy Kids Plan.” It doesn’t yet, because it depends on voters this fall increasing a cigarette tax to pay for it. But even if the plan eventually is put into effect, it does nothing to cut the cost of medical care and falls far short of the kind of medical legislation that one wishes Oregon would someday adopt.
?
The governor has signed Senate Bill 3, which he says “creates the Healthy Kids Plan.” It doesn’t yet, because it depends on voters this fall increasing a cigarette tax to pay for it. But even if the plan eventually is put into effect, it does nothing to cut the cost of medical care and falls far short of the kind of medical legislation that one wishes Oregon would someday adopt.
The bill expands the Oregon Health Plan under the auspices of the federal Social Security Act. It depends on federal waivers and federal funding. If those are obtained and the tobacco tax is approved, it allows parents to apply for their kids to be covered by health insurance if their income is within 200 to 300 percent of federal poverty guidelines. Or, regardless of their income, they can sign up for a part of the program for people able to afford private insurance.
In short, the program is a bundle of red tape, though families would be shielded from complications by being able to submit a simple application. But while it throws more money into the pot, it does nothing to solve the issues facing medical care in Oregon.
One big issue is that we have too few doctors, and the shortage is going to get worse. Newcomers to the mid-valley report they cannot get an appointment to see a doctor. A bigger insurance program won’t fix that.
As our Bennett Hall reported last Sunday, Samaritan Health and the Corvallis Clinic are taking innovative measures in training and recruiting to attract doctors. But the numbers are too small. And the legislature, while willing to expand the government payment scheme if voters impose higher taxes on hapless smokers, killed a plan for more training of doctors at OSU and local hospitals.
The governor, in signing the bill Thursday, said it was designed to “provide affordable, accessible health care for Oregon’s children.”
If he and the legislative leadership really wanted to lower the cost of medical care, and allow more people including kids to get it, they would take drastic steps to increase the number of doctors willing to practice in Oregon.
They might, for instance, propose and budget money to pay off the student loans of any newly licensed doctor who agrees to practice in Oregon for, say, 10 years. They would provide tax exemptions or other incentives for health-care providers who see a certain number of children without charging them or their parents.
They might also relax the licensing requirements for paramedical professionals, increasing their number so that more poor people, especially children, could get medical attention for all the common ailments that kids get.
The state might go so far as to provide immunity from malpractice suits to doctors who administer a certain percentage of care to the indigent, especially children. Or the state might offer to pay the malpractice premiums of those doctors who provide that service.
Those kinds of actions likely would have an immediate and direct effect. Instead of expanding or further burdening the bureaucracy, those kinds of steps would actually increase health care for kids — and everybody else.
