Case Studies
Tobacco Excise Tax Constitutional Amendment Referendum
Campaign in Colorado
Lessons Learned
What were the
important elements to the intervention's success?
-
Taking time to do comprehensive planning at the
beginning of the campaign.
- Initiating the state constitutional amendment "title
setting" process during 2003 in preparation for the 2004
campaign to determine whether or not raising taxes and
dedicating their revenues met the test of "single
subject" and to learn how the opposition would challenge
the proposal.
- Broadening the CTEPA coalition beyond tobacco control
advocacy groups to form Citizens for a Healthier
Colorado (CHC): tobacco coalition members taking a back
seat and giving up "ownership" of the campaign;
selection of campaign spokespersons who represent racial
and ethnic diversity and have no previous involvement
with tobacco issues.
- Strength of CHC and CTEPA, due to a plan,
organization, and funding, prevented the tobacco
industry from opposing the campaign.
- Well thought-out spending plan for revenues generated
by the tax increases in order to attract new members and
funding for the campaign.
- Effective fundraising.
- Level of CHC member agencies' commitment and staff
support.
- Purchasing airtime on television and radio during
summer to secure cheaper rates and preferred airtimes
during a year in which Coloradans would be voting in
both a presidential and senatorial election.
- Dissemination by STEPP of accurate data, research,
best practices, and STEPP program effectiveness to
STEPP’s Advisory Board, CHC and CTEPA, and county health
departments and coalitions.
- STEPP goals, objectives, and strategies remaining
evidence-based no matter its level of funding.
Describe the policy
and/or program interventions applicability/replicability
to other sites, and include recommendations for other
sites.
Although the Colorado
constitution’s amendment, initiative, and referendum
requirements are unique to Colorado, the work of the
Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance and
the Citizens for a Healthier Colorado in planning and
implementing a voter referendum to amend the Colorado
constitution to increase the tobacco excise taxes and
dedicate the revenues generated by the tax increases to
tobacco prevention and treatment and other
health-related programs is applicable and replicable in
those states whose constitutions authorize voter
initiatives and referenda.
Describe the
challenges faced, and below each challenge, describe any
solutions used to correct or reduce the problem.
Challenge:Convincing people that the effort was
“for real” due to past history of a failed excise tax
increase campaign and subsequent discord among many in
the pubic health community.
Solutions:Many meetings with active and
potential coalition members were scheduled and momentum
built to a convincing threshold of belief.
Challenge:Struggle to reach agreement on how to
allocate new revenues generated by tax increases.
Solutions:A facilitator trusted by both tobacco
control advocates and health care advocates was hired to
bring key players to the table and to guide the
coalition partners toward agreement on how to allocate
the new revenues.
Challenge:Deciding whether to designate the
Department of Public Health STEPP or a to-be-designated
new Foundation to administer the tobacco prevention and
treatment funding generated by the tax increases.
Solutions:Because of a perceived lack of support
for a comprehensive tobacco prevention and treatment
program from some people within the Colorado Department
of Public Health, some partners were hesitant about the
ability of the department to adequately administer an
expanded tobacco prevention and control program. After
discussion about establishing a foundation to administer
a new program outside the Colorado Department of Public
Health, the coalition agreed to designate the STEPP as
the enhanced program’s administrative agency.
Challenge:A competing measure tax in the
legislature to raise the cigarette excise being pushed
by the AARP.
Solutions:AARP was recruited to participate in
CHC. Although the organization wanted substantial
revenues generated from the increased taxes dedicated to
programs for seniors, it was unwilling to provide
assistance to the campaign and did not join CHC.
Instead, the AARP publicly criticized CHC and found a
legislator to introduce a bill to put a competing
cigarette excise tax increase/health care funding
referendum on the ballot. The coalition hired a lobbyist
and successfully defeated the bill.
Challenge:Commitment not to pursue the campaign
unless a fundraising benchmark of $1 million was reached
by January 2004.
Solutions:By January 2004, $1.1 million was
raised and committed, and the campaign went into high
gear.
Challenge:Legislative “end-run” around amendment
language stating that “new revenues could not be used to
supplant existing spending”. During May 2004 the
legislature passed a law zeroing out all state health
expenditures for 1 day on January 1, 2005 (the day the
amendment was to be added to the constitution, if
passed), which, in effect, might make the amendment’s
language on supplanting existing spending null because
there were technically no existing programs.
Solutions:A legal challenge to the supplanting
amendment was filed.
Challenge:Inaccurate and inflammatory
description of the impact of the proposed amendment on
local tax collections that was presented to the
legislative committee charged with preparing the
state-distributed blue book voter guide.
Solutions:By law, the state distributes a voter
guide that provides in plain language the reasons
offered in support of and in opposition to a proposed
constitutional amendment. Legislative staff analyze
proposed amendments, prepare three or four items in
support and in opposition from those submitted by
supporters and opponents, and then submit their draft to
the legislative committee responsible for authorizing
the final text for the voter guide. When deliberating on
the tobacco excise tax amendment, the committee rejected
staff recommendations and substituted its own language
opposing the amendment that was identical to language in
a study commissioned by Philip Morris/Altria on the
potential impact of the tobacco tax increase on police
and fire services in local communities. CHC immediately
rewrote and resubmitted new items for inclusion in the
voter guide that met and dismissed the Philip
Morris/Altria arguments. The committee voted to include
CHC’s new language in the arguments in support of the
amendment that appeared in the blue book voter guide.
Challenge:Lack of support from the governor and
some leadership in the Colorado Department of Public
Health.
Solutions:Campaign selected well respected
co-chairs who became powerful, trusted spokespersons for
the amendment addressing the public health, youth,
healthcare access, and health program issues in the
absence of governmental leaders.
What would you have
done differently?
Be
more alert to legislative and other challenges (a) from
disgruntled organizations such as the AARP; (b) from
legislative leaders seeking to derail the spending plans
as they did in passing the supplanting law; (c) from
legislators on the blue book voter guide legislative
committee who seemed to be supported by tobacco-industry
interests.
Lessons Learned Notes
N/A
Page last modified 07/25/2007
= Link to a PDF document
= Link to nonfederal Web site