Prop 26 Protects Polluters and Big Alcohol

In May 2010, the Wine Institute joined the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers’ Association to sponsor the “Stop Hidden Taxes” initiative, and Proposition 26 qualified as a ballot measure for the November elections. The ballot measure proposed to redefine regulatory state and local charges, levies, and mitigation fees as taxes. As such, they would no longer require a simple majority (51%) vote, but instead would be treated like a tax and require a supermajority (2/3) vote.  

Unlike taxes, fees are a majority vote means to recover public health, environmental, and administrative costs of harm to government. Proposition 26 was created to protect corporate interests from fees used to mitigate these negative environmental and social impacts. 

Alcohol corporations and trade groups contributed more than $2 million in support of the measure. Other industries and interests that contributed to the Proposition 26 campaign included oil and gas, food and beverage, and tobacco.

Proposition 26 passed in November 2010 by a slim margin of 52.5% (supported to 47.5% (opposed). Today, it protects polluters and the alcohol industry, impoverishes cities and counties, and allows California residents to pay the tab for alcohol-related harm.
 

• Prop 26 a Big Monkey-Wrench on California's Future (Beyond Chron, November 4, 2010)
• California Public Health Loses to Big Alcohol, Big Tobacco, and Big Oil as Prop 26 Wins (Alcohol Justice, Novemeber 3, 2010)
• California's Little-Known Prop 26 Sneaks Through in Dead of Night (New York Times, November 3, 2010)
• Prop 26 Election Results: Environmentalists Foiled, Big Oil Gloating as Prop 23's Evil Twin Sneaks Up, Takes the Lead (LA Weekly, November 3, 2010)
• Measure Would Let Oil, Tobacco, and Alcohol Companies Off the Hook (Mercury News, October 20 2010)
• Wednesday No on Prop 26 Press Conferences - San Francisco and Sacramento (October 19, 2010)
• Vote No on Prop. 26 - Polluter Protection Act (San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 2010)
• Chronicle Editorial: Yes on Prop. 25, No on Prop. 26 (San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 2010)
• Editorial: Prop. 26 Deserves a No Vote (Ventura County Star, September 15, 2010)
• Editorial: Vote No on Proposition 26's Unfair Requirements (Contra Costa Times, September 10, 2010)
• Big Alcohol a Big Funder of Prop 26 in California (September 8, 2010)
• Marin Institute Joins Fight Against 'StopHiddenTaxes' Initiative (Press Release, May 11 2010)

Research and Resources

• Video: No On Prop 26 Press Event in San Francisco
• Video: Proposition 26
• Proposition 26 Q & A sheet  
• Model Local Resolution - No on 26
• No on 26 "Stop Polluter Protection" (website)
• Paying for Pollution: Proposition 26 and Its Potential Impacts on State Environmental and Public Health Protections in California - A report from UCLA's Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment

California Policy

• Local Alcohol Fees in California: Why Not Charge for Harm? (June 2010)
• Understanding Alcohol Taxes vs. Fees   (August 2009)
• Localities in California with Alcohol Fee Programs (June 2009)
• The Annual Catastrophe of Alcohol in California (August 2008)