Making sense of Measure 103, the grocery tax ban
Voters have until Nov. 6 to decide whether they want to amend the Oregon Constitution and ban any and all statewide taxes on groceries. Measure 103 is an initiative that sounds simple, but its details leave a lot of voters confused.
Members of the “Yes on 103” campaign told NewsChannel 21 they don’t want to see a statewide grocery tax.
Members of the “No on 103” campaign told us they don’t want to see a statewide grocery tax, either.
The question we’re left to ask is: What exactly are voters voting on?
Right now, Oregon does not have a statewide sales tax, including on groceries, but there’s no law preventing local governments from creating one.
Dan Floyd, a spokesperson for the “Yes on 103” campaign, said that by amending the Constitution, lawmakers wouldn’t even be able to discuss taxing groceries. If they did, he said, it could hurt the people who might not be able to afford the higher cost of food or beverages.
“I think that (the opposition is) in full support of taxing your food and beverage,” Floyd said. “They believe state and local government need the money. And we understand that revenue is important, but we don’t think it should be a regressive tax on the people who can afford to pay it the least, and it shouldn’t be on your food and beverages.”
Danny Moran, a spokesperson from the “No on 103” campaign, said those claims are simply untrue.
He very adamantly stated that voting no does not mean groceries will be taxed.
“The proponents of Measure 103 have manufactured a threat that they want people to believe is imminent. That is not true,” Moran said. “They have written a poorly worded, broad measure to cover up this non-existent threat that will have long-term ramifications.”
Moran said they want to leave the decision up to state and local governments and not make banning grocery taxes a blanket rule locked in the state Constitution.
He said there are no proposals right now pushing for a statewide grocery tax, and the last time there was, in 1993, that proposal failed.
If neither campaign wants to tax Oregonians’ groceries, what’s the debate?
At face value, the main difference between each campaign seems to be that Measure 103 proposes a change to the Oregon Constitution.
Floyd’s argument in favor the constitutional change is that food is a lifelong necessity, which means the decision to ban grocery taxes should be a permanent one, only changed by another statewide vote.
“This is important enough that we believe it should be part of the Constitution and difficult to amend in the future,” Floyd said. “It doesn’t change any of the existing tax structure. It just ensures there isn’t a new tax in the future on food and beverage. The (state) Tax and Finance Committee that reviewed this measure even said so.”
Opponents, meanwhile, argue passing Measure 103 poses some unknown risks that could last for years to come. Moran said it creates loopholes, in terms of what can or can’t be taxed, and voting yes would create negative ripple effects and actually give corporations tax breaks.
“One of the most misleading things that (supporters) continue to say is that, ‘This is so simple and specific.’ Anyone who has dealt with tax policy knows you can’t do that by the ballot measure,” Moran said. “Even when you’re doing it by the Legislature, it’s a complex process that takes months to sort out and learn about all the implications.”
One element that’s raising eyebrows is which groups are donating to the “Yes on 103” campaign.
The American Beverage Association donated more than $1 million to the group, leading many people to question whether the push for the Measure 103 is really about preventing a soda tax that Seattle and a few other communities have imposed.
In defense of this claim, Floyd explained, the American Beverage Association’s support is welcome, but whatever its goals may be (such as, avoiding a soda tax), the association’s goals are not the same as his campaign’s goal.
“We are preserving choice and making sure that grocery dollar is spread as far as possible,” Floyd said. “If a soda tax is that popular, that could be another statewide initiative.”
Those against the measure say they have no position on the notion of a soda tax.
Moran said their goal is to leave decision on whether to tax food and beverages in the hands of local governments. They believe voters in one city should not tell voters in another city what options should be off the table to fund their community.
“I think it’s a little disingenuous to say they’re strictly about working families when you’ve seen Kroger, Costco, Albertson’s, Safeway pour over $4 million in. ” Moran said. “You’ve seen (support from) the American Beverage Association, who’s interested in not having any soda taxes.”
“I think its clear, based on if you follow the money, what the rationale is,” Moran said.
But Floyd said, “If our opposition is telling you that our measure applies to anything other than food and beverage for human consumption, that is a false claim.”
Voters have about two weeks left to decide.
For more information on Measure 103, visit these websites:
