Sneed has learned former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is unloading his Super PAC big-time to back Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s soda tax.
The billionaire Bloomberg is one of the few who has the resources and political savvy to fight back and he is apparently rolling his plan into Illinois, starting tomorrow, to do just that.
Sneed has learned that a seven-figure broadcast and radio buy was made Thursday and Bloomberg plans to be “on the ground” driving that message and supporting those who support the tax for as long as it takes,” according to a top Sneed source. […]
“Bloomberg’s determination and resources could very likely impact elections throughout the state, not just Cook County, in 2018,” he added. “Having spent over $20 million in San Francisco, this development could easily see the largest issue advocacy fight in the history of Illinois.”
As you may know, a new tax has taken effect in Cook County that places a one cent per ounce tax on most sweetened beverages. We’d like to know if you APPROVE, or DISAPPROVE of the new Cook County beverage tax that places a new tax on most sweetened beverages.
The former New York City mayor tomorrow will begin airing what a spokesman says will be a $2 million-plus TV ad campaign in the Chicago media market. The spots don’t mention Preckwinkle, but do make the case she has tried to make that the penny-an-ounce levy on sweetened tax is about health, not raising money.
The spot depicts a teenager in front of a vending machine. Only, instead of cans of pop, there are signs saying “obesity,” “tooth decay,” “kidney failure” and the like.
In the background, an announcer declares, “When kids drink soda pop, they’re getting a lot more than they bargain for.” The announcer goes on to mention that drinking just one can of soda a day can make a child gain 10 pounds a year in weight, and declares that a soda tax “can make a difference” by making children healthier and providing money for county health programs.
The ads, which also will run on radio and online, were commissioned after Bloomberg “decided it was important to counter all the one-sided advertising from the soda industry,” said a spokesman. “This is a campaign to counterbalance all the special interests that profit off soda.”
It’s a good ad, but it should’ve been running months ago.
* Press release from Can The Tax…
Cook County has issued an SOS over its deeply unpopular beverage tax.
With dwindling credibility and a brewing voter revolt, Cook County and County Board President Toni Preckwinkle have turned to a New York City billionaire to try and tell county residents why they’re wrong about the unfair, anti-working family beverage tax.
That’s right. New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg has announced a $2 million-plus television ad buy in Cook County beginning tomorrow. Bloomberg’s track record has been to mislead viewers by making unproven public health claims. We don’t think Cook County families need an outsider billionaire to tell them what to do.
Cook County’s call for a lifesaver comes as resident outrage over the beverage tax is at record levels, some county retailers are already reporting beverage sales declines as much as 39%, and residents are voicing their outrage.
Cook County residents, local shops and restaurants don’t need New Yorkers to tell them they are wrong – they know this tax is just a money grab that has dramatically increased costs for consumers, is hurting small businesses and will hurt small businesses.
It’s an act of desperation when Cook County and President Preckwinkle have to turn to a New York billionaire for leadership in their effort to whitewash a tax that residents, consumers, small businesses, editorial boards and a growing list of bipartisan elected officials have universally rejected.
Just more from the nanny state. Our founding fathers didn’t fight so the government could run our lives. Queen taxwinkle and her paternalistic pal Bloomberg are the worst
Cook County health department users, as an example, don’t have any big money speaking for them. Spending cuts will hurt them. The current polling is in part due to incessant, whining ads about how the pop tax was going to ruin people’s summer fun. I for one welcome Bloomberg’s involvement to balance that out and attempt to retain the tax. Also wish it would have been sooner.
Ron, sadly so did the Christian and Jewish bibles, other world religions too.
The US is about liberty and choice, and not so much about taxation and unnecessary negative rule-making (as in “don’t do this”)
I’m sure there are more CF folks who know the history of American taxation, but a quick search reveals there was no income tax until the 16th amendment in 1913.
Preckwinkle is obviously a big tax and spend proponent, and Bloomberg is a fake health hawk.
I’ve been a Dem my whole life, voted for Toni, and I think this tax is complete BS. It’s not a tax on sugary drinks - it’s a tax on *sweetened* drinks, including those sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners. In other words, it is not a tax that seeks to improve public health. It is just a cynical money grab.
There may be some latent support, based upon a statewide poll taken in February. It found that 56% favored a pop tax with 41% opposed. After pollsters read positive and negative arguments, support jumped to 67%. https://capitolfax.com/2017/03/06/poll-rauner-sugar-unpopular-here/
It’s simply Red Light Redux. While no one likes paying taxes, there would be less outrage if politicians would just admit these are designed for revenue generation instead of trying to pretend they are simply to save us from ourselves.
also, it’s not a soda tax. and it does not apply across the board as it is not required for food stamp recipients whom Toni herself says need to avoid those drinks(lower income people disproportionately affected). this is a cynical, poorly crafted grab for money. it is ridiculous.
If Bloomberg used some of his billions to lobby Congress and the the Feds to remove “sugary drinks” from eligibility for SNAP vouchers he’d look like he was sincere about the health aspects his ad touts. Until that happens and while only some consumers are being held responsible for paying the sin tax he looks like what he is–a big nanny hypocrite.
There is a clear consensus that now accepts cigarette taxes. Sugary drinks are similarly harmful and less addictive. The country benefits when government taxes unhealthy but legal products. It is poor implementation to also tax zero calorie drinks.
=== If soft drinks are really that bad for us, simply ban the sale of them in Cook County. ===
We don’t ban the sale of cigarettes, which kills hundreds of thousands a year. We learned our lesson with Prohibition that bans have untoward side effects. We’ve learned that by using taxes, education, and regulations, we can effectively reduce the use of cigarettes. We know price matters, whether the substance is cigarettes, alcohol, or sweetened drinks.
Dems. Nice messaging. Keep talking down to us less than smart people. Next up
Tv,radio blitz reminding us that tax increase was in our best interest. Hat trick. Go for that increase in gas tax. Geez. Who the dummies at the control?BTIA?
==Keep talking down to us less than smart people.==
From a public health perspective sugary drinks are similar to cigarettes without as much addiction. How should that message be transmitted in a more convincing manner?
LOL, Toni is toast in the next election people will vote for anyone but her, just how Rauner & Trump got elected anyone but Toni or Quinn bottom line, right or wrong doesn’t matter :s
1 can of pop a day equals 10 extra pounds a year? Sure, only if the kid is not active at all. I’m not saying pop is healthy for kids, but I think the fact that we promote sedentary lifestyles (i.e. video games, TV, reduce/get rid of recess & gym versus active lifestyles) is a more of a contributing factor than pop.
Pop is not the same thing as cigarettes. If it is truly a tax about health, they might as well tax that 750 calorie milk shake or double caramel mocha latte frappuccino and the supersized fries. Then you might actually see some reduction in peoples calorie intake.
If sugar is so bad for us, why doesn’t the tax apply to candy bars, ice cream and desserts such as cakes and pastries? How about salty snacks like potato chips too?
This tax is the biggest joke, all people are doing is crossing the county border to buy soda etc, so any revenue projections from this tax are going to be totally wrong and then we’ll watch Preckwinkle lay off state workers because she didn’t get the projected revenue, but hey at least she got people to stop buying sugary drinks it’s all about public health right?
I think it’d a great idea. I like to see it statewide. Obesity in children is a tragedy, and adults learn their bad habits as kids. Make it too expensive to fool with. I’m sorry for Pepsi. Maybe they can switch to booze. It’s taxed, but it will never go away.
===If sugar is so bad for us, why doesn’t the tax apply to candy bars, ice cream and desserts such as cakes and pastries? How about salty snacks like potato chips too?
#1. Don’t give them any more ideas. #2. If you thought there was a revolt brewing now, wait and see what would happen when applying a tax on all sugar.
“Yes, less addictive. Unfortunately, still unhealthy in the long term. Please google NIH sugary drinks. Read.”
I stand by my comment that pop is not the same as cigarettes. Pop may be one of many contributing factors (poor eating/drinking habits of many different foods and drinks outside of pop, inactive lifestyle, etc) for obesity and the related health issues that come with it. Cigarettes are directly linked to tobacco-induced diseases. This is a big difference. Taxing cigarettes reduced the number of smokers and saw a slow but steady decline in rates of tobacco-induced diseases such as heart disease and cancer because there was a direct link.
Taxing pop alone in one county will not reduce the rates of obese related diseases in Cook County. People will and are already just buying it in the collar counties or Indiana or replacing their daily caffeine (pop) intake with a similar or worse option (cue the venti double caramel mocha latte frappuccino). To be effective they would need to expand past pop (all sugary drinks including Starbucks coffee made by the barista, fast food, candy, etc) and have it state or nationwide, then it may actually show some correlation in a slow but steady decrease in obesity rates. But one county targeting just pop, that does nothing but hurt local retailers losing business to collar counties and states.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:12 pm:
Horse is out of the barn.
Perhaps it could have helped before the disastrous rollout. A simpler, coherent policy wouldn’t have hurt, either.
Look, it’s not like there haven’t been unpopular consumption taxes levied before. This effort was just FUBAR from the beginning.
- John Rawlsss - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:12 pm:
Just more from the nanny state. Our founding fathers didn’t fight so the government could run our lives. Queen taxwinkle and her paternalistic pal Bloomberg are the worst
- Anon Downstate - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:17 pm:
Michael Bloomberg….
The Patron Saint of Lost Causes.
- cdog - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:20 pm:
Maybe Bloomberg can go nationwide with a pro-marijuana campaign about how alcohol consumption destroys livers and their lives. /s
- PhD - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:22 pm:
Cigarettes kill people. They are heavily taxed.
Sugary drinks kill people. They should also be heavily taxed.
The substantial decline in consumption is great news.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:22 pm:
–Our founding fathers didn’t fight so the government could run our lives.–
LOL, but when they won, the first things they taxed were booze, tobacco and sugar.
The First Nanny, George Washington, called up and led the militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Gave them a real spanking.
- Pundent - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:29 pm:
Once again the democrats botch what could have been good policy with poor execution and lousy messaging.
- stateandlake - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:35 pm:
Cook County health department users, as an example, don’t have any big money speaking for them. Spending cuts will hurt them. The current polling is in part due to incessant, whining ads about how the pop tax was going to ruin people’s summer fun. I for one welcome Bloomberg’s involvement to balance that out and attempt to retain the tax. Also wish it would have been sooner.
- Ron - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:38 pm:
“Our founding fathers didn’t fight so the government could run our lives”
No, they just allowed human bondage.
- Ron - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:39 pm:
The ads will only get people more angry. Taxpayer revolt in the making.
Bye bye Toni
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:42 pm:
=Cigarettes kill people. They are heavily taxed. Sugary drinks kill people. They should also be heavily taxed.=
Can you buy smokes with LINK/SNAP? Why are we paying for people that rely on Medicaid to contract diabetes?
- Real - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:47 pm:
As a health concious individual I see nothing wrong with the soda tax. People are up in arms over soda and sugar. It’s not that serious.
- Sue - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:47 pm:
Bloomberg might as well just send Toni a check for 25 or 50 million which is all the tax will amount to given the experience in Philadelphia
- cdog - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 5:47 pm:
Ron, sadly so did the Christian and Jewish bibles, other world religions too.
The US is about liberty and choice, and not so much about taxation and unnecessary negative rule-making (as in “don’t do this”)
I’m sure there are more CF folks who know the history of American taxation, but a quick search reveals there was no income tax until the 16th amendment in 1913.
Preckwinkle is obviously a big tax and spend proponent, and Bloomberg is a fake health hawk.
- jimk849 - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:07 pm:
I have heard of a carpetbagger but now comes a sodabagger… and if you want that soda in a bag it will cost you an additional 7 cents.
- Mr B. - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:08 pm:
Tax the sugary drinks heavily.
- PhD. - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:27 pm:
No. It is not possible to use SNAP for tobacco or alcohol under current law. I would extend the limitations to sugary drinks.
- anonymous coward - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:42 pm:
I’ve been a Dem my whole life, voted for Toni, and I think this tax is complete BS. It’s not a tax on sugary drinks - it’s a tax on *sweetened* drinks, including those sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners. In other words, it is not a tax that seeks to improve public health. It is just a cynical money grab.
- anon2 - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:49 pm:
There may be some latent support, based upon a statewide poll taken in February. It found that 56% favored a pop tax with 41% opposed. After pollsters read positive and negative arguments, support jumped to 67%. https://capitolfax.com/2017/03/06/poll-rauner-sugar-unpopular-here/
- Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:50 pm:
If soft drinks are really that bad for us, simply ban the sale of them in Cook County. It is all about health, isn’t it, Toni?
- CrazyHorse - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 6:59 pm:
It’s simply Red Light Redux. While no one likes paying taxes, there would be less outrage if politicians would just admit these are designed for revenue generation instead of trying to pretend they are simply to save us from ourselves.
- Amalia - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 7:00 pm:
this is a bad move. why do we want NYC people entering the dialogue? Toni, it’s really time to retire. You too Joe.
- Amaila - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 7:02 pm:
also, it’s not a soda tax. and it does not apply across the board as it is not required for food stamp recipients whom Toni herself says need to avoid those drinks(lower income people disproportionately affected). this is a cynical, poorly crafted grab for money. it is ridiculous.
- Responsa - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 7:53 pm:
If Bloomberg used some of his billions to lobby Congress and the the Feds to remove “sugary drinks” from eligibility for SNAP vouchers he’d look like he was sincere about the health aspects his ad touts. Until that happens and while only some consumers are being held responsible for paying the sin tax he looks like what he is–a big nanny hypocrite.
- Tom - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 8:07 pm:
it’s not only a tax on sugary beverages Taxing Toni also placed it on zero calorie drinks. Give me a break. Get rid of the tax.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 8:37 pm:
LOL, the ad really went out of its way to showcase the diversity of bad choices.
- Real - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 8:48 pm:
Some say why do we want NYC people entering this dialogue?
Well, Illinois Policy and a host of other right wing organizations are funded by the Koch network and other out of state people.
- PhD - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 9:07 pm:
There is a clear consensus that now accepts cigarette taxes. Sugary drinks are similarly harmful and less addictive. The country benefits when government taxes unhealthy but legal products. It is poor implementation to also tax zero calorie drinks.
- anon2 - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 10:02 pm:
=== If soft drinks are really that bad for us, simply ban the sale of them in Cook County. ===
We don’t ban the sale of cigarettes, which kills hundreds of thousands a year. We learned our lesson with Prohibition that bans have untoward side effects. We’ve learned that by using taxes, education, and regulations, we can effectively reduce the use of cigarettes. We know price matters, whether the substance is cigarettes, alcohol, or sweetened drinks.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 10:03 pm:
Dems. Nice messaging. Keep talking down to us less than smart people. Next up
Tv,radio blitz reminding us that tax increase was in our best interest. Hat trick. Go for that increase in gas tax. Geez. Who the dummies at the control?BTIA?
- PhD - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 10:36 pm:
==Keep talking down to us less than smart people.==
From a public health perspective sugary drinks are similar to cigarettes without as much addiction. How should that message be transmitted in a more convincing manner?
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 10:45 pm:
Exactly what I am talking about. The messaging of the new Dem party.
- PhD - Thursday, Aug 17, 17 @ 10:57 pm:
My mistake. Science should play no role in public policy.
- Dishpan - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 12:55 am:
LOL, Toni is toast in the next election people will vote for anyone but her, just how Rauner & Trump got elected anyone but Toni or Quinn bottom line, right or wrong doesn’t matter :s
- Dustpan - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 12:56 am:
Also meant to add Hillary in that, sorry for 2 posts all
- Earnest - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 7:37 am:
Seven figures coming into the Illinois economy from out of state. What else can we tax that will motivate someone with big money to spend? /s
- Generic Drone - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 7:57 am:
Soooo, the only ones who will be able to afford soda will be LINK recipiants?
- anon - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 8:03 am:
@Ron - “Bye bye Toni”
Remind us again who is running against her?
- SKI - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 8:12 am:
1 can of pop a day equals 10 extra pounds a year? Sure, only if the kid is not active at all. I’m not saying pop is healthy for kids, but I think the fact that we promote sedentary lifestyles (i.e. video games, TV, reduce/get rid of recess & gym versus active lifestyles) is a more of a contributing factor than pop.
Pop is not the same thing as cigarettes. If it is truly a tax about health, they might as well tax that 750 calorie milk shake or double caramel mocha latte frappuccino and the supersized fries. Then you might actually see some reduction in peoples calorie intake.
- Sigh - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 8:25 am:
If sugar is so bad for us, why doesn’t the tax apply to candy bars, ice cream and desserts such as cakes and pastries? How about salty snacks like potato chips too?
- dishpan - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 8:40 am:
This tax is the biggest joke, all people are doing is crossing the county border to buy soda etc, so any revenue projections from this tax are going to be totally wrong and then we’ll watch Preckwinkle lay off state workers because she didn’t get the projected revenue, but hey at least she got people to stop buying sugary drinks it’s all about public health right?
- PhD - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 8:44 am:
=Pop is not the same thing as cigarettes.=
Yes, less addictive. Unfortunately, still unhealthy in the long term. Please google NIH sugary drinks. Read.
- tomhail - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 9:03 am:
I think it’d a great idea. I like to see it statewide. Obesity in children is a tragedy, and adults learn their bad habits as kids. Make it too expensive to fool with. I’m sorry for Pepsi. Maybe they can switch to booze. It’s taxed, but it will never go away.
- MacombMike - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 9:06 am:
===If sugar is so bad for us, why doesn’t the tax apply to candy bars, ice cream and desserts such as cakes and pastries? How about salty snacks like potato chips too?
#1. Don’t give them any more ideas. #2. If you thought there was a revolt brewing now, wait and see what would happen when applying a tax on all sugar.
- SKI - Friday, Aug 18, 17 @ 10:32 am:
“Yes, less addictive. Unfortunately, still unhealthy in the long term. Please google NIH sugary drinks. Read.”
I stand by my comment that pop is not the same as cigarettes. Pop may be one of many contributing factors (poor eating/drinking habits of many different foods and drinks outside of pop, inactive lifestyle, etc) for obesity and the related health issues that come with it. Cigarettes are directly linked to tobacco-induced diseases. This is a big difference. Taxing cigarettes reduced the number of smokers and saw a slow but steady decline in rates of tobacco-induced diseases such as heart disease and cancer because there was a direct link.
Taxing pop alone in one county will not reduce the rates of obese related diseases in Cook County. People will and are already just buying it in the collar counties or Indiana or replacing their daily caffeine (pop) intake with a similar or worse option (cue the venti double caramel mocha latte frappuccino). To be effective they would need to expand past pop (all sugary drinks including Starbucks coffee made by the barista, fast food, candy, etc) and have it state or nationwide, then it may actually show some correlation in a slow but steady decrease in obesity rates. But one county targeting just pop, that does nothing but hurt local retailers losing business to collar counties and states.