As many of you must know, Oregonians recently voted down a bill that would have provided health care to all 117,000 of Oregon’s uninsured children. While we’re at it, perhaps we should vote to club some baby seals. If I had voted against health care for children, I would have found it utterly impossible to explain my motives to a child.
In retrospect, I would like to offer something of an analysis of what happened. Some people hate kids. They are noisy, they seem to have extra snot, ect. Others claimed to find the goals of the bill agreeable, but were critical of its structure. It would have raised the cigarette tax by 84 and a half cents. In addition to arguing that this unfairly targets a specific segment of the population, I listened to a lobbyist argue that the bill unfavorably targets poor people, because poor people are statistically more likely to smoke (that’s right, he pretended that tobacco providers are advocating for the poor). A more devious neoliberal argument cited research that when the price of cigarettes is raised, people smoke less. In response it would be necessary to raise the tax in order to keep funding the same amount of health care, which would in turn lower the number of people smoking ad infinitum. This was portrayed as a bad thing, because the money would eventually run out. How terrible that we should finally find a way to help people smoke less or quit all together. A final point against the bill was that it would have created a constitutional amendment, a legislative act probably not very appropriate for this effort. Former Governor John Kitzhaber wrote a thoughtful discussion of some of these issues.
Those were the arguments, let’s take a step back and look at the motives. Big tobacco and the stores (mainly Plaid Pantry) who sell a lot of cigarettes in Oregon stood to lose a lot of money. They responded full force, spending a record 12 million dollars. Last year five states had similar measures, so tobacco lobby money was spread thin and 3 of the measure were passed. This year, all the national tobacco money came to Oregon. One commenter on Blue Oregon wrote
So if Oregon children aren’t going to get my tax money for health care…then the tobacco companies sure ain’t gettin’ it either… Let’s tell them that we’ll be keeping the next $12 million, thank you very much… Quitting has made me feel healthier, wealthier, and just a little happier every day, all thanks to (ironically) Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds. Thanks for playing your “defend the Constitution” fiddle out here in Oregon (referring to TV spots decrying the constitutional amendment)… just don’t mind the door as it hits you on the way back to N. Carolina/Virginia.
Last spring when I testified in favor of the Oregon Health Kids plan before a special joint committee of the Oregon House and Senate, the mood was cheery and hopeful for me and the 3 women (two of color, one with uninsured baby on lap) who testified in favor that day. The five 50’s and older white male professional lobbyists who testified immediately after me seemed almost frantic. Those lobbyists failed to sway the Oregon legislature, but Big Money from Big Tobacco did sway Oregonian voters.
The moral of the story is that freedom most certainly aint free. It cost more than 12 million dollars to purchase freedom this time around. Remember this story next time you get ready to head to the ballot box, and consider looking into who is funding the campaigns in favor and against, what they have to loose/gain, and how those campaigns have influenced your voting behavior.
Hi Isaac,
First let me say that I really like your blog…I stop by from time to time and check out what you have to say…you are very eloquent and passionate in you writing. Keep up the good work.
On this issue, though, I have to admit that I voted against measure 51. I wasn’t bought by big tobacco and I would vote it down again. All I had to do was read the measure to see that it was flawed, (at least in my mind). I cannot figure out why smokers are being asked to foot the bill for children’s health care. Why not tax fast food restaurants, cable companies, or SUV drivers? Why single out smokers? I am against smoking and have voted in the past to restrict where they can smoke and also for a tax that pays for long term smoking related illnesses, but how does smoking ‘directly’ relate to children’s health care? How are they responsible for kids with brain cancer or spina bifida? I don’t see it.
What I do see when I look at measure 51 is a segregation of the population into acceptable and unacceptable behavior, which reminds me of Hitler’s eugenics program. Scary stuff…Fortunately in America we are free to make our own choices…even smoke if we want to, isn’t that the way it should be?
So who should pay for childrens healthcare? In my mind there are only two groups to be considered for this: ‘everyone’ or ‘parents’.
Just my opinion…
A. Kathy
Hey Kathy,
Thanks for your comment. I agree that it makes more sense for either parents or everyone to pay. It’s become obvious that when we expect families to fend for themselves way to many neighbors fall through the cracks, so really I think that everyone should pay. Maybe the biggest tragedy about this bill is that it was politically impossible to just restore taxes (especially for wealthy people) to the levels they were a decade or more ago. I would have preferred that and I am pretty certain that the Oregon Democratic Party would have as well.
It sounds like you probably would have voted the way you did regardless of the campaign money, and that’s fine, that’s democracy. The problem I was trying to highlight is that in the U.S. whenever one politician or campaign raises significantly more money than the opposition, they almost always win. The same was true for measure 49, which did pass the way I had hoped. We could debate forever and ever why exactly that is the case, who exactly the expensive media campaigns are influencing (swing voters only, everyone?), and to what extent, but above all that, it is pretty clear that money has a huge impact on what passes and fails. I think finding a way to avoid having campaign money be such an accurate predictor of campaign success would be even better than providing health care for children, which is really saying something.
Thanks again for your comment
cheers