CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS PROPOSITION 111 : Newly Formed Opposition Threatens Measure to Raise Gasoline Tax

The sudden ability of under-financed anti-tax forces to field a television advertising campaign in the final days before the June 5 primary is heightening pre-election jitters among supporters of Gov. George Deukmejian’s proposal for a gasoline tax increase.

The anti-tax forces--fragmented and unfocused for much of the political season--came to life recently, producing a bare-bones media assault against Proposition 111 and persuading broadcasters throughout the state to run their advertisements or some kind of public announcement free of charge.

Although it is unclear yet exactly how many stations will run the ads, this unexpected strength of the opposition has forced the heavily financed Proposition 111 campaign to revise its strategy for the last week of campaigning and prepare to counter the anti-tax organizations. Proposition 111, a proposal authored by the Legislature and embraced by Deukmejian, would modify the state’s spending limit and trigger a phased, 9-cent-per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax.

Deukmejian, who until now has stayed mostly in the background even though he is the official chairman of the Proposition 111 campaign, is being urged to take a highly visible public stand against the ads next week. In the meantime, the campaign is sending out letters labeling the ads “misleading” and imploring television stations not to run them.

“Misinformation is always a problem because voters are looking at a complicated ballot with a lot of difficult issues to get a handle on, and for somebody to be spreading misinformation (is) a little discouraging for voters,” said Larry McCarthy, a co-chairman of the Proposition 111 campaign and president of the California Taxpayers’ Assn.

His anger is directed at statements in the ad that refer to the proposed tax hike as the “largest tax increase in the state’s history” and contend that modifications in the spending limit will lead to $53 billion in increased state spending over the next decade.

While the measure does ease the spending limit, supporters contend that it is ludicrous to suggest that lawmakers would, by the required two-thirds majority necessary, approve $53 billion in new taxes to finance the additional spending.

The authors of the ad--Ted Costa, a former associate of the late anti-tax crusader Paul Gann, and Tom Rogers, head of Orange County’s Citizens Against Unfair Taxation--scoff at the criticism.

“I think the Legislature has a proven track record that it will spend all the money it can get its hands on,” Costa said, noting that state spending has more than doubled since the 1979 passage of the original limit.

The assault from the airwaves comes at a crucial time for backers of Proposition 111, whose private polls have shown that any organized opposition could seriously hurt their chances of winning voter approval of a large tax increase.

For months it appeared that they would not have to worry about opposition as the anti-tax forces themselves split over the issue. Though numerous local taxpayer organizations took positions against the proposition, the 200,000-member Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a key cog in most anti-tax campaigns, remained neutral.

“It’s been a tough call for us,” said Joel Fox, the association’s president. “To use the old movie title, we see the good, bad and the ugly of 111. Obviously, we’re concerned about a spending limit being damaged on the one hand. . . . But on the other, we think the economy should produce the tax dollars for government, and roads and highways are the veins and arteries of the economy. If they get clogged they could slow it down.”

Costa, meanwhile, was diverted by an internecine court battle with Paul Gann’s family over control of Gann’s organization, People’s Advocate. Because of the court battle, the group itself has not taken a position on Proposition 111, although on Thursday a new taxpayer organization formed by Gann’s family registered its opposition.

Costa said it was only in the last few weeks that he and Rogers got the idea to put together an ad on a shoestring budget and persuade television stations to run it. He said it cost about $650 to produce the ad, which displays a picture of the state Capitol next to a gas pump.

In recent years it has been a favorite and frequently successful tactic of under-financed, nonprofit organizations to seek free air time from television and radio stations. The most successful effort was by the backers of a proposed cigarette tax increase two years ago who used free air time to combat a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign by the tobacco industry.

As an outgrowth of the Federal Communication Commission’s old fairness doctrine, many television and radio stations provide free air time to opposing views when one side in a controversial issue has all the financial resources.

“It was the FCC’s interpretation of the fairness doctrine that whenever presenting controversial issues of public importance, (a television station) must present contrasting views,” said Bill Emerson, manager of broadcast standards and practices for KNBC-TV. “We observe the fairness doctrine. We treat issues fairly. We don’t want one side coming in and buying an election.”

But Emerson said his station will not run the Costa-Rogers ad, but instead will produce public announcements that “give a balanced view on the issue.”

In their latest financial statements, the Costa-Rogers forces showed that they had raised just over $3,000, while the campaign for Proposition 111 indicated its total collections were $4.8 million. The Proposition 111 campaign has estimated that it will need to raise a total of $5.9 million in order to run the kind of media advertisements that are needed to persuade voters to endorse a tax increase.