CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS

The ballot measure: The so-called nickel-a-drink initiative, sponsored by nonprofit public interest, law enforcement and mental health organizations. It would substantially increase taxes on beer, wine and liquor and earmark the additional revenue for a variety of programs designed to treat and cope with alcohol-related problems. It would hike the per-gallon tax on wine from a penny to $1.29; on beer from 4 cents to 57.5 cents and on distilled spirits from $2 to $8.40.

Whose ad?: Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization formed by the alcoholic beverage industry to defeat the tax initiative.

The current advertising campaign features nine radio spots running on 92 stations throughout the state until mid-July. The ads all have the same message, but the theme varies slightly to reach different audiences such as senior citizens, commuters, sports enthusiasts, families and farmers. Each one features a conversation between two people and attempts to relate to its audiences by using background noises either from traffic, baseball games or a tractor.

Elements of the ads, with an analysis by Times staff writer Virginia Ellis.

Ad: “. . . They call that proposition an alcohol tax, right? . . . But what it would really do is spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than it would raise . . . and it has this escalator clause that would give it more money every year.”

Analysis: The ad is referring to a clause in the initiative that not only would guarantee that increased alcohol tax revenue would be spent on specific programs but would also mandate increased funding from other revenue sources to keep up with inflation and population growth. The programs would deal with alcohol and drug-related problems.

Backers of the initiative say that additional funding for such programs already takes place as required by law, but they acknowledge that enactment of the initiative would make it more difficult, for example, for the Legislature to withhold cost-of-living increases for programs embraced by the initiative.

Ad: “. . . And that money would come from either increased taxes, like sales taxes and income taxes . . . or cuts in important programs.”

Analysis: Such increases and cuts in other programs would not be automatic but could become a possibility in lean budget years. When money is short, in order to keep drug- and alcohol-related programs fully funded as the initiative requires, the Legislature conceivably could be faced with raising taxes, cutting other programs or a combination of both.

Ad: “So it would either cut important programs or raise our income taxes? . . . So why don’t they call it an income tax?”

Analysis: There is nothing in the initiative that increases income taxes.