CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS : PROPOSITION 134 : ‘Nickel a Drink’ Seeks to Tap Into Anti-Politician Sentiment

Internal polls showing that voters are beginning to revolt against initiatives have prompted the backers of an alcohol tax to make a quick shift of strategy in the closing days of the campaign.

They launched new ads Wednesday that attempt to link their measure with the one issue they still see as popular--the anti-politician movement.

In a series of hastily taped radio commercials, supporters of Proposition 134, the so-called “Nickel a Drink” proposal for substantial hikes in beer, wine and liquor taxes, portray the initiative as one that has been carefully crafted to ensure “politicians don’t get their grimy hands” on revenue from the tax increase.

“The politicians take our money but we don’t have a say in how they spend it. That’s what I hate about taxes and that’s what I like about Proposition 134,” says the speaker in one ad. Proposition 134 would earmark revenue from the tax increase for specific health and law enforcement programs.

Previous ads promoting Proposition 134 emphasized support from such groups as law enforcement and from programs the new alcohol taxes would fund. But campaign consultants said they decided to shift their advertising strategy late last week when polls began to show a sudden erosion of support for nearly all initiatives, especially those with tax measures in them.

Alcoholic-beverage interests, who are spending millions of dollars in media advertising to oppose the steep tax increase proposed by Proposition 134, said they too began to notice movement in their polls about the same time. But they said their polling was more narrowly focused because it related only to alcohol-tax initiatives. The industry is supporting Proposition 126, a measure that would impose a much smaller tax on beer, wine and liquor.

“Our own polling shows us that (support for Proposition 134 is eroding) rapidly and the reason is the voters are becoming turned off on all ballot measures,” said Leo McElroy, media consultant to the Yes on 134 campaign. “There seems to be a wave of ‘vote no’ on everything building up in the public mind.”

He said interviews with voters show they seem to be “just angry at the whole size and complexity of the ballot.” The internal polls were taken after a Los Angeles Times Poll that showed support for both Propositions 134 and 126 almost even.

The Tuesday election ballot includes 28 propositions, many of them complex, far-reaching measures.

The one issue that seems to be immune from the public’s anger, said McElroy, are the two proposals, Propositions 131 and 140, to limit the terms of California lawmakers and statewide officeholders. For that reason, he said, his campaign has tried to play to voter dissatisfaction with elected representatives by promoting its measure as anti-politician.

Other campaigns say their polling has picked up some of the same negative voter reaction, but they insist that measures like Proposition 130, the so-called “Forests Forever” initiative that would restrict timber harvesting, are not losing.

“What we’re seeing is confusion among some voters, but in most cases it moves them into the undecided columns,” said Steve Glaser, a spokesman for the campaign to pass Proposition 130. “As we have seen the vote crystallizing, the undecideds have stayed up a little higher, but as people become aware of who is behind the forestry measures we see strong support for the environmentalists’ measure, 130.” The timber industry is supporting a countermeasure, Proposition 138.

Glaser said his campaign has unleashed its most powerful ad, a commercial featuring actor Clint Eastwood, to counter any negative voter attitude and to put something on the air that “attracts attention even during advertising clutter.”

Steve Hopcraft, a media director for Californians Against Initiative Fraud, a coalition opposing Proposition 136, said his campaign has done no polling but “it makes sense” that confusion over the ballot would spark a voter rebellion. Proposition 136, a measure sponsored by anti-tax groups but financed by the alcohol industry, would require a two-thirds vote on taxes earmarked for a special purpose. If approved, it could nullify the passage of Proposition 134.

“The conventional wisdom would support those findings that confused voters will vote no, and these certainly are confused voters,” he said.

Both Hopcraft and McElroy said any across-the-board vote against the initiatives would be a victory for industries and special interests even though their own countermeasures would go down in the process.