"Proposition
188"
Tobacco On The Ballot - Just The Facts"
No state is more inhospitable to the tobacco industry than California. In 1988 voters approved a 25 cents-per-pack tax on cigarettes, setting aside part of the money for stinging ads against cigarettes and cigarette makers. Cities have also taken aim at tobacco, with local ordinances restricting smoking in public places. In 1994, tobacco giants decided to fight back with an initiative of their own, Proposition 188, which sought to preempt local smoking ordinances in favor of a weaker statewide law more to the industry's liking. After spending more than $18 million, tobacco makers lost by a crushing 70% to 30%. What did them in was a precedent-setting "independent public education campaign" waged by the California Wellness Foundation and the Public Media Center.
Evolution of a Campaign
In the late summer of 1994, Herbert Chao Gunther, the President of the Public Media Center (PMC), and Gary L. Yates, President of the California Wellness Foundation, began to cook up an idea. Looking at research showing the potential health effects of Proposition 188 and at polling numbers showing that voters misunderstood the initiative, Gunther and Yates began discussing possibilities for a Foundation-funded public education campaign aimed at giving voters the straight facts. Says Yates, "Our mission is to promote the health and well-being of Californians and it was no secret that cutting tobacco use cuts mortality rates." A full page newspaper ad run as part of the Public Media Center/California Wellness Foundation nonpartisan education campaign.
According to Gunther, 70% of voters who said they favored the initiative that summer believed the tobacco industry's pitch that the measure would provide "tough statewide smoking restrictions." The public education effort launched by the PMC and Wellness had two goals - let the public know what the initiative would actually do and let them know who was for it and who was against it.
With a $4 million grant from Wellness, the PMC launched an advertising campaign far more visible than the NO on 188 campaign. Television, radio and full-page newspaper ads ran under the banner, "Who supports Proposition 188 - you have a right to know." The ads then simply listed the major contributors to both sides (Phillip Morris and tobacco makers for the YES side, the American Cancer Society and health groups on the other). The PMC's newspaper ads also reprinted both sides' arguments, exactly as they appeared in the official state Ballot Pamphlet. "We were humorless," says Gunther.
"All they did was point out the facts," observes Sabin Russell, who covered the campaign for the San Francisco Chronicle. In the end, that was enough. As the Wellness campaign was launched, voter opinion began to switch. The fact that Proposition 188 was a tobacco industry product was all voters needed to know. "Without Wellness it probably would have passed instead of being crushed," concludes NO on 188 media consultant, Leo McElroy.
Questions of Independence
Such a massive involvement by a charitable foundation with a ballot initiative was unprecedented. Both Wellness and PMC went to great extremes to demonstrate that the effort was a strictly nonpartisan, independent, educational campaign. To do that, the PMC sought authorization and cover from state officials at the Fair Political Practices Commission. "We consulted with the FPPC every step of the way," says Gunther. The program had to meet four legal standards to establish its independence:
- The ads could take no position on the initiative.
- No communication could take place with the official YES or NO campaigns.
- The education campaign could not target specific types of voters.
- The ads could not include any "call to action."