The opposition campaign against Proposition 100 is shaping up to be a low-budget, decentralized effort to convince Arizonans to vote “no” on the proposed temporary sales tax increase.
Some of the state’s most prominent anti-tax groups might not get involved at all, and one is even considering crossing enemy lines to support the tax increase.
Political experts said the disorganization and lack of money will put the ballot measure’s opponents at a disadvantage as they take on a “Yes on 100″ committee stacked with influential, well-heeled special interest groups. Public relations consultant Dave Cieslak, of the firm Scutari & Cieslak, said a lack of organization in a campaign can lead to inconsistency and confusion, which makes it harder to sell your message to voters.
“With any campaign, you want to have all your key people on the same page and that means staying on message,” Cieslak said. “When you’re dealing with public relations strategy, people need consistency and repetition to thoroughly understand an issue. When you don’t have that, it often creates confusion of the public.”
Kevin McCarthy, president of the Arizona Tax Research Association, said his organization conceded last year that there was no way to balance the budget without some kind of tax increase, and that a sales tax increase is probably the most palatable way to do that. But he wants to see further spending cuts before he would consider supporting the tax increase.
“We talked about it at our board meeting on Friday, and the position was to keep our powder dry and see if some progress was made on the budget,” he said. “If real movement is made, there’s a possibility that we’d actually support it.”
Steve Voeller, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, said his group won’t join any opposition committee if Legislature passes H2250, a bill sponsored by House Speaker Kirk Adams that would reduce corporate taxes and income taxes beginning in 2011.
“If the tax cuts become law before the vote, it’s essentially like the package last year. And I don’t know how energized or what kind of organization we would have to oppose it,” Voeller said.
Others, such as the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, will publicly oppose Prop. 100, even if it doesn’t join a coalition campaign, said Executive Director Tom Jenney. Sen. Russell Pearce, who voted against the ballot referral and said he will vote “no” on May 18, said he will put up a Web site to oppose the tax hike, but will probably not join any “no on 100″ committees.
Pearce, a Mesa Republican, and Jenney said they have spoken to people who may form an opposition committee, but no one is ready to go public with their plans.
So far, none of the opponents of the ballot measure are talking about spending any money. In fact, one political consultant who opposes the tax increase said it’s going to be difficult to find contributors willing to donate money to sink the ballot measure because they’re all focused on candidates running for election this fall.
“At the end of the day I’d be surprised if the anti-tax people raised much more, unfortunately, than … $25,000,” said Chris Baker, who represents two lawmakers who helped keep the sales tax off the ballot in 2009.
The opposition campaign, however, may not need the same level of money or organization as the “Yes on 100” committee, according to conservative political consultant Constantin Querard. Unless the “yes” side is overwhelmingly more popular, voters are inclined to vote “no” on ballot propositions, especially when they ask voters to raise taxes on themselves, he said. Because of that dynamic, the pro side usually outspends its opponents, and often still loses, such as in a May 2009 special election for a package of tax increases in California.
“There’s no question that having a lot of organization and funding helps you to pass it,” Querard said. “There are occasional exceptions, but by and large to get something passed you need to be organized and well-funded. Not always so to defeat something.”