Grassroots protest rallies are a dime a dozen in San Francisco, but it’s rare they have corporate sponsorship.
That’s one thing that suggests The Coalition for an Affordable City may not be what it seems.
The Coalition for an Affordable City is not dedicated to fighting San Francisco’s soaring rent costs or rampant gentrification, or any of the countless other economic traumas resulting from the city by the Bay’s reinvention as the capital of the new digital economy.
Nope, the Coalition for Affordable City has other priorities. The group has spent more than $9 million to defeat a single item on Tuesday’s local ballot in San Francisco. Proposition E would impose a tax on sugary drinks -- $0.02 per ounce -- and earmark the proceeds for programs to educate children about healthier lifestyle choices as part of a city effort to reduce childhood obesity.
“The Coalition for an Affordable City is a fake AstroTurf front group of the American Beverage Association, which is funded largely by Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Red Bull and Sunny D,” said San Francisco Supervisor Scott Weiner, one of the authors of Prop E.
Bay Area writers and bloggers have accused the “No on E” campaign of creating the illusion of community support by hiring people to hold signs at their rallies -- even people who don’t live or vote in San Francisco. Our team decided to look into it. When a "Nightline" producer found a Craigslist ad looking for paid sign holders in the San Francisco Bay Area, she called and asked about the job. A staffer from the “No on E” campaign told our producer that the job paid $13 dollars an hour and that it didn’t matter that she lives in New York. The campaign offered her the job.
Indeed the primary financial backer of the No on E campaign is the American Beverage Association, the soda and beverage industry’s powerful lobbying arm.
“We’re basically saying that taxing grocery items is the wrong approach,” said "No on E" spokesman Roger Salazar. Salazar insists the group is not in any way trying to conceal its connection to the industry.
Salazar claims the group has a city-wide coalition of small business owners who disapprove of what is known as the soda tax.
But some of the businesses listed on the coalition’s “No on E” endorsement list told “Nightline” they actually support Prop E.
At Goood Frickin’ Chicken, another restaurant on the coalition’s endorsement list, the manager pointed out the restaurant has a sign in their window in support of Prop E. A manager at Danah Enterprise Smoke Shop gave a similar answer and the owner confirmed he was in support of Prop E. Another restaurant on the coalition’s list, Joe’s Cable Car Burger Joint, is boarded up and appears to have been closed for over six months.
When asked about these businesses, the “No on E” campaign was able to hand over records of endorsement from all of them, including Joe’s Cable Car Burger Joint.
"Nightline" also found businesses that do oppose the tax. Taylor Peck, the co-owner of the Fizzary, an artisanal soda and candy shop, is literally the poster boy for the campaign, lending his face and name to the “No on E” campaigns ads.
“The tax would definitely slow business down,” Peck said.
Self-interest aside, supporters of the proposition, who are being outspent 30-to-one, have trouble believing there’s genuine grassroots campaign against the soda tax.
Over the past few years, more than 30 other communities have tried to pass sugary beverage bans or taxes, and the American Beverage Association has poured millions into the fight to strike them down.
The No on E campaign rejects any claims its campaign is disingenuous — or even just merely self-interested.
They also accused the pro-soda tax campaign of being funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, but Bloomberg’s office denied making any contribution to the San Francisco initiative.
If San Francisco voters don’t pass the soda tax ballot, the proposition is also on the ballot in nearby Berkeley. While the San Francisco measure requires a two-thirds majority to pass, the Berkeley measure needs only a simple majority and voters there take an especially dim view of corporate interference in politics.