For those of you who were skeptical about the idea that the American Chemistry Council would really spend the $1.4 million they put into the anti-bag fee campaign, disclosure reports released today by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission allow us to read ’em and weep.
How did they spend it? Let us count the ways.
For starters, they sent out a hell of a lot of mail pieces, then they flooded the airwaves with ads on the types of radio station that conservatives, reactionaries, and grumps listen to (smooth jazz, conservative talk, sports radio, country, etc.), and finally they added insult to injury on the internet.
That means $5,000 on developing a blogging campaign and another $882.50 for a “blog strategist.” Say that out loud three times. Really, it’s kind of fun. “Blog strategist.”
The ACC also spent $64,000 on three tracking polls. Three! In an otherwise doomed referendum race where the proponents only brought in $94,000 total, that is what you call shock and awe.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are your American corporate giants. They really weren’t going to lose this thing. Let’s give them a hand.
Fucking fuckers.
Don’t forget classical. The classical station is just about the only radio station worth listening to (read: it doesn’t completely fucking suck), but most of the ads are conservative boilerplate.
They were just protecting the poor!
I mean, $1.4mil to protect the poor by filling the airwaves and paying off bloggers and news outlets? That sounds like the best way to protect the poor to me!
We can spend all day calling Will in Pacific a short-sighted ideologue for advocating non-action as a solution to a societal ill in order to deflect a political action, but in the end, their $1.4mil really saved the poor. They would have died if they had to spend 50 cents a week!
Thank you, ACC! Your $1.4mil really helped out the impoverished in this city.
it would have lost regardless. Bag fee. Bag tax. Whatever – it was a stupid idea. Just ban the damn things and be done with it. Grow some fat furry ones city council.
geez
if you’re going to pick a fight with the big boys at least don’t whine after the cream your ass…
There is a well established pattern of money buying local decisions. The strip clubs ponied up half a million and got the laws they wanted. Before that Paul Allen spent bucks on a statewide stadium tax and got 10X the money back in public subsidies. Face it Seattle. You’re easy.
And the too smarty enviros were not paying any attention to the resentment about the crappy bill from tons of ordinary folks.
After all, all the chic greenies went along blindly.
Face it, a decent anti campaign even without the money would have carried the no vote. Sorry, it is history, and thanks for the bucks, Seattle is in a recession and it was all spent here in the back yard …. whining is silly.
The horridly written law is toast. Now, a chance to start over.
Ban ‘Em … even at Tiffany and Macy
Normally, I’d be with you in being appalled, but this post is retarded. $1.4 million ain’t shit. I hadn’t heard much about it except from you guys. And, I still voted NO.
Sorry, suck on your own goddamned sour grapes.
@4:
And you think that if the city goes to ban plastic bags outright, the ACC will not spend another $1.4 to defeat that referendum as well?
And can hear the ads already:
What about our freedoms to use plastic bags? Think of the pet owners who won’t be able to clean up after their dogs. What about the old ladies, who love their plastic?
Face it — the referendum system is broken and needs to be reformed.
Hey, did you ever stop to think about how that $1.4 mm helped to stimulate the local economy? I mean, somebody had to produce, write, record & do the voice-overs for those ads, right? The stations got a good boost by selling those ads, right? Those pollsters can afford to feed their families for another couple of weeks, right? Because of the defeat of this bill, a couple of guys at the landfill will keep their jobs, and even those hippy-dippy environmentalists will continue to pay a couple of staff people to try to figure out how to get an outright ban passed, or to clean up the dead sea life that will continue to wash ashore on our beaches with plastic bags sucked into their gills or alimentary canals or where ever, right?
Seriously, why do you hate America, Bryan?
can we just agree that the best tactic moving forward is to get a half dozen other progressive cities to also pass a law either banning or charging for plastic bags … then putting it up to a referendum vote ourselves … not putting any effort into the YES campaign … and then repeating until either it passes or the corporate whores are bankrupted.
Please Please Please make sure that McGinn and O’Brien both run hard on banning disposable grocery bags and killing the tunnel!
These are the only two issues that should matter in November.
Please help them set the tone of the debate now by extracting pledges from both of them to ban all disposable grocery bags and to kill the tunnel!
@11 progressive cities like Mexico City? 😉
@12, sadly there’s no sarcastic font (altho typically more than one ! is one way to make it clear), but please tell us you’re kidding.
@13, or not progressive cities, it no matter to jesus.
Good thing Sally Clark kept the public financing Referendum off the City of Seattle ballot, huh?
… not that it would have mattered, you still should have just banned plastic bags like Mexico City did
@9: The referendum is only being rejected by a less-than-6 point margin, so let them spend their money, they will lose if they oppose an outright ban.
I think we have learned an important lesson here — if we put something on the ballot that industries are opposed to, they will spend a lot of money defeating it, and that money will go into our local economy.
Here are a couple of ideas:
– Bag tax, again
– Require gasoline prices to not be fractional cents per gallon
– Mandatory minimum recycling targets for businesses with more than 50 employees
– Levy on real estate development where the sq ft per unit is significantly greater than the surrounding neighborhood.
How about a law that requires the makers to recycle the bags? We have a law that requires electronics makers to recycle their products.
i’m going to start a polling and blog strategy business and make me some real money!
@14
Nope.
Dead Serious!
(It is the Progressive position… Isn’t it?)
I love how all the people all butthurt over the tax failing blame the amount of money the industry spent to protect their intertest, and not, you know, the majority of people who were against the boneheaded idea.
The idea of the bag tax was unpopular long before the chemical industry chimed in.
Jan Drago had run the numbers on it when first proposed. That’s why she voted against it.
Hey idiot enviroliberals, if you really want to pay money to fix the costs of corporations pollution costs, you can always mail me cash. I’m so happy this bag tax lost so now you idiotic, self-righteous pigs might stop and rethink your idiocy. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER ask the consumer to pay for the corporation’s cost of pollution. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Don’t like the bags? FORCE THE CORPORATION TO STOP MAKING THEM OR SELLING THEM. YOU DO NOT FORCE THAT COST ONTO WORKING FOLKS. PERIOD.
@23 suck my dick? yes, please
Sadly, I think a massive amount of the money went out-of-state too. According to KPLU, they spent over half a million on a a consulting firm in CA (the same ones that made the infamous “Harry & Louise” ads that helped deep-six the ’94 attempt at health care reform).
Maybe we should get a ban passed so they can get another go-round? A few more things like this, and we might be lucky enough to build up a healthier ecosystem of industry shills 😉
I didn’t need a big ad campaign to figure out the bag fee idea was stupid. I voted against it quite happily.
@23 You’ve never taken an econ class, have you? You realize that ANY tax, no matter if it’s placed on consumers or suppliers, is shared by both? Who pays more is determined by the elasticity of supply and demand, not by who is taxed.
@27 – oh stfu with your anti-tax Birther nonsense.
Look, Seattle voters will quite handily vote for a Ban on Plastic Bags, most likely by 70 to 80 percent. It was that the cost of the Bag Tax fell on the poor, and didn’t include mechanisms like a refundable deposit. We have nothing against shared costs (e.g. a ban) which force suppliers to switch to biodegradable compostable bags instead (like the entire country of Australia already did).
ha ha nanny state liberal dumbasses
Though I love to note how the corporate motherfuckers’ lead has been shrinking with every new tabulation. I don’t hold the fantasy that YES will overcome, but it’s getting mighty closer than election day result.
BTW- can anyone tell me why this was on the ballot in the primary? In the general election, I doubt the pro-bag lobby would have fared so well.
This was the biggest waste of a such a large sum of money I’ve seen since the Green Line and Scott Spiezio. A good majority of the public was voting against the measure no matter what the ACC did to advertise against it, because no one wants to pay for plastic bags. The ACC ought to fire whatever advisors recommended they spend that kind of jack to promote their side.
@31 – exactly, we should have done what Edmonds did and just passed a Ban on Plastic Bags, which most voters actually want.