2012年至2022年烟草税上调民众投票。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kathleen Ferraiolo
{"title":"2012年至2022年烟草税上调民众投票。","authors":"Kathleen Ferraiolo","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10989711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Researchers have examined the campaign strategies, messaging, and outcomes of popular votes on tobacco tax increases from 1998 to 2008, but no study has investigated measures that have appeared since 2008.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The author uses state newspaper archives, voter pamphlets, academic reports, advocacy websites, and personal interviews to obtain information about the 11 tobacco tax increase ballot measures that appeared from 2012 to 2022.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The three measures that succeeded during 2012-2022 featured sufficient financial resources, collaboration with influential stakeholders, and early public support. Two of the three successful measures offered significant concessions to the tobacco industry, and both were designed as legislatively referred statutes. Elsewhere, proponents sought unsuccessfully to enact citizen-led initiatives that would allocate revenue to progressive policy priorities. In contrast to previous eras, tobacco industry arguments often centered around antitax and antigovernment rhetoric, which was viewed as especially compelling in conservative states. The industry's success rate was higher than in the past, and it continued to outspend its opponents, sometimes by staggering margins.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Campaign spending and early support remain critical to the success of tobacco tax ballot measures. Big Tobacco can extract significant concessions even in defeat, and direct democracy is an effective but imperfect ally to tobacco control advocates.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"217-248"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Popular Votes on Tobacco Tax Increases, 2012-2022.\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen Ferraiolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/03616878-10989711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Researchers have examined the campaign strategies, messaging, and outcomes of popular votes on tobacco tax increases from 1998 to 2008, but no study has investigated measures that have appeared since 2008.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The author uses state newspaper archives, voter pamphlets, academic reports, advocacy websites, and personal interviews to obtain information about the 11 tobacco tax increase ballot measures that appeared from 2012 to 2022.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The three measures that succeeded during 2012-2022 featured sufficient financial resources, collaboration with influential stakeholders, and early public support. Two of the three successful measures offered significant concessions to the tobacco industry, and both were designed as legislatively referred statutes. Elsewhere, proponents sought unsuccessfully to enact citizen-led initiatives that would allocate revenue to progressive policy priorities. In contrast to previous eras, tobacco industry arguments often centered around antitax and antigovernment rhetoric, which was viewed as especially compelling in conservative states. The industry's success rate was higher than in the past, and it continued to outspend its opponents, sometimes by staggering margins.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Campaign spending and early support remain critical to the success of tobacco tax ballot measures. Big Tobacco can extract significant concessions even in defeat, and direct democracy is an effective but imperfect ally to tobacco control advocates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"217-248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10989711\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10989711","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:研究人员调查了1998-2008年烟草税上调的竞选策略、信息和普选结果,但没有研究调查自2008年以来出现的措施。方法:作者利用国家报纸档案、选民小册子、学术报告、宣传网站,以及个人采访,以获取2012-2022年出现的11项烟草增税投票措施的信息。调查结果:获胜的提案具有充足的财政资源、与有影响力的利益相关者的合作以及早期的公众支持。三项成功的措施中有两项为烟草业提供了重大优惠,这两项措施都被设计为立法参考法规。在其他地方,支持者试图制定公民主导的举措,将收入分配给进步政策的优先事项,但没有成功。与前几个时代相比,烟草行业的争论往往围绕着反税、反政府的言论展开,这在保守的州被认为特别有说服力。该行业的成功率比过去更高,而且它的支出继续超过对手,有时甚至达到惊人的利润率。结论:竞选支出和早期支持对烟草税投票措施的成功仍然至关重要。即使失败,大烟草公司也可以做出重大让步,而直接民主对烟草控制倡导者来说是一个有效但不完美的盟友。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Popular Votes on Tobacco Tax Increases, 2012-2022.

Context: Researchers have examined the campaign strategies, messaging, and outcomes of popular votes on tobacco tax increases from 1998 to 2008, but no study has investigated measures that have appeared since 2008.

Methods: The author uses state newspaper archives, voter pamphlets, academic reports, advocacy websites, and personal interviews to obtain information about the 11 tobacco tax increase ballot measures that appeared from 2012 to 2022.

Findings: The three measures that succeeded during 2012-2022 featured sufficient financial resources, collaboration with influential stakeholders, and early public support. Two of the three successful measures offered significant concessions to the tobacco industry, and both were designed as legislatively referred statutes. Elsewhere, proponents sought unsuccessfully to enact citizen-led initiatives that would allocate revenue to progressive policy priorities. In contrast to previous eras, tobacco industry arguments often centered around antitax and antigovernment rhetoric, which was viewed as especially compelling in conservative states. The industry's success rate was higher than in the past, and it continued to outspend its opponents, sometimes by staggering margins.

Conclusions: Campaign spending and early support remain critical to the success of tobacco tax ballot measures. Big Tobacco can extract significant concessions even in defeat, and direct democracy is an effective but imperfect ally to tobacco control advocates.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信