Missouri votes no on proposed tobacco tax increase

Wednesday, November 7, 2012 | 12:45 a.m. CST; updated 6:35 a.m. CST, Wednesday, November 7, 2012

COLUMBIA — Missouri voters rejected a proposed increase in the state's excise tax on tobacco products on Tuesday.

The defeat of Proposition B continued a consistent voting trend against tobacco tax increases in the state that has the nation's lowest per-pack cigarette tax at 17 cents. Missouri residents also voted against similar proposals in 2002 (Proposition A) and 2006 (Amendment 3).

The measure failed statewide by a thin margin, 51 percent to 49 percent, according to the Missouri Secretary of State's Office.

Boone County, however, favored Proposition B, with 59.6 percent of voters approving. Seven other counties — Adair, Clay, Jackson, Nodaway, Platte, St. Charles and St. Louis counties — along with the city of St. Louis, also voted for it.

Proposition B would have levied a 73-cents-per-pack increase on name-brand cigarettes, pushed the per-pack tax on value-brand cigarettes to $1.47 and increased the tax on smokeless tobacco products such as "chew" and "snuff" by 150 percent. It would also have established a 3.65-cent per-cigarette tax increase on roll-your-own tobacco products.

The proposition was intended to increase funding for public education and tobacco cessation and prevention programs. It targeted 50 percent of tax revenue for K-12 public education, 30 percent for higher education, and the remaining 20 percent for smoking cessation and prevention programs.

The fiscal note on the ballot issue estimated it would generate $283 million to $423 million per year. Kelly estimated it would generate more than $3 million for Boone County K-12 public schools alone.

The University of Missouri was planning to invest a portion of the anticipated revenue toward expanding its medical school enrollment and creating a clinical campus in Springfield. The one-time cost of these projects is an estimated $33 million, which could have been partially funded by $26.3 million the university system stood to receive from the tax.

State Reps. Mary Still, D-Columbia, Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, and Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, all favored Proposition B.

Kelly, who was unopposed in his bid for re-election to the House of Representatives, spent a lot of his campaign time and money advocating for the measure.

Both Democratic representatives expressed disappointment with the results. Kelly said he wasn't sure how Missouri would move forward in generating new funding for education but said he was pleased with the local results.

"I'm very proud of the people of Boone County who supported it by almost 60 percent," he said. "I'm disappointed that we won't be able to move our schools forward."

Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, led the opposition. Leone said on Tuesday morning that the new tax would jeopardize Missouri's competitive advantage over its border states.

"The 760 percent tax increase (on value-brand cigarettes) flips the dynamics so we go from a low-tax state to a higher than four of our eight border states," Leone said.

"That means all of that cross-border state traffic is going to stay home, so it's going to have serious economic consequences for small businesses," he said.

Leone also doubted that new tax revenue would reach the intended targets. He cited the use of state lottery and casino gambling revenue as past broken promises to fund education and health care.

"The promises can't be kept, and it's inappropriate of the supporters to be saying if this happens you will get X, Y, and Z because they just can't guarantee that," he said.

"We've seen that two times before with the lottery and casino gaming, where the money didn't go where everybody thought it would," an explanation that seemed to resonate among voters.

On Tuesday evening Leone said that he was "thrilled and grateful but not surprised by the outcome.”

The Missourian spoke with Boone County voters on Tuesday morning to get their views on Proposition B. Penny Moore, a manager with Columbia Insurance Group who voted at the Boone County Fire Protection District headquarters, shared Leone's view that new tax revenue from Proposition B would not go toward the intended targets.

"I'm opposed to it because there won't be any control of it later, such as where the money will go," she said.

Larry Allen, 65, also doubted Proposition B would directly channel money toward education and tobacco cessation programs. He voted at the First Church of the Nazarene.

"I voted no on Proposition B because it's an awesome idea, but just like the lottery, the money will be appropriated somewhere else," Allen said.

Jeff Perkins, 48, a programmer assistant at Columbia Insurance Group, said he didn't vote for Proposition B because he thought the government would misuse the proceeds.

"It's like the lottery; they don't use it for what it was intended," he said after voting at Grace Bible Church.

Proposition B supporters in Boone County mostly cited benefits to education and public health as their motivations for favoring it. Donna Ogborn, 40, a special education teacher at West Junior High School, said that she voted yes because "it's better for the kids."

Joe Pintz, 38, an MU art professor, agreed. "As an educator, I voted for Proposition B, to bring in extra funding supporting education," Pintz said.

Sue Sinele, 49, a registered nurse, also voted yes on Proposition B. "I think it's sad that we have the lowest tax on cigarettes in the country," she said. "As a cancer nurse, I see a lot of death from lung cancer so I am for Prop B."

Supervising editor is Jeanne Abbott.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Phil Wilkinson November 7, 2012 | 3:54 a.m.

I don't care what those in office said the money would be used for. Just like the lottery and casino money? In 2-3 years, it would mysteriously start being used for pet projects by those we elect to office. They would simply amend this law to suit their they always do.
The words "Promise" and "Guarantee" when used by politicians mean as much to me as a used car salesman saying the words "trust me".

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 7, 2012 | 9:02 a.m.

I have a great deal of respect for Chris Kelly, but that respect takes a hit when he says, ""I'm disappointed that we won't be able to move our schools forward."

First, I don't appreciate the raw, emotional "It's for the kids" argument. It's an argument that is used when the arguer can't sell the agenda any other way. It's lazy.

Second, Chris knows full well this is not the only way to further our schools. Indeed, just throwing money at the issue hasn't seemed to work well at all. If legislators like Chris would consider REAL changes such as those supported by conservatives (instead of liberal, unionized educators), perhaps we can begin to make REAL progress.

Third, several of us, including me, have stated we believe any money into the schools would be paralleled by money coming out the other end for general funds....a shell game, if you will. To my knowledge, Chris and other tax supporters have never bothered to comment on whether or not this would occur. With such deafening silence, I can only conclude the worries have significant merit.

Look, if you want to deal honestly with the likes of me, I expect you to tell me the complete merits of BOTH sides, and then tell me why I should favor one or the other. I'm sick and tired of only one-half the whole story that supports a particular agenda; credibility is THE issue here and that applies to ALL politicians...not just Chris. It is a lie of omission for ANY politician (or anyone, for that matter) to only tell one-half the story as a sales strategy for an agenda. Either be up front and honest with me or go home.

(Report Comment)
Phil Wilkinson November 7, 2012 | 5:31 p.m.

Well said Mr. Williams, well said!!!!!!!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.