Fact Check: Proposition 86 TV ads

Sep. 7 - KGO (KGO) -- An initiative to triple tobacco taxes is running into big money opposition from cigarette companies.

Proposition 86 would impose a $2.60 tax on a pack of cigarettes. That's expected to raise $2 billion a year to be spent on hospital services, emergency rooms, cancer treatments and tobacco prevention programs. Hospitals are kicking in most of the financial support for 86.

Thanks to Rod Peterson who e-mailed me and asked to have these ads fact-checked. I think he was talking mostly about the No on 86 ad because that's the one we've seen on the air. The Yes on 86 ad has only played in Sacramento, so far. But we'll show you both in this Fact Check.

No on 86 TV Ad: "When I heard about Prop 86 I liked the idea of raising cigarette taxes, then I read the whole 38 pages. It's full of special interest loopholes."

Fact Check: Discount the music shift from light to scary. What the ad is expressing here is an opinion and it's focusing on one small part of the much larger proposition -- an anti-trust provision for hospitals.

No on 86 TV Ad: "It gives hospitals an exemption to anti-trust laws written to protect California consumers."

Fact Check: The ad is accurate here, but it misses the details. What the measure says is hospitals in the same region can work together to provide enough medical specialists on duty at any one time, without being penalized under anti-trust laws. Prop. 86 also mandates that any collaboration would have to be approved by local governments, and those hospitals would be subject to new limits on what they could charge low income emergency room patients.

No on 86 TV Ad: "Letting them divi up and limit many medical services and raise prices without worrying about competition."

Fact Check: "This statement is misleading. It ignores the oversight by local governments which presumably would be able to sort out hospital agreements that might harm consumers from agreements that would benefit the community.

No on 86 TV Ad: "No accountability for the money, it gives hospitals and HMOs too much at our expense."

Fact Check: The "no accountability for the money" statement is not accurate. Distribution of the tax money is spelled out in detail. And the measure provides for audits and puts limits on spending. As for giving hospitals and HMOs too much, that's an opinion.

Here's the Yes on 86 ad.

Yes on 86 TV Ad: "Remember when tobacco executives testifed to Congress that cigarettes and nicotine were not addictive? They lied. Now they're at it again. Big tobacco will say anything, do anything and spend anything to defeat Prop. 86 because it reduces smoking by increasing cigarette taxes."

Fact Check: This statement is misleading. It accuses the tobacco companies of lying, but doesn't say what they're supposed to be lying about in opposing 86. Analysts say the measure will reduce smoking by raising the cost of a pack of cigarettes to $6.60 a pack.

Yes on 86 TV Ad: "Prop. 86 is sponsored by the American Cancer Society, Heart Association and Lung Association."

Fact Check: This statement is also misleading. It ignores hospitals which would get a third of the money raised by the new tax. Hospitals are by far the biggest contributors to the Yes on 86 campaign.

Yes on 86 TV Ad: "It will reduce teen smoking, prevent premature deaths and save billions in health care costs."

Fact Check: The state's legislative analyst says teen smoking will go down because teens will be affected by the price of a pack, but the analyst would not put a number on reducing deaths or saving money, other than to say the impact could be significant.

On a side note, I received another e-mail this week from a man in Guernville who saw a recent Fact Check and came up with a quote off the No on 89 Web site that left him shaking his head. Read about it in The Back Story.

If you see an ad or a politician on TV making a statement and you want us to Fact Check it, send me an e-mail at mark.matthews@abc.com.

Get more News »

• Email
• Print
• Report a typo
•