Yes on 1634’s advertisements hammer on the theme that Seattle’s soda tax illustrates a loophole that could go beyond sweetened beverages and lead to taxes on food. This, say proponents of the initiative, will ultimately increase costs for all consumers — even those able to resist sugary drinks. In one, a rancher frets about meat costs going up. In another, an elderly woman shopping for groceries worries she won’t be able to afford everything she needs.

In a statement to Crosscut from the Yes on I-1634 campaign, Pete Lamb, senior business agent at Teamsters Local 174, is quoted as saying the initiative will “protect our most basic essentials, food and beverages, from the kind of 'privilege tax' that was passed in Seattle.” He goes on to say that he thinks the initiative, “struck a nerve with voters in Washington who are concerned about the rising cost of living as well as an unfair and regressive tax structure that puts far too much burden on working families.” Local 174 represents a broad range of delivery drivers and truckers in soft drink distribution, ports, solid waste and others.

The Teamsters, Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Washington Food Industry Association and Korean-American Grocers Association of Washington have formed a coalition in support of the initiative. But the funding comes almost entirely from the soda industry. Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and Snapple contributed more than $12.8 million of the $13,010,000 raised by the Yes campaign.

The organized opposition to I-1634 includes public health advocates, a progressive political group and a Seattle environmental justice nonprofit.

“Follow the money,” said Vic Colman, director of the Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition and head of the campaign against I-1634. Coleman doesn’t deny that a city could impose taxes on food if they want, but doubts anyone has the political will to do so.

“We can see through the smoke screen here,” he said. “Nobody is talking about taxing groceries anywhere in the state. It’s a hypothetical they’ve thrown up to scare the voters and say they’re coming for your grocery cart.”

As a public health official, Colman says he supports taxing sugary beverages because of their link to obesity , diabetes, heart disease and other health problems. Research on consumers in Philadelphia, which instituted a sugar tax in 2017, found that they are buying 30 percent less soda . Other research has found that most often, the tax is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher costs, which impacts sales.

Colman said the reasons to vote against the initiative go beyond public health. “I think you could be agnostic or even opposed to sin taxes and still be opposed to this initiative,” he told Crosscut. “It’s about local control. They’re throwing this question to the voters and saying we’re going to take away rights from municipalities to raise taxes on what they want.”

State laws that preempt local control are popular with industry groups and other special interests that want to avoid regulation or higher taxes. In Washington in 2017, Uber and Lyft successfully lobbied the state legislature to pass a law that, among other things, prevents local municipalities from enacting their own regulations on ride-hailing companies. In June, the California state assembly passed a law that bans local municipalities from passing new food and beverage taxes for 12 years. Arizona and Michigan have passed similar preemption laws. Heavy lobbying from the soda industry lobby preceded all of those votes.

It is on this issue of state preemption that the editorial boards of some of the state’s largest newspapers have voiced opposition to I-1634. The Seattle Times , Olympian , Tacoma News Tribune , and others came out against the initiative primarily on the grounds that it wrests control of taxation from local municipalities. They also questioned that the initiative was about anything other than blocking soda taxes, given the beverage industries role in I-1634. The Olympian wrote, “It’s a clear case of out-of-state interests meddling with local control by cities and counties.”

In an interview, Elway Research president Stuart Elway said the strong opposition from the papers’ editorial boards was likely a factor in the 51 percent opposition to I-1634 among voters polled. But, he conceded that it was surprising to see the grassroots No campaign 20 points ahead of the well-funded Yes campaign. It is especially surprising, he said, to see that Republicans said they were more likely to vote against the initiative than Democrats. Of the voters polled, 58 percent of Republicans said they were against it, versus 39 percent of Democrats.