One week after the “No on 2H” campaign against a sugary beverage tax in Boulder rolled out, some of the businesses connected to the opposition are disassociating from it, saying they were duped into participating.
No on 2H, organized and supported by the American Beverage Association, debuted Sept. 14 and included in its announcement a list of 32 Boulder restaurants that reject what’s proposed on the city’s 2016 ballot: a $0.02 excise tax on distributors of most drinks with more than 5 grams of added sweetener per 12 ounces.
No on 2H named its supporting businesses in a Daily Camera advertisement, on Twitter, Facebook and on the campaign’s website.
Some business owners are now asking to be disconnected from the movement, and they offered common reasons for doing so on Monday, saying they didn’t realize they were consenting to be part of official campaign material, and that the No on 2H solicitors didn’t accurately represent their interests.
Several also accused the campaign of intentionally seeking out businesses owned by non-native English speakers, who might be more easily swayed.
In each of the 32 cases, a representative of the business — often not the owner, though — signed a form granting the campaign permission to use the business’ name on “public materials such as collateral, websites … letterheads, press releases, advertisements, direct mail and fact sheets.”
No on 2H cited that form’s language in responding Wednesday that the campaign has been “above and beyond” transparent, and made its intentions clear in the language of the consent forms that the business representatives signed.
‘It was kind of like a scam’
The tax is being brought by the group Healthy Boulder Kids, supported by more than $450,000 in campaign donations, mostly from Healthier Colorado and the American Heart Association.
While opponents argue the tax will only lead to higher costs for consumers, proponents tout the fact that it will fund programs to combat obesity and diabetes, problems directly linked to sugar consumption and disproportionately impacting low-income families.
Stephan Geson, general manager of Mandala Infusion Tibetan Bistro in north Boulder, said he supports the tax, and felt the No on 2H solicitor he spoke to did not accurately represent either the campaign’s intent or the implications of Geson’s signature.
“We got conned into doing something that had nothing to do with our ideology,” Geson said.
The owner of Geson’s north Boulder neighbor, La Choza, who did not give his name, said in an interview in Spanish that he didn’t realize that a tax had even been proposed when he signed the form — even though he’d vote against it, anyway.
“I would say there’s a bit of a language barrier there,” Geson said. “It was kind of like a scam, conning into signing things.”
The Camera reached out Wednesday to more than half of the businesses listed as No on 2H endorsers, and spoke with many owners who said they felt deceived, even if they, like the La Choza owner, already don’t support the tax.
“I thought they were just collecting signatures to oppose the tax, like they needed a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot or something,” said Jatin Patel, owner of Tiffins India Cafe.
Kevin Peed, owner of the Boulder branch of Great Harvest Bread Company, said he was “blown away” when he saw his business attached to campaign ads.
“Some guy came in when we had a packed lobby, asked to talk to an owner or manager. He asked for my thoughts on it and I said I didn’t really know much about it,” Peed said. “He was just trying to muster up support. I don’t recall putting my name on a piece of paper … and if I did, it was not about the name being blasted.”
But Peed and staffers at all other restaurants in No on 2H’s campaign materials did, in fact, sign on.
“The form couldn’t have been clearer,” said Matthew Moseley, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. “I don’t think there was anybody trying to dupe anybody about anything. We don’t want to list people who aren’t supporting, because we have nothing to gain from doing that.”
The form does state explicitly that those who sign it are volunteering their companies’ names for the cause, but, even so, some business owners wondered Wednesday whether the solicitors could have done more in the way of transparency.
Mark Heinritz, co-owner of University Hill restaurant The Sink and the Pearl Street Mall’s West Flanders Brewing Company, said that a solicitor approached his brother Chris — also a co-owner of both establishments — to ask if Chris supported the tax. He said he did not, and believed he was speaking purely for himself.
“It was never represented that this was for The Sink and West Flanders, and that they could use our brand, our names, in their support material,” Mark Heinritz said. “We’d like to be taken off that material. … We very rarely take a position on anything. People need to go and vote, and we’re not looking to sway their vote.”
Heinritz said he’s a “proponent of the democratic process,” and that West Flanders expects to play host to “meet-and-greet” sessions for both the proponent and opposition campaigns in the near future.
Dave Query, who owns Zolo Grill, among other restaurants, said that the general manager who signed the form on Zolo’s behalf “was told that it would not represent support from the business, nor that it would be advertised as such.”
“In this particular case,” Query said, “somebody came in and spoke to a manager and asked if they supported that, and an individual manager in an individual moment, not knowing what the ramifications were, signed the form, believing he was representing himself.”
Only one representative of a business listed by No on 2H who was contacted by the Camera on Wednesday — the owner of Le Peep, who declined to give his name — said he had understood the campaign intended to use the business’ name in its materials.
‘Whose fault is that?’
Confronting the allegations of misleading solicitation and targeting non-native English speakers, Moseley maintained that the form was plain and uncomplicated.
When someone signs onto something without realizing what they’ve done, Moseley asked, “Whose fault is that?”
He said that it’s “par for the course” for businesses to reverse course in cases like this, and that the American Beverage Association saw allies drop off during previous campaigns around similar taxes in Telluride, Philadelphia, New York City and Berkeley, Calif.
Of course, many of the cities where these taxes have been proposed have also seen questionable American Beverage Association coalitions form. In San Francisco, for example, ABC’s “Nightline” found businesses that signed on against Proposition E — that city’s 2H equivalent in 2014 — but actually supported the tax.
The industry group also paid people to hold signs at their rallies, and even employed fake supporters from out-of-state.
Healthy Boulder Kids has itself been accused of creating a false image of purely grassroots organizing.
The group paid Rocky Mountain Voter Outreach for signatures and has brought in more than double the amount of campaign donations to date compared with the opposing issue committee.
Moseley posited that some of the businesses pulling out of the campaign are doing so because of a letter to the editor published in the Camera on Sept. 17, calling for a boycott of businesses affiliated with No on 2H. He said he believes that letter was a product of Healthy Boulder Kids.
“I think what we’re seeing here is intimidation by the other side, by the proponents, of local businesses,” Moseley said.
The author of that letter, David Hazen of Lyons, is not affiliated with Healthy Boulder Kids and has not been involved in any of its organizing, campaign manager Angelique Espinoza said.
“That is what you call a free-range, organic letter,” she said. “He is not someone that I know. … I was just as surprised to see that particular letter as anyone.”
Interviews with business owners on Wednesday revealed that fear was a factor for some who signed the petition. But, in most cases, the fear was of the unknown implications of the tax, and not of backlash from customers organizing to boycott.
T|ACO operating partner Peter Waters, who literally became the face of No on 2H by appearing in the campaign’s first video ad, said in an interview that he’s not actually sure yet how he’ll vote, but that he agreed to do the ad because he’s concerned about what a tax might mean for his taqueria.
“Our position is pretty neutral at this point,” Water said. “I still haven’t been completely educated on how the roll-out would look, but the tax, as it’s been presented to us, seemed complicated for the operation of our business.
“We’re always open to education at this point, and we’re hoping that both parties will make everything clear by the time Election Day rolls around.”
Alex Burness: 303-473-1389, burnessa@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/alex_burness
