Supporters of Alcohol Tax Allege 'Blackmail' by Foes : Prop. 134: A letter to broadcasters threatens cancellation of paid political advertising if free air time is given to the measure's proponents.

Supporters of Alcohol Tax Allege ‘Blackmail’ by Foes : Prop. 134: A letter to broadcasters threatens cancellation of paid political advertising if free air time is given to the measure’s proponents.

By VIRGINIA ELLIS

Aug. 19, 1990 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SACRAMENTO — In a move that opponents label “plain and simple blackmail,” alcoholic beverage interests have threatened to cancel their political advertising with broadcasters who give free air time to promoters of Proposition 134, a measure that would increase taxes on beer, wine and liquor. The threat was contained in a letter from Greenstripe Media, a firm hired by the industry-financed Taxpayers for Common Sense to buy radio time. The letter was attached to contracts for advertising purchases in September, October and early November.

In recent weeks, Californians for Nickel-a-Drink--a coalition that is promoting the November ballot measure--has asked for free rebuttal time from radio stations that air ads attacking their proposal. Taxpayers for Common Sense has been running the anti-Proposition 134 ads on radio and television statewide.

The letter from Greenstripe called the requests for free air time “outrageous and unjustified.” It warned that stations honoring the requests will “put us in a most uncomfortable situation with our client.”

“Such action could force us into canceling our schedule on your facility and utilizing other stations or media (such as newspapers) that do not provide free air time,” the letter said. “Please caution your management on this situation and protect the substantial expenditures which we have contracted with your facility.”

Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly (D-Sacramento), an author of the Nickel-a-Drink proposal, reacted angrily.

“This is plain and simple blackmail. They (alcoholic industry interests) aren’t content with their multimillion-dollar advantage--they want to silence us completely,” he said.

Leo McElroy, media consultant for the Proposition 134 campaign, said that the letter was apparently sent after about 40 radio stations agreed to provide the free air time. He said it explained why several stations, after initially agreeing to give the air time, suddenly backed down.

“I guess they’re scared,” McElroy said. “They’re (Greenstripe) talking about a large chunk of advertising revenue.”

The proponents of the Nickel-a-Drink proposal had made the request under the Federal Communications Commission’s Fairness Doctrine, which requires broadcasters airing substantial advertising by one side in a campaign to provide free air time to opponents, if they have no funds to buy their own.

The legalities surrounding the Fairness Doctrine are murky. Courts have ruled substantial portions of the doctrine invalid, but have not spoken directly to its application to initiatives. In past campaigns involving Proposition 99, a ballot measure that increased cigarette taxes, and Proposition 111, a proposal that triggered gasoline tax hikes, many broadcasters have honored the doctrine as a matter of public policy, even though they believed that it had no legal standing.

They have generally made the time available on a 4-1 or 3-1 basis--that is, for every three or four ads aired by the paying advertiser, they air one free ad for the opponent. McElroy said that his group expects to begin requesting free television time next week.

Julie Williams, a spokeswoman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the Greenstripe letters were not meant as blackmail but to inform broadcasters in strong terms that her organization held the view that there was no legal requirement to provide free air time. She said it was her understanding that only when one side in a campaign is interviewed as part of a news or other program is the station required to offer rebuttal time.

She said the group was not trying to silence the opposition but simply trying to point out that “getting free time based on our paid advertising was not fair.”

“It’s not fair that every time we buy advertising it buys them advertising as well,” she said.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, some of whose members refer to Proposition 134 as the “worst thing since Prohibition,” has spent more than $1 million on its advertising, while Californians for Nickel-a-Drink have yet to air an ad. The industry-backed organization acknowledges that it will probably spend millions more on advertising before the November election and the Nickel-a-Drink group--a coalition of public interest and mental health organizations--says it will have no money for advertising.

Proposition 134 would increase taxes on wine from a penny a gallon to $1.29; on beer from 4 cents a gallon to 57.3 cents and on liquor from $2 a gallon to $8.40. It would require that the revenue from the tax increase be used to pay for programs that deal with problems caused by alcohol and drug abuse.