Pop quiz for Clark County residents. See if you can spot the glitch in the Voters’ Pamphlet summary for Initiative 1464 on the statewide ballot: “This measure would create a campaign-finance system; allow residents to direct state funds to candidates; repeal the nonresident sales-tax exemption; restrict lobbying employment by certain former public employees; and add enforcement requirements.”
Did you catch it? Did you see how writers of the ballot measure included a clause that has nothing to do with campaign finance but would have a vast impact upon Clark County? Because it would repeal the sales-tax exemption, The Columbian’s Editorial Board recommends a “no” vote on Initiative 1464.
As always, this is merely a recommendation. The Columbian trusts the ability and the desire of voters to examine the measure before casting an informed ballot.
In looking at I-1464, local voters will see a measure that runs counter to their interests and that renews an ongoing battle for county businesses. Out-of-state residents currently are allowed to take an exemption from Washington’s sales tax, a provision that is important for keeping border counties economically competitive. Because Oregon does not have a sales tax, drawing consumers from that side of the river is reliant upon waiving the sales tax — a point that long has been echoed by merchants in Clark County and elsewhere.
Removing the sales-tax exemption would raise prices for Oregon shoppers in Clark County by 7.7 percent, with most of that going to state coffers. It also would enhance the incentive for Oregon consumers to remain on their side of the Columbia River. In other words, it would have a negative impact for businesses in Clark County and other counties along the state’s southern border, unfairly placing the burden of campaign-finance reform primarily upon a handful of counties.
The economic impact of I-1464 should result in opposition from Clark County voters — and that is too bad. The idea of campaign-finance reform is one that is long overdue and would be worthy of consideration if not for the poison pill of removing the sales-tax exemption. The measure would increase the transparency of campaign donations, establish lobbying limits, and result in a more robust Public Disclosure Commission. It would provide voters with three $50 vouchers that they may contribute to candidates or issues deemed worthy of support.
These are good ideas, but targeting businesses that rely upon out-of-state customers is a poor way to pay for it. If repealing the sales-tax exemption was good business for Washington state, the Legislature would have done it long ago. And if the Legislature did engage in action to increase state tax revenue, that revenue should be earmarked for more pressing items such as basic education or mental health rather than going to people who are running for office.
Proponents say that I-1464 would be funded by the closing of a tax loophole, but it is difficult to argue that this is an equitable solution when businesses in border towns would be hit particularly hard. The cost of altering campaign finance should not be borne equally by all residents of the state, and there are other, more significant loopholes that require examination.
Initiative 1464 is well-intentioned and includes some worthy ideas. But its funding mechanism is fatally flawed. The Columbian recommends a “no” vote on I-1464.
