Here's why Santa Cruz just added a soda tax, in defiance of a statewide ban
The tax — approved by voters in November — adds a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on nonalcoholic beverages that have one or more caloric added sweeteners and that have 40 or more calories per 12 fluid ounces of beverage, including sodas, coffees, sweetened ice teas, energy drinks and slushies.
Four other cities in California, including San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland and Albany, already have a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages on the books, with Berkeley being the first city in the country to do so.
But Santa Cruz is the first one to institute a new one since legislators and business leaders struck a deal that was signed by the previous governor that prohibited local governments from imposing taxes on soda until 2031.
Santa Cruz City Councilmember Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, who was one of the proponents of the soda tax, told Lookout Santa Cruz after the measure passed in November that the campaign was framed as a battle between Santa Cruz and the American Beverage Assn.
'That really resonated with people, that this was big industry trying to manipulate and strong-arm local voters,' Kalantari-Johnson told the publication. 'We won't let big industry decide for us.'
Santa Cruz's sugary drink tax doesn't apply to beverages intended for medical use, beverages that continue less than 40 calories per 12 fluid ounces of drink, beverages for infants, supplemental or meal replacement beverages, milk products, 100% natural vegetable or fruit juice, concentrates, sweetened medication (such as cough syrup) and alcoholic beverages.
'Santa Cruz demonstrates that when presented with the facts about the dangers of sugary drinks, voters see through the soda industry's multi-million-dollar efforts to deceive them with misinformation,' Nancy Brown, chief executive of the American Heart Assn., said in a recent statement. 'The American Heart Association was proud to support the ballot measure and remains committed to the city of Santa Cruz in this years-long David vs. Goliath effort against the beverage industry."
Steve Maviglio, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Assn. which lobbied heavily against soda taxes, decried the latest measure in a statement.
'Santa Cruz is implementing a tax that violates a popular statewide ban on grocery taxes and that was opposed by a broad coalition of small businesses, progressive leaders, labor unions, and social justice organizations as an unfair burden on working families already struggling with record-high prices," he wrote in an email.
The American Beverage Assn. has also launched a campaign called "Your Cart Your Choice."
"The price increases from a tax hurt lower-income communities and people who work paycheck to paycheck the most," according to the campaign's website. "More taxes are the last thing working families need right now amid crippling inflation, supply chain issues and the price of gas making everyday items more expensive already."
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
Republican holdouts bristle at Trump pressure over megabill
WASHINGTON — Confident that passage of President Trump's signature legislation is all but assured, West Wing aides summoned holdouts in the House Republican caucus on Wednesday to deliver a blunt message: Follow the president's orders and get it done by Friday. It was a call to action after House Speaker Mike Johnson directed his caucus to converge back on Washington from home districts around the country, braving flight delays due to storms in the capital to rush back in time for a vote before Independence Day. But the vote is in doubt, and signs have emerged of cracks in a coalition otherwise firmly under Trump's control. 'The president of the United States didn't give us an assignment,' Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a Republican from Wisconsin, told reporters, using an expletive to suggest Trump was treating lawmakers like his minions. 'I'm a member of Congress. I represent almost 800,000 Wisconsinites. Is that clear?' Frustration within the Republican Party is coming from two disparate camps of a broad-tent coalition that have their own sets of grievances: fiscal hawks who believe the bill adds too much to the national debt, and GOP lawmakers representing districts that heavily rely on Medicaid. One GOP lawmaker who attended the White House meeting on Wednesday, Rep. David Valadao of California, represents a Central Valley district with one of the highest percentages of Medicaid enrollment in the nation. The president's megabill, which he calls the 'big beautiful bill,' levies historic cuts to the healthcare program that could result in up to 12 million Americans losing health coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, gutting $1 trillion in funding and introducing a work requirement for enrollees of 80 hours per month until they turn 65 years old. The proposed legislation also restricts state taxes on healthcare providers, known as the 'provider tax,' an essential tool for many states in their efforts to supplement Medicaid funding. Several Republican lawmakers fear that provision could have devastating effects on rural hospitals. A handful of Republican lawmakers from North Carolina have bristled at the president's pressure campaign, with Rep. Chuck Edwards telling Punchbowl News that the White House meeting 'didn't sway my opinion.' North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican, was one of three senators who voted against the bill on Tuesday, warning it would devastate his state. It still passed with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance. The vote is shaping up to be narrow in the House, as well, where Johnson can only afford to lose three votes in order to pass the omnibus legislation. Earlier Wednesday, after taking meetings at the White House, members of the House Freedom Caucus, a bloc founded to promote fiscal responsibility, also met with Johnson. The speaker emerged with a message of tempered optimism. 'I feel very positive about the progress, we've had lots of great conversations,' Johnson told reporters Wednesday, 'but we can't make everyone 100% happy. It's impossible.' 'This is a deliberative body. It's a legislative process by definition — all of us have to give up on personal preferences,' he continued. 'I'm never going to ask anyone to compromise core principles, but preferences must be yielded for the greater good. And that's what I think people are recognizing and coming to grips with.' Trump says the legislation encompasses his entire domestic agenda, extending tax cuts passed during his first term in 2017 and beefing up funding for border security, mass deportations, and the Defense Department. Cuts to Medicaid, as well as to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP, are intended to offset a fraction of the costs. But the CBO still estimates the legislation will add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, and hundreds of billions to the deficit, with other nonprofit budget trackers forecasting even higher figures.
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
Insurer Blue Shield of California's new parent company alarms consumer advocates
Last year, regulators approved a request by Blue Shield of California, the state's third-largest health insurer, to restructure and establish a new parent corporation in Delaware. The Oakland-based nonprofit got the go-ahead from the Department of Managed Health Care, or DMHC, to create an entity called Ascendiun Inc., which is now the out-of-state corporate parent of Blue Shield. The insurer said that the restructuring would allow it to better serve its members "with less bureaucracy and faster results, while making health care more affordable." But the transaction has raised alarm among a former high-level Blue Shield executive and consumer advocates, who complain that it was carried out with no public oversight and could allow the insurer to transfer money to a Delaware parent company with few strings attached. The activists claim that some of that money could be used to boost its spending on charitable endeavors. The company has accrued a surplus of more than $4 billion over the decades as it benefited from its former tax-exempt status, according to a regulatory filing. "The move guts the ability of the DHMC to enforce Blue Shield's nonprofit obligations to the California public and gives Blue Shield's directors ... a virtually free hand to make use of Blue Shield's billions of dollars in charitable assets as they please," wrote Michael Johnson, the insurer's former director of public policy, in a recent letter to Mary Watanabe, director of the department, which was reviewed by The Times. Johnson is calling for the department to rescind its approval and unwind the restructuring. The department maintains that the insurer is not subject to charitable trust rules as a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. In a statement, the department said it "maintains full regulatory authority and enforcement of all Blue Shield of California health plan operations," and reviewed the transaction to ensure that it will not harm the plan's financial viability. Blue Shield's restructuring is reviving a longstanding debate about whether one of the state's largest insurers is reinvesting enough of its profit to lower its rates, better serve low-income residents and provide coverage for underserved areas of the state. Controversy over the company's role as a nonprofit previously aired in 2015 as it sought approval from the department for its $1.2-billion purchase of Care1st, a Medicaid health plan. Blue Shield has disputed Johnson's claims, noting that the state has determined it is not subject to the rules governing charitable nonprofits. In the Jan. 8 announcement of its restructuring, Blue Shield also disclosed that it was forming a for-profit subsidiary called Stellarus that would provide services to other health plans, such as delivering drugs to patients more inexpensively than pharmacy benefit managers. Ascendiun is structured as a nonprofit and Blue Shield and the company's Medi-Cal insurer, Blue Shield of California Promise Health Plan - the former Care1st - also would continue as nonprofits, the insurer said at the time. "This structure is not uncommon among health plans, as many across the country - including other nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies - have made similar corporate reorganizations to better serve their membership," the insurer said in its statement to The Times. A scathing audit Blue Shield was established in 1939 by the California Medical Assn. as the nation's first prepaid health plan to cover physician bills. It followed the creation of the first Blue Cross plan, in Texas, to pay for hospital bills. The California insurer did not pay federal taxes until a change in the law in 1986. And it was exempt from state taxes until the Franchise Tax Board revoked that status in August 2014 after a scathing audit that The Times first reported. The audit found that Blue Shield was operating similarly to a for-profit company, with executives instructed to "maximize profitability." The tax board also found that the insurer had stockpiled "extraordinarily high surpluses" even as it failed to offer enough public benefits, such as more affordable coverage. Blue Shield denied the accusations but ultimately relinquished its tax-exempt status, even as it has continued to pursue an appeal of an order requiring it to pay more than $100 million in back taxes. Johnson contends that the new corporate structure will allow Blue Shield to move its assets around in pursuit of its business goals with little oversight beyond maintaining required reserves - especially given its parent company's incorporation in Delaware, a business-friendly state where most Fortune 500 companies are registered. The DMHC strengthened reserve requirements in approving the deal and it now totals about $2.1 billion, according to a regulatory filing, which Johnson says would allow Blue Shield to transfer about $2.4 billion to Ascendiun. Charles Bell, a healthcare advocate who was involved in last decade's debate over Blue Shield's charitable obligations, is troubled by the decision to establish an out-of-state parent. "I think that the changes in corporate structure that were made are highly concerning, and it should have received a much higher level of public scrutiny and a lot more skepticism by the Department of Managed Health Care," said Bell, advocacy programs director for Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. The department said in its response to The Times that it "may hold public meetings if a transaction meets certain requirements to qualify as a major transaction. Upon due consideration, the Department determined that the specific facts of this restructuring did not meet the criteria set out in law to hold a public meeting." A long history of restructuring Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans have a long history of restructuring, including Blue Cross of California. That insurer broke ground when in 1993 it spun off a recently established for-profit subsidiary, Wellpoint Health Networks. Blue Cross was later required to distribute $3.2 billion to a pair of new nonprofits, the California Endowment and the California Health Care Foundation, which are still operating. Less than a decade later, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in more than dozen other states had converted to for-profits, typically highly controversial proposals, given questions about what was to become of their billions of dollars of assets. More recently, the nonprofits have converted into mutual insurance holding companies. That allows them to maintain their nonprofit status while funding for-profit ventures, such as in technology, said Brendan Bridgeland, an attorney with the Center for Insurance Research in Cambridge, Mass. What is unusual about Blue Shield of California's restructuring, he said, is that the DMHC allowed it to establish an out-of-state parent company. "Once you reach the point where the subsidiary starts transferring money up to the parent and it gets reallocated, then it's going to be out of their control," Bridgeland said. Johnson's concerns are rooted in efforts last decade by healthcare advocates to have Blue Shield declared a charitable organization and to dig into its assets to improve patient care as a condition of its approval to acquire Care1st. Johnson worked at Blue Shield from 2003 until 2015, when he resigned to mount a public campaign to pressure the insurer over its nonprofit mission. Johnson has been involved in litigation with his former employer, which sued him in 2015 alleging he disclosed confidential information, including Blue Shield's communications with the Franchise Tax Board. In a settlement, he agreed to no longer retain or disseminate such documents. In seeking to retain its state tax-exemption during its audit by the board, which began in 2013, Blue Shield argued that should it dissolve, its assets could be distributed only to another nonprofit. Yet, the insurer told the DMHC, when the agency reviewed the proposed acquisition in 2015, that as a nonprofit mutual-benefit corporation it served only its enrollees and had no such obligations. Ultimately, the department decided that Blue Shield did not have the charitable obligations though it required the insurer, in approving the acquisition that year, to refrain from making "misleading or inconsistent" statements regarding the distribution of its assets if it ever were dissolved. "Through this process there have been inconsistencies in what Blue Shield has said. It was frustrating because we had to spend a lot of time and energy to make sure what was true," the department's then director, Shelley Rouillard, said at the time. A pledge to spend more on patient care The insurer pledged as part of the Care1st acquisition to spend $200 million over the next decade on several initiatives aimed at providing better patient care. Nevertheless, patient advocates criticized the DMHC's finding that Blue Shield did not have charitable obligations, saying the state lost the opportunity to regulate how the insurer spent its billions in assets - and then failed to impose tougher conditions on the insurer, such as limiting its ability to impose rate increases deemed unreasonable. In his March letter, Johnson called on the DMHC to require Blue Shield to spend annually at least 5% of its total assets on community benefits, which might go, for example, to grants to community clinics in underserved areas of the state. Blue Shield defended its charitable spending, noting that it caps its annual profit at 2% and allocates additional revenue to such services as delivering COVID vaccines at no cost to the state, and funding nonprofits that advance mental health. "Blue Shield … has consistently supported its members and California communities throughout the state," the company said. Johnson also contends newly public documents show Blue Shield has continued to argue before state tax authorities that it is a charitable trust. In the opening brief of its back taxes case in 2020, the insurer cites a state Supreme Court case that it said confirms "Blue Shield operates exclusively for the promotion of social welfare," his letter notes. Blue Shield told The Times that it has provided "consistent information to DMHC about its corporate restructuring" and that Johnson's letter provided "no new evidence" regarding Blue Shield's status as a "tax-paying not-for-profit mutual benefit corporation." Johnson and the DMHC traded additional letters last week, with Johnson questioning why the department had not reviewed the new tax appeal documents or why they had not reviewed Ascendiun's articles of incorporation or bylaws prior to approving the restructuring. Janet Rickershauser, a nonprofits lawyer at Hurwit & Associates, said that the bylaws are important to understanding the parent company's operations, including the relationship of the subsidiaries to each other and the holding parent company. In a letter sent June 23 to Johnson, Jonathon Williams, an assistant chief counsel at the DMHC, said the department concluded it was "not necessary or appropriate" to review the tax-appeal documents in its review of Blue Shield's application to restructure nor conduct a "full evaluation of Delaware's corporation statutory scheme." The department told The Times that it conducted a "comprehensive review" of the articles of incorporation of Blue Shield and its Medicaid Promise Health Plan as required by state law. Although it did not review Ascendiun's bylaws or articles of incorporation, the department said it retained its regulatory authority over Blue Shield. Blue Shield said it would not release it bylaws because they are "confidential company documents." However, Rickershauser said that "hiding the ball on the bylaws is preventing transparency into important aspects of how they're operating." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Insurer Blue Shield of California's new parent company alarms consumer advocates
Last year, regulators approved a request by Blue Shield of California, the state's third-largest health insurer, to restructure and establish a new parent corporation in Delaware. The Oakland-based nonprofit got the go-ahead from the Department of Managed Health Care, or DMHC, to create an entity called Ascendiun Inc., which is now the out-of-state corporate parent of Blue Shield. The insurer said that the restructuring would allow it to better serve its members 'with less bureaucracy and faster results, while making health care more affordable.' But the transaction has raised alarm among a former high-level Blue Shield executive and consumer advocates, who complain that it was carried out with no public oversight and could allow the insurer to transfer money to a Delaware parent company with few strings attached. The activists claim that some of that money could be used to boost its spending on charitable endeavors. The company has accrued a surplus of more than $4 billion over the decades as it benefited from its former tax-exempt status, according to a regulatory filing. 'The move guts the ability of the DHMC to enforce Blue Shield's nonprofit obligations to the California public and gives Blue Shield's directors ... a virtually free hand to make use of Blue Shield's billions of dollars in charitable assets as they please,' wrote Michael Johnson, the insurer's former vice president of public policy, in a recent letter to Mary Watanabe, director of the department, which was reviewed by The Times. Johnson is calling for the department to rescind its approval and unwind the restructuring. The department maintains that the insurer is not subject to charitable trust rules as a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. In a statement, the department said it 'maintains full regulatory authority and enforcement of all Blue Shield of California health plan operations,' and reviewed the transaction to ensure that it will not harm the plan's financial viability. Blue Shield's restructuring is reviving a longstanding debate about whether one of the state's largest insurers is reinvesting enough of its profit to lower its rates, better serve low-income residents and provide coverage for underserved areas of the state. Controversy over the company's role as a nonprofit previously aired in 2015 as it sought approval from the department for its $1.2-billion purchase of Care1st, a Medicaid health plan. Blue Shield has disputed Johnson's claims, noting that the state has determined it is not subject to the rules governing charitable nonprofits. In the Jan. 8 announcement of its restructuring, Blue Shield also disclosed that it was forming a for-profit subsidiary called Stellarus that would provide services to other health plans, such as delivering drugs to patients more inexpensively than pharmacy benefit managers. Ascendiun is structured as a nonprofit and Blue Shield and the company's Medi-Cal insurer, Blue Shield of California Promise Health Plan — the former Care1st — also would continue as nonprofits, the insurer said at the time. 'This structure is not uncommon among health plans, as many across the country — including other nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies — have made similar corporate reorganizations to better serve their membership,' the insurer said in its statement to The Times. Blue Shield was established in 1939 by the California Medical Assn. as the nation's first prepaid health plan to cover physician bills. It followed the creation of the first Blue Cross plan, in Texas, to pay for hospital bills. The California insurer did not pay federal taxes until a change in the law in 1986. And it was exempt from state taxes until the Franchise Tax Board revoked that status in August 2014 after a scathing audit that The Times first reported. The audit found that Blue Shield was operating similarly to a for-profit company, with executives instructed to 'maximize profitability.' The tax board also found that the insurer had stockpiled 'extraordinarily high surpluses' even as it failed to offer enough public benefits, such as more affordable coverage. Blue Shield denied the accusations but ultimately relinquished its tax-exempt status, even as it has continued to pursue an appeal of an order requiring it to pay more than $100 million in back taxes. Johnson contends that the new corporate structure will allow Blue Shield to move its assets around in pursuit of its business goals with little oversight beyond maintaining required reserves — especially given its parent company's incorporation in Delaware, a business-friendly state where most Fortune 500 companies are registered. The DMHC strengthened reserve requirements in approving the deal and it now totals about $2.1 billion, according to a regulatory filing, which Johnson says would allow Blue Shield to transfer about $2.4 billion to Ascendiun. Charles Bell, a healthcare advocate who was involved in last decade's debate over Blue Shield's charitable obligations, is troubled by the decision to establish an out-of-state parent. 'I think that the changes in corporate structure that were made are highly concerning, and it should have received a much higher level of public scrutiny and a lot more skepticism by the Department of Managed Health Care,' said Bell, advocacy programs director for Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. The department said in its response to The Times that it 'may hold public meetings if a transaction meets certain requirements to qualify as a major transaction. Upon due consideration, the Department determined that the specific facts of this restructuring did not meet the criteria set out in law to hold a public meeting.' Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans have a long history of restructuring, including Blue Cross of California. That insurer broke ground when in 1993 it spun off a recently established for-profit subsidiary, Wellpoint Health Networks. Blue Cross was later required to distribute $3.2 billion to a pair of new nonprofits, the California Endowment and the California Health Care Foundation, which are still operating. Less than a decade later, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in more than dozen other states had converted to for-profits, typically highly controversial proposals, given questions about what was to become of their billions of dollars of assets. More recently, the nonprofits have converted into mutual insurance holding companies. That allows them to maintain their nonprofit status while funding for-profit ventures, such as in technology, said Brendan Bridgeland, an attorney with the Center for Insurance Research in Cambridge, Mass. What is unusual about Blue Shield of California's restructuring, he said, is that the DMHC allowed it to establish an out-of-state parent company. 'Once you reach the point where the subsidiary starts transferring money up to the parent and it gets reallocated, then it's going to be out of their control,' Bridgeland said. Johnson's concerns are rooted in efforts last decade by healthcare advocates to have Blue Shield declared a charitable organization and to dig into its assets to improve patient care as a condition of its approval to acquire Care1st. Johnson worked at Blue Shield from 2003 until 2015, when he resigned to mount a public campaign to pressure the insurer over its nonprofit mission. Johnson has been involved in litigation with his former employer, which sued him in 2015 alleging he disclosed confidential information, including Blue Shield's communications with the Franchise Tax Board. In a settlement, he agreed to no longer retain or disseminate such documents. In seeking to retain its state tax-exemption during its audit by the board, which began in 2013, Blue Shield argued that should it dissolve, its assets could be distributed only to another nonprofit. Yet, the insurer told the DMHC, when the agency reviewed the proposed acquisition in 2015, that as a nonprofit mutual-benefit corporation it served only its enrollees and had no such obligations. Ultimately, the department decided that Blue Shield did not have the charitable obligations though it required the insurer, in approving the acquisition that year, to refrain from making 'misleading or inconsistent' statements regarding the distribution of its assets if it ever were dissolved. 'Through this process there have been inconsistencies in what Blue Shield has said. It was frustrating because we had to spend a lot of time and energy to make sure what was true,' the department's then director, Shelley Rouillard, said at the time. The insurer pledged as part of the Care1st acquisition to spend $200 million over the next decade on several initiatives aimed at providing better patient care. Nevertheless, patient advocates criticized the DMHC's finding that Blue Shield did not have charitable obligations, saying the state lost the opportunity to regulate how the insurer spent its billions in assets — and then failed to impose tougher conditions on the insurer, such as limiting its ability to impose rate increases deemed unreasonable. In his March letter, Johnson called on the DMHC to require Blue Shield to spend annually at least 5% of its total assets on community benefits, which might go, for example, to grants to community clinics in underserved areas of the state. Blue Shield defended its charitable spending, noting that it caps its annual profit at 2% and allocates additional revenue to such services as delivering COVID vaccines at no cost to the state, and funding nonprofits that advance mental health. 'Blue Shield … has consistently supported its members and California communities throughout the state,' the company said. Johnson also contends newly public documents show Blue Shield has continued to argue before state tax authorities that it is a charitable trust. In the opening brief of its back taxes case in 2020, the insurer cites a state Supreme Court case that it said confirms 'Blue Shield operates exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,' his letter notes. Blue Shield told The Times that it has provided 'consistent information to DMHC about its corporate restructuring' and that Johnson's letter provided 'no new evidence' regarding Blue Shield's status as a 'tax-paying not-for-profit mutual benefit corporation.' Johnson and the DMHC traded additional letters last week, with Johnson questioning why the department had not reviewed the new tax appeal documents or why they had not reviewed Ascendiun's articles of incorporation or bylaws prior to approving the restructuring. Janet Rickershauser, a nonprofits lawyer at Hurwit & Associates, said that the bylaws are important to understanding the parent company's operations, including the relationship of the subsidiaries to each other and the holding parent company. In a letter sent June 23 to Johnson, Jonathon Williams, an assistant chief counsel at the DMHC, said the department concluded it was 'not necessary or appropriate' to review the tax-appeal documents in its review of Blue Shield's application to restructure nor conduct a 'full evaluation of Delaware's corporation statutory scheme.' The department told The Times that it conducted a 'comprehensive review' of the articles of incorporation of Blue Shield and its Medicaid Promise Health Plan as required by state law. Although it did not review Ascendiun's bylaws or articles of incorporation, the department said it retained its regulatory authority over Blue Shield. Blue Shield said it would not release it bylaws because they are 'confidential company documents.' However, Rickershauser said that 'hiding the ball on the bylaws is preventing transparency into important aspects of how they're operating.'
