Big Soda Summary Report

The period of July to November involved various media outlet coverage on the matter as the nation awaited to see if Berkeley could do what other cities and states across America had attempted but failed to succeed in. Funding for the campaigns to pass the tax were used to a significant proportion in payment of media coverage and campaign consultants (State of California, 2014). The Berkeley vs Big Soda webpage reflects the efforts made through print and electronic types of media formats, through rallies and even venturing door to door that aimed to generate the awareness of the people in Berkeley to vote yes for the tax. A 50% vote was needed but over two thirds of the voters said yes to the tax (Berkeley vs. Big Soda, 2014). This victorious majority vote win in favor of the tax implementation was reflected in the official election summary report (Alameda County Registrar of Voters, 2014).
Implementation …show more content…
126). With the approval for the additional tax on selected SSBs the excise tax was put to law four months after elections (Dugdale, 2015). The target of the tax was mainly distributors of SSBs to stores and restaurants, distributors of sweeteners to restaurants; and distributors of sweeteners to stores where they are used to make SSBs for customers (Ordinance. Imposing a general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverage products). Cawley and Frisvold, 2015 conducted a study on the incidence of taxes on SSBs in Berkeley stating “(…) previous empirical research on the pass-through of sales and excise taxes has tended to find that such taxes are fully shifted to consumers (Cawley & Frisvold, 2015).” The findings from various references do not indicate an implementation