Lopsided campaign expected for road tax

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- There is a reason why politicians raise money to run campaigns. And there is a reason why much of that money gets spent on advertising.

Today's statewide campaigns, while still employing the door-to-door greeting and the county-fair handshake, have come to depend on mass media and direct mailings to help spread their messages.

That takes money. And that's why, political scientists say, the side with the most money usually wins.

Take, for example, a November 2000 proposal to restrict billboards along Missouri highways. Opponents led by the billboard industry waged a $3.4 million campaign, outspending supporters 3-to-1 with a message that the proposal could have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to take down old billboards.

The billboard proposal, which at first might otherwise have been appealing to many people, failed by 51 percent of the vote.

A similar money scenario could play out this year for Proposition B, the transportation tax increase appearing on Missouri's Aug. 6 ballot.

The proposal asks voters to raise the state fuel tax 4 cents to a total of 21 cents a gallon and the state sales tax one-half cent to a total of 4.725 cents on a dollar. The state auditor's office estimates that would generate $483 million in the first full fiscal year.

$3.5 million vs. $5,000

Supporters, calling themselves the Time for Missouri Committee, are hoping to raise and spend about $3.5 million. They say they already have raised $1 million. Their group includes highway contractors, chambers of commerce, the trucking industry and mass transit groups, among others.

Opponents, calling themselves the No on B committee, plan to raise and spend less than $5,000. Their ranks include church groups, social welfare organizations and at least one state senator.

Moneywise, the campaign appears to be a mismatch.

According to conventional political wisdom, "the person with the most money is generally going to win. And this is certainly a David-and-Goliath kind of issue," said George Connor, an associate political science professor at Southwest Missouri State University.

But for every rule there is an exception -- as the biblical Goliath found out when he was slain by the diminutive David.

"There are two things in favor of the Davids in this case, and they're not necessarily related to money or ideology," Connor said.

First, there is the what's-in-it-for-me factor.

Poor roads and bridges exist in all corners of the state.

A plan by the state Highways and Transportation Commission pledges to repair thousands of road miles and hundreds of bridges while also undertaking new projects in almost all areas of the state.

For the proposition to pass, "the people in support of the tax increase are going to have to convince those voters that they are going to get their share," Connor said.

Natural skepticism

That leads to the second factor working against tax supporters -- the natural skepticism of Show-Me State residents.

Generally hesitant about new taxes, many Missourians also remain upset about the collapse of the state's last highway plan -- a 6-cent fuel tax increase passed in 1992 by the Legislature that was linked to a 15-year spending blueprint. Although the tax remains, the construction schedule was abandoned after it turned out to be $1 billion short annually.

"It was a boondoggle, and the citizens of Missouri lost confidence in the Department of Transportation," Connor says. "And here we are again raising money for problems that were previously going to be fixed under the last tax increase."