I played a significant role in defeating the City of Sacramento’s unfair business operations tax ballot measure (“Measure C”), which was put to voters during the March, 2024 primary election.
How it all started
I was in the middle of pushing the city to reform its unusual home business regulations, when I first heard about Measure C from this article in the Sacramento Bee, published December 7, 2023 , by then Sacramento Bee reporter Randy Diamond.
My jaw dropped reading the news.
Under the measure, the city’s already unusually high flat tax on my part-time law practice—which routinely generates less than $10,000 gross per year—would more than double, leaving me paying about 5x more business operations tax than my consultant husband while making about 87x less income than he does, even though we are both professionals.
My jaw dropped still further when I called the city clerk’s office the next day and was told that it was too late to submit an argument against the measure for the voter guide and that no argument against would appear in the guide at all.
Hearing that I felt completely hopeless about defeating the measure. After all, on top of having no opposing argument in the voter guide, I figured our city’s mostly Democratic voters would likely endorse a measure set to raise the tax cap on the biggest businesses (even though the cap wouldn’t go up much compared with peer jurisdictions, most of which have no tax cap at all). In addition, I assumed no one would get particularly exorcised about especially unfair treatment of certain professionals—although I eventually realized that, to one degree or another, the regressive nature of the measure unfairly impacted the smallest of small businesses across the board.
Still, I could not stand idly by. So, here’s what I did.
Standing up and pushing back – albeit with little success at the beginning
First, I contacted the reporter who had written the December 7, 2023 Bee article. He happened to be the same reporter who was already working with me on an article about the city’s home business rules.
Next, I reached out to the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. Although the Chamber ended up taking a neutral stance, at that time I was told they would surely oppose the measure, but were waiting for their incoming new president to take a closer look at it.
After that, I emailed my councilmember’s office. My hope was that Councilmember Karina Talamantes might publicly disavow her vote to put the measure on the ballot in light of my concerns and discoveries. I was connected with her chief of staff, Monika Lee, who encouraged me to write a letter to the council to see if an amendment could be passed in November if the measure passed in March.
Soon after, I contacted the Democratic Party of Sacramento County (DPSC). They had a meeting coming up. I would be out of town but allowed to speak for 2 minutes via Zoom. With several there in person speaking for the measure, an unknown person like me speaking remotely about how this measure would hurt certain part-time professionals and some others just wasn’t enough. Unfortunately, the DPSC voted to endorse the measure.
At this point, I was feeling quite discouraged. Nevertheless, I wrote my first letter to the city council about Measure C, asking all members to publicly disavow their vote to put the measure on the ballot.
Then, I issued a series of press releases about the measure . . . .
That’s when the tide turned
These press releases culminated in a bang-up article by the same reporter who had written the first Bee article about Measure C, mentioned earlier.
Licensed professionals would see higher taxes if Sacramento ballot measure passes
Voters will decide if to raise Sacramento’s business. tax. Professional license holders, like medical doctors and lawyers, would also be affected.
This second Bee article about Measure C, published February 5, 2024, focused entirely on the measure’s unfair impacts on professionals, including me. It contained incredibly moving stories and quotes from many other impacted professionals as well.
In addition, just prior to publication of that article, I submitted an op-ed to the Sacramento Bee. Although it was accepted for publication, I was ultimately told the editorial board would be setting it to the side while reporter Tom Philp investigated an issue I had mentioned in that op-ed.
Then that issue blew up.
An explosion of condemnation directed at the city
As Philp was soon to discover, even while the city had told me I was too late to submit an opposing argument for the voter guide, the city itself was late in complying with its legal obligation to publish timely notice of the measure in a newspaper.
Indeed, according to Philp’s reporting, the city didn’t publish that required notice until months after it was supposed to, after he begin inquiring, as he and the entire editorial board explained in this February 9, 2024 article, “A tax on the March ballot could help an ailing city of Sacramento, if it’s legal.”
As it turned out, this was the first of many such stories to come, including more than one in which the Sacramento Bee’s entire editorial board strongly urged a no vote on the measure:
- “Sacramento is trying to sneak a tax raise onto the ballot, Sacramentans must vote no,” by Sacramento Bee Editorial Board (originally published February 12, 2024; updated February 14, 2024);
- “Sacramento Measure C’s late public notice makes it lawsuit material,” by Sacramento Bee Editorial Board (published February 13, 2024; updated same day); and
- “Sacramento City Hall closes ranks on Measure C, a tax increase voters should reject,” by Sacramento Bee Editorial Board (published February 15, 2024; updated same day).
This was soon followed by a threatened lawsuit, covered in this February 17, 2024 article also authored by the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board, “The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lowers the boom on Sacramento’s Measure C.”
Meanwhile, the substantive problems with Measure C started to get attention too
Even while the press was focused primarily on the legal/procedural concerns with Measure C, I kept the drumbeat going on the substantive problems with the measure—most notably by calling a press conference with two other members of my family who would be impacted too.
This resulted in an amazing Sacramento Bee article by reporter Ishani Desai, with accompanying press conference video segments shot and edited by Hector Amezcua, first published on February 13, 2024:
Sacramento family speaks out against Measure C, urging residents to vote ‘no’
“We need the city to look out for the smallest of small businesses,” said Sacramento attorney Tiffany Clark. “And, that did not happen here.”
Around that same time, I was also interviewed for a Sacramento Business Journal article, published February 14, 2024, “What businesses need to know about Measure C, the controversial business tax measure on Sacramento ballots,” by Emily Hamann.
Soon after, the Davis Vanguard published an op-ed authored by me focused both on the measure’s unfair procedural and substantive aspects, “What the City of Sacramento Didn’t Want This Attorney to Tell Voters about Rushed, Regressive, Haphazard and Unfair Measure C,” published February 18, 2024.
I next wrote another letter to the city council, as well as letters to all four candidates running for mayor of the city, asking them each to publicly oppose Measure C.
Remarkably, within five hours after emailing my letters to the candidates they all did just as I had asked, at minute 21:05 of their second televised KCRA debate, held on February 23, 2024! Although I can’t be sure how much of that was a direct response to my emailed requests, I have to believe that at the very least all the press I had helped generate influenced their decisions.
In any event, I was grateful for Steve Hansen reaching out to thank me for my work on the issue and for Dr. Flo Coffer’s willingness to personally converse with me at length soon after the debate to discuss how the problems with Measure C and the city’s lack of outreach might be addressed going forward.
Around this same time, I was also interviewed for a couple of radio shows. That is, on February 26, 2024, Anthony Vasquez of KUBU radio in Sacramento interviewed me for his February 28 and 29 shows.
In addition, on February 28, 2024, long-time, beloved local radio reporter Kitty O’Neil of Sacramento’s news radio station KFBK interviewed me for her prime-time news program. The full version of that interview was published the same day. An edited version of that interview aired repeatedly on her February 29, 2024 show.
A startling, unexpected victory!
Last, but definitely not least of course, less than a week later VOTERS REJECTED MEASURE C—BY A WIDE MARGIN!!!
I was interviewed about that victory for this article published March 19, 2024, “Measure C, city-backed business tax hike to help balance Sacramento’s budget, heads for defeat,” by Ishani Desai.
Words cannot express how grateful I am that Sacramento voters took the time to look behind the curtain, at what at first blush might have appeared to be a measure that was all good. Of course, it helped that voters were so well informed by our excellent local press. Relatedly, I am especially thankful for the hard work of the incredible Tom Philp, Randy Diamond, Ishani Desai and other dedicated reporters at the Sacramento Bee and beyond.
Of course, there was also the indispensable work by the “No on Measure C” independent expenditure committee. Although it appeared late on the scene, formed in response to some of the aforementioned reporting, the committee represented various professional organizations and reportedly sent out two mailers and placed hundreds of thousands of calls and texts.
Lastly, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to all four mayoral candidates, as well as the countless others who stood up for fairness to the smallest of small businesses!
Although there is much more to be done to assure full fairness for such businesses—and stay tuned for that—this blog post first pauses to savor our accomplishments thus far. Thanks to all who joined me in standing up for fairness!
