NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

I‑1183 passing easily; Costco appears to have succeeded in buying the election

Good evening from Seattle!

Near­ly all the coun­ties that have report­ed elec­tion results so far show a fair­ly lop­sided out­come on Cost­co’s Ini­tia­tive 1183, which aims to dereg­u­late and pri­va­tize the state’s liquor system.

As of 8:50 PM, the yes vote stood at 59.74%, while the no vote stood at 40.26%.

The results look fair­ly deci­sive. At this point, it’s safe to say that Cost­co has just suc­cess­ful­ly pur­chased an elec­tion, thanks to a hefty $22.5 mil­lion plus war chest.

At present,  I‑1183 is only fail­ing in Asotin, Cowlitz, Garfield, and Wahki­akum coun­ties, which are all fair­ly rur­al. Pro­tect Our Com­mu­ni­ties’ mes­sage appears to have res­onat­ed there, but unfor­tu­nate­ly it has­n’t res­onat­ed any­where else.

Whether I‑1183 actu­al­ly becomes part of the Revised Code of Wash­ing­ton is anoth­er mat­ter. The ini­tia­tive, which isn’t very well writ­ten, may end up being chal­lenged in court pri­or to the first week in Decem­ber, when ini­tia­tives go into effect.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation


  1. This is absolute­ly pathet­ic, and a fore­shad­ow­ing for Seat­tle’s bleak polit­i­cal future.

    Many kids are going to die because of this initiative.

    # by Anon :: November 8th, 2011 at 9:48 PM
  2. The ini­tia­tive is sound. To say some­one bought an elec­tion is ludi­crous. Peo­ple vot­ed based on the facts.

    The no side used scare tac­tics and bla­tant lies. Clear­ly the vot­ers of Wash­ing­ton State were smart enough to make their own conclusions.

    There will be no court bat­tles. There is noth­ing to dispute.

    This is democ­ra­cy at its finest.

    Edi­tor’s note: This com­menter’s screen name was cho­sen by NPI. 

    # by Brook Stickleback :: November 8th, 2011 at 9:56 PM
  3. Please.

    It was either Cost­co buy­ing the elec­tion… or the Wine and Spir­its Whole­salers of Amer­i­ca, who bankrolled the entire NO campaign.

    The same WSWA who invit­ed Sarah Palin as a keynote speak­er to their con­ven­tion. These guys did­n’t care about safe­ty, they cared about keep­ing out­dat­ed state liquor monop­o­lies in busi­ness so they could charge more for dis­tri­b­u­tion. They out­lied Cost­co 3 to 1 every step of the campaign.

    The real­i­ty is here that two busi­ness­es tried to buy this elec­tion, so kudos to Wash­ing­ton for actu­al­ly mak­ing the deci­sion that ben­e­fits the consumer.

    # by This Guy :: November 8th, 2011 at 10:23 PM
  4. Cost­co did­n’t ‘buy’ my vote. The gov­ern­ment has NO busi­ness in ANY busi­ness, with few excep­tions. Easy decision.

    # by tom :: November 8th, 2011 at 11:14 PM
  5. It’s sad that Cost­co gam­bled what was a rep­u­ta­tion for being a good cor­po­rate cit­i­zen, to increase it’s bot­tom line.

    # by Mike Barer :: November 9th, 2011 at 6:20 AM
  6. So when an elec­tion does­n’t go your way it’s because the vot­ers were too stu­pid to make their own deci­sion on the mer­its of the initiative.

    Of course, we weren’t too stu­pid to reject 1125, which was bought and paid for by the largest devel­op­er on the Eastside.

    I vot­ed on the mer­its of 1183 — get­ting the state out of a busi­ness it has no rea­son to be in — regard­less of who poured mon­ey into it. (And by the way, the oppo­nents spent almost as much with their mis­lead­ing, save-the-chil­dren ads. But some­how peo­ple saw through those, too.)

    # by bigyaz :: November 10th, 2011 at 9:01 AM
  7. I believe there were two ques­tions to be con­sid­ered before the elec­tions, and still are.
    1. Should pri­vate stores be grant­ed liquor sales permits?
    2. Should vot­ers allow big cor­po­rate inter­ests to high jack our cit­i­zens ini­tia­tive process?
    For me the sec­ond ques­tion is the most impor­tant, and trumps the first. Over the past cou­ple of decades OUR ini­tia­tive process has become a tool for those with the deep­est pock­ets to write leg­is­la­tion tai­lored to their own self­ish interests(e.g. the 10,000 square foot clause in I 1183). My ques­tion is how can we take it back? I for one will nev­er sign an ini­tia­tive unless the sig­na­ture gath­er­er is a volunteer.

    # by Barney Baker :: November 10th, 2011 at 10:44 AM
  8. My fam­i­ly and I vot­ed yes on I‑1183. I think that the state should not be only one to sell hard liquor. That’s what you call a monopoly.

    # by G Haines :: November 13th, 2011 at 7:38 PM
  9. Although I under­stand the pub­lic’s desire to get the state out of the liquor busi­ness, I‑1183 unfair­ly favors the big cor­po­rate stores. 1183 impos­es a 10% tax on dis­trib­u­tors that a com­pa­ny like Cost­co can avoid by buy­ing direct from a dis­tiller. By the way, we will be the only state that allows that. If the dis­trib­u­tors fail to col­lect $150 mil­lion in tax­es by March 2013, and they will be way short, they have to make up the dif­fer­ence. Effec­tive­ly, that keeps com­pe­ti­tion out of this state until 2013. Is that fair?

    # by Kevin Danby :: December 3rd, 2011 at 3:16 PM
  10. I belong to the First Church of the Liv­ing Bible. Our pas­tor the Rev­erend Roland King­man has said Jesus would have vot­ed for 1183 as wine for com­mu­nion would have been much cheap­er. We have a very tight church bud­get. May the Lord be with us.

    # by Harry Fox :: December 5th, 2011 at 11:45 AM
  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: