Measure O threatened business as usual. And since coffee means big profits, Big Business responded with a heavy hand. Corporate coffee interests, under the leadership of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, made major financial contributions, hired a political consultant, and conducted polling to find effective messages. hen, armed with their carefully crafted spin, the opponents simply misled Berkeley voters. Yes, let me be clear: they flat-out lied to Berkeley citizens. It is an ugly example of the corrupting influence of big money in politics and the depths to which corporate interests - and the people behind them -- will stoop in an effort to protect their interests.

The Berkeley Chamber of Commerce led the opposition by forming a group called, and I swear I am not making this up, the Friends of All Small Farmers. The small farm buddies were led by John DeClercq, supplementing his day-jobs as the Chairman of the Board of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce and Senior Vice President for TransAction Companies, Ltd., the would-be developer of the controversial Library Gardens project in Berkeley. The Committee then hired noted small farm fanatic, Barry Barnes of the public relations firm Terris Barnes & Walters, as a Campaign Consultant.

The Friends of All Small Farmers then raised a small fortune to fund their war chest, pulling in over $50,000 over the course of the campaign. And who were these Friends? With one exception, they were businesses, almost all large corporations. Peet's -- yes, Berkeley's own Peet's -- led the way, putting up $11,000. Sorry to disillusion Peet's lovers but good ole Peet's is a now publicly traded corporation. And they act like one. Their commitment to certified coffee? Peet's carries only one, count 'em, one Fair Trade coffee and one organic. Not satisfied with the corporate contribution, Peet's Vice President, Jim Reynolds, a Berkeley resident, threw in an extra $250 of his own money, thus distinguishing himself as the sole human contributor to the opposition campaign. Starbucks, not to be outdone by anyone, matched Peet's by contributing $11,000. Starbucks proudly claims to support protecting "a way of life for our farmers by supporting social, economic and environmental issues that are crucial to their livelihood." Starbucks even claims to be a big Fair-Trade supporter, proclaiming "One cup at a time - Starbucks Fair Trade coffee support a better life for coffee farming families." I guess when they say one cup they really want to keep their sales of brewed Fair-Trade close to one cup. It was only after threats of boycotts and bad press by Global Exchange that Starbucks even agreed to carry Fair Trade. Now, Starbucks carries the beans but only brews the Fair-Trade about once a month. What percent of Starbucks' overall coffee sales is Fair-Trade? (And be cynical now as this is Starbucks we are talking about.) Answer: less than one percent. The National Coffee Association contributed heavily, each putting in a cool $10,000. What do you expect? The only coffee problem they mention on their website is a lack of sales; they do not even bother pretending to care about farmers or the environment. Proctor & Gamble and Kraft each contributed $5,000. Why are these big corporations interested in a lil ole Berkeley initiative? Simple: because they make buckets of money selling coffee (P&G owns Folgers and Kraft owns Maxwell House) and they don't want anybody messing around regulating their golden goose. The Berkeley Chamber of Commerce, not content to just lead by organizing the opposition, put their money where their mouth was and contributed $5,000 through their PAC, Business for Better Government. Apparently government is good when it provides things like limited liability protection for corporations, but bad when it tries to regulate business to benefit humans and the environment. As for the remainder of the contributions, it all came from businesses, much of it out-of-state.

On August 1, 2002, I attended a small meeting at the Chamber of Commerce. (Just prior to my arrival, a much larger closed-door meeting of the opposition was ending.) I met with DeClercq, Barnes and a few others. I asked DeClerq what the Chamber's position was. He told me that the Chamber was going to actively oppose Measure O, but that their opposition would be a fair campaign, a battle of ideas so-to-speak. We then had a free-flowing question-and-answer session in which those present discussed their reasons for and against the measure. At one point during the meeting, someone pointed out some potential flaws in the Measure. I responded with words to this effect: "Not everyone is going to be pleased with the law. It is not a perfect law. But overall, its positive effects vastly outweigh any negative effects." The meeting concluded with handshakes and smiles all around.

Soon thereafter, I saw the opponents' official arguments against Measure O and I knew I was in for a dirty fight. In the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure O, the opponents led off with this cheap shot, quoting me entirely out-of-context: "The attorney who wrote Measure O has publicly admitted, 'it is not a perfect law.' We agree." The opponents followed with this claim: "By stating that all non-certified coffee is produced under exploitative conditions, the proponent is attempting to mislead voters." Small problem: I NEVER stated that all non-certified coffee is produced under exploitative conditions. What I had said was that without certification, one simply cannot be sure of the conditions under which the coffee was produced, which in many cases is, in fact, under exploitive conditions to both workers and the environment. But I never said "all non-certified coffee." And I certainly never tried to mislead the voters. For the opponents to state that I was attempting to do so is particularly upsetting. As an attorney, I value my reputation for honesty. If you do not agree with my politics, fine. But that is simply no excuse to lie about me or the merits of Measure O. The Measure O website was full of facts and resources, and our door-hanger that was distributed to some voters was full of details. I challenged every signer to the official opposition, plus Starbucks, and Peet's to debate me on the merits. None accepted. Eventually, a panel discussion was held, but it was not a debate and none of the opponents mentioned above attended. Why? Perhaps because it was my opponents that were, in fact, misleading voters.

First, the opponents misled voters about the range of penalties under Measure O. A violation would have been a misdemeanor, and the judge hearing the case would have had a range of penalties to choose from: a fine up to $100 or up to 6 months in jail or both. I must admit that when I drafted the penalty, I essentially copied the terms from an old Berkeley recycling law. The opponents of Measure O quickly discovered that Berkeley voters had issues with the penalty, in particular, the possible jail time. There are, however, numerous laws on the books in Berkeley that include the possibility of jail time, such as riding a bicycle on the sidewalk or having an unauthorized barbeque on city property, and nobody goes to jail for these offenses. No judge would ever impose the maximum penalty unless there were some kind of extreme circumstances, such as willful, repeated violations. I joked that the only way a judge would ever sentence someone to jail for violating Measure O were if the offender threw boiling-hot coffee on the judge and begged for jail time.

Nevertheless, the opposition stressed the possibility of jail time; in fact, the opponents of Measure O sent out a mailer -- just days before the election -- that stated "Measure O means six months in jail for a cup of coffee," implying that all violations would lead to an automatic six-month jail term. This underhanded distortion worked: some people I speak with today still think that jail was the only possible penalty.

Second, the opponents misled voters about enforcement of Measure O, which was for the most part silent on this issue, thus leaving it up to the City Council to decide the appropriate means. I assumed that the City Council would restrict enforcement to existing health and/or business inspectors and would specifically limit the amount of time and resources spent enforcing the measure. For example, inspections could have been limited to one shop per month. Or, in order to minimize enforcement costs, the City could have even skipped inspections and simply relied on just reported violations. In fact, because California law allows private citizens to sue businesses that violate the law, the City Council could have chosen to spend absolutely no time and money on enforcement at all and, instead, simply relied on private citizens to file civil suits. In sum, the City Council could have set the level of enforcement and assured Berkeley citizens that the City would be spending a minimal amount of money on enforcement, if any at all. The City Council would certainly not have been sending out the police.

Sensing an opportunity, the opponents of Measure O misled voters about who would enforce the law. In the opposition mailer, the opponents suggested that the City would send out "coffee police" to haul away shop owners by including an ominous black-and-white photograph of police leading away a would-be violator, handcuffs behind his back. In addition, the opponents misled voters about how much enforcement would cost, claiming in their mailer that Measure O "will end up costing Berkeley more than $100,000 in enforcement costs every year." This was simply not true. The City Attorney stated that enforcement costs are "uncertain and dependent on the level of enforcement and the degree of voluntary compliance." In a report requested by the City Council entitled "Staff Analysis of Coffee Law" dated July 23, 2002, the City Manager reported the same, adding that the "City could chose simply to notify all coffee vendors of the need to comply with the ordinance, perhaps at the time they renew their business licenses, and rely on a complaint-driven enforcement process." The opponents lied: no one in the City government said it would necessarily cost $100,000 every year.

Third, opponents of Measure O misled voters on the impacts on businesses. Measure O would have applied to all sellers of brewed coffee, from moms-and-pops to the biggest corporations. Opponents claimed that it would be too harmful to small businesses. Reality check: the only shops that are currently selling nothing but certified cups of coffee are the small shops -- not the big chains. And these small shops seem to be doing just fine. Under Measure O, there would have been a level playing field and shops would have continued to compete just as they do now on the basis of customer service, the taste of their coffee, price, convenience and atmosphere. But this did not prevent Starbucks from spinning the initiative as only it can do. As reported by The Berkeley Daily Planet, Gerry Argue, Starbucks' regional director for the East Bay, claimed the initiative would put small coffee shops out of business by forcing them to pay too much for beans. "We could comply with the measure, if you got right down to it, but so many operators in Berkeley could not," he said. Ahh, Starbucks, guardian and savior of small coffeeshops everywhere. Get real.

The financial impact of Measure O would have been minimal, adding on pennies a cup. Certified coffees cost almost the same as regular high end coffees sold in Berkeley shops. If, assuming worst case, that a certified coffee cost an extra $1.00 per pound and that one brewed 20 cups per pound, then the added cost - worst case - would be an extra nickel per cup. But this did not stop opponents from making ridiculous claims about the cost. The Berkeley Daily Planet reported that Dorothee Mitrani-Bell, owner of La Note restaurant in Berkeley (who already charged $1.75 for a cup of coffee), claimed that while she was "all for organic," she would have to charge 75 cents more for a cup of certified coffee. In response, I sent a letter to The Planet, pointing out "If she brewed 12 cups from a pound of certified coffee (and that's very strong coffee), and charged an extra 75 cents per cup, she would recoup an extra $9.00 per pound. Certified coffees, however, are very price-competitive with high quality non-certified coffees. A pound of organic coffee generally costs only about 50 cents per pound more wholesale." I asked her to explain why she would need to charge an extra 75 cents per cup. She did not respond.

In sum, the opponents of Measure O did a great disservice to the citizens of Berkeley by publishing seriously misleading information. Had the voters know the truth, I think Measure O would have received much more support. If I had relied on my opponents as my only source of information, even I would not have voted for Measure O. Please keep in mind their track record of dishonesty when talk of a New and Improved Berkeley Coffee Law surfaces.