If passed, Measure 118, the Oregon Rebate, would provide all Oregon residents $1,600 annually through a three percent minimum sales tax increase on corporations with over $25 million in Oregon sales. But critics warn if voters pass it, the rebate could come at the cost of vital public services. 

Based on money spent, this measure is generating more controversy than any other on this year’s ballot. Opponents raised approximately $9.5 million in funds, while the measure’s proponents have only generated around $750,000 — mostly from out-of-state donors. Representatives and businesses on both sides of the political spectrum have come out against the measure. 

“Our broad coalition opposing Measure 118 includes hundreds of Oregon businesses, labor unions, social justice advocates, responsible-government organizations and elected officials from both major parties,” writes Angela Wilhelms, chair of the No on Measure 118 campaign and president and CEO of Oregon Business & Industry, in an email to Eugene Weekly.

Antonio Gisbert, chief petitioner for Measure 118, is a former neuroscientist and union organizer. Despite the fierce opposition, Gisbert says he is hopeful that Oregonians will make the right decision with their tax dollars. “All humans are deserving of the same amount of dignity and economic prosperity,” Gisbert says, “Our goal is to get corporations to start paying their fair share in taxes.”

According to the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office, the measure would affect 2,213 corporations with sales over $25 million, or 1.84 percent of all corporations with sales in Oregon. Gisbert says the measure is modeled after programs like the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund, which provides Alaskan residents a yearly rebate between $1,000 and $2,000 depending on the surplus revenue available. 

Critics say that while the measure may sound good on paper, it’s not what it appears to be.

Juan Carlos Ordóñez, communications director for the Oregon Center for Public Policy, a nonprofit economic justice organization, says, “While we think that there are positive aspects to Measure 118, we think that the measure is poorly drafted and ultimately would result in a number of unintended consequences that would be damaging for Oregonians.” 

Ordóñez says that Measure 118 will drain funds from vital budgets for services like schools or health care. “By the 2029 to 2031 budget period, as much as $2.5 billion would be taken away from the state budget to pay for the rebates — and that’s quite a chunk of change,” he says. 

Gisbert disagrees. He says the rebate is revenue-neutral and will only come after paying for public services. “The first thing that happens is that all problem costs and social expenses get paid for, and then whatever is left over gets rebated back to the people of Oregon,” Gisbert says. Gisbert thinks cash in the hands of Oregonians will help those in need and stimulate the economy. “We’re talking about $250 million coming into the Eugene economy and over $600 million coming into Lane County,” he says.

The measure will give all Oregonians a rebate, regardless of their income. Opponents argue that this could take cash from those who need it most. “Because the measure would give everybody an equal rebate, it means that Phil Knight and the richest Oregonians would also be getting a tax rebate,” Ordóñez says. 

Gisbert explains that excluding the wealthiest one percent would only increase the rebate amount for everyone else by about $16. “It’s not worth the complexity of means testing, which would be costly and potentially exclude people who need the rebate the most,” Gisbert says. He says that excluding specific classes will force lower-income individuals and families to prove their economic status — which is costly and burdensome.

For supporters of Measure 118, the universal nature of the rebate is not just about simplicity; it’s about ensuring fairness across the board. “We’re all equally deserving of the good things of society,” Gisbert says. 

Measure 118 has provisions that require the state to seek federal waivers in cases where the rebate would place residents above the income cap for social services like the Oregon Health Plan or food assistance programs. 

But opponents fear this might not be enough. “We know, based on past experience, what’s happened with other legislative proposals is that the federal government is unlikely to grant such waivers,” Ordóñez says. 

Ordóñez points out that while corporations should pay their fair share, the overall economic impact may be harmful. At the same time, “One has to recognize the positive aspects of the measure,” Ordóñez says. “There’s plenty of research and pilot programs that show giving cash to struggling families is an effective way of improving economic security — but the measure is poorly drafted.” 

Critics argue the measure won’t solve Oregon’s more significant economic problems, like housing and child care. “There’s a whole series of crises and problems that the state faces for which we need additional revenue,” Ordóñez says. 

Opponents fear that 118 could take away funding from these critical issues and put undue stress on struggling families. “Higher costs would be felt most acutely by lower-income Oregonians, and all consumers — from households to businesses to local governments — would have to deal with those higher costs,” writes Wilhelms. 

But Gisbert remains optimistic that Oregonians will hold big corporations responsible for their fair share of taxes. He argues that an Oregon rebate is a first step in combating corporate greed. “I want people to really consider what’s right for them, their family, household and friends,” Gisbert says.