Oregon’s Measure 118, also known as the “Oregon Rebate,” was a highly debated proposal that aimed to increase corporate taxes and distribute the proceeds to all Oregon residents. The measure proposed a 3% tax on businesses with annual sales over $25 million, with the revenue being divided among residents, regardless of age or situation.

The measure promised to generate over $6 billion annually, with each resident potentially receiving around $1,600 per year starting in 2026. Proponents argued that this would reduce poverty and boost the state’s economy by providing residents with additional income.

Support for Measure 118 came from various progressive groups and some out-of-state donors who believed in the concept of a universal basic income. However, it faced strong opposition from business groups, labor unions, and politicians across the political spectrum. Critics argued that the measure would lead to higher consumer prices and negatively impact the state’s general fund.

Ultimately, Measure 118 was rejected by a significant majority of voters, with 79% opposing the measure. The opposition campaign, which raised over $16 million, successfully convinced voters that the tax hike would have adverse economic consequences.

While Measure 118 aimed to address economic disparities, its defeat highlights the complexities of implementing such policies. The debate around Measure 118 underscores the challenges of balancing corporate taxation with the goal of providing financial relief to residents.

Measure 118 faced significant opposition for several reasons:

1. Economic Concerns: Many voters were worried that the 3% tax on businesses with sales over $25 million would lead to higher consumer prices. Opponents argued that businesses would pass the tax burden onto consumers, effectively making it a hidden sales tax.
2. Broad Opposition: The measure united a diverse coalition of opponents, including business groups, labor unions, and politicians from both parties. This widespread opposition highlighted the potential negative impacts of the measure.
3. Potential Budget Impact: There were concerns that the measure could create a budget shortfall for the state. Legislative attorneys suggested that the measure’s wording could unintentionally reduce the state’s general fund by over $1 billion.
4. Universal Rebate Skepticism: Some voters were skeptical about the idea of a universal rebate, especially since it would benefit all residents, including wealthy individuals. This raised questions about the fairness and effectiveness of the measure.

These factors combined to create a strong opposition that ultimately led to the measure’s defeat.