By Antonio Gisbert
Beyond Trafficking and Slavery: Welcome. Can you start out by telling us about yourself?
Antonio Gisbert: I was born and raised in Madrid, Spain. My family immigrated to the United States when I was a child and I grew up here. I was a scientist in my first career, and then became a union organiser. Now I do political organising.
BTS: How did you get into political organising?
Antonio: It all started very organically. Around 2018, a group of friends and I started meeting up in coffee shops and public spaces. We vented about our economic conditions and how we’d like to improve society.
We discussed how the biggest corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, and wondered whether we could change that. We thought that if that money could be collected and moved to the people who need it most, it would be the most effective way to improve economic security.
BTS: Did you know much about universal basic income (UBI) going into this? Is that what you were basing these conversations on?
Antonio: No. I had really not heard of universal basic income before. We discovered it by learning about the principles of economic inequality and microfinance.
Microfinance asks how a relatively small amount of money can make a big difference in our communities. It proves it doesn’t cost the world to decrease disparity or make society better. That kind of literature, mostly from the Global South, is so powerful.
BTS: You’ve been spearheading the campaign for the Oregon Rebate. How did you arrive at the initial value of $750 per year per person, which I believe has now been revised upward?
Antonio: We estimated that increasing corporate tax revenue by the most conservative estimate would bring in about $3 billion in tax revenue every year. We divided that by four million Oregonians and came up with roughly $750 per person per year. We wanted to start with the maximum conservative estimate because that felt safer. We do not want to promise something that we could not deliver.
$750 annually can be negligible or transformative, depending on your privilege, income, and socioeconomic status. To some it’s not a lot of money. But to others it could mean paying an electricity bill or buying their kids groceries.
The state of Oregon has by now done some financial analysis. They estimate that the Oregon rebate would actually bring in about $7 billion a year, which is a lot more money than our initial estimate of $3 billion. Theirs is likely more accurate, and it’s higher than ours, so that’s great. Nobody’s going to be upset if they were expecting to receive $750 and got $1,600 instead.
Data shows that if everyone in Oregon received a direct cash transfer of around $1,600 per year, that would reduce child poverty by about half
BTS: So you want everyone to receive the UBI money, not just needy families?
Antonio: When we say everybody in Oregon, we really mean everybody. Our values centre on human dignity. We’re all equally deserving of good things in society because we’re all equal members of society, regardless of whatever status or condition society might put on us.
A mother in our group spoke eloquently about how she had raised her son in poverty in Alaska, and how the $1,200 a year she had received there had made a huge difference in their lives. She and her son brought our group to a consensus on this. If it works in Alaska, why couldn’t it work in Oregon or anywhere else?
BTS: How would the taxes, revenue, and proposed distribution of UBI work exactly?
Antonio: We propose a 3% tax increase for any company with revenues in Oregon over $25 million. Every person in Oregon would get an equal share of that: every adult, every child, every dependent. It doesn’t matter whether you file taxes or don’t file taxes. It doesn’t matter whether you are housed or unhoused. It doesn’t matter whether you are in custody or not. It doesn’t matter whether you’re documented or not. Everybody in Oregon would get the rebate.
BTS: What’s some of the pushback you’ve faced?
Antonio: In the United States, there’s a very strong, anti-tax narrative that comes from the political right. We’ve also faced opposition from the centre or left-of-centre crowd, which is surprising because they claim to care about economic development and reducing poverty.
There’s a deeply entrenched scarcity mindset across the political spectrum. Most people aren’t even conscious of it, but this belief that there’s not enough to go around is very strong. Yet we have giant corporations that have amassed so much wealth they can’t even spend all of it. They have an unimaginable amount of money. What we’re asking for is small in comparison.
BTS: Were you surprised by the opposition from the political left?
Antonio: Yes and no. In the US we’re not taxing corporations regardless of the political party that’s in control, so maybe it’s not such a big surprise after all.
BTS: How do you counter that opposition? How do you explain the plan to people who are generally anti-taxation, or who believe there isn’t enough to go around?
Antonio: Data shows that if everyone in Oregon received a direct cash transfer of around $1,600, that would reduce child poverty by about half. That’s a big difference. Reducing child poverty is not only the right thing to do, but it’s also good for society. Children who are better off do better in school and in their lives. Those children are going to grow up to be happier, healthier, and will be able to better care for society in return. It’s an investment in the future.
BTS: The Oregon Rebate is on the ballot this November. How hopeful are you that it will pass?
Antonio: We’re realistic and staying hopeful regardless of the outcome. It’s a long-term project. Every election, every campaign is an opportunity for more conversations about economic disparity and how to build a healthier and more equitable society. Obviously I’d love it if everybody was immediately in favour of the proposal. But if they’re not we won’t be deterred.
BTS: We’ve talked about the opposition to the proposal. Who have been your biggest allies?
Antonio: The strongest allies have been the people. We are people-centred and believe in people. Regular people wrote the proposed law. Regular people collected the signatures to qualify this proposal for the ballot. Regular people signed those petitions. Regular people are going to be the ones who vote yes or no in November. And regular people will be the ones who will receive the rebates and decide how they’ll spend their money.
It’s totally up to them. And so most of the support has come from people who know they could use the money for their families by taxing corporations a little more. People immediately say yes to that. That just feels good to folks immediately.
BTS: What do you think has been the most effective messaging for your UBI campaign?
Antonio: We simply ask them, “Could you use $750?” Immediately, everyone – even the wealthiest people – say of course they could. It’s obvious. Everyone has some use for a little extra money.
BTS: I was really impressed with your definition of universality. You said that anyone who has lived for 200 days in the land is eligible. Where did this inspiration come from? How did you conceptualise it?
Antonio: We had to come up with a definition for inclusion that was maximally inclusive, but operable. This was important because in society, implicitly or explicitly, we exclude vast numbers of people.
An obvious example of this are adults in custody. They have many rights taken away from them even before they go to trial, and as long as they are held they are excluded from society. We wanted to make sure they and other marginalised groups in Oregon also received the rebate.
So we had to write in protections specifically for such communities, to ensure they have the same rights that I have. The same goes for undocumented Oregonians. These folks are our friends and neighbours, but our society routinely excludes them. We felt obligated to make sure those folks are also represented in the initiative’s language, so that they are protected and explicitly included.
We need to get 1.1 million Oregonians to vote yes – a simple majority
It’s really asking the question of who is an Oregonian? Normally this is defined by citizenship or residency, but there’s a big difference between those two ideas. We chose residency because it’s tied to the number of days spent in a place during the year. We also wouldn’t want people to travel from a different state just to claim the rebate – that would dilute the value of the rebate for those of us here.
We decided on 200, because the personal tax code for Oregon also considers you a resident for the purposes of taxation if you’re in the state for 200 days or more. When you write a law, it’s generally a good principle to scaffold what you’re writing onto pre-existing law if you can.
Birth and death are both exceptions to the 200-day rule. For example, if your child is born on 31 December, they did not spend 200 days in the state of Oregon. But babies are expensive and we want to be mindful of parents. So we include those children as eligible recipients of the rebate. Similarly, if somebody passes away we thought it would be cruel to tell grieving family members that the person they love missed out on the rebate because they died too early in the year. So we include those folks as well.
BTS: What advice would you give other people who’d like to start a similar initiative?
Antonio: We are very much a people-powered campaign; we’ve built the plane as we’ve flown it. I think you have to give yourself grace and support one another because social justice work really depends on the time, place, and the issue. I don’t think there’s a perfect formula that’s going to work everywhere. It’s very dynamic and specific to your community and issue.
Given that caveat, the first step in your journey of direct democracy for any kind of social change is that you need a very clear theory of change. You need to have an idea of how power works, and what your position is within that space. And you have to really check your moral compass and your values.
This is hard work. I would advise folks to work on something that is really meaningful, because it’s a lot of work. And you need something you’re really driven by to keep you going through the challenges. Because there will be challenges.
Finding your moral voice and understanding the reason why you want to do this – that is the most important thing. It’s also the most rewarding aspect of such work.
BTS: With elections in November, what are the next steps, and how many votes are required?
Antonio: We’re going to be on the November 2024 general election ballot in Oregon. We need to get 1.1 million Oregonians to vote yes – a simple majority. We’re reaching out to voters and talking to them, so they know how voting yes is going to benefit their lives and those of their families.
Their communities and local economies would do a lot better as well. It’s the circular economy effect. This money would normally be leaving the state, but we’d be bringing back billions of dollars into the local economy for us to use as we wish.
Fingers crossed that we will win this November. After that comes implementation. Corporations would start paying the higher tax in January 2025, and the first rebates would go out in early 2026. So it will take at least a year to get it up and running if it passes.
The revenue side is pretty straightforward, but then we’re going to have to work with our partners and the legislature to make sure their programmes are implemented as intended. For example, we wrote that the state of Oregon has to advertise the existence of the programme across the state in multiple languages. We’d need to make sure this actually happens, and that all residents of the state know about it.
BTS: My last question is about the political parties. What are the Democratic and Republican parties saying about this officially?
In the state of Oregon, there are more non-affiliated voters than card-carrying members of either major party.
The Democratic Party is uncomfortable with some aspects of the campaign, but it’s hard to say why exactly. It might just be that we didn’t ask permission – we just did this and made it happen. Or it could be that they have other priorities.
I haven’t spoken with the Republican Party about this, but I don’t imagine they’d support taxing corporations. But that doesn’t matter because the party doesn’t vote. Voters – real people – they vote.
We don’t know for sure if we’re going to be successful, and we’re prepared to continue this work for future elections if we have to. There’s never been a guarantee that we’re going to do this in one go. This is important social change. It takes a while, and we’re okay with that.
Think of it this way: during this election we’re conducting an experiment. We’re asking people directly if they think that it’s a good idea to tax giant corporations, and to then use that money for their own family’s economic benefit.
On 5 November we’ll learn what they say.
