A Buyer's Guide to Ballot Measures

A Buyer’s Guide to Ballot Measures The Role of Money in 2002 Ballot Initiative Campaigns March 2003 A publication of Ballotfunding.org, a project of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation Introduction ........................................................ Page 1 2002 Ballot Measure Campaign Funding Highlights ........... Page 2 Most Expensive Campaigns ....................................... Page 4 Cost Per Vote ....................................................... Page 5 Why Disclose Initiative Donor Data? ............................. Page 5 Table of Contents Lopsided Campaigns ............................................... Page 6 Oregon Measure Attracted International Opposition .......... Page 7 Corporate Contributions Helped Defeat Election Reform .... Page 7 Trends to Watch in 2003: McCain Feingold ..................... Page 10 Trends to Watch in 2003: Growing 501/527 Involvement .... Page 11 Conclusion .......................................................... Page 12 Appendix A: State Fundraising Totals ........................... Page 13 Appendix B: Ballot Measure Results and Campaign Finance Data ....................................................... Page 14 Introduction For the third year in a row, Ballotfunding,org, a project of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation, has analyzed campaign finance funding trends in the 24 states with citizen initiated ballot measures and referenda. Citizen groups, corporations, wealthy individuals, and other interests use the ballot measure process to change public policy at the state level across a wide range of issues. As such, the public interest is served when voters better understand the economic interests involved in ballot measure campaigns. Each year, a handful of grassroots organizations that depend on a broad volunteer base and a large number of small donors, use the process to advance issues long ignored by legislative bodies. Increasingly, however, powerful special interests and wealthy individuals are using the process to advance policies that are, for one reason or another, not legislative priorities. Enormous ballot measure contributions, sometimes intentionally hidden from public scrutiny in stealth political groups, have the greatest potential to distort voter perception of ballot measures, virtually shut out competitive voices, and damage the legitimacy of direct democracy. It is primarily these large contributions, delivered to campaigns through secretive venues that the Ballotfunding.org project seeks to shine the greatest light. Our research helps voters understand which economic and political interests are funding ballot campaigns in their state and assists journalists covering ballot campaign financing by providing context, supplemental research, and multi-state funding trend analyses. “A Buyer’s Guide to Ballot Measures” was written by Galen Nelson, Director of Ballotfunding.org. Support for this research has been provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Institute and the Rockefeller Family Fund. Dr. Daniel Smith deserves a special note of thanks for his input on this report and as an ongoing advisor to Ballotfunding.org. About Ballotfunding.org Ballotfunding.org is a project of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation , a nonpartisan 501 (c)3 research and educational organization that trains individuals how to run ballot measure campaigns, tracks ballot petition activity across the country, and convenes conferences and discussions about the use of the ballot measure process. Ballotfunding.org provides ballot measure donor information to voters, journalists, and opinion leaders. Since no state limits contributions to ballot campaigns, wealthy individual and institutional donors can exert tremendous influence over the ballot measure process. Ballotfunding.org seeks to shed light on ballot measure fiscal supporters to help protect the integrity of direct democracy and to help voters make more informed decisions on Election Day. Ballotfunding.org also works with state-level campaign finance reform groups and state initiative donor disclosure agencies in an effort to improve state level initiative donor disclosure laws. Ballotfunding.org (202) 223-2373 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 205 Washington, DC 20036 info@ballot.org www.ballotfunding.org Page 1 2002 Ballot Measure Campaign Funding Highlights Ballot committees1 in the 24 states with citizen initiated ballot measures raised over $171 million and spent over $173 million on 117 of the 202 qualified initiative and referendum campaigns appearing on the 2002 general election ballot.2 In comparison to 1998, the last off year election, ballot committees spent over $400 million supporting or opposing 234 ballot questions in 44 states. Though it is significant to note that one measure in 1998 relating to Indian gaming (California’s Proposition 5) generated over $92 million in spending—an aberration in terms of ballot measure money trends. If California’s Proposition 5 is removed from the equation slightly more was spent per initiative in 2002 than in 1998. Ballot committees in just seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Missouri and Washington—attracted contributions in excess of $140 million, or over 82% of all money raised for ballot campaigns in 2002. In fact, just eight individual ballot measure campaigns accounted for over half of all spending on ballot issues in 2002. Those campaigns were all “yes” campaigns and included: Indian gaming in Arizona (Propositions 200 and 202); education bonds in California (Proposition 47); after school programs in California (Proposition 49); Election Day voter registration in California (Proposition 52); gaming regulation in Arizona (Proposition 201); water quality in California (Proposition 50); and smoking regulation in Florida (Amendment 6). All told, 29 proponent ballot campaigns (“yes” campaigns) each attracted contributions in excess of $1 million. Over $173 million dollars was spent on 117 of the 202 qualified initiatives and referenda in the 2002 general election. 1 State disclosure agencies have different names for the political entities that raise and spend money on ballot measure campaigns including ballot groups, ballot PACs, and political committees. To reduce confusion, the term “ballot committee” is used throughout this report to refer to the committee type that is primarily or exclusively organized for ballot initiative campaigns. Some states make no meaningful distinction between ballot and other committee types and, in these states any committee may raise and spend money on behalf of a ballot measure. 2 Not all ballot measure campaigns attracted support or opposition. Expenditure totals were slightly higher than contribution totals because a handful of committees had balances carried forward from previous years and spent those funds in this fiscal year. Background on Ballot Measure Terminology According to the Initiative and Referenda Institute, Initiatives are when the citizens, collecting a minimum number of signatures on a petition within a specified time, place advisory questions, memorials, statutes or constitutional amendments on the ballot for the citizens to adopt or reject. Twenty-four states have the initiative process (these are the shaded states in the map above). In many of the same states citizens have the ability to reject laws or amendments proposed by the state legislature. This process is commonly referred to as the Referendum process. There are two types of referendum in this country — popular and legislative. Popular referendum, which is available in 24 states, but is used much less frequently, is when the people have the power to refer, by collecting signatures on a petition, specific legislation that was enacted by their legislature for the people to either accept or reject. Legislative referendum, which is possible in all states, is when the state legislatures, an elected official, state appointed constitutional revision commission or other government agency or department submits propositions (constitutional amendments, statutes, bond issues, etc.) to the people for their approval or rejection. Page 2 Though the financial composition of ballot measure fights varies widely, most of the 117 ballot measure campaigns on the 2002 ballot could be categorized as: Grassroots or Issue Advocates vs. Corporate or Special Interests; Industry vs. Industry; or Ideological group vs. Ideological Group Grassroots or issue advocate vs. corporate or special interest campaigns (such as the efforts to require labeling of genetically modified foods in Oregon, the measure to de-privatize hydroelectric dams in Montana, or the Oregon minimum wage initiative) are often characterized by lopsided spending. Ballot campaigns that pit one industry against a competing industry (Indian gaming vs. non-tribal gaming in Arizona, for example) often involve heavy spending on both sides. Spending patterns in ideological ballot fights (such as efforts to ban gay marriage) vary widely. Casual ballot initiative campaign observers and academics who study initiative campaign finance trends agree that overwhelming spending against an initially popular measure will practically guarantee its defeat while heavy spending in favor of an initiative does not ensure its passage. Spending data gathered during the 2002 election confirm this theory once again. Of the eight most expensive “yes” campaigns (those urging voters to approve a ballot measure) in which proponents outspent opponents by at least 21 to 1— overwhelming odds by any standard—only two were approved by voters.3 Meanwhile, of the eight most expensive “no” campaigns (those urging voters to reject a ballot measure) in which opponents only outspent proponents by at least 2.5 to 1, voters rejected all eight questions. Ballot committees in just seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Missouri and Washington— attracted contributions in excess of $140 million, or over 82% of all money raised for ballot campaigns in 3 Interestingly, two tribal gaming measures, Proposition 202 in Arizona, and Proposition 1 in Idaho Why Disclose Initiative Donor Data? Ballot measure campaign financing differs from candidate campaign financing in two significant ways. First, no state limits contributions to ballot measure campaigns. As a result, wealthy individuals and powerful special interests routinely spend thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to qualify and pass ballot measure campaigns. For example, this year in Colorado, just three donors – Pat Stryker, Rutt Bridges, and Jared Polis – contributed nearly 82% (over $5.2 million) of the money given to Colorado’s five citizen initiatives. Second, ballot measure contribution and expenditure disclosure procedures are much weaker than candidate campaign disclosure practices. This means that voters in many states must struggle to acquire ballot measure funding information and often only after an election do voters become aware of the economic interests involved in state wide ballot questions. These structural disclosure deficiencies, coupled with the emergence of 501 (c) and 527 group involvement in ballot measure campaigns – whose donors are difficult to track – create gaping loopholes and blind spots in the nation’s ballot measure campaign finance reporting system. Gathering comprehensive ballot measure donor data can be difficult even months after an election. Each state has its own unique campaign finance reporting laws, schedules, and disclosure procedures. Most state disclosure agencies, usually a division of the secretary of state’s office, are severely understaffed and under resourced. For a variety of reasons, many disclosure agencies readily admit that they process candidate donor data before ballot measure donor data, further delaying initiative donor disclosure. Moreover, states that do not require campaign finance reports to be electronically filed generally add weeks and sometimes months to disclosure schedules. 2002 Page 3 Most Expensive Campaigns $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 Initiatives to expand gambling $10,000,000 continue to trigger the most $5,000,000 $0 spending in the initiative arena. As mentioned earlier, in 1998 competing California Indian tribes spent a combined $92 million on Proposition 5. In 2002, gaming interests spent over $32 million promoting gambling at the ballot box, eclipsing the $8.6 million in hard and soft money contributions the gaming industry made to both national political parties last year.4 Only half of the 10 most expensive campaigns in 2002 (which all happen to be “yes” campaigns) were approved by voters. Successful initiatives may be attributed in part to relatively low spending by opponents. However, in addition to having adequately funded, staffed and strategized campaigns, there is another important similarity between these measures: they will not cost taxpayers a significant amount of money in the immediate future. Indian gaming will actually generate state revenues in Arizona; education bonds in California are purchased voluntarily and cost the state money (in interest) over time; the after school program will only be activated if there are sufficient funds in the California state budget; smoking regulations in Florida have no significant fiscal impact; and the water quality bonds entail only delayed interest and principle costs spread over the longterm. Ar iz on a 20 Ca Ye 2 lif or s on ni a Ar 47 Ye izo s na on 20 C Ye al 0 ifo s rn on ia C 49 al Ye ifo s rn on ia Ar 52 Ye iz on s on a 20 C al 1 ifo Ye rn ia s on 50 Ye Fl s or on Ye id C a s al 6 on ifo M rn iss ia ou 51 ri Pr op A Ye s on Ye s on The 10 Most Expensive Campaigns State Ballot #, Issue Yes on Arizona 202, Indian gaming 5 Proponent Expenditures $21,097,393 $12,851,452 $11,387,702 $10,940,133 $10,881,912 $7,895,093 $6,236,884 $5,877,676 $5,642,293 $5,418,938 Result Passed Passed Rejected Passed Rejected Rejected Passed Passed Rejected Rejected Yes on California 47, education bonds Yes on Arizona 200, Indian gaming6 Yes on California 49, after school programs Yes on California 52, Election Day voter registration Yes on Arizona 201, gaming industry regulation7 Yes on California 50, water quality Yes on Florida 6, smoking regulation Yes on California 51, transportation Yes on Missouri Proposition A, tobacco tax 4 Federal contribution figures courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics. 5 Though primarily a proponent committee, the Yes on 202 campaign also expended some resources opposing Propositions 200 and 201. 6 Though primarily a proponent committee, the Yes on 200 campaign also expended some resources opposing Propositions 201 and 202. 7 Though primarily a proponent committee, the Yes on 202 campaign also expended some resources opposing Propositions 200 and 202. Page 4 Cost Per Vote Multi-state cost per vote analyses are subject to a number of confounding variables. Some ballot campaigns transmit their message to voters with expensive paid media, while others rely on lower cost field organizing and “earned” media strategies. Media costs, perhaps the most significant campaign expense, differ sharply from state to state. Still, the amount of money a campaign is willing to spend per vote speaks volumes about the proponent’s fiscal strength. An interest group might look at the costs of running a ballot measure campaign compared with the costs of lobbying year after year and conclude that a one time (albeit larger) expenditure via initiative to change policy might be cheaper than paying lobbyists salaries year after year for incremental policy improvement. Astonishingly, the Colorado River Indian Tribes spent $11,387,702 or nearly $66 per vote on Proposition 200 but voters rejected the measure (although they did approve a different tribal gaming measures—Proposition 202—the second most expensive campaign per vote in 2002). Perhaps the Colorado River tribes would have had better luck if they had mailed a simple majority of voters $19 and asked them to vote “yes.” Though expensive ballot measures often receive the most attention, bargain initiatives that run efficient campaigns often go unheralded. This year, Colorado reform groups, led by Common Cause, passed a modest campaign finance reform measure at a cost of only 18 cents per vote. In Oregon, organized labor passed a minimum wage measure at a cost of approximately 38 cents per vote. The Most Paid Per Vote State Ballot #, Issue Yes on Arizona 200, Indian gaming Yes on Arizona 202, Indian gaming Yes on Idaho 1, Indian gaming No on Montana I-145, utility regulation No on Utah 1, radioactive waste tax No on Alaska 2, moving the legislature8 Yes on Nevada 9, decriminalize marijuana Yes on Washington 51, gas tax Yes on Missouri Proposition A, tobacco tax Expenditures $11,387,702 $21,097,393 $3,396,662 $2,249,328 $3,539,669 $1,413,000 $1,654,159 $4,564,669 $5,418,938 Proponent Outcome / Opponent Proponent Proponent Proponent Proponent Opponent Opponent Opponent Proponent Proponent Proponent Rejected Passed Rejected Passed Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Votes 173,126 610,900 234,935 232,986 221,999 364,729 153,127 196,371 674,724 881,701 Cost per vote $65.78 $34.53 $33.61 $14.58 $10.13 $9.70 $9.23 $8.42 $6.77 $6.15 Yes on Arizona 201, gaming industry regulation $7,895,093 Page 5 Lopsided Campaigns Another way to quantify overwhelming spending, either for or against a measure, is to identify the most lopsided ballot measure fights, where one side significantly outspent the other. Comparative spending ratios for ballot committees that spent over half a million dollars for or against one ballot measure and faced little opposition, are listed below. The Most Lopsided Campaigns of 2002 State Ballot #, Issue Yes on Arizona 202, Indian gaming No on Arizona 200, Indian gaming Yes on Arizona 201, gaming industry regulation Yes on California 51, transportation No on Montana I-145, utility regulation Yes on Idaho 1, Indian gaming Yes on Washington 51, gas tax No on Oregon 27, labeling GMO foods Expenditures $21,097,393 Proponent $11,387,702 Opponent $7,895,093 $5,642,293 $2,249,328 $3,396,662 $4,564,669 $5,396,651 Proponent Proponent Opponent Proponent Proponent Opponent Opponent Proponent/ Opponent Passed Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Passed Rejected Rejected Rejected Ratio 675 to 1 364 to 1 252 to 1 70 to 1 42 to 1 34 to 1 26 to 1 25 to 1 24 to 1 No on Massachusetts 3, campaign finance reform9 $674,552 9 Non-binding advisory question referred by legislature. Did you know?.... Most states fail to provide complete, timely, and easily accessible initiative donor data to voters prior to Election Day. In a recently released report by Ballotfunding.org, only four of the 24 ballot initiative states received a grade of “A” or “B" on the quality of their online donor disclosure systems (Washington, California, Massachusetts and Illinois). The vast majority of the states received “D’s” or F’s” and four states received an “Incomplete” for failing to disclose any data online at all. For example, in the 2002 election cycle current law made it difficult for Florida voters to know that Philip Morris was the main contributor to the Committee for Responsible Solutions, a pseudo counter measure meant to confuse voters about the ban on smoking initiative which Phillip Morris opposed. "The Campaign Reform Blind Spot: Ballot Measure Disclosure"assessed state disclosure agencies’ ability to adequately disclose ballot measure donor data through their websites. The assessment criteria included: filing requirements, data quality, voter access, and data format. The findings showed that by failing to present donor data on websites in a timely nature and accessible format, many initiative states make it difficult for journalists, activists or interested citizens to research funding sources of initiative campaigns. Reforms such as mandatory electronic filing and easily accessible online donor databases can help voters make more informed decisions. Ballotfunding has promulgated a series of model guidelines meant to help steer disclosure agencies and reform groups toward better disclosure practices. To obtain a copy of the guidelines, or to monitor disclosure improvements at the state level, visit ballotfunding.org. Page 6 NOTABLE STORIES FROM THE 2002 ELECTION Oregon Measure Attracted International Opposition In an effort to discourage the adoption of similar laws in other states, international corporate food producers contributed generously to an effort to defeat Measure 27, an Oregon initiative that would have required the labeling of genetically-modified food sold in or distributed in or from Oregon. Voters rejected the measure. In fact, many of the corporations bankrolling the ‘No on 27’ effort contributed more to the ballot measure campaign in Oregon than they gave in soft money contributions to both national political parties combined during the 2001-2002 election cycle. Company Monsanto DuPont Syngenta Aventis Dow Agrosciences BASF Bayer Pepsico General Mills Nestle USA Proctor & Gamble “No on 27” $ $1,480,000 $634,286 $528,571 $396,429 $396,429 $158,571 $105,714 $94,123 $88,921 $84,072 $81,739 2002 National Soft Money $ $38,000 $46,700 $231,571 $546,597 $60,400 $50,647 $0 $632,600 $0 $41,944 $1,500 Comparison totals $4,048,855 $1,649,888 Corporate Contributions Contributed to the Defeat of Electoral Reform Ballot Measures An earlier analysis of campaign finance reports revealed that generous and secretive contributions in excess of $1 million made by blue chip corporations helped defeat California’s Election Day Voter Registration initiative (Proposition 52) and an advisory question in Massachusetts related to campaign finance reform (Question 3) on the 2002 ballot. Corporations have long contributed to ballot measures that they believe will affect their bottom line. But the voter registration measure in California and the campaign finance reform law under attack in Massachusetts were both well-tested proposals designed to increase voter turn out, stimulate candidate competition and give democracy a muchneeded shot in the arm. There is strong evidence that corporate contributions were made through political channels designed to inhibit disclosure. In the California fight, at least 70% of the contributions to the No on 52 campaign were filtered through Republican controlled or oriented Leadership PACs and so-called “527” organizations. Contributions to 527 organizations are made available as scanned files on a difficult to locate page on the IRS web site. Since the files are scanned, information must be tabulated manually. In Massachusetts, a loophole in the state’s reporting schedule effectively shielded public knowledge of corporate opposition to the clean elections advisory question until 5pm on Election Day. Page 7 Republicans made no secret of their opposition to the Election Day voter registration in both California and Colorado this year, claiming that it would help register more Democrats. Yet, every piece of credible academic literature on the subject suggests Election Day voter registration has no partisan effect. Research shows that Republican PAC directors like Barbara Bonfiglio (American Success PAC) wrote checks totaling $85,000 to Citizens and Law Enforcement Against 52, the No on 52 ballot committee. Republican-orchestrated opposition to common sense proposals like Election Day Voter Registration (already the law in six states) may hamper the GOP’s ability to deal with charges of corporate corruption, and further diminish the public’s rapidly dwindling confidence in corporate responsibility. As belt tightening becomes the rule in households and corporate boardrooms across the country, corporate donors should decide whether a healthy democracy or partisan paybacks matter more to stockholders. No on 52 (California Election Day Voter Registration) Total Raised: $343,665 Donor American Success PAC Non-Federal Account Republican National Committee California Account American Success PAC (Rep. David Dreier’s (R-CA) Leadership PAC) Americans For A Republican Majority - State Account (Rep. Tom DeLay’s (R-TX) Leadership PAC) California Republican Party Congressional Leadership California Fund Royce Campaign Committee* The Lincoln Club Of Orange State PAC* Future Leaders State PAC* Peace Through Strength PAC Non-Federal Beamhit, LLC Howard F. Ahmanson Fieldstead & Company Mammoth Mountain Ski Area Wally Herger For Congress* Page 8 AMERICAN SUCCESS PAC 527 organization based in Washington, DC Mission: “ “Support Republican Issues and Causes” At a Glance: Donated slightly over one third of its 2002 revenue to the No on 52 campaign. Also gave $50,000 to the California Republican Party, itself a $25,000 donor to the No on 52 effort. Also gave $20,000 to the Republican oriented GOPAC, Chairman, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA). Top Donors American International Group (DE) AT&T (IL) DDF Y2K Family Trust (CA) MS Band of Choctaw Indians Amgen (CA) Coloniels Crossroads (CA) CP Construction (CA) Dieago North America (CT) E.L. Yeager Construction (CA) Health Net Federal Services (CA) IndyMac Bank (CA) Vulcan Inc. (WA) $60,000 $57,000 $50,000 $25,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Contribution $ $85,000 $49,000 $35,000 $25,000 CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CALIFORNIA FUND 527 organization based in California Mission: “To support Republicans for elective office.” Donor information unavailable as of 01/15/ 03. $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH PAC 527 organization based in Washington, DC Mission: “Support Republican Issues and Causes” At a Glance: Donated over 43% of 2002 contributions to No on 52 effort. Top Donors Trex Enterprises Corporation (CA) Oshkosh Truck Corporation (WI) Evergreen Aviation International (N/A) US Ship Management (NC) Viking Yacht (NJ) $8,000 $5,750 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 No on 3 (Massachusetts Campaign Finance Reform) Total Raised: $693,300 Donor *Fidelity Investments *FleetBoston Financial *Liberty Mutual *John Hancock State Street Bank *Anheuser Busch *AT&T *EMC *NSTAR *Raytheon *Verizon The Flatley Company *The Gillette Company Wheelabrator Technologies Jay Cashman *National Grid USA Stephen Roop Barbara Roop Back Bay Restaurant Group Beer Distributors of MA CMJ Management *GlaxoSmithKline Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky Taunton Dog Track Perini Corporation Timberleaf Homes Harbor Loft Housing Corp. Processors, Inc. Suffolk Construction Diversified Credit Ext. Group Beacon Companies Brennan Group John Shaughnessy Mass Restaurant Assoc. Tomra Mass LLC *Deloitte & Touche Alan L Gusule Revocable Trust Bertha Simon Marc Jartman Robert Ercolini William Edgerly Boyd/Smith, Inc. Mary Jane MacLean GFD Company Robert Ruddick Thomas Kiley The Finneran Committee Contribution $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $500 $200 $500 Disclosure Schedule Left Massachusetts Voters in the Dark Question 3, referred to the ballot by legislative leaders hostile to clean elections reform, asked voters if they supported taxpayer funding of elections. The question was clearly designed to elicit ‘no’ votes and reduce support for the reform law which passed via initiative in 1998. Many of the top corporate contributors to the No on 3 campaign (indicated with an asterisk) are well-seasoned national political donors that gave over $6.6 million in soft money to the national Republican and Democratic parties combined in the 2002 election cycle. Over 76% went to Republican Party entities. Due to a fluke in the reporting schedule that had ballot committees filing their final reports on Election Day by 5pm, most voters were unaware that powerful in and out of state corporations had funded a barrage of 11th hour attack ads against the state’s clean elections law. As Bay State voters were casting their final ballots as polls closed around the state, Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran and his allies quietly submitted their final disclosure report to the state showing that they had raised over $600,000 from corporate donors many of which are heavily regulated by the state or have business before the legislature. The more than $600,000 raised to defeat Question 3, a non-binding advisory measure that asked voters if they support the use of taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns, broke all fundraising records for a state wide advisory ballot question. Sadly, voters were robbed of critical ballot funding information due to the state’s reporting schedule. * Contributed over $6.6 million in soft money to both political parties combined in the 2002 election cycle. Page 9 TRENDS TO WATCH IN 2003 AND BEYOND... McCain Feingold’s Passage Might Increase Ballot Measure Contributions Strict new limits on soft money contributions through the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain Feingold legislation, has already forced political operatives to create a raft of new organizations specifically designed to receive and distribute large former soft money donor contributions. Since no state limits ballot measure contributions, these former soft money donors might also seek out ballot measures as a way to influence public policy. Though single issue donors have used the ballot measure process for years to change policy at the state level, often with national implications, more partisan donors may also begin to play in the initiative arena because of ballot measures effect on voter turn out. Recently conducted research demonstrates that the presence and usage of the initiative process is associated with higher voter turnout in both presidential and midterm elections (American Politics Research: V. 29, No. 6, Nov. 2001, Tolbert, Grummel, Smith). The disparity in turnout rates between the 24 initiative and non-initiative states has been increasing over time, estimated at 7- 9% higher in midterm and 3- 4.5% higher in presidential elections in the 1990s. This analysis suggests that the initiative process can and does play a positive role in increasing electoral participation. While the ballot measure voter turnout effect must be more carefully studied, political operatives already understand intuitively that ballot measures may boost turn out among deeply partisan voters dramatically effecting candidate races on the same ballot. Research recently conducted by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center showed that the presence of a measure on the 2002 ballot in Oregon to require labeling of genetically modified foods significantly increased Democratic voter turnout while a health care reform measure brought more GOP voters to the polls. In Arizona, Indian gaming advocates who spent over $21 million supporting Proposition 202 are convinced that their measure, which involved significant get-out-the-vote efforts among high-performing Democratic voters, helped elect Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano. Napolitano won by about 12,000 votes out of over 1.2 million cast. Since BCRA limits political giving, partisan interest groups and individuals may use ballot measures to indirectly effect candidate races. Though federal candidates have rarely coordinated with initiative campaigns, state level candidates have often run with or against ballot measures. In 2002, Ohio governor Bob Taft attracted attention with his aggressive opposition to Issue 1, a drug sentencing reform measure. The Governor instructed his supporters to contribute to the No on 1 effort in a June 2002 fundraising letter and fully 20% of contributions to the No on 1 campaign were Taft donors. The governor’s strategy, while completely legal, raises questions about how federal candidates under the jurisdiction of BCRA, might use ballot measures to motivate their base or bring independent voters into their column. On the other hand, candidate association with ballot measures could also be reduced given new fundraising and communication restrictions. Under the new campaign finance laws, federal officeholders and candidates cannot solicit, receive, direct, transfer, spend or disburse funds in connection with any non-federal election, including an initiative or referendum, except within federal limits—i.e., up to $2,000 from an individual only.10 Perhaps even more significant than fundraising is 10 The FEC recently redefined “federal election activity” to include ballot initiative and referenda as it pertains to a federal candidate’s ability to raise funds for specific campaigns; however, this ruling is being challenged. If successful, federal candidates would be able to raise unlimited money for initiatives, as long as funds are not targeted to GOTV, voter registration or voter identification. Page 10 the new restriction that prevents federal candidates from being featured in (or even referred to in) broadcast ads within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Regardless, if interest groups with partisan agendas contribute generously to ballot measures crafted in part to influence candidate races, voters will have a much more difficult time following the money since state initiative donor disclosure practices are much weaker than federal candidate disclosure procedures. The 2003 election, the first in which the limits in BCRA will be in full force, should provide a glimpse of this money migration. More attention and money will be focused on five states that allow ballot measures in odd-numbered years: Colorado, Maine, Mississippi, Ohio, and Washington. If initiatives do indeed attract even a fraction of the largesse regularly showered on the national political parties more and more critical policy battles will likely be fought via initiative with much higher stakes and expensive media campaigns making the bar for grassroots involvement in ballot measures potentially insurmountable. Growing 501 (c) and 527 Group Involvement If more money flows to ballot measures in a post BCRA environment, two groups, already deeply involved in a handful of ballot measures over the last few election cycles, may invest more money in state wide ballot questions. Charitable 501 (c) organizations are not required to disclose their donors to the public and contributors to 527 groups are hidden in an archaic online filing system buried in the Internal Revenue Service web site obscured from all but the most dedicated researchers. Controversy erupted early last year in California when a ballot committee sponsoring a measure crafted by Ward Connerly refused to disclose its donors. The ballot committee supporting Connerly’s “racial privacy” initiative essentially laundered about 90% of its $1 million in contributions through Connerly’s 501 (c) group the American Civil Rights Coalition, a type of nonprofit organization that is not required to reveal the names of contributors under federal law. In the fall, corporate contributions, funneled through Republican controlled 527 groups, played a critical role in defeating Proposition 52, a proposal to enact Election Day Voter Registration in California. Generally, donors to 527 groups are difficult to research and the expenditures those groups make are often vaguely described and not linked to particular ballot campaigns. Both disclosure loopholes present difficult challenges for voters seeking to learn more about who is funding ballot campaigns and reform groups trying to strike a balance between adequate disclosure and a non-profit’s right to maintain the privacy of its donors. Ironically, some ballot proponents may try to hide their funding sources more aggressively with the use of stealth groups in states with particularly good disclosure practices. In the meantime, expect more and more interest groups to use these types of organizations to directly influence ballot measures and indirectly effect candidate campaign outcomes. Page 11 Resources More detailed state-bystate ballot funding information is available on our web site at ballotfunding.org In Oregon, the Money in Politics Research Action Project also tracks and analyzes statewide ballot measure financing at: oregonfollowthemoney.org The California Voter Foundation also tracks top donors to state wide ballot propositions at www.calvoter.org Individual donor data for a limited number of states will soon be made available at: followthemoney.org For more information about ballot measures and voter turn out research, visit: ballot.org Conclusion With the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision standing in the way of ballot measure contribution limits, reform groups and interested voters should focus their energies on improving online ballot measure disclosure. Closely divided gridlocked state legislatures and budget crises are forcing issue advocates to turn to the initiative process to advance their policy agenda. Powerful corporate interests have the ability and history of crushing popular ballot proposals with multi-million dollar ad campaigns, often filtered through deceptively named front groups. BCRA will likely move more money into the initiative arena. Clearly, better disclosure must be a top priority. The legal door for limiting contributions to ballot campaigns has not been completely shut. Should reform advocates fight for contribution limits? Though the most recent attempt to limit corporate contributions to ballot measures was struck down in a divided 2-1 ruling by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the dissent, written by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins suggested that a more narrowly tailored contribution limit might be upheld outside the ninth circuit. Judge Daly Hawkins argued that Montana’s Initiative 125, which was approved by voters in 1996 and banned corporate contributions “is justified by Montana’s asserted interest in eliminating what its people have determined to be distorting effects of corporate wealth on the electoral process.” If ballot measures increasingly become tools of speMethodology Ballot measure contribution and expenditure data were gathered primarily from state disclosure agency web sites, in partnership with state-based reform groups, and through phone interviews with disclosure agency staff. Ballotfunding.org examined between two and 10 disclosure reports filed during the election cycle for each of the over 140 ballot committees involved in 2002 ballot measure campaigns. Except where noted, contribution totals include direct cash contributions, inkind assistance, and loans made in 2002. cial interests, reformers need to look seriously at established contribution limits or free airtime for ballot campaigns to level direct democracy’s playing field. Improving online disclosure can be expensive. States regularly invest hundreds of thousands if not millions in electronic filing systems. Though these programs save money in the long run due to reduced storage and personnel costs, and increased efficiency and disclosure speed, fighting for funding to implement disclosure is difficult in the current budget environment. There are some creative strategies for securing financial resources for disclosure improvements. The Help American Vote Act (HAVA) signed by President Bush in October 2002, provides funds for states primarily to improve voting systems. States may also use HAVA funds to “improve voter education” and “election administration.” States must submit a plan to implement the HAVA law and create a fund to administer it. If the state’s disclosure agency is interested, and support for disclosure improvements can be built into the state’s HAVA implementation plan, disclosure quality could benefit significantly. Disclosure agencies should argue that improving ballot measure disclosure procedures is a powerful and cost effective way to educate voters about the money behind ballot measures. Page 12 APPENDIX A State Fundraising Totals Rank State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Arizona California Florida Michigan Oregon Missouri Washington Colorado Utah Idaho Ohio Nevada Montana Massachusetts Arkansas Oklahoma Alaska South Dakota North Dakota Mississippi Number of Referenda 10 3 5 2 5 4 3 5 6 1 0 7 5 1 2 8 4 2 1 1 Number of Number of Measures1 Amount Raised, Yes and No Initiatives on the 2002 Ballot Campaigns Combined2 4 4 5 2 7 2 2 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 14 7 10 4 12 6 5 10 7 2 1 9 7 3 4 9 6 4 3 1 $45,495,853 $42,975,2703 $14,382,8024 $12,526,4235 $10,390,755 $7,570,5536 $7,400,789 $6,981,350 $4,597,944 $4,397,907 $2,965,568 $2,644,472 $2,527,961 $2,179,238 $1,861,720 $1,437,7047 $623,335 $458,590 $62,380 $10,625 1 Includes citizen initiatives and legislative referenda. 2 Not all states had measures on the ballot nor did all initiatives attract support. Contribution figures include cash, loans, and in-kind assistance except where noted. 3 Total does not include ballot committees that raised or spent less than $50,000 (because those committees are not required to electronically file disclosure reports). 4 A full accounting of all ballot measure campaign finance activity in Florida is nearly impossible. The state does not require committees to specifically itemize spending against a ballot measure. As a result, thousands of dollars are spent under the disclosure radar. 5 Unlike most other states, Michigan ballot committee balances carry over from year to year. 6 According the disclosure agency staff in Missouri, so called committees of continuous existence (CCEs) must only electronically file disclosure reports if they make contributions in excess of $15,000 to a ballot question. According to the staff, committees may elect to become a CCE to exploit this loophole. 7 The Oklahoma total is current as of October 2002. The state, one of four that does not file initiative campaign finance data online, made summary information available in October but was unwilling to provide post election data in January due to “staff shortages.” Page 13 APPENDIX B 2002 Ballot Measure Results & Campaign Finance Data Key: State Measure # Subject Measure Outcome Yes campaign votes No campaign votes Yes campaign spending No campaign spending Ballot Measure No. 3 Gas Pipeline (Initiative) Passed Yes: 62.03% No: 37.97% Yes $: NCR No $: 41,680 Proposition 200 Tribal Gambling (Initiative) Failed Yes: 15% No: 85% Yes $: 11,387,702 No $: 31,2316 Proposition 201 Non-Tribal Gambling (Initiative) Failed Yes: 20% No: 80% Yes $: 7,895,093 No $: 31,231 Proposition 202 Tribal Gambling (Initiative) Passed Yes: 52% No: 48% Yes $: 21,097,393 No $: 31,231 Proposition 203 Medicinal Marijuana (Initiative) Failed Yes: 42% No: 58% Yes $: 2,268,282 No $: 109,2327 Proposition 300 School Trust Land Revenues (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 75% No: 25% Yes $: 243,475 No $: NCR Proposition 301 State Lottery (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 72% No: 28% Yes $: 75,288 No $: NCR Proposition 302 Probation Regulations (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 69% No: 31% Yes $: 109,232 No $: NCR Proposition 303 Tobacco Tax (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 66% No: 34% Yes $: 1,504,842 No $: NCR Proposition 304 Legislative Salaries (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 33% No: 67% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Alaska Proposition A Mortgage Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 70.03% No: 29.97% Yes $: 227,7541 No $: NCR Proposition B Transportation Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 67.75% No: 32.35% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Proposition C Museum Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 59.60% No: 40.40% Yes $: 396,6542 No $: NCR Ballot Measure No.1 Constitutional Convention (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 28.36% No: 71.64% Yes $: NCR No $: 1,9633 Ballot Measure No.2 Moving State Capitol (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 32.77% No: 67.23% Yes $: NCR No $: 1,413,0004 Arizona Proposition 100 Taxable Property Limits (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 42% No: 58% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Proposition 101 State Lands (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 48% No: 52% Yes $: 243,4755 No $: 36,489 Proposition 102 Property Tax Valuation (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 80% No: 20% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Proposition 103 Bailable Offenses (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 80% No: 20% Yes $: 33,694 No $: NCR Proposition 104 Expenditure Limitations (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 70% No: 30% Yes $: 536,491 No $: NCR Arkansas8 Constitutional Amendment 1 Vote Secrecy (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 57% No: 43% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment 2 Administrative Rule Reform (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 45% No: 55% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment 3 Ban on Food and Medicine Tax (Initiative) Failed Yes: 39% No: 61% Yes $: 264,608 No $: 956,633 Page 14 Initiated Act 1 Animal Cruelty (Initiative) Failed Yes: 38% No: 62% Yes $: 294,776 No $: 289,231 Proposition 52 Election Day Voter Registration (Initiative) Failed Yes: 40.6% No: 59.4% Yes $: 10,881,912 No $: 503,533 Referendum B Public Ownership of Health Facilities (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 40.76% No: 59.24% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Referendum C Coroner Qualifications (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 70.92% No: 29.08% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Referendum D Administrative Rule Reform (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 71.89% No: 28.11% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Referendum E Cesar Chavez Holiday (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 20.61% No: 79.39% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment No. 4 Public Records Rule Change (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 76.6% No: 23.4% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment No. 6 Ban Smoking in Indoor Workplaces (Initiative) Passed Yes: 71.0% No: 29.0% Yes $: 5,877,676 No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment No. 7 Homestead Property Exemption (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 67.3% No: 32.7% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment No. 8 Universal Pre-School (Initiative) Passed Yes: 59.2% No: 40.8% Yes $: 2,031,051 No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment No. 9 Smaller Class Sizes (Initiative) Passed Yes: 52.4% No: 47.6% Yes $: 1,580,483 No $: 968,388 Constitutional Amendment No. 10 Animal Cruelty (Initiative) Passed Yes: 54.8% No: 45.2% Yes $: 1,524,309 No $: NCR California9 Proposition 46 Housing Trust Fund (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 57.6% No: 42.4% Yes $: 3,982,99510 No $: NCR Proposition 47 Education Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 59.1% No: 40.9% Yes $: 12,851,452 No $: NCR Proposition 48 Court Consolidation (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 72.9% No: 27.1% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Proposition 49 After School Programs (Initiative) Passed Yes: 56.7% No: 43.3% Yes $: 10,940,133 No $: NCR Proposition 50 Water Bond (Initiative) Passed Yes: 55.4% No: 44.6% Yes $: 6,236,884 No $: NCR Proposition 51 Transportation (Initiative) Failed Yes: 41.4% No: 58.6% Yes $: 5,642,293 No $: 80,067 Colorado Amendment 27 Campaign Finance Reform (Caps) (Initiative) Passed Yes: 66.51% No: 33.49% Yes $: 163,439 No $: 70,554 Amendment 28 Vote by Mail (Initiative) Failed Yes: 42.41% No: 57.59% Yes $: 1,590,98811 No $: 2,210 Amendment 29 Eliminate Party Caucus (Initiative) Failed Yes: 39.84% No: 60.16% Yes $: 1,590,988 No $: 6,075 Amendment 30 Election Day Voter Registration (Initiative) Failed Yes: 39.25% No: 60.75% Yes $: 1,095,535 No $: 18,660 Amendment 31 Ban on Bilingual Education (Initiative) Failed Yes: 43.78% No: 56.22% Yes $: 531,486 No $: 3,293,659 Referendum A Exempt District Attorney from Term Limits (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 35.27% No: 64.73% Yes $: 22,820 No $: NCR Florida12 Constitutional Amendment No. 1 Death Penalty Amendment (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 69.7% No: 30.3% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment No. 2 Initiative Fiscal Note (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 78.0% No: 22.0% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Constitutional Amendment No. 3 Home Rule Charter (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 47.8% No: 52.2% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Page 15 Constitutional Amendment No. 11 University Boards (Initiative) Passed Yes: 60.5% No: 39.5% Yes $: 1,749,640 No $: 169,162 Massachusetts Question 1 Eliminate State Income Tax (Initiative) Failed Yes: 45% No: 55% Yes $: 535,507 No $: NCR Question 2 Ban Bilingual Education (Initiative) Passed Yes: 68% No: 32% Yes $: 446,566 No $: 645,018 Question 3 Eliminate the Clean Election Laws (Advisory Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 26% No: 74% Yes $: 26,637 No $: 674,552 Proposal 02-04 Tobacco Settlement Funds (Initiative) Failed Yes: 34% No: 66% Yes $: 5,133,467 No $: 1,806,454 Constitutional Convention Question Constitutional Convention (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 34.5% No: 65.5% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Proposition A Tobacco Tax (Initiative) Failed Yes: 49.1% No: 50.9% Yes $: 5,418,938 No $: NCR Idaho Proposition 1 Tribal Video Gaming (Initiative) Passed Yes: 57.8% No: 42.2% Yes $: 3,396,622 No $: 98,163 Proposition 2 Ban Term Limits (Popular Ref.) Failed (term limits no longer exist in Idaho) Yes: 50.2% No: 49.8% Yes $: 601,019 No $: 119,763 Mississippi Amendment 1 Court Appointee Term Limits (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 38% No: 62% Yes $: 18,431 No $: NCR Missouri14 Amendment 1 City Charter Amendment (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 69.4% No: 30.6% Yes $: 794,910 No $: NCR Amendment 2 Collective Bargaining for Firefighters (Initiative) Failed Yes: 48.8% No: 51.2% Yes $: 953,335 No $: 87,009 Amendment 3 Term Limit Rules for Special Elections (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 54.3% No: 45.7% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment 4 Regulation of Joint Boards (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 57.8% No: 42.2% Yes $: 96,953 No $: NCR Montana Number: C-36 Regulation of Local Government Investments (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 39% No: 61% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Number: C-37 Increase Initiative Signature Requirements (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 57% No: 43% Yes $: 37515 No $: NCR Number: C-38 Increase Initiative Signature Requirements (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 57% No: 43% Yes $: 375 No $: NCR Number: C-39 Remove Restrictions on Public Fund Investments (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 35% No: 65% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Michigan13 Maine Question 1: Bond Issue Prison Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 37% No: 63% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Question 2: Bond issue Water Pollution Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 57.2% No: 42.8% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Question 3: Constitutional Amendment Federal Transportation Loans (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 55.3% No: 44.7% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Proposal 02-01 Allow Straight Party Voting (Popular Ref.) Passed (listed as passed because it overturned the law to eliminate straight party voting) Yes: 40% No: 60% Yes $: NCR No $: 922,320 Proposal 02-02 Great Lake Preservation Bond (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 60% No: 40% Yes $: 348,308 No $: NCR Proposal 02-03 Collective Bargaining for State Employees (Initiative) Failed Yes: 45% No: 55% Yes $: 2,758,829 No $: NCR Page 16 Number: IR-117 Repeal Electricity Energy Bill (changing deregulation) (Popular Ref.) Passed (listed as passed because it overturned the law passed by the legislature) Yes: 40% No: 60% Yes $: 21,844 No $: NCR Number: I-145 Public Ownership of Dams (Initiative) Failed Yes: 31% No: 69% Yes $: 53,504 No $: 2,249,328 Number: I-146 Tobacco Settlement Funds (Initiative) Passed Yes: 65% No: 35% Yes $: 87,259 No $: NCR Ballot Question 2 Same Sex Marriage Ban (Initiative) Passed Yes: 66.3% No: 33.6% Yes $: 1,188,592 No $: 61,664 Ballot Question 3 Farming Tax Exemption (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 38.8% No: 60.9% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Ballot Question 4 Professional Racing Tax Exemption (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 21.2% No: 78.4% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Ballot Question 5 Administrative Rule Change (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 40.4% No: 58.8% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Ballot Question 6 Supreme Court Term Limit Exemption (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 40.7% No: 58.8% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Ballot Question 7 Debt Limit Exemption for School Construction (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 42.2% No: 57.3% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Ballot Question 8 Property Tax Exemption for Economic Hardship (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 57.7% No: 42% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Ballot Question 9 Marijuana Legalization (Initiative) Failed Yes: 39% No: 61% Yes $: 1,654,159 No $: 199,488 Question 693 Economic Development Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 52.39% No: 47.61% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Question 696 Property Tax Exemption for Storm Shelters (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 66.79% No: 33.21% Yes $: 3,175 No $: NCR Question 697 County Development Tax Exemption (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 55.41% No: 44.59% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Question 698 Increase Animal Rights Signature Requirements (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 45.77% No: 54.23% Yes $: 50,400 No $: NCR Question 701 Tobacco Settlement Fund (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 46.06% No: 53.94% Yes $: 12,600 No $: NCR State Question 702 Tax Abatement Provisions (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 55.41% No: 44.59% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Question 703 Limitations on IT Contract Liability (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 45.19% No: 54.81% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 Taxable Status of Land Held For Conservation (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 51.49% No: 48.51% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Initiated Constitutional Measure 2 Multi-state Lottery (Initiative) Passed Yes: 63.47% No: 36.53% Yes $: 500 No $: 32,380 Initiated Statutory Measure 3 Student Loan Reimbursement for staying in North Dakota (Initiative) Failed Yes: 32.90% No: 67.10% Yes $: 8,000 No $: 20,850 Nebraska Number: LR 4CA Revenue Bonds for Non-profits (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 43% No: 57% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Number: LR 1CA English Language Requirement (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 40% No: 60% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Ohio Issue One Drug Treatment Instead of Incarceration (Initiative) Failed Yes: 33% No: 67% Yes $: 452,551 No $: 1,140,140 Nevada Ballot Question 1 Water and Open Space Bond (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 60.2% No: 39.8% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Oklahoma16 Question 687 Ban Cockfighting (Initiative) Passed Yes: 56.19% No: 43.81% Yes $: 695,829 No $: 641,256 Page 17 Question 704 Inspection of Building Funds (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 44.10% No: 55.90% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Measure 21 Allow “none of the above” for Judicial Vacancies (Initiative) Failed Yes: 43% No: 57% Yes $: 1,303,21718 No $: 221,10819 Measure 22 Supreme Court Elections by District (Initiative) Failed Yes: 49% No: 51% Yes $: 1,295,604 No $: 221,108 Measure 23 Universal Health Care (Initiative) Failed Yes: 21% No: 79% Yes $: 71,890 No $: 1,305,598 Measure 24 Permit Denturists to Install Dentures (Initiative) Passed Yes: 75% No: 25% Yes $: 44,927 No $: NCR Measure 25 (Initiative) Minimum wage increase Passed Yes: 52% No: 48% Yes $: 242,155 No $: 410,396 Measure 26 Signature Gathering by the Hour instead of by Signature (Initiative) Passed Yes: 75% No: 25% Yes $: 917,049 No $: NCR Measure 27 Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (Initiative) Failed Yes: 30% No: 70% Yes $: 217,938 No $: 5,396,651 South Dakota Amendment A Criminal Defendant Defense (Initiative) Failed Yes: 21% No: 79% Yes $: 330,143 No $: 117,383 Amendment B Legislative District Procedural Changes (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 39% No: 61% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment C Governor Veto Power (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 54% No: 46% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Initiated Measure 1 Legalization of Hemp (Initiative) Failed Yes: 38% No: 62% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment 4 Public Notice Prior to Special Sessions (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 77.36% No: 22.64% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment 5 Amendment of Debt Limits for Political Subdivisions (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 66.15% No: 33.85% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment 6 Expansion of Property Tax Exemptions (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 42.41% No: 57.59% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Citizen’s State Initiative Number 1 Tax on Radioactive Waste (Initiative) Failed Yes: 31.93% No: 68.07% Yes $: 809,880 No $: 3,539,669 Oregon17 Measure 14 Eliminate Racial References in Constitution (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 71% No: 29% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Measure 15 Educational Bonds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 55% No: 45% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Measure 16 Bonds for Emergency Service Buildings (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 55% No: 45% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Measure 17 Reduce Age-Limits on Legislators for Office (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 27% No: 73% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Measure 18 Establish Permanent Property Tax Rates (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 39% No: 61% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Utah Amendment 1 Investment of State School Funds (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 62.62% No: 37.38% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment 2 Change County Boundaries (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 72.75% No: 27.25% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment 3 Amend Revenue and Taxation Provisions (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 70.0% No: 30.0% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Washington Initiative 776 Tax Cut for Motor Vehicles (Initiative) Passed Yes: 51.47% No: 48.53% Yes $: 424,643 No $: 347,315 Initiative 790 Firefighter Pension Plan (Initiative) Passed Yes: 53.02% No: 46.98% Yes $: 1,228,637 No $: 0 Page 18 Referendum Measure 53 Repeal of Unemployment Insurance Reform (Popular Ref.) Passed Yes: 40.78% No: 59.22% Yes $: 213,632 No $: 367,072 Referendum Bill 51 Gas Tax for Transport (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 37.30% No: 62.69% Yes $: 4,575,184 No $: 175,470 Constitutional Amendment HJR 4220 Property Tax Levy Procedural Changes (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 68.14% No: 31.86% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Wyoming Amendment A Allow for Special Sessions (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 66% No: 34% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment B Allows for Legislative Leaders to Call a Special Session (Legislative Ref.) Passed Yes: 65% No: 35% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment C Limit Governor’s Veto Authorities (Legislative Ref.) Failed Yes: 44% No: 56% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Amendment D Constitutional Procedural Amendment Failed Yes: 53% No: 47% Yes $: NCR No $: NCR Endnotes Individual ballot measure expenditure totals may include spending by more than one ballot committee. Where one committee spent money on behalf of more than one ballot campaign, the full expenditure amount was assigned to both recipient campaigns. This leads to some over counting at the individual ballot measure level, but it is impossible in most cases, to artificially divide committee spending between two or more ballot campaigns. Ballot committee expenditure figures are only counted once when computing state expenditure totals (in the report body) to avoid double-counting at the aggregate level. Ballot initiative vote totals were collected by the Initiative and Referenda Institute. NCR = No Committee Reported. The state claims that no committees reported activity related to that ballot measure. This may mean that there were no committees registered as supporting or opposing the ballot measure in question, or that committees that were involved failed to report properly. In other words, we can only report what has been properly disclosed to state agencies. Footnotes 1 Complete support provided by independent expenditure. 2 Includes an independent expenditure in the amount of $150,947. 3 Includes an independent expenditure in the amount of $14. 4 Includes an independent expenditure in the amount of $1,089,651. 5 The committee that supported Proposition 101 also supported Propositions 104 and 300. 6 The committee that opposed Proposition 200 also opposed Propositions 201 and 202. 7 The committee that opposed Proposition 203 also supported Proposition 302. 8 Arkansas contribution totals are cumulative since 1998. 9 Total does not include ballot committees that raised or spent less than $50,000 (because those committees are not required to electronically file disclosure reports). 10 One of 2 committees that supported Proposition 46 also supported Proposition 47. 11 The committee that supported Amendment 28 also supported Amendment 29. 12 A full accounting of all ballot measure campaign finance activity in Florida is nearly impossible. The state does not require committees to specifically itemize spending against a ballot measure. As a result, thousands of dollars are spent under the disclosure radar. 13 Unlike most other states, Michigan ballot committee balances carry over from year to year. 14 Missouri ballot committee expenditure information was unavailable; expenditures were assumed to be equal to contributions. 15 The committee that supported Initiative 37 also supported Initiative 38. 16 The Oklahoma total is current as of October 2002. The state, one of four that does not file initiative campaign finance data online, made summary information available in October but was unwilling to provide post election data in January due to “staff shortages.” 17 Oregon figures do not include contributions and expenditures made during the signature-gathering period. 18 Three of the 4 committees that supported Measure 21 also supported Measure 22. 19 The committee that opposed Measure 21 also opposed Measure 22. Page 19