by Institute Staff | 2014-03-03
Übersicht
The 2012 elections drew the most money around ballot measures since the National Institute on Money in State Politics began collecting that data in 2004. In 2012, 186 measures attracted $939.4 million, surpassing the 2008 record of $813.7 million1. By comparison, 2011 was a much quieter year, with the 34 measures on state ballots attracting $102.4 million.
Fueling the record-shattering fundraising were a series of ballot measures touching upon hot-button issues. In 2012, battles over labor rights attracted more than $250 million, a single gaming expansion measure in Maryland attracted $95 million, and $73 million fueled the debate over the definition of marriage in five states. Some contributions produced profound shifts in public policy, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, or the groundbreaking legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Still other expensive battles ended in stalemates, like the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed toward labor-related ballot measures in California and Michigan that ultimately changed nothing.
California, always a hotbed of ballot measure activity, had the most expensive ballot measure battles in 2012, with $455.8 million in contributions to ballot measure committees. Michigan ballot measure committees were the second most prolific in 2012, raising $177.6 million, while Maryland was third with $106.8 million. Eighteen states had contested ballot measures, but no identifiable money contributed toward contesting them. In 2011, only three states attracted significant fundraising around their ballot measures: Ohio led the pack with $55 million, followed by Washington with $38.4 million, and Maine with $9 million. For more information about ballot measure contribution totals in each state, please see appendices A and B.
A preponderance of contributions came from non-individual donors, such as businesses, unions, and political action committees. In 2011 and 2012, individuals contributed $228.6 million (22 percent of total contributions), while non-individuals contributed $796.1 million (77 percent of total contributions). In addition, contributions below the reporting threshold accounted for $11.9 million (1 percent of total contributions).
![Types of Contributors to 2011 & 2012 Ballot Measures](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image11.png)
Out-of-state contributors provided more than one-third of all contributions to the various state ballot measures: $31 million in 2011 and $331.3 million in 2012.
The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America contributed nearly one-third of all out-of-state money in 2011, giving more than $9 million to fight a measure that would have privatized liquor sales in Washington. Labor unions provided the other substantial source of out-of-state cash in 2011: five international unions each contributed a million or more in the battle over Ohio’s labor laws2.
Gaming interests were the largest out-of-state contributors in 2012. Penn National Gaming and MGM Resorts International each gave more than $40 million around Maryland’s debate over gaming expansion. Tobacco-related ballot measures in California and Missouri attracted sizable out-of-state donations from both the American Cancer Society and Reynolds American Inc. Other major out-of-state donors in 2012 were the Service Employees International Union, which gave $14.5 million on a variety of ballot measures, and Americans For Responsible Leadership, which pumped $11 million into California ballot measures.
A handful of out-of-state individuals also made considerable donations to ballot measures. The late Peter B. Lewis, of Progressive Insurance, gave more than $4 million to support medical marijuana and marijuana legalization. Alice Walton, Wal-Mart heiress, gave $2.3 million to ballot measures expanding charter schools. Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City and one of America’s richest men, contributed $1.3 million to ballot measures restricting tobacco and expanding same-sex marriage. Likewise, Jon Stryker, medical supply magnate, gave $1.1 million to ballot measure committees advocating for same-sex marriage.
Ballot Measures by Topic
The Institute identified eight crucial topics on which multiple states had competitive ballot measures in 2011 and 2012, and analyzed the funding of those measures. Of these topics, listed in the table below, labor rights issues attracted the most money by far, topping $267 million in contributions. Gaming regulation, a perennially expensive ballot measure topic, came in a distant second at $115 million. Same-sex marriage, an issue that dominated the headlines in 2011 and 2012, rounded out the top three issue areas with $73 million in contributions.
Laboring Over Rights
In 2011 and 2012, a succession of bitterly fought ballot measures in three states focused on the legal rights of labor unions. The battles included a referendum in Ohio to severely limit collective bargaining for public employees, two constitutional amendments in Michigan intended to guarantee the right to collective bargaining and expand unionization rights to home health care workers, and a California initiative that would have barred unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes and otherwise circumscribe their ability to involve themselves in electoral politics.
The committees waging these fights raised $267 million, making labor rights the hottest ballot issue in 2011 and 2012. But after the votes were counted, the status quo reigned. The initiatives to restrict labor rights were rejected by voters, as were the initiatives to constitutionally protect the same rights.
![Contributions to 2011 & 2012 Labor Rights Ballot Measure Committees, by State](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image08.png)
Of the $267 million raised on the four measures, $158 million was given in support of expanding or protecting labor rights, whereas contributors looking to curtail labor rights gave $109 million. Nine national labor unions gave $41 million to pro-union measures in all three states. In total, union donors contributed more than $140 million to expand or protect labor rights. On the other side of the issue, Americans for Prosperity was the only donor to give in more than one state—the group gave $368,521 to measures in Ohio and Michigan. However, committees looking to curtail labor rights were able to close the funding gap by turning to large individual donors. Unlike their pro-labor counterparts—who, despite their overall fundraising advantage raised less than than $2 million from individuals—groups attempting to limit labor rights raised $49 million (nearly half their funds) from individual donors.
![Types of Contributors to 2011 & 2012 Labor Rights Ballot Measure Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image03.png)
The campaign in California was the most expensive, drawing $135 million in contributions, while the ballot committees in Michigan raised $78 million, and Ohio committees raised $54 million.
California Labor Proposition 32
Although both sides vigorously contested the campaign, voters in California rejected Proposition 32 by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin. The measure would have severely limited the money unions could use for political purposes. According to the official description, the measure “Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors.” As the state’s legislative analysis of the measure noted, few other organizations use payroll deductions for political purposes, but many unions engage in the practice.
Opponents raised $76 million, while supporters of the measure raised $59 million. However, $48 million of the opponents’ funds were raised by the Small Business Action Committee, which did not solely focus on Proposition 32 during the election.
Of the $135 million raised, $92 million came from non-individuals, and nearly $43 million from individual donors.
Out-of-state contributors gave nearly $24 million, which is 18 percent of the money raised. Americans for Responsible Leadership, an Arizona-based activist group, was the largest out-of-state supporting contributor at $11 million. At $3.8 million, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was the largest out-of-state donor opposing Proposition 32.
More than half of the money raised in support came from Charles Munger Jr., who contributed $34 million to the Small Business Action Committee, Stop Special Interest Money Now, and Californians Against Special Interests. Munger is a physicist associated with Stanford University and the son of Berkshire Hathaway Vice President Charlie Munger.
Aside from Munger, the largest individual donors came from the financial sector. Jerrold Perenchio, founder of Univision, contributed $1.3 million to the Small Business Action Committee and Stop Special Interest Money Now. William Oberndorf, co-founder of SPO Advisory Corporation, contributed $1.1 million to the Small Business Action Committee. Stephen Bechtel Jr., co-owner of the Bechtel Group, contributed $520,000 to Stop Special Interest Money Now.
Conservative groups also played a major role in supporting Proposition 32. The largest of these, Americans for Responsible Leadership, contributed $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee.There was more to the story, however, as on Oct. 24, 2013, the California Fair Practices Political Committee ruled that these contributions were illegal and fined Americans For Responsible Leadership $500,000. American Future Fund, another out-of-state group, gave $4 million to the California Future Fund for Free Markets. These two out-of-state groups gave more more than half of the total out-of-state donations for both sides in the campaign.
![Out-of-State Giving to California’s 2012 Proposition 32 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image13.png)
Opponents of the measure raised $76 million, of which—in an important inversion of the fundraising patterns of proponents—opponents contributed $69 million to groups focusing solely on opposing Proposition 32. Of no surprise, organized labor was a major source of contributions opposing the measure: of the $76 million raised, $21 million came from the California Teachers Association, $8.4 million from the California State Council of Service Employees, $6.8 million from the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, and $3.6 million from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. In total, the labor sector contributed $66 million of the $76 million raised to oppose the measure.
There were, however, some notable non-labor donors who gave in opposition. The California Democratic Party contributed $3.2 million, and Thomas Steyer, noted Democratic fundraiser, contributed $500,000. Steyer was the only individual to donate more than $25,000 to oppose the measure. Another large donor outside the labor sector was the African American Voter Registration, Education and Participation Project, which contributed $465,955.
Michigan Labor Amendments
In Michigan, the struggle over labor rights took the form of two proposed constitutional amendments. Proposal 12-2 would have codified a right to collective bargaining, and Proposal 12-4 would have expanded the workplace rights of home health care workers, including a guarantee of collective bargaining.
In total, committees active in these campaigns raised nearly $78 million. The total raised exclusively on the two propositions was $70 million. However, the portion of the remaining $7 million that was raised directly around Proposals 12-2 and 12-4 is unclear because some committees were involved in other ballot measures, as well. Groups supporting the measures raised $40 million compared to the $38 million raised by opponents; both proposed amendments were rejected by voters.
Contributions to the ballot measure committees in Michigan primarily came from organizations. Of the $78 million raised, $71 million came from organizations. As in California and Ohio, a substantial sum of money raised in support of Proposals 12-2 and 12-4 came from organized labor. Of the $40 million raised to support the proposals, $35 million came from unions or union members. Many of these unions were located out-of-state, leading to a large imbalance in out-of-state fundraising for the two sides. Of the $26 million in contributions from states other than Michigan, $22 million went to groups supporting the two proposals.
Groups opposing the proposals raised $38 million, $31 million of which was raised by two groups solely focused on opposing Proposal 12-2. Protecting Michigan Taxpayers raised $23 million, while Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution raised $8.7 million. Protecting Michigan Taxpayers’ major donors include the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which gave $9.2 million, the Michigan Alliance for Business Growth, which gave $5.5 million, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who gave $1 million each, Richard and Helen Devos, who gave $500,000 each, and $500,000 from Harold Simmons.
The $8.7 million for Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution came from similar sources. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce donated nearly $3 million, the Michigan Republican Party donated $1.5 million, and Protecting Michigan Taxpayers contributed $940,000. The Michigan Health and Hospital Organization gave $750,000, and the national education reform group StudentsFirst gave $500,000.
Groups opposing Proposals 12-2 and 12-4 as part of a wider slate raised $7.3 million. The largest of these, raising $3.9 million, was the Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC which received $2.5 million from the Michigan Republican Party and six-figure sums from Michigan-based businesses, including Meijer, Compuware, and Jackson National Life Insurance. The Americans For Prosperity Michigan Ballot Committee raised $1.5 million, with $1.2 million coming from The People Should Decide, a group attempting to complicate the construction of a new international bridge, and $319,265 coming from the national arm of Americans for Prosperity. Other ballot measure committees involved in the two proposals included the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, with $240,079; the Michigan Association of Realtors, with $216,279; and Americans For Tax Reform, with $84,970.
The largest group supporting the measures was Protect Working Families, which raised nearly $23 million. Seven labor groups each contributed $1 million or more to the committee. United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) gave more than $4.6 million, the Michigan Education Association (MEA) contributed more than $2.4 million, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) gave more than $1.8 million, the National Education Association (NEA) gave exactly $1.5 million, the American Federation of Teachers gave more than $1 million, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Steelworkers Organization Crisis Fund each gave exactly $1 million.
Several smaller labor groups also formed their own committees and were involved in supporting Proposal 12-2. The International Association of Fire Fighters committed $200,000, while a collection of building trades unions pooled their resources into a committee named Building Trades for Michigan Jobs. Finally, the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 370 raised $4,800.
Three groups exclusively supported Proposal 12-4, although ongoing investigations question the degree to which the groups were related. A group named Home Care First raised $9.3 million from the Service Employees International Union and its local chapters, and eventually donated all of its funds to a second organization, Citizens for Affordable and Quality Healthcare. A complaint filed by the Michigan Freedom Fund alleges these actions violated Michigan law, but the Board of Elections has yet to make a determination. The Service Employees International Union also donated $6.3 million to the Service Employees International Union ballot committee.
Several groups supported initiatives 12-2 and 12-4 as part of a wider slate. The Michigan League of Responsible Voters raised $878,511 from four organizations: $585,000 from the NEA; $100,744 from the UAW; $100,000 from the SEIU; and $92,767 from the MEA. America Votes raised $300,000, of which $150,000 came from a group called Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs, and $75,000 each from the UAW and MEA. Finally, the BlueGreen Alliance, a national collaboration between environmental and labor groups, contributed $190,250 to its ballot committee, the BlueGreen Alliance for Michigan Jobs and Energy.
Ohio Labor Referendum
In Ohio, the struggle over labor rights focused on a veto referendum of a controversial bill that would have implemented performance pay for public employees and limited the collective bargaining rights of public employees. The bill, Senate Bill 5, passed the state legislature and Gov. John Kasich signed it on March 31, 2011. However, signatures collected by labor groups put the bill to a popular vote in November 2011. Ultimately, collective bargaining rights were retained when the voters rejected Issue 2.
The referendum attracted more than $54 million in contributions, with the anti-Issue 2 committee We Are Ohio raising more than $42 million, and the pro-Issue 2 group Building A Better Ohio raising $12 million.
We Are Ohio’s fundraising success came in large part because of strong support from labor organizations, which combined to donate $39 million to the committee. The large sums given by labor groups and other organizations were augmented by the largest set of small donors in the three states. More than 9,000 individuals contributed to We Are Ohio, for a total of $493,822. Of that sum, $440,353 came from individuals living in Ohio and $51,704 came from individuals outside Ohio3. In contrast, Building a Better Ohio did not report any individual donations.
Foremost among the union donors against Issue 2 was the Ohio Education Association, which gave $6.6 million to We Are Ohio. The second-largest donor to the committee was the National Education Association, which contributed $4 million. The remaining top-five donors were AFSCME ($3.9 million), National Labor Table ($3 million), and Local 1199 of SEIU ($2.8 million). Large non-labor donors to We Are Ohio included the Ohio Democratic Party with $900,000, the Democratic Governors Association with $175,000, and Akron University with $75,000. The generosity of national labor organizations such as the National Education Association (NEA) and AFSCME account in large part for the fact that We Are Ohio raised nearly $17 million of its $42 million from out-of-state sources.
The sources of the money raised by the opposing committee Building A Better Ohio were considerably more opaque. The committee raised slightly more than $12 million, but $11.4 million of that came from a nonprofit corporation also named Building a Better Ohio. This corporation registered as a 501(c)(4), which typically are not required to disclose their donors; thus, no information is available about where the nonprofit raised that money. This lack of transparency renders it difficult to describe in-state versus out-of-state contributions or organizational versus individual donations. It is possible to identify four other donors to the ballot measure committee, all of which gave substantial in-kind contributions. The largest of these was the Christian conservative organization Restoring America, which contributed $500,000 in media spending. Americans for Prosperity also gave $49,256 worth of phone banks, media buys, and consulting. Ohio 2.0 LLC contributed $11,000 worth of office space and phones, while Credo Company LLC gave $8,167 in consulting.
Gambling on Expansion
Voters were asked to approve the expansion of gaming in five states during elections held in 2011 and 2012. These measures met with a 50 percent success rate: four of the eight measures passed.
In three states—Maryland, Oregon, and Maine—competing casino operators and casino developers lined up against each other and contributed the majority of the money around the measures.
Seven of the gaming measures in four states—Maine, Maryland, Oregon, and Rhode Island—attracted a total of $115 million. A fifth state, New Jersey, also had a gambling measure on the ballot in 2011, but no committees formed to raise money around the measure.
**The money raised in support was $4,200,299 for Question 2 and $589,498 for Question 3. The money raised in opposition was $2,420,118 for both Questions 2 & 3, and $5,625 for only Question 3.
Maryland’s Question 7 attracted $95 million, making it the most expensive political campaign of any kind in Maryland’s history.45 Passed by only 3.8 percentage points, this measure allowed expansion of video gaming and the operation of table games.
The measure elicited a showdown between two major gambling companies. Penn National Gaming gave more than $44 million in opposition, and MGM Resorts gave nearly $41 million in support. Although most of the supporters would benefit through expansion of their current casinos or development of new ones, some speculated that Penn National Gaming was opposed to the measure to avoid competition with its large casino in neighboring West Virginia.6 Peterson Development Companies, which would build MGM’s proposed casino if approved, gave $4.6 million in support of the measure.7
Voters rejected both of the 2012 gambling-related measures in Oregon (measures 82 and 83) despite supporters having raised more money. The measures were tied together: Measure 82 would have allowed the operation of casinos by non-tribal private owners, and Measure 83 would have restricted it to just one non-tribal casino. Committees with positions on the measures raised a total of $8.6 million, with $2.9 million opposing the measures and $5.7 million supporting them. Nearly all of the support for the measures came from PDX Entertainment Group, a Canadian organization that wanted to build and operate non-tribal casinos in the state.8 Five Native American tribes raised 93 percent of the money to oppose the measures, including $2.6 million from the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde.
In 2011, Maine voters rejected two measures to expand gambling. Question 2 would have allowed two harness horse racing facilities in the city of Biddeford and Washington County to add slot machines, and Question 3 would have allowed one facility in the city of Lewiston to run slot machines and table games. Committees opposing the measures raised $2.4 million. Committees supporting the measures raised $4.8 million, twice as much as the opposition. The largest opponent to the measures, with $940,662, was Penn National Gaming, owner of Hollywood Casino,9 which at the time of the 2011 elections was the only casino in the state (Oxford Casino had been approved but had not yet opened).10 Black Bear Entertainment, the developer of Oxford Casino, and a group named Friends of Oxford Casino, gave a combined $890,274 to oppose the measures.11 The largest supporter of Question 2 was Ocean Properties, the developer who would have built the new casinos had they been approved.12 Ocean Properties contributed $3.7 million in support, most of which were loans to Putting Maine to Work, a committee advocating for the measure.
Rhode Island passed two measures in 2012 to add table gaming to existing casinos. Question 1 authorizes table gaming at Twin River and Question 2 authorizes it at Newport. Question 1 had nearly $5 million raised in support; Question 2 had $3,050 in support. Neither measure had any money raised in opposition. All of the money supporting question 1 came from UTGR Inc., which is the corporate name of Twin River Casino.13
In 2011, New Jersey voters passed by a 28 percent margin a constitutional amendment to allow wagering on sports events at Atlantic City casinos and at horse race tracks. No money was identified in support or opposition.
Same-Sex Matrimony Measures Marry Mountains of Money
Same-sex marriage advocates swept up victories in four of the five states voting on ballot measures in 2012, raising more than twice as much as opponents.
Measures concerning same-sex marriage were on the ballot in five states during the 2012 elections, attracting $73.3 million in contributions. Supporters of same-sex marriage created 45 ballot measure committees and raised $50.5 million—69 percent of all contributions raised around the measures. By contrast, opponents of same-sex marriage formed 16 ballot measure committees and raised $22.8 million—31 percent of contributions targeting same-sex marriage.
Washington, Maine, and Maryland passed measures legalizing same-sex marriage. North Carolina voters approved a measure to amend their constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Voters in Minnesota rejected a measure that would have established a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in that state.
![Contributions to 2012 Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measure Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image15.png)
Ballot measure committees supporting measures that passed raised more money in three states, while opponents of North Carolina’s Amendment 1 raised 93 percent more than proponents.
![Contributions to 2012 Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measure Committees by State](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image05.png)
The National Organization for Marriage, which formed in 2007 to oppose same-sex marriage and advocate for “traditional marriage,” gave the most in opposition to same-sex marriage legalization: $7.3 million between all five states ($9.3 million including its Minnesota ballot measure committee). Proponents of same-sex marriage found their highest contributor in the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian rights group. The group contributed $5.4 million to pro-same-sex marriage ballot measure committees. Both of these organizations contributed to ballot measure committees in all five states that had same-sex marriage issues on the ballot.
A number of donors gave at least $100,000 to ballot measure committees focused on same-sex marriage issues in multiple states. The National Organization for Marriage and the Human Rights Campaign were the largest multi-state contributors to opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage measures, respectively. Multi-state contributors who donated at least $100,000 to efforts supporting same-sex marriage include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and actor Brad Pitt, while those opposing same-sex marriage measures included the Knights of Columbus and the Christian Civic League of Maine.
Overall, donations from the gay/lesbian rights and issues economic sector were the largest, giving $15 million to committees raising money in favor of same-sex marriage. Christian Conservative organizations comprised the second-largest group, giving more than $13 million to committees opposing same-sex marriage. Churches and clergy followed, giving slightly more than $4 million to opponents of same-sex marriage; some donors within this economic sector gave slightly more than $100,000 to proponents of equal marriage measures.
Maine Question 1
Question 1 in Maine passed with 53 percent of voters approving same-sex marriage. Sixteen committees supporting the measure raised $8.5 million, and seven opposition committees raised $2.6 million. Out-of-state donors gave 71 percent of contributions to proponents of the measure, while 91 percent of opponents’ fundraising came from out-of-state donors.
![In-State & Out-of-State Contributions to Maine’s 2012 Question 1 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image14.png)
The National Organization for Marriage was the top contributor to opponents of Maine’s Question 1, donating more than $2.1 million. The Knights of Columbus contributed more than $100,000, the second-highest amount contributed against the measure.
On the other side of the issue, the highest contributor to proponents of Maine’s Question 1 was Freedom to Marry, which gave more than $1.4 million. The Human Rights Campaign contributed the second-largest amount, about $872,000, to proponents of the ballot measure. See Tables 14 and 15 for donors that contributed at least $100,000 to support or oppose Maine’s Question 1.
Donor | Total |
---|---|
National Organization for Marriage | $2,149,235 |
Knights of Columbus | $101,135 |
TOTAL | $2,250,370 |
Ideological groups focusing on gay and lesbian rights contributed $3.8 million to proponents of Maine’s Question 1. The Christian Conservative sector contributed approximately $2.2 million against the measure. The Securities, Commodities, and Investment industry contributed nearly $780,000 to proponents of the measure and $10,600 to opponents.
Maryland Question 6
Maryland’s Question 6 passed with 52 percent of the vote, legalizing same-sex marriage. Six committees raised $7.6 million to support the measure, while two committees raised $2.5 million to oppose it. Proponents of the measure raised $2.6 million from in-state contributors, and nearly $5 million from donors living outside of Maryland. Opponents of the measure, on the other hand, raised about $787,000 from in-state donors; out-of-state donors contributed $1.7 million to committees opposing the bill.
![In-State & Out-of-State Contributions to Maryland’s 2012 Question 6 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image00.png)
Opponents of Maryland’s Question 6 received the most contributions from the National Organization for Marriage, which contributed approximately $1.2 million. Their second-highest funder was the Maryland Marriage Alliance, which donated $411,000.
Proponents of the measure also received a large sum of money from national groups: Human Rights Campaign was the highest contributor to pro-measure committees, donating $1.4 million; American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) contributed the second-largest amount to same-sex marriage advocates in Maryland, at $350,000. See Tables 16 and 17 for the contributors that donated a minimum of $100,000 to support or oppose Question 6.
Ideological groups supporting gay and lesbian rights and issues contributed the most to the ballot measure in Maryland—$2.2 million for the measure—followed by Christian conservative ideological groups, which contributed approximately $1.7 million against the measure. Public sector unions were the third-highest contributing industry, giving slightly more than $1 million to support same-sex marriage in Maryland.
Minnesota Constitutional Amendment 1
Minnesota was the only state where voters rejected a same-sex marriage ballot measure: nearly 52 percent of voters turned down Minnesota's Constitutional Amendment 1, which would have banned same-sex marriage. Five committees organized to support the amendment, raising a combined $13.4 million. Fourteen committees organized to oppose the amendment, raising a total of $16.4 million (this includes committees organized against Minnesota's Constitutional Amendment 1 and those that organized against a constitutional amendment that would have required photo identification for voting purposes).
![In-State & Out-of-State Contributions to Minnesota’s 2012 Constitutional Amendment 1 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image04.png)
The Human Rights Campaign contributed approximately $1.5 million to oppose Minnesota's Constitutional Amendment 1. The second-largest opponent was Freedom to Marry and its Minnesota affiliate, which contributed slightly more than $1.1 million.
Conversely, the National Organization for Marriage and its Minnesota Fund contributed about $4.3 million to support the amendment. The second-largest supporter was the Minnesota Family Council Marriage Defense Fund, which contributed about $2.9 million. See Tables 18 and 19 for contributors who parted with at least $100,000 to support or oppose Minnesota's Constitutional Amendment 1.
One contribution of approximately $114,000 was made to Minnesota for Marriage, a committee supporting the measure, without information as to who contributed the amount.
Ideological groups dominated the giving. The Christian Conservative sector gave the most to support Minnesota's Constitutional Amendment 1, with $7.1 million. The gay and lesbian rights & issues sector contributed $4.6 million to committees opposed to Minnesota's Constitutional Amendment 1. Clergy gave the third-most, contributing about $37,000 against the measure and $3.6 million to support it.
North Carolina Amendment 1
North Carolina voters passed Amendment 1 with 61 percent of the vote, thereby amending the state’s Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. One committee raised $1.6 million in favor of the amendment. Opponents of Amendment 1 organized two committees, which raised approximately $3.1 million. In-state contributions accounted for 71 percent of proponents’ fundraising and 70 percent of opponents’ fundraising.
![In-State & Out-of-State Contributions to North Carolina’s 2012 Amendment 1 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image06.png)
The Human Rights Campaign and its North Carolina affiliate contributed nearly $428,000 to oppose the measure. The second-largest funder of the opposition came from Replacements Ltd., a retail group selling dinnerware, which contributed $235,300.
Proponents relied most heavily on the $427,590 contributed from the National Organization for Marriage. The second-largest contributor to proponents of the amendment, the Christian Civic League of Maine, donated about $344,000. View Tables 20 and 21 for donors that contributed at least $100,000 to support their same-sex marriage views.
Christian Conservative groups made up the highest donating economic sector in the North Carolina Amendment 1 campaign, contributing more than $796,000 to proponents of the amendment. Gay and lesbian rights and issues groups contributed the second-most, around $694,000, to committees organized against the amendment. The Computer Equipment and Services industry contributed the third-highest overall, giving $43,250 to proponents of the measure and $250,400 to groups opposing the amendment.
Washington Referendum 74
Referendum 74 in Washington state was passed by 54 percent of the voters, legalizing marriage for same-sex couples in the Evergreen State. Seven committees formed in support of the referendum and raised approximately $15 million. In-state donors provided 61 percent of supporting contributions, while 38 percent was contributed from sources outside of the state. The only committee that formed in opposition was Preserve Marriage Washington, which raised $2.7 million, with 52 percent of its contributions from in-state donors.
![In-State & Out-of-State Contributions to Washington’s 2012 Referendum 74 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image09.png)
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, and his wife, MacKenzie Bezos, a novelist, jointly contributed $2.5 million to support Referendum 74, making them the largest donors to the ballot measure. The Human Rights Campaign contributed nearly $1.4 million to support same-sex marriage in Washington, making them the second-highest contributor to proponents of the ballot measure.
Donor | Total |
---|---|
National Organization for Marriage | $1,162,916 |
Knights of Columbus & Local Councils | $306,950 |
TOTAL | $1,469,866 |
The National Organization for Marriage contributed the most—about $1.2 million—to the Preserve Marriage Washington committee. Next to them, the Knights of Columbus, along with six of its local councils, contributed the second-largest amount to the opposition committee: slightly more than $300,000.
Ideological groups focusing on gay and lesbian rights and issues contributed the most on the question of same-sex marriage in Washington, donating nearly $3.6 million to proponents of Referendum 74. One hundred eighty-six individuals from the retail sales industry, primarily employees of Amazon.com and Nordstrom, gave the second-largest amount: about $2.6 million to proponents of same-sex marriage and $500 to opponents of the measure. Christian conservative organizations comprised the third-highest-giving industry, contributing approximately $1.3 million to opponents of the referendum.
Billionaires Push School Choice
Georgia and Washington voters chose to permit charter schools in their states. Georgia’s Constitutional Amendment 1 and Washington’s Initiative 1240 attracted a surprisingly diverse set of donors, with only Alice Walton, of the Wal-Mart empire, contributing in both contests. Walton was also notable for being the largest out-of-state donor to the education ballot measures in both states. She gave $1.7 million toward the Washington initiative and $600,000 toward the Georgia amendment, making her the largest donor overall for Amendment 1 and the second-largest donor for Initiative 1240.
Contributions to committees supporting Amendment 1 came overwhelmingly from the out-of-state donors. Those donors supporting Amendment 1 outraised Georgia donors $2 million to $417,306, in stark contrast to the out-of-state donors who only contributed $3,500 of the $262,322 raised in opposition to Amendment 1. In Washington, out-of-state contributors gave a smaller proportion of the total funds raised, contributing nearly $3 million of the $13 million raised. Another notable pattern across the initiatives was the outsized importance of individual donors. Of the $16 million raised in the two campaigns, more than $12 million came from individual contributors.
Proponents of charter schools in both campaigns dramatically outraised opponents. Of the $16 million raised around the two measures, $15 million came from committees supporting charter schools.14 In Georgia, supporters of the amendment outraised opponents $2.5 million to $260,000. Washington backers of I-1240 raised $12.5 million, seventeen times the $721,407 raised by opponents.
Aside from Walton, notable supporters for Amendment 1 include $300,000 from K12 Inc., $256,000 from StudentsFirst, and $250,000 each from GAP founder Doris Fisher, Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus, and Tiger Management Advisors.
The largest donors in opposition to Amendment 1 include the Georgia School Boards Association, which gave $74,000; the Georgia Federation of Teachers, which gave $15,000; and the Georgia School Superintendents Association, which gave $12,500. Notable individual donors include Ron Hinkle, CFO of the Corus Group, and Jeannie Henry, executive director of the Georgia School Boards Association. Employees of the Georgia School Boards Association and the Georgia School Superintendents Association gave a total of $13,900. As mentioned previously, opponents of Amendment 1 raised only $3,500 from out-of-state sources.
The major funders of Washington Initiative 1240, with the exception of Walton, come predominantly from the technology world. Bill Gates contributed $3 million to support the initiative, and Paul Allen (another founder of Microsoft) contributed $1.6 million of his wealth, matched by a $1.6 million donation from his company, Vulcan Inc. Other major contributors include: Nicolas Hanauer, an early investor in Amazon, who contributed $1 million; Connie Ballmer, the wife of Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer, who donated $500,000; and Jacklyn and Miguel Bezos, parents of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who each gave $500,000.
The National Education Association committed $250,000 to advocate against the measure, while the Washington Education Association gave $241,000 and the Washington State Council of Service Employees gave $50,000 in opposition.
A Taxing Supermajority
Michigan and Washington voters faced a similar choice on their ballots in 2012: whether to require a legislative supermajority in order to raise taxes. In Washington, I-1185 was an extension of existing law that established a requirement for a supermajority,15 while in Michigan, Proposition 5 would have created a new requirement.
The results were hardly a supermajority for either side of the debate, as I-1185 passed with 63 percent of the vote while Proposition 5 was rejected by 69 percent of Michigan voters. These measures, both of which would have had sizable implications for state budgeting processes, attracted more than $14 million in contributions.
The Michigan debate over Proposal 5 revealed some counterintuitive coalitions. For instance, the Michigan Republican Party and the National Education Association went up against the Morouns, a powerful Michigan family, and national activist groups such as Americans for Prosperity. Supporters of the measure raised $5.4 million, with the largest contributions from two entities linked to the Moroun family, who own and operate the Ambassador Bridge between the U.S. and Canada: a $3.7 million donation from Liberty Bell Agency Inc. , associated with Matthew Moroun16; and a $1.2 million contribution from The People Should Decide, an organization formed to support Proposal 12-6, which was Manuel Moroun’s attempt via constitutional amendment to block any new bridge to Canada. Other notable supporters of the proposal were Americans for Prosperity, which contributed $319,265, and Americans for Tax Reform, which contributed $84,970.
The Michigan Republican Party led all opponents with a $2.5 million contribution to a Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC formed to oppose all four of the five proposed constitutional amendments that were on the ballot in 2012.17 Other major contributors to the Chamber of Commerce PAC included the retailer Meijer, with a $305,000 contribution (Meijer also gave $30,000 to the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, a committee that similarly opposed Proposal 5), and Compuware, which gave $250,000. An important caveat is that these figures include all the contributions received by those committees, not the money specifically dedicated to Proposal 12-5, and thus actual spending on 12-5 may have been much lower.
The business community was not the only source of opposition. Two other committees committed serious resources to fight the proposal: Defend Michigan Democracy and the Michigan League of Responsible Voters, the latter of which took positions on five of the six Michigan ballot measures.18 The largest contributors to these groups were the National Education Association, with $985,000 between the two groups; the Michigan Health and Hospital Association, which gave $410,000 to Defend Michigan Democracy; and the Michigan Municipal League, which contributed $269,000 to Defend Michigan Democracy. Once again, it’s important to reiterate that because these committees were active in the debates over multiple ballot measures, it is impossible to know the proportion of these fundraising sums that were actually applied to Proposal 12-5.
In-state donors provided the bulk of contributions to committees debating Proposal 12-5. Of the $13 million contributions, $1.9 million came from out-of-state sources, notably the National Education Association and Americans for Prosperity, which combined for $1.3 million of the out-of-state contributions. The contributors were almost all organizations rather than individuals. Only $214,055 of the money raised around Proposal 12-5 came from individuals.
Washington’s I-1185 did not prove as contentious. The committee supporting the measure, Voters Want More Choices -- Save the Two Thirds Vote for Tax Increases, raised $1.4 million, substantially outraising the No On I-1185 Committee, which raised $98,016 for the campaign.
Contributions to both campaigns came primarily from organizations; only $50,744 came from individual contributions. Unlike Proposal 12-5, I-1185 attracted strong support among the business community. The Association of Washington Business gave $563,000 to committees supporting I-1185. Other major donors included the Beer Institute, which gave $400,000, and BP and ConocoPhillips, both of whom gave $110,000. Nearly half of the funds raised by proponents of the measure ($645,015) came from out-of-state sources, in stark contrast to the mere $50 in out-of-state contributions raised by their opponents. In opposition, the Washington Education Association gave $26,951, the Washington State Council of Service Employees gave $25,230, and the Washington State Democratic Party gave $11,776.
Regulating Marijuana
Übersicht
Voters in six states decided on ballot measures that addressed the regulation of marijuana. Three focused on recreational marijuana; three focused on medical marijuana. Supporters of the initiatives raised $12.8 million while opponents raised $897,408. Four of the six measures passed.
Of particular interest is the ratio of in-state to out-of-state contributions: supporters of legalizing marijuana raised approximately $1 from in-state contributors for every $3 contributed by out-of-state donors. Opponents of legalizing marijuana, on the other hand, raised approximately $3 from in-state donors for every $2 raised from out-of-state donors.
![In-State & Out-of-State Contributions to 2012 Marijuana Ballot Measure Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image10.png)
Contributions surrounding all six measures, combined, were fairly equally split between individuals and non-individuals: individuals gave 49 percent ($6.7 million) and non-individuals contributed about 50 percent ($6.8 million). An additional $138,000 came from unknown donors whose contributions did not meet the reporting threshold in their respective states.
![Types of Contributors to 2012 Marijuana Ballot Measure Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image12.png)
Five donors gave $100,000 or more to support marijuana ballot measures in more than one state. The top two multi-state givers—Peter Lewis, of Progressive Insurance,19 and the Marijuana Policy Project20—supported measures to legalize medical and recreational marijuana, while the other three multi-state givers contributed exclusively to recreational marijuana legalization efforts in Washington and Colorado.
Drug policy advocacy groups made up the highest-contributing industry. Those that advocated for legalization of marijuana contributed nearly $5.6 million to support the marijuana measures; those that advocated against legalization contributed nearly $286,000.
Medical Marijuana Measures, 2012
Voters in Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Montana decided to change regulations on medical marijuana in 2012.
Arkansas Issue 5
Arkansas’ Issue 5 would have allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana to patients and allowed patients to acquire marijuana from state-run dispensaries, or grow their own plants under particular circumstances.21 Issue 5 lost at the ballot box by about 3 percent of the vote, despite supporters raising nearly 28 times more than the opponents. The vast majority of contributions raised to support the measure—96 percent—came from out-of-state donors; less than 1 percent of contributions made to oppose the measure came from out-of-state contributors.
Opponents of Issue 5 raised 28 percent of contributions from individuals and about 70 percent from non-individuals. Conversely, proponents of the measure raised 2 percent of contributions from individuals and about 97 percent from non-individuals.
Massachusetts Question 3
Voters in Massachusetts approved Question 3 with 63 percent of the vote, with supporters raising about 93 times more than opponents. The measure eliminates “state criminal and civil penalties for the medical use of marijuana by qualifying patients…[who] must have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition…” and allows “for non-profit medical marijuana treatment centers to grow, process and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers.”22 The one committee supporting the initiative, the Committee for Compassionate Medicine, received 99 percent ($1.1 million) of its contributions from outside Massachusetts. One committee formed to oppose the measure, Vote No on Question 3, and raised 70 percent of contributions ( $8,561) from in-state donors.
Donations from individuals made up 64 percent, or slightly less than $8,000, of all contributions raised by the only committee opposing the Massachusetts medical marijuana initiative. The only committee supporting the measure received 100 percent of its $1.1 million from individual donors.
Montana IR-124
Montana voters approved IR-124 with 57 percent of the vote, favoring a more restrictive program than the I-148 medical marijuana program established by voters in 2004.23
No committees organized to support the measure, and the lone opposition committee raised slightly more than $38,000, all of which was contributed by two groups: Foundation for Constitutional Protection, based in Austin, Texas, which gave $34,750, and Montana First, which gave the remainder.
Recreational Marijuana Measures, 2012
Voters in three states were asked to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012. Colorado and Washington approved their measures, while Oregon voted it down. It is worth noting that proponents of the measures raised $9.4 million more than opponents.
Colorado Amendment 64
Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 with 55 percent of the vote, establishing a regulatory mechanism for recreational marijuana in Colorado. The measure includes a provision allowing local governments to regulate marijuana more strictly than the state, a provision requiring the first $40 million in revenue from marijuana excise taxes to be invested into public schools, and a provision requiring the “general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp.”24
Supporters of the measure raised $3.5 million, which is 394 times ($2.8 million) more than the $706,826 raised by opponents. Six committees in favor of the measure raised just 11 percent of their contributions from in-state donors. Two opposition committees, on the other hand, raised about $4 from in-state contributors for every $3 raised from out-of-state sources.
![In-State & Out-of-State Contributions to Colorado’s 2012 Amendment 64 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image07.png)
Individuals contributed 39 percent, approximately $1.4 million, of the total raised by supporters of Amendment 64, and donated about 24 percent of the total raised by committees opposing the amendment.
![Types of Contributors to Colorado’s 2012 Amendment 64 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image02.png)
Oregon Measure 80
Oregon voters rejected Measure 80, which would have legalized recreational use and possession of marijuana, even though the supporters raised almost seven times more than opponents.
In-state donors provided 99 percent of the money raised to support Measure 80. Individuals accounted for slightly more than 6 percent of donations to proponents, with approximately 88 percent coming from non-individuals and 5 percent coming from unknown contributors that donated amounts under Oregon’s itemization threshold.
An analysis of the source of money raised by the Parents Education Association, the only committee that raised money in opposition,25 was hindered by the fact that 94 percent of its $71,159 came from unitemized donations—those that fall under the state’s reporting threshold of $100.26
Washington Initiative 502
In Washington state, Initiative 502 passed by more than 300,000 votes, thereby legalizing and regulating the recreational marijuana trade in Washington. Proponents of the measure raised an astounding 385 times more than opponents of the initiative.
Supporters of Initiative 502 raised about 65 percent of their money from out-of state donors, while nearly all the money raised by opponents came from in-state contributors.
Washington’s I-502 had a noteworthy financing pattern: individuals contributed 64 percent of contributions for or against the initiative. The Institute has collected data on 18 other marijuana-related ballot measures in 13 states since 2004; individuals contributed just 30 percent of the $31 million raised around these measures. Washington’s Initiative 502 is one of only five marijuana-related ballot measures funded more by individuals than by non-individuals.
![Types of Contributors to Washington’s 2012 Initiative 502 Committees](assets/press/Reports/images/2012Ballot/image01.png)
Rocking “Corporate Personhood” from the Rockies
Ironically, corporations dominated the funding of anti-‘‘corporate personhood” ballot measure campaigns in Colorado and Montana—though the backers were both nonprofit corporations: the Fair Share Alliance and Common Cause. The 2012 measures took aim at the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and its interpretation of “corporate personhood.”
Voters in Colorado and Montana overwhelmingly approved the ballot measures. Individuals gave just 2 percent of the overall contributions raised around these measures—about $30,000. Ideological organizations, which are, by definition, corporations, were the primary funders of both successful measures.
Colorado Amendment 65
Coloradans passed Amendment 65 with 74 percent of the vote, encouraging the Colorado congressional delegation to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit campaign contributions and spending.
No committees organized to oppose Colorado’s Amendment 65, while three collectively raised nearly $1.1 million in support—67 percent of which came from in-state donors. Individuals contributed about $24,000, which is about 2 percent of overall contributions to committees organized around Amendment 65.
Fair Share Alliance put the most money into these measures. This Washington, D.C.-based national activist group runs campaigns opposing education cuts and money in politics, and supporting corporate taxation and job growth. They contributed $578,900, while its state affiliate, Colorado Fair Share contributed the second most, $295,000. Common Cause, a national organization that has campaigns focusing on money in politics, contributed the third-largest amount, $104,233.
Montana I-166
Three-quarters of Montana voters voted in favor of I-166, which established that, “It is the policy of the state of Montana that each elected and appointed official in Montana...advance the philosophy that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights and that each such elected and appointed official is charged to act to prohibit, whenever possible, corporations from making contributions to or expenditures on the campaigns of candidates or ballot issues. As part of this policy, each such elected and appointed official in Montana is charged to promote actions that accomplish a level playing field in election spending.”
Two committees formed around Montana’s I-166. Stand with Montanans raised approximately $225,000 to support the measure, only 5 percent of which came from in-state donors. Common Cause contributed $190,819, amounting to 85 percent of the total. Individuals contributed about 3 percent of the money raised in support of I-166, about $6,600.
Montanans Opposed to I-166 raised less than $500 and was not required to submit disclosure forms.
Abortion-Related Ballot Measures
Funding behind the statewide abortion-related ballot measures in 2012 was dominated by the battle in Florida, which was largely a fight between the Knights of Columbus and Catholic dioceses on one side, and Planned Parenthood on the other. The 2012 measures in Montana and Florida generated nearly $5 million in contributions, of which $4.8 million was raised around the Florida measure (including $227,934 raised by the Vote No Committee, which also opposed two other measures).27
Three states considered measures related to abortion on the ballots during elections held in 2011–2012. Voters in Montana approved LR-120, requiring physicians to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor younger than 16 years, or to get a judicial waiver of parental notification. Voters in Florida rejected Amendment 6, which would have prohibited public funding for abortions, with certain exceptions. In Mississippi, voters in 2011 rejected Initiative 26, which would have established personhood from the moment of conception or cloning. The Institute was not able to identify any ballot measure committees with positions on the 2011 Mississippi measure.
Florida Amendment 6
Contributions to oppose Florida’s Amendment 6, which would have banned public funding of abortions, reached nearly $4.3 million, while supporters of the ban raised $520,638. Those who raised the most money won; the measure failed after garnering only 45 percent of the votes. In-state money accounted for 73 percent of the money overall, or $3.5 million. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates spearheaded opposition to the Florida measure, while the supporters of the measure received almost all of their money from the Knights of Columbus and church groups.
Opponents to Florida’s 2012 Amendment 6
Opponents of Amendment 6 raised $4.3 million, with 72 percent of it coming from within Florida. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates targeted this measure with contributions from around the country and from Florida, leading both the in-state and out-of-state money sources that opposed the measure. From within Florida, Planned Parenthood contributions totaled $1.7 million, and it tacked on another $588,040 from outside the state, including $310,851 from its headquarters in New York.
The $2.3 million total from Planned Parenthood and its affiliates easily led the opposition to the measure.
Gladys Cofrin of Florida is employed at the Alachua County Crisis Center, a suicide counseling and services facility, and is the granddaughter of a paper company magnate.28 Barbara Stiefel is a retired executive of Stiefel Laboratories, which makes dermatological products.
Supporters of Florida’s 2012 Amendment 6
The money in support of the measure was dominated by the Knights of Columbus and church organizations. Of the $520,638 in support, $498,638, or 96 percent, came from those interests: $388,638 from various Catholic dioceses and the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, $100,000 from the Knights of Columbus, and $10,000 from the Florida Baptist Convention.
All of the money raised in support of Amendment 6 came from within Florida, with the exception of $100,000 from the Knights of Columbus headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut.
Montana Abortion Measure LR-120
Ballot measure committees raised $181,451 around Montana’s proposal to require parental notification before a minor could receive an abortion. Contributors from outside of Montana dominated the funding, giving 95 percent of the money, or $172,996. Supporters of the measure raised essentially all of their money from outside the state: $143,702 of $145,552. The measure’s opponents raised 82 percent of their money from outside the state. As in Florida, the side that raised the most money won: supporters raised $145,552, more than four times the $35,889 raised by the measure’s opponents. Ideological groups were prominent on both sides of the measure, with supporters also receiving a substantial sum from the Knights of Columbus.
Supporters of Montana’s 2012 LR-120
The Knights of Columbus from New Haven, Conn., gave $75,000 in support of the measure, nearly half the money raised by supporters. The top five contributors accounted for more than 99 percent of the money. Only one top-five contributor supporting the measure was an in-state organization: Montanans for Parental Rights.
Opponents of Montana’s 2012 LR-120
The Feminist Majority Foundation of Arlington, Va., gave more than 81 percent of the money raised to oppose Montana’s measure. The top five contributors to this side gave $35,031, comprising 98 percent of the $35,899 raised in opposition.
Appendix A: 2011 Ballot Measures
Appendix B: 2012 Ballot Measures
- 1. This report includes data collected by the Institute as of July 19, 2013. A small amount of additional data has since been collected, which is not included and does not affect the analysis in this report.
- 2. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Communication Workers of America; National Education Association; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
- 3. $1,766 came from individuals who did not disclose their state.
- 4. Connolly, Matt, “Spending in Maryland gambling expansion fight hits record high,” Washington Examiner, Oct. 10, 2012, available from http://washingtonexaminer.com/spending-in-maryland-gambling-expansion-fight-hits-record-high/article/2510377, accessed Aug. 28, 2013.
- 5. The most expensive gambling measures thus far were in California in 2008, when more than $172 million was raised around several gambling measures to expand tribal gaming rights. Accessed Feb. 13, 2014.
- 6. Wagner, John, “Spending on Maryland gambling measure tops $40 million,” The Washington Post, Oct. 9, 2012, available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/spending-on-md-gambling-measure-tops-40-million/2012/10/09/e055ba5a-123c-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html, accessed Aug. 28, 2013.
- 7. Neibauer, Michael, “MGM submits bid for National Harbor resort-casino,” Washington Business Journal, May 9, 2012, available from http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/breaking_ground/2013/05/mgm-submits-bid-for-national-harbor.html?page=all, accessed Aug. 28, 2013.
- 8. Esteve, Harry, “More money pours into Oregon casino measures,” The Oregonian, Oct. 16, 2012, available from http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/more_money_pours_into_casino_m.html, accessed Aug. 28, 2013.
- 9. Hollywood Casino, http://www.hollywoodcasinobangor.com/, accessed Sept. 3, 2013.
- 10. Canfield, Clark, “Casino Supporters Turn into Foes,” Associated Press, Oct. 13, 2011, available from http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1100862, accessed Sept. 3, 2013.
- 11. Ibid.
- 12. Kim, Ann S, “Ocean Properties’ brand boosts racino’s allure,” Portland Press Herald, Oct. 18, 2010, available from http://www.pressherald.com/news/ocean-properties-brand-boosts-racinos-allure_2010-10-18.html?pagenum=full, accessed Sept. 3, 2013.
- 13. Company Overview of UTGR Inc., Bloomberg Businessweek, available from http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=26972417, accessed Sept. 3, 2013.
- 14. Find more detail in the Institute’s Aug. 8, 2013, blog, “Chart(er)ing A New Course.”
- 15. Since the election, the constitutionality of I-1185 and its predecessors in Washington has been challenged in court, with at least one court ruling it unconstitutional, http://www.theolympian.com/2013/03/01/2442607/court-rules-against-two-thirds.html, accessed Nov. 5, 2013.
- 16. Hagalund, Rick, “2/3rds Tax Vote Proposal yet another Maneuver by Billionaire Detroit Bridge Owner Matty Moroun,” September 16, 2012, http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/09/rick_haglund_23_tax_vote_propo.html, accessed Nov. 5, 2013.
- 17. They took no position on Proposal 12-6.
- 18. They took no position on Proposal 12-6.
- 19. “Peter Lewis,” Forbes, available from http://www.forbes.com/profile/peter-lewis/, accessed Oct 31, 2013.
- 20. About MPP,” Marijuana Policy Project, available from http://www.mpp.org/about/, accessed Oct. 31, 2013.
- 21. Franco, Cheree, “The Medical Marijuana Push, in Arkansas,” March 28, 2012. Arkansas Times, available from http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-medical-marijuana-push/Content?oid=2140384, accessed Nov. 1, 2013.
- 22. “2012 Information for Voters,” Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, available from http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/quest_3.htm, accessed Nov. 1, 2013.
- 23. “Initiative Referendum No. 124 (IR-124),” Montana Secretary of State, available from http://sos.mt.gov/elections/Archives/2010s/2012/Initiatives/IR-124.asp, accessed Nov. 1, 2013.
- 24. “Amendment 64: Use and Regulation of Marijuana,” Colorado General Assembly, available from http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/1112InitRefr.nsf/dac421ef79ad243487256def0067c1de/cfa3bae60c8b4949872579c7006fa7ee/$FILE/Amendment%2064%20-%20Use%20&%20Regulation%20of%20Marijuana.pdf, accessed Nov. 1, 2013.
- 25. The Sheriffs of Oregon also organized to oppose the measure, but did not raise any money.
- 26. “Disclosing and Filing Transactions: Reporting Contributions,” Oregon Secretary of State, available from http://oregonvotes.org/pages/publications/manuals/campaign_finance/reportingcontributions.html, accessed Nov. 5, 2013.
- 27. Throughout this analysis of abortion-related ballot measures, totals include the money raised by the Vote No Committee, which opposed two other measures in Florida in addition to Amendment 6.
- 28. Crabbe, Nathan, “Area Donations to McCain and Obama split families,” Gainesville Sun, Oct. 31, 2008, available from http://www.gainesville.com/article/20081031/NEWS/810311014, accessed Dec. 31, 2013. Chun, Diane, “Quiet philanthropist David Cofrin dies at 88,” Gainesville Sun, Aug. 12, 2009, available from http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090812/ARTICLES/908121008?p=1&tc=pg, accessed Dec. 31, 2013.
Clearly, you're interested in following the money.
It costs more than $2 million a year to provide these verifiable facts about money in politics.
Do you know we simply give it to you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How often does that happen elsewhere in your life?
Please donate. You'll help us keep democracy transparent!