2006 BALLOT MEASURE OVERVIEW AN A NALYSIS O F TH E MON EY RAISED A RO UND MEASU RES O N STA TE BA LLO TS I N 2006 By THE N ATIO NA L IN STI TU TE O N MON EY IN STA TE PO LI TI CS NOVEMBER 5, 2007 833 NORTH LAST CHANCE GULCH, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org The National Institute on Money in State Politics is the only nonpartisan, nonprofit organization revealing the influence of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy in all 50 states. Our comprehensive and verifiable campaign-finance database and relevant issue analyses are available for free through our Web site FollowTheMoney.org. We encourage transparency and promote independent investigation of state-level campaign contributions by journalists, academic researchers, public-interest groups, government agencies, policymakers, students and the public at large. 833 North Last Chance Gulch, Second Floor • Helena, MT 59601 Phone: 406-449-2480 • Fax: 406-457-2091 E-mail: [email protected] www.FollowTheMoney.org This publication was made possible by grants from: JEHT Foundation, Fair and Participatory Elections Carnegie Corporation of New York, Strengthening U.S. Democracy Ford Foundation, Program on Governance and Civil Society The Pew Charitable Trusts, State Policy Initiatives Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Program on Democratic Practice The statements made and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the Institute. National Institute on Money in State Politics © 2007 2 TA BLE OF CON TENTS Overview..................................................................................................4 Methodology.................................................................................7 Smoking Showdown.................................................................................8 High Stakes: Gambling Ballot Measures.................................................25 Eminent Threat?.....................................................................................37 Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Take Battle to the Ballot..................................51 Taxpayer Bill of Rights ..........................................................................68 The Money Behind the 2006 Marriage Amendments ..............................83 Voters Give Workers a Raise................................................................122 Appendix A..........................................................................................141 National Institute on Money in State Politics © 2007 3 OVERVIEW Although citizens had the last word on Election Day, a close look at who funded state ballot measure campaigns in 2006 reveals that they are often anything but citizen-driven grassroots efforts. Out-of-state donors, large corporations, special interests and wealthy individuals provided the lion’s share of the money raised to support or defeat the 2006 measures. Committees formed to support or oppose the measures raised $648.4 million in contributions, or 28 percent more than the $540 million raised around measures on the ballots in 2004 (see Appendix A on page 141 for 2006 totals by state). The 2005 ballot measures attracted $466.2 million, thanks largely to expensive measures in California. An analysis of the $648.4 million raised around the measures in 2006 reveals: . Individual donors played a relatively small role in funding the campaigns, providing just 23 percent of the total contributions raised, or $147.5 million. However, most of that money, or $101.3 million, was given by just 15 donors who gave $1 million or more. Controversial measures on same-sex marriage, minimum wages, property rights, abortion and others appeared on ballots in more than one state, often orchestrated by the same proponents. The 2006 elections saw a major surge of ballot measures from previous years: 219 measures were on the ballot in 37 states in 2006 — the third- highest in 100 years1 — and almost double the 111 measures on ballots in 28 states in 2004. During the 2005 off-year election, nine states had a total of 25 measures on the ballots, similar to the 24 measures on ballots in 11 states in 2003. Businesses and special interests were the primary donors to ballot measure committees, giving $444.7 million, or 69 percent of the money raised around the 2006 measures. Tobacco company giants R.J. Reynolds and Altria, along with their affiliates and political action committees, were among the top three donors in this group, giving $46.8 million and $35.3 million, respectively, in eight states. Chevron Corporation was the second largest, giving $38.9 million to campaigns in Alaska, California and Colorado. Labor organizations contributed another $48.2 million, while unitemized contributions — those that fall under the states' reporting threshold for providing donor information — came to $3.3 million. The remaining $4.7 million came from party, candidate and leadership committees. Out-of-state donors played a pivotal role as financiers of the ballot measure campaigns, giving nearly $155 million, or 23 percent of the total contributions. Measures in three states — California, Ohio and Arizona — attracted most of the out-of-state donations. The measures in California attracted nearly $58 million, while the measures in Ohio and Arizona received $17 million and $15.7 million, respectively. 1 Pamela M. Prah, “Cancer Research, Vouchers on '07 Ballots,” Stateline.org [on-line] Oct. 1, 2007; available from http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=244564; Internet; accessed Oct. 4, 2007. National Institute on Money in State Politics © 2007 4 Although individual donors as a group were minor players, three individuals rose above the crowd: . Stephen Bing, a Hollywood movie producer, was the largest donor overall, giving $49.6 million in support of the failed Proposition 87 in California. The measure would have imposed a profit tax on energy companies and allotted $4 billion for alternative energy research. Bing’s contributions — the most ever given by an individual — accounted for 83 percent of the $59.7 million raised by supporters of the measure. James and Virginia Stowers, of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, gave $26.8 million in support of the successful Amendment 2 in Missouri that allows for stem cell research, therapies and cures. (The Stowers Institute itself gave an additional $79,068.) The Stowers’ personal contributions accounted for 82 percent of the $32.6 million raised in support of the measure. Not appearing on any campaign-finance reports, but still a heavy-hitter, was New York real estate magnate and active Libertarian Howard Rich. Although Rich never made any direct contributions, three of every four dollars raised by proponents of the so-called Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) measures on ballots in several states could be traced back to him. Altogether, groups affiliated with Rich provided $7.6 million to support the measures, three of which were rejected by voters and five that were disqualified after successful court challenges by opponents. CA LIFO RNIA LEAD S TH E PA CK California’s 15 ballot measures were the most costly, garnering a total of $359.1 million, or 55 percent of the money raised. Missouri’s seven ballot measures came in a distant second, with nearly $52 million, $36.7 million of which was raised around the highly controversial Amendment 2, which allowed and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies and cures. Arizona had the second highest number of measures on the ballot in 2006 — 17 — that attracted nearly $32.5 million. The most expensive measure on the ballot in 2006 was California’s Proposition 87, which garnered $153.9 million in contributions. The measure, known as the Clean Alternative Energy Program, would have established a $4 billion program to fund research and production incentives for alternative energy, with the goal of reducing the state’s petroleum consumption by 25 percent. The program would have been funded by a severance tax on producers of oil extracted in California.2 The funding of this measure typifies the point that ballot measure campaigns are not grassroots campaigns, driven instead by large corporations, special interests and wealthy individuals. Ninety-nine percent of the $94.2 million raised in opposition to the measure came from oil production companies. Two companies in particular shelled out substantial sums to fight the 2 “California General Election Official Voter Information Guide,” California Secretary of State [on-line]; available from http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/props/prop87/prop87.html; Internet; accessed Nov. 1, 2007. National Institute on Money in State Politics © 2007 5 measure. Chevron, headquartered in San Francisco, Calif., gave $38 million, and Aera Energy, “one of California’s largest oil and gas producers, accounting for approximately 30% of the state’s production,”3 gave $32.8 million. Just 11 individuals gave in opposition to Proposition 87, contributing a total of $60,100. By comparison, 153 individual donors gave in support of Proposition 87. However, one individual, Stephen Bing, as mentioned earlier, provided 83 percent of the $59.7 million in contributions given by supporters of the measure. In the end, the opponents’ contributions paid off, as voters rejected the measure by a vote of 45 percent in favor to 55 percent against. ISSU ES A CROSS STA TE LIN ES Several issues appeared on ballots in several states in 2006. The Institute researched these “clusters”