Among the propositions on Arizona's ballot this year is a constitutional amendment to give the Legislature exclusive authority to enact laws regulating hunting and fishing. The oversight could trump even voter initiatives.

Backing Proposition 109 is the Virginia-based National Rifle Association, which has sent donations totaling nearly $190,000 to a campaign to pass the hunting measure. Not to be outdone, the Humane Society of the United States, based in Washington, D.C., has contributed $250,000 to the campaign that opposes the measure.

Combined, the groups have kicked in nearly all of the large donations in the pro and opposition campaigns. Large donations are those of at least $10,000, and they must be reported to the state within 24 hours.

National groups and out-of-state donors are playing a major role this year in trying to woo voters in the campaigns for or against four of Arizona's 10 propositions on the Nov. 2 ballot, according to an Arizona Republic analysis of state campaign-finance records. With those propositions, anywhere from two-thirds to all of the large donations come from advocacy groups based outside the state.

The heavy presence of national groups and outside donors trying to influence state elections has become a regular, if little watched, feature of the political landscape in Arizona and elsewhere in recent decades.

In the case of the NRA, for instance, "they are a typical story of how national groups sometimes look around the states and try to find a way to make progress on their issue," said Mark Alexander, a law professor and campaign-finance expert at Seton Hall University. "You get a toehold in one place and try and build on that."

Political experts say the trend is growing, with both individuals and companies increasingly doling out money to try to shift public policy. Businesses, which have been able to contribute toward Arizona ballot measures for decades, also now can donate directly to candidates in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's January ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

It is difficult to quantify the trend of out-of-state giving to ballot measures because of differences in states' campaign-finance reports and factors that affect donor interest, such as midterm vs. presidential election years. It's also hard to determine if outside money succeeds often in swinging an election.

Regardless, in Arizona this year, outsiders are anteing up large sums on selected issues:

-�Nearly all the major donations to efforts tied to Proposition 113, which would tighten rules on union organizing in Arizona, have come from a Nevada-based organization, Save Our Secret Ballot, according to records with the secretary of state. S.O.S. Ballot, a type of non-profit that engages in political campaigning, says its overall purpose is to protect the right to a secret ballot in government-required elections.

-�Nearly two-thirds of the major cash paying for campaigns tied to a medicinal marijuana measure in Arizona, Proposition 203, is from out of state. The biggest outside donor is the Marijuana Policy Project, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C.

-�Outsiders account for all of the big donations on both sides of Proposition 107, a state constitutional amendment that could ban affirmative action in Arizona. The largest out-of-state donor was the California-based American Civil Rights Coalition, co-founded by activist Ward Connerly.

-�All but $30,000 of the nearly $440,000 in major gifts to help pass or defeat the fishing and hunting measure has come from outside groups.

Era of outsiders

Anthony Corrado, a government professor and campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, said that in the 1980s, national groups began to see ballot measures as a less expensive way to bring about influential changes.

Since then, outside groups have pushed for passage or defeat of countless measures around the country, including bans on same-sex marriage, allowing casino gambling and medicinal marijuana, and limiting abortion rights. But they also include smaller issues affecting business, regulation, taxation and other technical matters. Historically, many of those issues had gone to legislators instead.

"These tend to be the type of issues that don't draw a lot of attention, so a small amount of money can maybe make a difference," Corrado said.

With many measures, national groups are trying to immunize states from possible changes made by courts, legislatures or even Congress. In other cases, groups may try to undo changes already imposed.

The hunting and fishing proposition in Arizona may be a mix of both.

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, said Arizona is one of four states this year where the group is urging passage of measures establishing hunting and fishing rights. The effort is aimed at preventing measures like the one passed in Michigan in 2006 that kept mourning doves off-limits to hunters, he said.

"Rather than wait for a problem to develop," he said, "we started a proactive measure a number of years ago. We are responding to a need" to protect overall hunting rights.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said his organization succeeded with four Arizona ballot measures since 1994, including bans on cockfighting and steel-jaw trapping. He believes if Proposition 109 passes, it will allow the Legislature to overturn bans already approved by voters.

NRA leaders "see that the people of Arizona favor the humane treatment of animals," Pacelle said. "They don't trust the voters to protect some of the things the NRA cares about."

Both groups cite their national memberships, 4 million in the NRA and 11 million in the HSUS, as reasons to get involved on the ballot.

Good or bad?

This year, businesses and outside organizations are investing in other state elections, as well.

Animal-rights groups, including the HSUS, are major donors in a Missouri ballot measure that would tighten restrictions on dog breeding to require better care and limit puppy mills. People and groups outside Missouri account for 91 percent of the $3 million raised by a committee urging passage, records show.

In California, oil refiners in Texas, Kansas and Ohio are largely responsible for funding support of Proposition 23, which would suspend the state's efforts to reduce global warming during times of high unemployment. Overall, nearly 70 percent of the money supporting the proposition comes from outside California.

Two years ago, Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, passed with considerable financial help from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many from Utah. The same year, a unit of Colorado-based Focus on the Family led the financial fight to ban gay marriage in Arizona, committing $215,000 to that campaign, which passed easily.

As is often the case, Alexander and Corrado said it's hard to know how decisive any help in a ballot measure is.

In 1996 and 1998, three wealthy men - including two outsiders - who favored relaxing drug laws spent heavily to influence the votes on Arizona propositions. University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, New York investor George Soros and Cleveland insurance executive Peter Lewis combined to spend more than $1 million each year in support of voting to legalize medical marijuana and lighten drug penalties.

The results fell their way. After the 1996 vote, the Legislature repealed the marijuana provision, and after the 1998 vote, federal officials threatened to prosecute any doctor who prescribed the drug.

But even well-funded efforts can fail, sometimes because outside interests are vilified and in other cases because the public simply rejects the change.

In Arizona, local and national members of the payday-loan industry spent $14 million in 2008 to preserve their businesses here. Despite nearly 30 times more money than an opposition group, the measure failed handily at the ballot box.

Still, "spending money does have an influence on the ability to get a message out," Alexander said. "And if you get a message out, you have a better chance of winning."