Figure 1: National Overview of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees and Candidates for Offices Responsible for Ballot Measure Titles and/or Summaries, 2009–2016

Initiative/Referendum States Overview

Some ballot measure donors undoubtedly had an interest in the success or failure of pertinent candidates. From 2009 through 2016, $2.4 billion went to ballot measure committees in initiative/referendum states, of which 38 percent came from donors that gave to pertinent candidates during the 2009–2016 period. 2010 saw the most overlap: a full 55 percent of the $349.9 million raised around ballot measures that year came from donors to pertinent candidates in 2009–2016. In 2016, $810.7 million was given to ballot measure committees—the largest total in initiative/referendum states since 2004—of which 35 percent came from donors to pertinent candidates.

A very select group gave to both ballot measure campaigns and to pertinent candidates. From 2009 through 2016, almost 190,000 donors gave to ballot measure committees in initiative/referendum states, but only 3 percent also gave to pertinent candidates during that eight-year span (slightly less than 4,900 donors).

Figure 2: Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees, by Type of Donor, 2009–2016

Only 4 percent of the roughly 126,000 that donated to candidates also gave to ballot measure committees from 2009 through 2016. These mutual donors gave $27.6 million to pertinent candidates, which accounts for 17 percent of the total. Unlike ballot measure committees, most pertinent candidates had to abide by contribution limits, which partly explains why the overlap on the candidate side of fundraising is noticeably smaller.

Figure 3: Contributions to Candidates for Offices Responsible for Ballot Measure Titles and/or Summaries, by Donor Type, 2009–2016

State-Specific Results

The number and significance of donors that gave to both ballot measure committees and pertinent candidates varied widely across states. In Mississippi, for example, $5.8 million was given to ballot measure committees, plus $6.1 million to pertinent candidates, but no contributor gave to both. In California, however, more than half of the ballot measure money came from contributors who also gave to pertinent candidates.

In initiative/referendum states with elected officials overseeing ballot language, an average of 19 percent of ballot measure money came from contributors to pertinent candidates, and an average of 11 percent of pertinent candidates’ money came from ballot measure donors. (For a state-specific breakdown of these figures, utilize the tool-tip feature of the above map by hovering your mouse over the state).

Some states’ ballot measure contributions included ample money from donors to pertinent candidates, but not vice versa. Four states had mutual donors accounting for at least 20 percent of both ballot measure and pertinent candidate money: Missouri, Oregon, Washington, and Ohio. A closer examination of these states underscores the importance of some prolific donors making sizable contributions to both ballot measure committees and pertinent candidate campaigns.

Missouri

During the 2009–2016 period, Missouri donors were not constrained by contribution limits, which helps explain the considerable overlap in donations to ballot measure committees and pertinent candidates (attorney general and secretary of state). Roughly three-fifths of the ballot measure contributions came from pertinent candidate contributors, while 20 percent of pertinent candidates’ money came from ballot measure donors.

The leading ballot measure contributor was RAI Services, a subsidiary of tobacco giant Reynolds American, which gave $13.4 million in support of Amendment 3, a 2016 tobacco tax measure. RAI also gave incumbent Attorney General Chris Koster $10,000 in 2012, whose office drafted the official summary of Amendment 3. In 2016, RAI followed up with $27,500 in contributions to an attorney general candidate, and $1,000 to a secretary of state candidate.

Missouri’s noteworthy mega donor Rex Sinquefield spent $1.8 million to promote a 2012 measure to return control of the St. Louis Police Department to municipal officials. That same year, Sinquefield gave $760,000 to attorney general and secretary of state candidates, followed by $750,250 to an attorney general candidate in 2016.

Table 1: Top Five Contributors to Ballot Measure Committees and Pertinent Candidates in Missouri, 2009–2016 Contributors Ballot Measure Total Pertinent Candidates Total TOTAL RAI Services $13,408,933 $38,500 $13,447,433 Sinquefield, Rex A $1,785,000 $1,510,250 $3,295,250 Missouri Association of Realtors $2,038,367 $66,500 $2,104,867 Sauer, Fred N $1,558,600 $7,000 $1,565,600 Missouri National Education Association $990,400 $15,000 $1,005,400

Oregon

Oregon, another state that lacked contribution limits, had many similarities in donors to ballot measures and to pertinent candidates (attorney general). Twenty-three percent of the money in attorney general campaigns came from ballot measure contributors, while about one-fourth of ballot measure money came from attorney general contributors.

In 2012, the Drug Policy Alliance gave its largest candidate contribution ($80,000) to Ellen Rosenblum in her first successful bid for attorney general, making it her second-biggest donor behind the Democratic Attorneys General Association. Two years later, the Drug Policy Alliance ballot measure committee contributed more than $3 million to support Measure 91, the initiative that legalized recreational use of marijuana.

Labor unions comprised three of the top five donors to both ballot measure and attorney general campaigns, collectively giving $18.8 million to ballot measure committees from 2009 through 2016, including more than $11 million for a series of 2016 ballot measure campaigns. The three unions also gave $33,500 to Attorney General Rosenblum, as well as $50,000 to her 2012 primary opponent.

Table 2: Top Five Contributors to Ballot Measure Committees and Attorney General Candidates in Oregon, 2009–2016 Contributors Ballot Measure Total Attorney General Total TOTAL Oregon Education Association $8,601,124 $25,000 $8,626,124 Oregon Public Employees Local 503 $7,246,075 $51,000 $7,297,075 Oregon Association of Realtors $3,663,709 $3,500 $3,667,209 Drug Policy Alliance $3,129,000 $80,000 $3,209,000 AFSCME Oregon Council 75 $3,000,321 $7,500 $3,007,821

Washington

Although Washington imposes candidate contribution limits, a large portion (28 percent) of pertinent candidate (attorney general) money came from ballot measure donors. Meanwhile, 25 percent of ballot measure donors also gave to attorney general candidates.

The American Beverage Association gave a colossal $16.7 million to a 2010 committee working to overturn the state’s tax on candy, bottled water, and carbonated beverages, after which the group gave $3,900 to Robert Ferguson, Washington’s attorney general. Aside from gubernatorial candidates, Ferguson is the only statewide candidate in Washington to receive an American Beverage Association contribution since 2000.

Two labor unions were among Washington’s leading ballot measure contributors in 2009–2016: SEIU Healthcare Local 775 NW spent $4.5 million and Washington Education Association spent $3.6 million on several measures. Both labor organizations followed suit with big donations to Attorney General Ferguson: $3,600 each in 2012, and $4,000 each for his reelection in 2016. Only Jay Inslee, the current governor of Washington, received more from these two groups since 2009.

Table 1: Top Five Contributors to Ballot Measure Committees and Attorney General Candidates in Missouri, 2009–2016 Contributors Ballot Measure Total Attorney General Total TOTAL American Beverage Association $16,736,650 $3,900 $16,740,550 SEIU Healthcare Local 775 NW $4,542,801 $7,600 $4,550,401 Washington Education Association $3,640,287 $7,600 $3,647,887 Washington Beer & Wine Distributors Association $3,115,674 $5,700 $3,121,374 National Beer Wholesaler Association $3,075,000 $3,800 $3,078,800

Ohio

In Ohio, 36 percent of pertinent candidate (attorney general) money came from ballot measure donors, the largest share nationwide. Meanwhile, 21 percent of ballot measure money came from attorney general donors. The outsized role of political parties contributed significantly to the overlap of these donor populations.

Political parties have played a larger role in attorneys general races in Ohio than any other state in recent history, while also giving generously to ballot measure committees. The state Republican Party gave $4.5 million to Attorney General Mike Dewine, plus $379,060 to ballot measure committees, mostly to oppose a 2012 measure that would have established an independent commission to redraw legislative districts.

The Ohio Democratic Party gave $2.7 million to two unsuccessful candidates for attorney general, but spent a lot more on ballot measures than its Republican counterpart: $720,137 went to a committee supporting the 2012 redistricting measure, and $925,995 went to a committee that successfully opposed a 2011 measure to limit collective bargaining.

Table 4: Top Five Contributors to Ballot Measure Committees and Attorney General Candidates in Ohio, 2009–2016 Contributors Ballot Measure Total Attorney General Total TOTAL Ohio Education Association $9,093,153 $33,156 $9,126,309 American Federation of State & County Municipal Employees $5,760,958 $47,100 $5,808,058 Ohio Republican Party $379,060 $4,452,006 $4,831,066 Ohio Democratic Party $1,646,132 $2,714,714 $4,360,846 Ohio Civil Service Employees Local 11 $3,564,418 $40,484 $3,604,902

Conclusion

The commonalities of pertinent candidate and ballot measure fundraising depend on many factors, including contribution limits, incumbency status, and primary challenges, but there is no doubt some donors have an interest in the outcome of both candidate and issue-based campaigns. Well over one-third of ballot measure money came from donors who also gave to pertinent candidates, and that percentage reached a majority in Missouri and California. While the share of pertinent candidate contributions coming from ballot measure donors may be smaller, states without contribution limits reveal that some ballot measure donors will splurge on pertinent candidates if given the opportunity. In some states, even contribution limits can’t significantly reduce overlap between the donor populations.