Ballot Initiative Funding Disclosure

In 2004, about $250 million was spent on 163 ballot measures in the 24 states that permit them. In 2002, special interests, corporations, advocacy organizations and individuals spent $173 million to promote or defeat 117 initiatives and referenda. A study of seven states found that over 57 percent of the contributions to ballot committees in 2002 were raised in amounts of $50,000 or more.1

The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned large contributions to political parties. But as the Supreme Court ruling upholding that law observed, “Money, like water, will always find an outlet.”2 Former soft money donors are turning toward funding ballot measures because there are no contribution limits. These donors are attracted to initiatives not only to directly influence public policy, but also to influence candidate elections by increasing voter turnout and framing the overarching policy debate.3

The initiative process lacks the deliberative qualities of legislative lawmaking. Initiative voters don’t have the information that legislators receive from official reports, formal hearings and two-sided debates. Because titles and descriptions of initiatives on the ballot are often misleading, voters look at which groups support or oppose a measure when considering their vote. But in most states, donor disclosure requirements are woefully inadequate and fail to provide citizens with the identities of key initiative supporters and opponents.

Most state filing schedules fail to provide enough time for voters and opinion leaders to evaluate the money behind ballot measures prior to Election Day. The best state laws require regular committee reporting (CO, FL, OR, WA), while the worst laws leave voters in the dark about initiative campaign funders until late October (MI, NV, ND, OH, SD). Gaps in the filing schedule, particularly close to the election, substantially hinder full and accurate disclosure. Oregon is the only state that specifically requires finance reports during the critical signature-gathering period of an initiative campaign.

Ballot committees are often deceptively named, and many state disclosure forms fail to link committee names to the ballot initiatives they support or oppose. In many circumstances, organizations are not required to register as ballot committees at all—even when they are the chief political force opposing a measure.

Many states fail to require two essential pieces of information about campaign contributors: occupation and employer. Without this information, voters cannot assess the economic self-interests of contributors. Furthermore, ballot measure donors increasingly funnel their contributions through 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations and out-of-state entities in order to conceal their involvement.

Only six states (AZ, CA, IL, MA, OH, WA) require ballot campaigns to file donor disclosure information electronically. Four states (AR, MT, OK, WY) fail to provide any disclosure information online. The rest offer at least partial online access. But, because disclosure agencies consider ballot measure reports a lower priority than candidate reports, the information posted is usually incomplete and late. Mandatory electronic filing would ensure more timely reporting and would require less work of understaffed disclosure agencies.

The Act requires