Corporations Advocacy Groups Spend Big on Ballot Measures
Correction appended October 26, 2014, Bonnie Marsh is worried that many of her neighbors' health problems stem from big companies farming genetically modified crops around her in Maui County, Hawaii. So she helped collect enough signatures to put an initiative on the November ballot that would ban growing such crops until an environmental study is done. "We've come forward because we feel there's a real threat to the health of the Earth," said Marsh, a nurse who focuses on natural remedies. "We are done being an experimental lab.", Marsh said her group, Sustainable Hawaiian Agriculture for the Keiki and the Aina, has raised about 76,000 so far for what is the first-ever citizen-initiated ballot measure in Maui County. They've used about 17,000 of it to buy TV ads to help get the word out. But Marsh's group is being outraised and outspent by business-supported opposition. Citizens Against the Maui County Farming Ban, a group backed by agricultural giants Monsanto and DowAgroSciences, has already spent more than 2 million  or 23.13 per registered voter in the county  on television ads arguing that the ban would kill jobs, cost the local economy millions of dollars and block crops that have been proven safe. And more ads could be on the way  the group has not yet filed a report with the state to say how much it has raised, nor would it volunteer the information to the Center for Public Integrity. More has been spent on television time on that measure than any other local initiative in the nation. It's also more expensive than more than 100 statewide measures, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of preliminary data from media tracking service Kantar Media/CMAG. Across the country, large companies and national advocacy groups are putting big dollars behind committees with benign-sounding names that support or oppose ballot initiatives on issues as varied as minimum wage increases in Alaska and recreational marijuana in Florida. The committees are using that money to put their message out in expensive ads featuring family farmers, concerned doctors and smiling teachers. Voters may not readily be able to identify the patrons behind the millions of dollars in ads, but a who's who of corporate America  soda king Coca-Cola, agriculture magnate Monsanto and malpractice insurer The Doctors Company  are among them. Through Oct. 20, TV ad spending on ballot issues totaled roughly 119 million, including 11.3 million on local initiatives such as the one in Maui County. Four of the five most expensive ballot initiatives feature at least one corporate patron duking it out over the airwaves, getting involved in the initiative process that was designed as a way to give voters a direct voice on public policies.  The two most expensive propositions were in California. Proposition 46 has drawn more than 23 million in ad spending, while Proposition 45 has attracted 20.5 million. Almost all of it has come from two groups No on 45  Californians Against Higher Healthcare Costs and No on 46  Patients, Providers and Healthcare Insurers to Contain Health Costs. The "no" groups are backed by doctors and insurance companies, including The Doctors Company and Blue Shield of California, fighting to stop measures that would force doctors to undergo drug testing and insurers to get new approval for rate hikes, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of state campaign finance records.  Coming in third place was a Colorado amendment to expand gambling, which has drawn about 12 million in ad spending. Of that, 6.4 million came from Coloradans for Better Schools, a group backed by a Rhode Island casino company, Twin River Casino. Competing casinos in Colorado are helping fund 5.7 million in ads opposing the measure through a group called Don't Turn Racetracks Into Casinos.  Ranking fourth were two California measures that have been touted as an inseparable duo Proposition 1, which would authorize a bond issue for water infrastructure projects, and Proposition 2, which would change the state's "rainy day fund." Most of the 7.6 million spent on ads supporting the two measures came from California Gov. Jerry Brown. The Democrat has not run any ads for his re-election bid, instead buying 5.6 million in ads through his campaign committee to back the propositions.  Rounding out the top five, with 5 million in ads, was an Oregon measure that would require genetically modified foods to be labeled. The No on 92 Coalition, fueled by groups such as Monsanto and the J.M. Smucker Company, is battling natural food companies funding the Vote Yes on Measure 92 committee. Fewer but costlier initiatives , This year voters have fewer ballot measures to decide than they did four years ago, when a comparable number of offices were up for election. In 2010, voters considered 184 statewide initiatives compared with 158 this year. Even California voters, well acquainted with lengthy ballots, have only six measures to read through this November. But this year already has 2010 beat in terms of TV ad spending. In 2010, ballot measure backers and opponents spent about 87 million on ads for the entire election cycle, compared with this year's 119 million through Oct. 20. Citizens in 26 states can gather signatures and put a proposal on the ballot that would create a new law or veto an existing one. Every state but Delaware offers voters the chance to weigh in on constitutional amendments approved by the legislature. Once the initiative is approved to go before voters, the ad deluge begins. Ballot measure opponents and supporters use a number of tools to influence voters  door-knocking, direct mail, digital advertising and more  but television spots have the highest profile influence on such direct democracy. "TV ads are a very effective way of getting out a message," said Daniel Smith, a University of Florida professor who has studied ballot measures for more than 20 years. Advertising can be used "devastatingly well," he added. But those ads  and the money behind them  aren't necessarily a bad thing if it gets people talking, he said, even if a few of them are confusing or misleading. "Increased money usually means there is more information, more awareness of ballot measures," he added. Corporate titans rule the airwaves, In California, competing messages about the drug-testing-for-doctors proposition are abundant on the airwaves. Recent transplant James VanBuskirk, a 34-year-old marketer for a property insurance company, says he sees one every time he watches prime-time TV. Prop 46 tops the ballot measure spending pile in this election, with 23 million spent on thousands of ads across California. Consumer Watchdog, a national advocacy group, teamed up with trial lawyers to back the measure. Trial lawyers stand to benefit from Prop 46 because, in addition to testing doctors for drug use, it also increases the maximum judges can award for pain and suffering in medical malpractice lawsuits. Groups backed by them spent 3.9 million so far on ads supporting the measure. Consumer advocates and the California Nurses Association have also thrown their money behind Proposition 45, which would require insurers to receive approval for rate hikes from the California insurance commissioner, an elected regulator. Ballot committees supporting the measure have aired more than 679,000 on ads so far. But their messages have been crowded out by those of insurers and doctors, who are spending big to oppose both measures on the airwaves  with more than 38 million spent on ads so far, about 19 million on each measure  nearly a third of the total amount spent on ballot measure ads nationwide. And there are likely many more ads to come Groups opposing the two measures together have raised more than 100 million, according to California campaign finance records. "It's definitely in the upper stratosphere of California fundraising," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that produces online voter guides. That doesn't mean the insurance companies are necessarily going to win. In 2010, a group backed by Pacific Gas  Electric Co. spent almost 14 million on ads supporting a ballot measure that would require local voter approval for any new government-backed utilities. The electric company lost, even though its opponents did not buy any airtime. Casinos versus casinos, In Colorado, casinos are waging the nation's third-most-expensive ballot fight over the airwaves this year. It's casino versus casinos, according to an analysis of state campaign finance data. One Rhode Island gambling company, Twin River Casino, wants to offer slot machines, blackjack and other games at a racetrack in Aurora, Colorado. In ads, the committee backed by the company promises 100 million of new gambling revenue will be sent to an education fund every year. The ads have run more than 5,500 times, at a cost of about 6.4 million. But already established gambling operations in Colorado that don't want more competition have backed a group that has kept pace, spending 5.7 million on ads opposing the measure. "Amendment 68 is not about education. It's a Rhode Island gambling scheme," one opposition ad says. Most Coloradans likely have no idea that casinos are backing the ads on both sides, said Kyle Saunders, associate professor of political science at Colorado State University. Colorado has clear-cut competitive U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, he said, while ballot-measure backers are "muddying the issues.", "It's a difficult environment for voters to know everything about a particular ballot measure anyway, in a normal election," Saunders said. "You have to actually do some digging or find that article on the Internet or newspaper that has that in-depth information, and that's actually a pretty demanding task for low- and medium-information voters.", Gambling is also on the ballot in Massachusetts, with a casino-backed group spending about 3.3 million on ads. In total, gambling-based ballot measures are responsible for 17.5 million in ad spending nationwide. Food industry food fight, Even soda is getting in on the political ad contests. The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and Pepsi, has pumped millions into a group opposing a Massachusetts ballot measure that would raise fees for beverage distributors and expand the state's bottle deposit to cover more types of bottles. The beverage lobby-backed group has spent about 2.5 million on TV ads, while pro-initiative forces have not bought any airtime. The California branch of the beverage-makers group has also backed a group trying to defeat a local initiative in San Francisco that would tax sugary drinks so far the group has spent 1.8 million on ads, making the measure the second-most expensive local measure in terms of television spots, behind Maui's initiative. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are also teaming up with other big food businesses like Monsanto and the Hershey Company in their effort to keep Oregon and Colorado from requiring labels on food that contains genetically modified organisms. Groups backed by the team of food companies have spent about 3 million on ads in each state, arguing that the measures would raise food prices and hurt farmers. "Farming is hard enough. The last thing we need is Measure 92, a bunch of complex, costly regulations that don't exist in any other state," says a plaid-shirt-wearing farmer in an ad opposing the Oregon measure. Proponents of labeling in Oregon, backed by natural food companies, have spent 2 million on television ads in the state. "I want you to be able to trust the food you feed your family," says another plaid-shirt-wearing farmer, who favors the measure. Proponents in Colorado have not aired ads. Winning hearts, Corporations aren't the only big players in state ballot measures this year. National advocacy groups are also tugging at heartstrings on the airwaves. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have teamed up to oppose anti-abortion measures in Tennessee and Colorado. In Tennessee, a group backed by the pair has spent about 1.3 million on TV ads against a measure that would give the legislature more leeway to regulate abortion. Proponents of the measure, backed by Tennessee Right to Life, have spent about 606,000 on ads. In Colorado, a Planned Parenthood-backed group has spent 477,000 on the airwaves to oppose an amendment to the state constitution that would redefine "person" to include the unborn. The ads say the move would effectively ban all abortion in the state. Proponents have aired no ads. Other initiatives attracting interest from advocacy groups include,  In Washington, television viewers have already been treated to more than 4,000 ads about a pair of conflicting ballot measures concerning background checks for gun purchases, with most of them coming from a group supporting expanded background checks. That organization  backed by Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety fund, early Amazon investor Nick Hanauer and a handful of Microsoft executives, according to state records  spent an estimated 3 million on ads. The other side, backed by gun enthusiasts and sporting clubs, is trailing behind, with only about 58,000 spent.  In North Dakota, the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, among others, have lent their support to a measure that would dedicate some of the state's oil tax revenues to land preservation. North Dakotans for Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks has ponied up nearly 485,400 for adsmore than double the cost for all the ads run by candidates for state offices this year. The group's opponents have spent about 134,000 on ads so far.  In Maine, voters are considering a ballot measure that would ban traps, bait and dog chases in bear hunting. The Humane Society has backed a group that has spent about 860,000 on ads favoring the ban so far. The other side, Maine's Fish  Wildlife Conservation Council, has spent about 713,000 on ads. Attracting voters with pot and money, Marijuana is on the ballot in the District of Columbia and three states, spurring 4.5 million in ads. In Oregon, voters have watched some 1,825 ads worth more than 1 million run by supporters of legalizing recreational marijuana. That effort's backers include the family of Peter Lewis, a longtime marijuana legalization advocate from Ohio and chairman of Progressive Insurance, who died in 2013. Another backer is the Drug Policy Alliance, an anti-drug-war nonprofit backed by liberal financier George Soros. Soros' Open Society Foundations are a financial supporter of the Center., The ads argue that legalizing the drug will allow police to focus on solving murders and finding missing children. Opponents have aired no ads so far, but a similar measure failed in Oregon in 2012. In Alaska, supporters of marijuana have aired just 8,210 worth of ads. In Florida, opponents of a ballot measure to legalize medical marijuana have spent roughly 3.2 million on ads. But the players in that fight might care less about marijuana than the governor's race. Analysts say the marijuana legalization effort in Florida is really a tactic to get more young and left-leaning residents to turn out and vote for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, former Gov. Charlie Crist. Billionaire casino operator Sheldon Adelson has given 4 million to the anti-pot campaign, while the pro-pot side is backed more than 3.8 million from the personal injury lawyer John Morgan and his firm, which hired Crist after he left office. So far, however, the marijuana advocates have only spent about 195,000 on TV ads, according to Kantar Media/CMAG data. Ballot measures are a reliable way to motivate a party's base. For instance, liberal groups helped get measures to raise the minimum wage on five states' ballots this fall. Yet only Nebraska's appears to have drawn TV ads a paltry 79,000 worth. "That totally makes sense," said Neil Sroka, a strategist for progressive groups and the communications director at the Howard Dean-founded Democracy for America. "I wouldn't count the lack of spending on ads to be indicative that they're not incredibly useful in driving out votes.", Sroka told the Associated Press that polls show overwhelming support for raising the minimum wage, including among independents and Republicans. Liberal activists looking to motivate voters can use the minimum-wage measures as a way to get perhaps reluctant voters talking and then tell them that the Democratic nominees for office also support higher wages. "These ballot measures are great ways to talk to voters who might not want to talk to Democrats," Sroka said. Money talks but does it win?, For some corporations and national advocacy groups, investments in ballot measure ads have already paid off. This summer, oil companies won an August vote after dishing out nearly 900,000 to buy about 8,000 TV spots in Alaska to keep special tax breaks. "We need to stay in the game," said a hockey coach in an ad that likened the sport to the oil industry. In Michigan, manufacturers almost hit the 2.8 million mark on ad spending for an August ballot measure designed to eliminate a double tax on industrial property, while also rerouting an existing tax to fund local budgets. Though observers worried the measure was too confusing for pessimistic Michigan voters, who turned down every single initiative on the ballot in 2012, the manufacturers walked away with a victory. But for others, ad spending was for naught. In Missouri, construction companies spent about 1.2 million on TV ads but still lost an August vote that would have authorized a sales tax to fund road construction. The bulk of the measures, though, will come before voters on Nov. 4, so a flood of advertising is on the horizon. Then the implications of voters' decisions will begin, affecting individuals' lives and companies' bottom lines. In Hawaii, approval of the Maui County GMO ban would be a blow to Monsanto, which can produce up to four crops of corn seeds a year in Hawaii's lush environment. The state's seed industry, including Monsanto's corn, has grown rapidly in recent years, and last growing season was worth 217 million, outpacing sugar cane and pineapples. The corporate-backed Citizens Against the Maui County Farming Ban argues that small farms and big alike would be hurt by the ballot's ban. "More than 600 people would lose their jobs," the group's spokesman, Tom Blackburn-Rodriguez, said in an email. "The purpose of the TV ads is to educate voters about the flawed, costly and harmful initiative.", Natural remedies nurse Marsh doesn't know whether her side can beat the Monsanto-backed ads she said fliers against the GMO ban show up in her mailbox every day. But the ban advocates have a great volunteer network, she said, and at the very least they'll get to make themselves heard. "We're just trying to make them be held responsible for what they're doing," she said. Associated Press reporter Philip Elliott contributed. Correction The original version of this story misstated the amount Sustainable Hawaiian Agriculture for the Keiki and the Aina has raised to back the ballot measure banning GMO farming. It was about 76,000.