Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
2010 ballot measure campaign contributions
Quick stats
A total of 184 ballot questions were certified for 38 statewide ballots in 2010, however, only 80 measures (43.4 percent) received campaign contributions. A total of $433 million was spent in 2010 according to December 2010 campaign finance reports.
- Statewide
- Highest statewide contributions: California ($217,342,328)
- Lowest statewide contributions: Iowa ($41,250)[1]
- Measures
- Top 5 measures:
- California Proposition 23 ($49,805,741)
- California Proposition 16 ($46,655,827)
- California Proposition 25 ($32,679,003)
- California Proposition 24 ($30,598,177)
- California Proposition 26 ($26,487,706)
- Bottom 5 measures:[1]
- Idaho SJR 101 ($1,718)
- Colorado Proposition 102 ($7,181)
- Arizona Proposition 110 ($10,000)
- Arizona Proposition 112 ($10,100)
- Arizona Proposition 111 ($11,100)
- Top 5 measures:
- Issues
- Highest contribution total: Taxes ($147,652,696)
- Lowest contribution total: Direct democracy measures ($10,100)
Measure rankings
The following are the rankings for contributions made, both by supporting and opposing campaigns, toward each ballot measure on special, primary, and general election ballots in 2010. They are ordered from most contributed to least. Ballot measures that did not have any contributions made toward them were not included in the rankings.
Footnotes
By state
NOTE: The table below highlights the monetary contributions made in 2010 to both supporting and opposing political action committees. Totals featured in the chart below are rounded up to the nearest dollar.
Legend Top 5 contributions States with no reported contributions |
State | # of measures per state | Support | Opposition | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 5 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Alaska | 5 | $526,795 | $1,092,188 | $1,618,983 |
Arizona | 11 | $3,798,526 | $1,030,232 | $4,828,758 |
Arkansas | 3 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
California | 14 | **[1] | **[1] | $217,342,328[1] |
Colorado | 9 | $98,056 | $7,657,632 | $7,755,688 |
Florida | 7 | $9,649,656 | $15,974,820 | $25,624,476 |
Georgia | 6 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Hawaii | 2 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Idaho | 4 | $494,560 | $0 | $494,560 |
Illinois | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Indiana | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Iowa | 2 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Kansas | 2 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Louisiana | 12 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Maine | 8 | **[2] | **[2] | $5,365,488 |
Maryland | 3 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Massachusetts | 3 | $3,223,105 | $5,885,941 | $9,109,046 |
Michigan | 2 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Missouri | 6 | $20,676,496 | $1,023,497 | $21,699,993 |
Montana | 4 | $1,811,117 | $361,474 | $2,172,591 |
Nebraska | 3 | $53,616 | $0 | $53,616 |
Nevada | 4 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
New Jersey | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
New Mexico | 9 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
North Carolina | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
North Dakota | 2 | $49,853 | $0 | $49,853 |
Ohio | 2 | $2,419,125 | $0 | $2,419,125 |
Oklahoma | 11 | $3,865,985 | $1,292,174 | $5,158,159 |
Oregon | 11 | **[3] | **[3] | $13,121,770 |
Rhode Island | 4 | $275,331 | $0 | $275,331 |
South Carolina | 4 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
South Dakota | 4 | $101,753 | $166,649 | $268,402 |
Tennessee | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Utah | 4 | $133,048 | $0 | $133,048 |
Vermont | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Virginia | 3 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Washington | 9 | $37,600,252 | $23,632,428 | $61,232,680 |
Total | 184 | - | - | $378,765,141 |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 In California, campaign committees can register to support or oppose more than one proposition. Campaign committees can also give donations to each other. When a campaign committee registers as playing a role for more than one proposition, it is not possible to say with precision how much of the money raised was spent for or against any particular one of the propositions it is playing a role in. This also results in a situation where adding up the contribution totals proposition-by-proposition would result in an overall total that is greater than the actual overall total. Maplight, a campaign finance watchdog, adjusted for this difficulty and reached an overall campaign finance total for the November 2 propositions of $147 million. Maplight, "147 Million Spent on California's Nov. Ballot Measures," November 5, 2010
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 In Maine, campaign committees can register to support or oppose more than one measure. When a campaign committee registers as playing a role for more than one measure, it is not possible to say with precision how much of the money raised was spent for or against any particular one of the propositions it is playing a role in. This also results in a situation where adding up the contribution totals measure-by-measure would result in an overall total that is greater than the actual overall total.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 In Oregon, campaign committees can register to support or oppose more than one measure. When a campaign committee registers as playing a role for more than one measure, it is not possible to say with precision how much of the money raised was spent for or against any particular one of the measures it is playing a role in. This also results in a situation where adding up the contribution totals measure-by-measure would result in an overall total that is greater than the actual overall total.
Footnotes
By topic
NOTE: All measures on 2010 ballots were included in the chart below. However, due to the fact that some measures fell into more than one category, some totals may include measures featured under other categories. For a detailed number of measures for the 2010 ballot, please visit the official 2010 ballot measure article. A detailed chart of measures listed under each issue category can be viewed here. Totals featured in the chart below are rounded up to the nearest dollar.
Legend Top 5 contributions Top 5 issues |
Issue | # measures per issue | Support | Opposition | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Abortion | 2 | $119,009 | $1,127,490 | $1,246,499 |
Administration of government | 25 | $1,934,695[1] | $723,024 | $2,657,719[1] |
Affirmative action | 1 | $81,000 | $10,000 | $91,000 |
Alcohol | 3 | $11,715,667 | $9,330,904 | $21,046,571 |
Bond issues | 21 | $2,900,633[1][2] | $0 | $2,900,633[1][2] |
Business regulation | 1 | $16,010,021 | $1,335,069 | $17,345,090 |
Elections and campaigns | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Civil rights | 1 | $105,076 | $0 | $105,076 |
Constitutional conventions | 4 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Constitutional language | 2 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Earthquakes | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Education | 7 | $3,940,511[1] | $1,292,174 | $5,232,685[1] |
Elections and campaigns | 15 | $75,271,923[3] | $16,027,012[3] | $77,990,606 |
Eminent domain | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Energy | 4 | $47,397,254 | $135,771 | $47,533,025 |
English | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Firearms | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Gambling | 4 | $6,033,964 | $1,136,188 | $7,170,152 |
Government accountability | 2 | $63,335 | $1,092,188 | $1,155,523 |
Healthcare | 7 | $5,095,238 | $252,000 | $5,347,238 |
Housing | 2 | $58,495 | $1,150,318 | $1,208,813 |
Hunting | 6 | $281,674 | $460,035 | $741,709 |
Immigration | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Direct democracy measures | 2 | $10,100 | $0 | $10,100 |
Insurance | 1 | $16,010,021 | $1,335,069 | $17,345,090 |
Judicial reform | 9 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Labor | 8 | $4,334,204 | $6,082,367 | $10,416,571 |
Law enforcement | 6 | $10,996 | $298,869[1] | $309,865[1] |
Marijuana | 4 | $3,372,505 | $352,134 | $3,724,639 |
Marriage | 0 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Natural resources | 5 | $46,756 | $0 | $46,756 |
Property rights | 2 | $984,944 | $12,140,820 | $13,125,764 |
Redistricting | 5 | $31,574,242[3] | $19,190,876[3] | $37,456,789 |
State budgets | 15 | $19,326,051 | $28,533,562[3] | $47,859,613[3] |
State legislatures | 2 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
State spending | 4 | $2,314,086 | $22,200,231[3] | $24,514,317[3] |
Taxes | 39 | $99,196,198[3] | $48,456,498 | $147,652,696[3] |
Term limits | 2 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Tobacco | 1 | $72,917 | $153,198 | $226,115 |
Transportation | 5 | $82,459 | $0 | $82,459 |
Veterans | 7 | $298,653[1] | $0 | $298,653[1] |
Water | 1 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 In Oregon, campaign committees can register to support or oppose more than one measure. When a campaign committee registers as playing a role for more than one measure, it is not possible to say with precision how much of the money raised was spent for or against any particular one of the measures it is playing a role in. This also results in a situation where adding up the contribution totals measure-by-measure would result in an overall total that is greater than the actual overall total.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 In Maine, campaign committees can register to support or oppose more than one measure. When a campaign committee registers as playing a role for more than one measure, it is not possible to say with precision how much of the money raised was spent for or against any particular one of the measures it is playing a role in. This also results in a situation where adding up the contribution totals measure-by-measure would result in an overall total that is greater than the actual overall total.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 In California, campaign committees can register to support or oppose more than one proposition. When a campaign committee registers as playing a role for more than one measure, it is not possible to say with precision how much of the money raised was spent for or against any particular one of the measures it is playing a role in. This also results in a situation where adding up the contribution totals measure-by-measure would result in an overall total that is greater than the actual overall total. (e.g. The Yes on 20/No on 27 committee supported Proposition 20 but opposed Proposition 27. It cannot be said with certainty how much was contributed for each campaign effort.)
By type
There are several avenues by which a measure may qualify for the ballot: citizen initiative, legislative referral, automatic ballot measure, or commission-referral. The chart below organizes 2010s ballot measures by type or process by which each measure qualified for the ballot. Each avenue or type of measure includes varying requirements, which additionally vary by state. (See also: Forms of direct democracy.) The measures are listed in order of most campaign finance contributions to least.
By type summary | |
---|---|
Initiatives[1] | $395,338,343 |
Veto referendums (VR) | $12,864,590 |
Legislative referrals[2] | $17,215,953 |
Commission-referrals | $0 |
Automatic ballot referrals (ABR) | $0 |
Advisory questions (AQ) | $0 |
Footnotes
- ↑ Included under "Initiatives" are indirect initiated state statutes (IndISS), initiated constitutional amendments (ICA), initiated state statutes (ISS), initiatives to the legislature (ITL), and initiatives to the people (ITP).
- ↑ Included in the "Legislative-referred measures" category are legislative bond measures (LBM), bonds (BI), legislatively referred state statutes (LRSS), and legislatively referred constitutional amendments (LRCA).
- ↑ Amendments 60 & 61
- ↑ Amendment 101
- ↑ Measures 70, 71 & 72
- ↑ Measure 76
Raw data
The chart below includes all of the information available on the "by state," "by topic," and "by type" tabs. It is automatically sorted to show the measure that gained the most contributions to the measure that gained the least. However, you can sort the data by clicking on the arrows directly above the column you would like re-ordered.
Footnotes
|