Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
2012 ballot measure petition signature costs
From Ballotpedia
This Ballotpedia report is an in-depth look at the "cost-per-required-signature" for measures that qualified for state ballots.
The cost per required signature is a comparison of the amount of money spent on the petition drive to the number of signatures the state requires for an initiative to make the ballot. For more information about this report and how it is compiled, see this page.
General Disclaimer: All calculations are only as accurate as the data made available through the data sources.
Overview
In 2012, more than 550 initiatives were proposed; however, only 61 initiatives were voted on.[1] Table 1 below is a general overview of CPRS data broken down by cost range.
QUICK STATISTICS:
- A total of $51,907,081.64 was identified as having been spent on petition signature gathering.
- An average of $4.30 was spent per required signature for all initiatives based on available data.
- The state with the highest CPRS in 2012 was Ohio, with an average cost of $6.05 per required signature. Ohio only had one initiative on the ballot.
- No data on signature gathering could be reliably identified for any initiatives in four states: Idaho, Maryland, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Campaign finance websites for these states do not provide the level of detail required to perform a CPRS analysis.
- Three additional states had at least one measure where no data on signature gathering could be reliably be identified: Alaska, Michigan, and Montana. These measures were given no CPRS score because their campaign finance reporting was done in such a way that it is impossible to distinguish the costs of signature collection from other campaign costs.
| Table 1: Overview Summary of Results | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | # of Initiatives | Initiative CPRS Range | Average CPRS | ||||||
| No Data | < $2 | $2 - $4 | $4 - $6 | $6 - $8 | $8 - $10 | > $10 | |||
| Alaska | 2 | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | $2.32 |
| Arizona | 2 | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | $3.65 |
| Arkansas | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | $2.06 |
| California | 13 | - | 2 | 9 | - | - | 1 | 1 | $4.07 |
| Colorado | 2 | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | $1.83 |
| Idaho | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Maine | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | $2.63 |
| Maryland | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Massachusetts | 3 | - | - | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | $4.43 |
| Michigan | 6 | 1 | 1 | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | $5.18 |
| Missouri | 2 | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | - | - | $5.46 |
| Montana | 2 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | $1.67 |
| North Dakota | 6 | 6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Ohio | 1 | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | $6.05 |
| Oregon | 7 | - | - | 3 | 4 | - | - | - | $4.11 |
| South Dakota | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Washington | 4 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | 1 | $4.80 |
| SUM | 61 | 18 | 6 | 19 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 2 | $4.30 |
State by state
Tables 2A through 2Q below present individual CPRS data for all initiatives in 2012.
Alaska
| Table 2A: Alaska CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Ballot Measure 1 (August) | Taxes | -- | -- | 25,875 | -- |
| Ballot Measure 2 (August) | Environment | -- | $60,000[2] | 25,875 | $2.32 |
| TOTAL: | $60,000 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- No CPRS data was identified for Measure 1.[3]
- While no signature collection company was identified for Measure 2, six expenditures were made to Scott Kohlhaas of Anchorage, Alaska, for "signature gathering consult[ation] and logistics."[2]
Arizona
| Table 2B: Arizona CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Proposition 121 | Admin. of gov't. | Riester Consulting Company | $883,867.03[4] | 259,213 | $3.41 |
| Proposition 204 | Taxes | Riester Consulting Company | $691,577.39[5] | 172,808 | $4.00 |
| TOTAL: | $1,575,444.42 | ||||
Arkansas
| Table 2C: Arkansas CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Issue 5 | Marijuana | -- | $128,623.43[6] | 62,507 | $2.06 |
| TOTAL: | $128,623.43 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- Backers of Issue 5, "Arkansans for Compassionate Care," did not report use of a signature collection company. The CPRS data includes expenditures paid to individual signature gathers ($113,460.41) and the cost of printing petitions ($15,163.02).[6]
California
Colorado
| Table 2E: Colorado CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Amendment 64 | Marijuana | -- | $211,369.21[9] | 85,853 | $2.46 |
| Amendment 65 | Elections | Work for Progress | $103,420[10] | 85,853 | $1.20 |
| TOTAL: | $314,789.21 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- Amendment 64 used multiple signature gatherers, including Lamm Consulting, Rocky Mountain Voter Outreach, and individual petitioners.[9]
Idaho
| Table 2F: Idaho CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Proposition 1 | Education | -- | -- | 47,432 | -- |
| Proposition 2 | Education | -- | -- | 47,432 | -- |
| Proposition 3 | Education | -- | -- | 47,432 | -- |
| TOTAL: | -- | ||||
Disclaimer:
- No data related specifically to petition drives and signature collection could be reliably identified.[11]
Maine
| Table 2G: Maine CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Question 1 | Marriage | None | $150,468.75[12] | 57,277 | $2.63 |
| TOTAL: | $150,468.75 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- The CPRS data for Question 1 includes the cumulative expenditures on hourly canvassers, salaried canvass staff, and printing/website costs ($115,759.51, $28,232.03, and $6,477.21 respectively). Expenditures on salaried field staff added to $57,906.96, but are not included in the above total due to the uncertainty of the responsibilities of these workers. Adding these expenditures to the above chart would bring the total cost to $208,375.71 and the CPRS to $3.64.[12]
Maryland
| Table 2H: Maryland CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Question 4 | Education | -- | -- | 55,736 | -- |
| Question 5 | Redistricting | -- | -- | 55,736 | -- |
| Question 6 | Marriage | -- | -- | 55,736 | -- |
| TOTAL: | -- | ||||
Disclaimer:
- No expenditures relating to the petition drive or signature gathering could be reliably identified for Questions 4, 5, or 6.[13]
Massachusetts
| Table 2I: Massachusetts CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Question 1 | Business | Spoonworks, Inc. | $345,000.00[14] | 80,396 | $4.29 |
| Question 2 | Assisted death | Spoonworks, Inc. | $291,250.00[14] | 80,396 | $3.62 |
| Question 3 | Marijuana | Spoonworks, Inc. | $433,000.00[14] | 80,396 | $5.39 |
| TOTAL: | $1,069,250.00 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- Massachusetts follows an indirect initiated state statute system. As such, in 2012 initiative backers needed 68,911 signatures to have their initiative sent to the legislature for consideration. After that, when the legislature failed to approve the proposal, initiative backers needed an additional 11,485 signatures to have it sent to the ballot for voter consideration.
- Question 1 required an average of $4.28 per signature for the first petition, and an additional $4.35 per signature for the second petition.[14]
- Question 2 required an average of $2.99 per signature for the first petition, and an additional $7.40 per signature for the second petition.[14]
- Question 3 required an average of $5.08 per signature for the first petition, and an additional $7.23 per signature for the second petition.[14]
Michigan
| Table 2J: Michigan CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Proposal 1 | Admin of Gov't | -- | -- | 161,304 | -- |
| Proposal 2 | Labor | -- | $447,025.59[15] | 322,609 | $1.39 |
| Proposal 3 | Energy | PCI Consultants Inc. | $1,597,179.12[16] | 322,609 | $4.95 |
| Proposal 4 | Labor | PCI Consultants Inc. | $1,657,336.37[17] | 322,609 | $5.14 |
| Proposal 5 | Taxes | Silver Bullet LLC | $2,200,694.62[18] | 322,609 | $6.82 |
| Proposal 6 | Transportation | Silver Bullet LLC | $2,445,529.51[19] | 322,609 | $7.58 |
| TOTAL: | $8,347,765.21 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- CPRS data for Proposition 1 are based on campaign finance reports from Stand Up For Democracy. No information was found related specifically to petition signature gathering.[20]
- CPRS data for Proposition 2 are based on campaign finance reports from Protect Working Families. A fraction of a percent of the cost above was attributed to an entity separate from the main signature collection company for petition storage.[15]
- CPRS data for Proposition 3 are based on campaign finance reports from Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs. A fraction of a percent of the cost above was attributed to an entity separate from the main signature collection company for petition printing.[16]
- CPRS data for Proposition 4 are based on campaign finance reports from Citizens For Affordable Quality Home Care. Approximately 7% of the value listed above was designated to entities separate from the main signature collection company for signature gathering and petition printing.[17]
- CPRS data for Proposition 5 are based on campaign finance reports from Michigan Alliance For Prosperity. A little under 2% of the value listed above was designated to entities separate from the main signature collection company for signature gathering and petition printing.[18]
- CPRS data for Proposition 6 are based on campaign finance reports from The People Should Decide. Approximately 3% of the cost above was attributed to Silver Bullet for consulting. A fraction of a percent of the cost above was attributed to other entities for signature gathering.[19]
Missouri
| Table 2K: Missouri CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Proposition A | Law enforcement | National Petition Management | $628,295.60[21] | 146,907 | $4.28 |
| Proposition B | Tobacco | FieldWorks, LLC | $675,843.40[21] | 91,818 | $7.36 |
| TOTAL: | $1,304,139.00 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- Due to the complex structuring of Missouri signature requirements, the CPRS is based on meeting the minimum signature requirements in the lowest-voting Congressional Districts, which is the most efficient way to meet signature requirements.
- CPRS data for Proposition A are based on campaign finance reports from A Safer Missouri. Approximately 8% of the value listed above was designated to National Petition Management outside of the normal petition drive dates.[21]
- CPRS data for Proposition B are based on campaign finance reports from Missourians For Health And Education.[21]
Montana
| Table 2L: Montana CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| IR-124 | Marijuana | M+R Strategic Services | $40,668.77[22] | 24,337 | $1.67 |
| I-166 | Elections | -- | -- | 24,337 | -- |
| TOTAL: | $40,668.77 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- CPRS data for IR-124 are based on campaign finance reports from Patients for Reform not Repeal. 95% of the value listed above is attributed to M+R Strategic Services for "petition drive support," "paid signature gathers" and "committee public relations." The other 5% is attributed to other entities for "printing petitions reimbursement."[22]
- CPRS data for I-166 are based on campaign finance reports from Stand with Montanans_Corporations Aren't People-Ban Corporate Campaign Spending. While M+R Strategic Services was likely the group helping with petition efforts, available information is not conclusive enough to attribute any particular costs to the petition drive.[22]
North Dakota
| Table 2M: North Dakota CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Measure 2 (June) | Taxes | -- | -- | 26,904 | -- |
| Measure 3 (June) | Religion | -- | -- | 26,904 | -- |
| Measure 4 (June) | Motto and symbols | -- | -- | 13,452 | -- |
| Measure 3 | Animal rights | -- | -- | 26,904 | -- |
| Measure 4 | Smoking bans | -- | -- | 13,452 | -- |
| Measure 5 | Treatment of animals | -- | -- | 13,452 | -- |
| TOTAL: | -- | ||||
Disclaimer:
- North Dakota campaign finance disclosure forms are not detailed enough to distinguish petition drives and signature collection costs.[23] Furthermore, North Dakota laws prohibit paying by the signature.
- Groups searches for the six measures above are as follows: Empower The Taxpayer, Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment Committee, Committee for Understanding and Respect, The Feeding Families Committee, Smoke Free North Dakota and North Dakotans to Stop Animal Cruelty.
Ohio
| Table 2N: Ohio CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Issue 2 | Redistricting | FieldWorks, LLC | $2,329,034.00[24] | 385,247 | $6.05 |
| TOTAL: | $2,329,034.00 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- CPRS data for Issue 2 is based on filings from Voters First, the main backers of the petition drive. However, other groups such as We Are Ohio were also reported as having helped with the petition drive.[25]
Oregon
| Table 2O: Oregon CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Measure 79 | Taxes | -- | $289,205.30[26] | 116,283 | $2.49 |
| Measure 80 | Marijuana | -- | $216,332.17[27] | 87,213 | $2.48 |
| Measure 81 | Animal rights | NW Democracy Resources | $388,166.50[28] | 87,213 | $4.45 |
| Measure 82 | Gambling | -- | $589,582.74[29] | 116,283 | $5.07 |
| Measure 83 | Gambling | -- | $442,190.85[29] | 87,213 | $5.07 |
| Measure 84 | Taxes | Voice of the Electorate, LLC | $508,728.54[30] | 87,213 | $5.83 |
| Measure 85 | Taxes | Democracy Resources | $436,449.57[31] | 116,283 | $3.75 |
| TOTAL: | $2,870,655.67 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- CPRS data for Measure 79 are based on campaign finance reports from Protect Our Homes 2012 specifically labeled as "Petition Circulators." However, the organization related to this expenditure, the Oregon Association of Realtors, had a total of $776,877.83 in various expenses, much of which was not clearly labeled.[26]
- CPRS data for Measure 80 are based on campaign finance reports from Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2012. The group appears to have organized the signature collection drive itself, and the data are based on all entries labeled as for the purpose of "Petition Circulators," "Petition Supplies," or to people with an occupation described as "Petitioner" or "Circulator."[27]
- CPRS data for Measure 81 are based on campaign finance reports from Protect Our Salmon Committee. Data are based on all expenditures paid to NW Democracy Resources, of which approximately 1% was not labeled as for "Petition Circulators."[28]
- CPRS data for Measure 82 and Measure 83 are based on campaign finance reports from Vote Yes for Oregon Jobs and Schools. Costs were calculated based on "in-kind contributions" from Portland Entertainment Group and Oregon Entertainment Center in relation to petition circulation. As data between the two measures are not separated, costs were divided proportionally between the two measures. Any small fraction of costs required for the related local measure in Wood Village City was not separated out.[29]
- CPRS data for Measure 84 are based on campaign finance reports from Death Tax Phase-Out Committee. The vast majority of costs are calculated from expenditures made to the main signature collection company, Voice of the Electorate, LLC, but approximately 2% is from other organizations.[30]
- CPRS data for Measure 85 are based on campaign finance reports from Protect Oregon's Priorities. The majority of costs are calculated from expenditures made to the main signature collection company, Democracy Resources, but approximately 26% of the money is from "in-kind contributions" labeled for the purpose of "Petition Circulators" from related initiative committees.[31]
South Dakota
| Table 2P: South Dakota CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Referred Law 14 | Taxes | -- | -- | 15,855 | -- |
| Referred Law 16 | Labor | -- | -- | 15,855 | -- |
| Initiated Measure 15 | Taxes | -- | -- | 15,855 | -- |
| TOTAL: | -- | ||||
Disclaimer:
- South Dakota campaign finance disclosure forms are not detailed enough to distinguish petition drive or signature collection costs.[32] Furthermore, South Dakota laws prohibit paying by the signature. Paying signature collectors an hourly wage and bonuses is acceptable, however.
Washington
| Table 2Q: Washington CPRS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | Signatures required | CPRS |
| Initiative 1185 | Taxes | Citizen Solutions, Inc. | $623,324.99[33] | 120,577 | $5.17 |
| Initiative 1240 | Education | PCI Consultants, Inc. | $2,589,395.78[34] | 241,153 | $10.74 |
| Referendum 74 | Marriage | -- | $57,183.81[35] | 241,153 | $0.24 |
| Initiative 502 | Marijuana | PCI Consultants, Inc. | $778,182.60[36] | 241,153 | $3.23 |
| TOTAL: | $4,048,087.18 | ||||
Disclaimer:
- Backers of Referendum 74 reported expenses relating to signature gathering made up of petition printing services ($41,764.96 between two companies) and signature gathering services ($15,418.85 to a "Vanalstine Enterprises"). However, the petition drives for the referendum are believed to have been largely collected at churches and other such locations.[37][35]
- Backers of Initiative 502 also paid $328 to a single individual that categorized as a signature gathering cost. That amount was included in the above total.[36]
Most expensive breakdown
By CPRSTable 3A below indicates which individual initiative in each state spent the most per signature. QUICK STATISTICS
|
By total costTable 3B below presents the most expensive initiative by total amount spent on a petition drive by state. QUICK STATISTICS
Note: No data on signature gathering could be reliably identified for any initiatives in four states: Idaho, Maryland, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Campaign finance websites for these states do not list the level of detail required to perform a CPRS analysis. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost per signature rankings
Table 4 below presents a ranking of initiatives, from highest to lowest, by the cost per required signatures. Initiatives that did not hire an identifiable signature collection company were not included in the chart.
QUICK STATISTICS
- 43 measures had identifiable details regarding petition drives.
- 33 measures received help from identifiable signature collection companies.
Signature collection company breakdown
Table 5 below presents a breakdown of the main signature collection companies used by all initiatives in 2012. In some cases other services were also used in relation to the petition drive.
QUICK STATISTICS
- PCI Consultants, Inc. managed seven initiative efforts.
- Silver Bullet LLC had the most expensive CPRS.
- Only two petition companies were successful in more than one state.
| Table 5: CPRS breakdown by petition management company | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Signature collection company | # of petition drives managed | Average CPRS | States involved |
| PCI Consultants Inc. | 7 | $4.19 | California, Michigan, Washington |
| Arno Political Consultants | 3 | $5.07 | California |
| Kimball Petition Management | 3 | $5.79 | California |
| Spoonworks, Inc. | 3 | $4.43 | Massachusetts |
| Bader & Associates | 2 | $1.74 | California |
| FieldWorks, LLC | 2 | $6.30 | Missouri, Ohio |
| Masterson & Wright | 2 | $3.23 | California |
| Riester Consulting Company | 2 | $3.65 | Arizona |
| Silver Bullet LLC | 2 | $7.20 | Michigan |
| Citizen Solutions, Inc. | 1 | $5.17 | Washington |
| Democracy Resources | 1 | $3.75 | Oregon |
| M+R Strategic Services | 1 | $1.67 | Montana |
| National Petition Management | 1 | $4.28 | Missouri |
| NW Democracy Resources | 1 | $4.45 | Oregon |
| Voice of the Electorate, LLC | 1 | $5.83 | Oregon |
| Work for Progress | 1 | $1.20 | Colorado |
Category breakdowns
Table 6 below presents a breakdown of initiatives by political topic. Only political categories with two or more initiatives with CPRS data were included in this table.
QUICK STATS
- The topic of taxes had the most initiatives and the highest CPRS data.
- The topic of marijuana had the second most initiatives, but Gambling had the second highest CPRS.
| Table 6: CPRS breakdown by topic | ||
|---|---|---|
| Political topic | Number of initiatives relating to topic | Average CPRS |
| Taxes | 10 | $6.57 |
| Marijuana | 6 | $3.11 |
| Law enforcement | 3 | $3.06 |
| Labor | 3 | $2.85 |
| Gambling | 2 | $5.07 |
| Business | 2 | $3.60 |
| Redistricting | 2 | $3.27 |
| Marriage | 2 | $0.70 |
Methodology
This analysis uses the following general methodology:
- All data are compiled from data made available through each state's respective campaign finance website.
- Individual initiative data are obtained from available reports from the main committee believed to have been in charge of the petition effort.
- All costs that could be directly related to petitions, including petition gathering and petition printing, were accumulated. When a petition company is used, the company is listed even though all costs may not be directly associated.
- All averages are calculated using only available data. When an initiative did not have available data, it was excluded from such calculations.
- All averages are averages of totals, not averages of averages.
By: Joshua Williams and Damien Gilbert
Contact: Brittany Clingen
See also
Ballot measures
CPRS
References
- ↑ 63 initiatives were voted on if one includes two Arkansas measures that were not tallied due to litigation.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 State of Alaska, "Alaska Sea Party: Restoring Coastal Management Group Disclosure," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ State of Alaska, "'YES on Issue 1' Campaign Disclosure: Expenditures," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance - Filer Details: Open Government Committee Supporting Prop 121," accessed July 2, 2013
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance - Filer Details: Quality Education and Jobs Supporting Prop 204," accessed July 2, 2013
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Ballot/Legislative Question Committee Filing: Arkansans for Compassionate Care," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ CPRS data for California is based directly on research imported from California ballot initiative petition signature costs.
- ↑ 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12 Ballotpedia, California ballot initiative petition signature costs, accessed July 1, 2013
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Colorado Secretary of State Election Division, "Committee Detail: Coalition to End Marijuana Prohibition," accessed July 11, 2013
- ↑ Colorado Secretary of State Election Division, "Committee Detail: Fair Share Committee to Get Big Money Out of Politics," accessed July 11, 2013
- ↑ Idaho Secretary of State Election Division, "Campaign Finance," accessed July 12, 2013
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, "PAC Reports For EqualityMaine PAC," accessed July 12, 2013
- ↑ Maryland State Board of Elections, "Maryland Campaign Report Information System," accessed July 12, 2013
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, "Ballot Question Reports," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 State of Michigan Department of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization: Protect Working Families," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 State of Michigan Department of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization: Michigan Energy Michigan Jobs," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 State of Michigan Department of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization: Citizens For Affordable Quality Home Care," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 State of Michigan Department of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization: Michigan Alliance For Prosperity," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 State of Michigan Department of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization: The People Should Decide," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ State of Michigan Department of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization: Stand Up For Democracy," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 Missouri Ethics Commission, "Campaign Finance," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Commissioner of Political Practices, "Campaign Report Search," accessed July 6, 2013
- ↑ North Dakota Secretary of State, "Campaign Disclosure," accessed July 5, 2013
- ↑ Ohio Secretary of State, "File Transfer Page: PAC-VOTERS FIRST-2012 EXPENDITURE," December 14, 2012
- ↑ The Columbus Dispatch, "We Are Ohio pushes for redistricting reform," May 21, 2012
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Petition Committee: Protect Oregon Homes 2012," accessed July 5, 2013
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Petition Committee: Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2012," accessed July 5, 2013
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Petition Committee: Protect Our Salmon Committee," accessed July 5, 2013
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Petition Committee: Vote Yes for Oregon Jobs and Schools," accessed July 5, 2013
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Petition Committee: Death Tax Phase-Out Committee," accessed July 5, 2013
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Petition Committee: Protect Oregon's Priorities," accessed July 5, 2013
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "Donation Search," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ Washington Public Disclosure Commission, "Expenditures for: VOTERS WANT MORE CHOICES - SAVE THE 2/3RDS (MIKE FAGAN)," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ Washington Public Disclosure Commission, "Expenditures for: YES ON 1240 WA COALITION FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 Washington Public Disclosure Commission, "Expenditures for: PRESERVE MARRIAGE WA," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 Washington Public Disclosure Commission, "Expenditures for: NEW APPROACH WA," accessed July 3, 2013
- ↑ Batchgeo.com, "Regional Petition Centers for Referendum 74," accessed July 3, 2013
