“And while I do not by any means believe the initiative, the referendum, and the recall are the panacea for all our political ills, yet they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves.”
The Promethean goal of direct democracy as a populist foil to special interest power is barely recognizable in the California ballot initiative process today. Governor Hiram Johnson wanted to give average people the initiative, referendum and recall process as a counterweight to the Southern Pacific Railroad’s stranglehold on government, the media and political discourse. The modern equivalents of the Southern Pacific Railroad are the PG&Es, Chevrons, and Pfizers, which have come to dominate the very ballot initiative process created to curtail their power due to the prohibitive cost of qualifying a ballot initiative.
The initiative process has grown beyond the capacity of average citizens to wield by almost every measure.
No initiative has qualified on an all-volunteer basis since 1982.
Nearly every initiative that has qualified in modern times has done so overwhelmingly through pay to play efforts.
It now takes $2-3 million minimum to qualify a ballot measure before the fight over it can even begin.
In 2020, COVID-19 threw the biggest wrench yet into the system, with stay-at-home orders effectively shutting down in-person signature gathering. For some campaigns, it was impossible to qualify for the ballot at any price.
Consumer Watchdog reviewed a decade and a half of ballot measure activity since 2005 and found: 1.All but the wealthiest are now locked out of the California ballot initiative process due to the high cost of participating.
2.The same special interest groups that dominate Sacramento are dominating the initiative process due to the prohibitive price of signature gathering activity. 3.Establishing an electronic signature gathering system is now feasible and could restore the ballot initiative process to the people as it was intended.
“Shoppers treat signature-gatherers with skepticism”
P I The Problem: Our Outdated Initiative Qualification System $7 plus per valid signature is the new normal.
Over the past sixteen years, from 2005-2020, the average cost of qualifying a measure for the ballot in California was $2,435,600, or $4.61 per valid signature. Since 2005, $2241 million has been spent to qualify 92 initiatives for the California ballot. In the 2016 and 2018 election cycles the average signature cost rose above $6. In 2020 it topped $7.20 per signature, the most expensive year in recent memory. Qualification cost at least $2 more per signature than in the previous five election cycles, when signatures’ average cost ranged between $2 and $4.1
Initiative proponents typically turn in 30-40% more signatures than required because some signatures The mandatory number of signatures to qualify a measure for the 2020 ballot nearly doubled from the 2016-18 threshold, increasing from 365,880 to 623,212 for a statutory initiative and 585,407 to 997,139 for a constitutional amendment. In 2020, campaigns for the five measures subject to the higher signature thresholds spent an average $4.8 million
to qualify for the November ballot.2 Gathering signatures is getting harder.
The sheer quantity of signatures necessary to qualify a proposed initiative for the ballot gave rise to professional signature gatherers who charge a per-signature rate. Average citizens have the final say on ballot measures, of course, and their wisdom has been proven time and again. They are, however, almost never the engines of the proposals if they cannot find someone with big money to support their cause. The popularity of a ballot measure also plays little role in the cost of qualification, which rises or falls based on the number of competing petitions circulating, the number of signatures necessary to qualify, and how quickly they need to be collected. Popularity also plays no role in determining whether a measure qualifies.2 “Qualifying a California ballot measure to become ‘a playground of billionaires’,” John Wildermuth, San High costs mean that deep-pocketed interests decide what ideas are presented to voters long before a dime is spent on advertising or a campaign.
Part of the reason for rising costs is that gathering signatures is getting harder, even for the professionals. Few constituents write letters or sign paper petitions any more. Political activism has moved online, and the tools for reaching out to the public and elected officials have moved with it.
Shoppers treat signature-gatherers with skepticism, and growing numbers of traditional signature-gathering locations have shut down to petition gatherers. The landmark free speech case that affirmed the right to petition at grocery stores, Pruneyard v Robins, was narrowed significantly by the California Supreme Court in 2012. Many stores responded by banning petitioners altogether.
This has pushed petitioners to sporting events, concerts and sidewalks. It takes longer to gather signatures at such locations, where people are less likely to give a petitioner their time and are more likely to be out-of-towners.
While signature gatherers used to collect as many as 40 to 45 signatures per hour, the new legal restrictions on collecting signatures in public places and other cultural shifts have limited collection to about 12 to 15 signatures per hour.
In March 2020, signature gathering in public spaces halted completely in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Campaigns that were bringing in 30,000 – 70,000 signatures a week plummeted to zero. Two measures that were hundreds of thousands of signatures short when the shelter-at-home orders took effect had to go to court to win extra time to gather signatures and are now aiming for the 2022 ballot.
One campaign tried a novel approach that exposed just how difficult volunteer signature gathering is in California.
Proponents of the California Stem Cell Research, Treatments and Cures Initiative–now Proposition 14–had nearly reached their signature goal when stay-at-home orders halted in-person petitioning. The campaign launched an emergency effort to gather 35,000 signatures by mail, engaging more than 60 patient advocacy organizations in the effort. Yet in one month, the campaign collected just 10,000 additional signatures. The measure qualified for the 2020 ballot. But the effort illustrates the difficulty of collecting physical3 signatures, even from highly-motivated pre-existing supporters of a campaign.3 The spectacle of the signature gathering process has also led to perennial legislation in Sacramento proposing to bar payment to signature gatherers for each signature collected. Governor Brown vetoed the legislation 3 times, as did Governor Newsom in 2019. These trends will only continue to drive up signature costs, moving initiatives even further out of citizens’ reach.
The same special interests dominate Sacramento and the initiative process. Not surprisingly, the very interest groups whose power Johnson sought to diminish by creating the citizen initiative process have used it for their own gamesmanship. Recent legislative changes encourage moneyed interest groups to file initiatives as a way of leveraging legislative change. Initiatives can now be withdrawn after they are filed if a legislative compromise is reached. Legislative hearings, negotiations and amendments are encouraged. The corporate corruption of the ballot initiative process, already an established fact, is likely to grow in this new regime, even as average citizens lose their4 ability to participate in it meaningfully.
Consumer Watchdog’s analysis of a decade and half of initiative campaign spending reports and lobbying expenditure reports found that the same special interests who top Sacramento lobbying lists year after year are also the largest players in the initiative process.
Initiative campaigns have collected $3,186,787,277 in campaign contributions since5 2005. In every election cycle since 2005, two of the top five spenders on initiatives also ranked among the top 25 lobbyist employers in Sacramento that cycle.45
| Year | Top 5 Initiative Spenders | Rank (1-5) | Top 25 Lobbyist Employers | Rank (1-25) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | SEIU | 4 | SEIU | 4 |
| Realtors | 5 | Realtors | 16 | |
| 2016 | Hospitals | 3 | Hospitals | 2 |
| CTA | 5 | CTA | 9 | |
| 2014 | Kaiser | 1 | Kaiser | 6 |
(Source: Ballotpedia.org and California Secretary of State) Anyone with money can gain influence in Sacramento. Rising costs have made initiatives just another tool of those same special interests. The initiative process has been stolen by the very interests it was created to circumvent.
According to an analysis by the Fair Political Practices Commission, in both the 2014 and 2016 election cycles more than 85% of the money spent on ballot measures came from just ten contributors.
2014 Top 10 Contributors
| Year | Top 5 Initiative Spenders | Rank (1-5) | Top 25 Lobbyist Employers | Rank (1-25) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wellpoint | 2 | Health Plans | 24 | |
| 2012 | CTA | 3 | CTA | 3 |
| SEIU | 5 | SEIU | 1 | |
| 2010 | CTA | 1 | CTA | 2 |
| Valero | 5 | WSPA | 1 | |
| 2008 | Agua Caliente | 3 | Agua Caliente | 25 |
| PG&E | 5 | PG&E | 23 | |
| 2006 | Chevron | 2 | Chevron | 15 |
| (Source: Ballotpedia.org Aera | and Californi 4 | a Secretary of State) WSPA | 4 | |
| 2005 | CTA | 1 & 2 | CTA | 3 |
| SEIU | 4 | SEIU | 7 |
| Ballot Measure | Contributor | $ Amount |
|---|---|---|
| No on 45 | Kaiser | $18,866,574 |
| No on 45 | Wellpoint, Inc. and affiliated entities | $18,866,574 |
| No on 45 | Blue Shield of California | $12,476,424 |
| No on 48 | Table Mountain Rancheria | $12,263,327 |
| No on 46 | Norcal Mutual Insurance Company | $11,000,000 |
| No on 46 | The Doctors Company | $10,501,200 |
| No on 46 | Cooperative of American Physicians IE Committee | $10,203,970 |
| No on 45 | Health Net, Inc. | $5,518,324 |
| No on 46 | California Medical Association Physicians’ Issues Committee | $5,301,252 |
| No on 46 | Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., and The Hospitals | $5,000,000 |
2016 Top 10 Contributors Costs to Counties Current California law requires petition signatures be written by a person on paper. In order to verify physical signatures are valid, counties must go through the costly and time-consuming process of checking those signatures against voter registration records. When an initiative proponent turns in signatures, the counties first verify a random sample of 3% of those signatures. If the random sample shows a measure has more than 110% of the signatures required to qualify it goes automatically to the ballot. If the sample shows a measure has less than 95% it does not qualify. If the measure falls between 95 and 110%, county registrars must do a full count. That full count requires every signature be verified.
Many campaigns turn in their signatures around the same time. This means that counties are inundated with signatures all at once and in many years must verify millions of signatures in a few short months. The cost in dollars and time is tremendous. Public support of the initiative process continues to be strong, but ways to use it are restricted.
The public strongly supports the ballot measure process as a way to give citizens a route around the special interests that dominate Sacramento.
| Ballot Measure | Contributor | $ Amount |
|---|---|---|
| No on 56 | Philip Morris USA Inc. | $38,642,580 |
| Yes on 55 | CA Association of Hospitals and Health Systems (CAHHS) sponsored the CA Hospitals Committee on Issues | $25,121,370 |
| No on 56 | R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | $24,897,480 |
| Yes on 55 | CA Teachers Association | $21,053,224 |
| Yes on 61 | AIDS Healthcare Foundation | $18,717,068 |
| Yes on 56 | Thomas F. Steyer | $11,550,000 |
| No on 52 | California Health Foundation and Trust | $11,501,975 |
| Yes on 54 | Charles T. Munger Jr. | $10,705,640 |
| Yes on 56 | CA Hospitals Committee on Issues | $10,096,250 |
| No on 61 | Merck & Co., Inc. | $9,420,395 |
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has polled public sentiment on the initiative process since the early 2000s and finds: “In 2000, 68% of Californians were somewhat or very satisfied with the initiative process. By 2016, that figure had changed little (64%).”
The public also believes that citizens make better decisions than politicians do. A super-majority of likely voters surveyed by the PPIC (72%) “said it is a good thing that voters can make laws and change public policies by passing initiatives. Sixty percent of likely voters—including pluralities across parties—say that public policy decisions made through the initiative process are probably better than those made by the governor and state legislature.”
However, Californians are also convinced that the process needs reforming and that it has been taken over by those same special interests. PPIC polling finds that most Californians say “the initiative process is controlled a lot (55%) or some (35%) by special interests.” That perception has remained constant over time with large majorities of likely voters (63%).
Some initiative reforms embraced by the public in the PPIC survey have since been enacted. These include greater flexibility to review and amend filed initiatives and correct drafting errors, and the new grace period after signatures are collected but before ballot certification in which initiative proponents and the legislature can come to a compromise. Then there are the citizen reform ideas that take on special interests in the initiative process directly. For example, 84% of likely voters surveyed by the PPIC support increasing disclosure of initiative funding sources. Disclosure of initiative funding has been improved over the years, including legislation signed into law in 2019 that requires the names of the top donors to a measure be printed on initiative petitions. Otherwise, this information it is only available in reports at the Secretary of State’s Cal-Access website, an obscure source of information for any regular Californian, until they start seeing television advertising just before an election.
75% of likely voters surveyed would give a leg up to citizen initiatives by allowing proponents more time to qualify if they gather signatures with volunteers instead of paid collectors. This support is consistent across political affiliations and demographic groups and reflects the desire to favor grassroots citizen initiatives with a clearer path to qualification. However, because the barriers to gathering signatures on physical petitions have become so high, the reality is that an all-volunteer effort is next to impossible, even with extra time.
P II The Solution: Electronic Signatures The last two decades have seen a steady shift of public discourse from the in-person interactions of the town square to a broader digital community online. Yet California’s rules for demonstrating public support for an initiative proposal remain tied to a wet ink signature gathered by a paid circulator outside a grocery store.
When the gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic became clear in March 2020, that gradual move became an abrupt end to in-person campaigning. Californians’ willingness to physically interact with strangers to support an initiative proposal, already trending down, has likely been permanently reduced. The pandemic showcases the urgent need to give Californians remote access to direct democracy.
In a recent poll of likely voters by Hart Research, 61% said
“Allowing petition
they rely on “searches you might conduct on Google” to find out more about propositions on the ballot. Allowing petition signatures to be signatures to be gathered electronically would shift the
gathered
discussion and debate about petitions to the digital space where voters are already getting their information. It would electronically would both improve grassroots access to signature gathering and ease
shift the discussion
the verification burden on counties.
and debate about
Electronic signatures have been part of the initiative discussion
petitions to the
in California as far back as 2000, after federal and state
digital space where
legislation legally recognized the use of electronic signatures for commercial and governmental purposes.
voters are already getting their
The Speaker’s Commission on the California Initiative Process, convened in 2001 by then-Speaker of the Assembly
information.”
Robert Hertzberg, sought recommendations on electronic signature-gathering from the Public Policy Institute of California. That report identified opportunities and challenges raised by electronic signatures. While the benefits of e-signatures that were evident in 2001 have not changed today, most of the obstacles have fallen away over two decades of technological advances. The PPIC found that electronic signature-gathering would help: Restore citizen access to initiatives by reducing the cost to qualify grassroots measures Increase the ease and accuracy of signature verification by the counties Expand voter knowledge and education about a proposed measure before they sign Most of the challenges identified in the report have since fallen away: Security fears The digital divide Too easy to qualify Cost of implementing a statewide database of voters The advent of two-factor authentication security and the already assembled statewide voter database that connects to the DMV have finally removed the two major obstacles– security and cost–to implementing electronic signature gathering in California. The digital divide has also narrowed. 90% of California households now use the internet,6 many on smartphones which e-signatures can accommodate. For those who do not, voters may still sign initiative petitions on paper.
Concerns about initiatives qualifying too easily online are questionable. The number of signatures necessary to qualify a measure for the ballot in 2020 was higher than it has ever been over the 16 years we reviewed. This nearly-doubled threshold made qualification harder in the Spring of 2020. In addition, the legislature raised the ante to file an initiative to $2,000 recently. These new impediments to even proposing a measure minimize these concerns and make it less likely that an initiative without a significant following can succeed in getting to the ballot. A well-crafted proposal could also put other fail-safes in place to prevent an excess of measures.
More informed voters The benefits of electronic signature gathering are unmistakable. Voters currently encounter signature gatherers while they’re on the go. They have little time to read and understand the title and summary of a measure before deciding whether to sign, let alone the full text of the measure. They are lucky if they learn more about what they just signed before it reaches the ballot.
Complaints have arisen that some paid signature gatherers with a financial incentive to collect as many signatures as possible misrepresent the purpose of a petition in order to gain support. While reports of that kind of behavior are overblown, examples have surfaced.
Voters would be better informed about a measure before they sign a petition if signing occurs at a time and place of their choosing.6 Public Policy Institute of California, “California’s Digital Divide,” March 2019. https://www.ppic.org/ (opens in new tab) An initiative petition website could be designed to convey information to voters and provide them a place to sign. A model law would require the website to contain the more in-depth information that voters currently receive only in the ballot pamphlet: the summary and text of the measure, its fiscal impact, information about the proponents and opponents, and even campaign finance information that is not currently in the printed voter guide. Voters could go to the site and learn about the measure at their leisure before deciding to sign.
Initiative proponents report a common refrain from supporters: Why can’t I sign your petition online? That raises comparisons to common online petitions, and the reflexive “clicktivism” that one-click signatures make easy. Some fear that the ease of signing petitions online could encourage voters to sign many more petitions than they do now, increasing the number of measures that qualify and flooding the ballot. Michigan’s experience this year shows how wrong it is to assume electronic signatures are easy to collect, or that their adoption would mean more measures will qualify for the ballot.
A case study In April 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued an executive order encouraging the use of electronic signatures for all transactions during the crisis. The Fair and Equal Michigan campaign to place an LGBTQ non-discrimination law on the ballot launched an online petition tool in response. The campaign collected signatures in April and May using the common DocuSign software including 2-factor authentication, and required users to enter a valid Michigan driver’s license or state identification card number.
“It’s not as easy as getting someone to sign a Change.org petition,” said Fair and Equal Michigan spokesperson Josh Hovey. The public is trained to be wary of sharing their private information and “hesitant to give out their name and address, everything a paper petition requires, in an online format.”
Fair and Equal Michigan collected as many as 30,000 signatures online over a six-week period, enlisting coalition partners to email supporters and paying for online ads. The cost-per-signature ranged from $10 to $20, an amount as much as seven times higher than what the campaign had been paying on the street. The high costs were due in part to the unique circumstances of the effort – including the learning curve for implementing a first-time digital signature campaign and a spike in the cost of all online ads as retail stores all shifted to virtual advertising at the same time. It’s equally clear that the pace of signature-gathering didn’t speed up dramatically.
The design of the e-signature process can also address this concern. A two-step verification process would make voters confirm their interest in signing a petition and protect the initiative process from thoughtless signing. Two-step verification could even include a delay between the initial signature and its confirmation to give voters more time to read up on the potential measure. This will address many of the security questions that have been the most serious concern to direct democracy advocates.
The report to the 2001 Speaker’s Commission concluded with recommendations, including that the state: “Conduct one or more field trials of petition signing from government supervised computers – for example, at DMV or other state agency offices – to explore the feasibility of and problems with Internet petition signing.” Eighteen years later, those trials are long overdue.78 Electronic signature gathering is ripe for implementation and already being modeled in other states.
The executive order allowing electronic petition signatures in Michigan was rescinded as stay at home orders were relaxed. However other states provide models as well. Since 2012 the state of Arizona has allowed candidates to collect signatures electronically to run for election. The state legislature is considering extending the same system to ballot measures.
In 2018, voters in the City of Boulder approved a measure to allow electronic signature gathering for initiative petitions by a margin of 2 to 1. The city is currently implementing
an online petitioning system that will be fully functional in 2021.
An Oakland-based democracy organization, Maplight.org, is now offering state and local governments free use of its prototype e-signature software, which is able to connect directly with the statewide voter database maintained by California’s Secretary of State. The software could be up and running in just 90 days. It shows how secure the process of electronic signature verification is when a developed voter database can connect voters to other authentication factors such as home address and motor vehicle identification number.
Implementing statewide electronic signature gathering in California will require a change in law, either through an act of the voters or a reluctant legislature that has seen the ballot measure process as a troublesome, meddling rival.
California’s Court of Appeal has determined that electronic signatures affixed to a petition, even when signatures are actually signed on an electronic device and printed in wet ink remotely, are not valid signatures under current law to qualify a ballot measure. In Padilla v County of Santa Clara the Court ruled that signatures submitted for a candidate qualification using such “remote pen” technology “do not comply with Elections Code section 100 because they were not personally affixed to the nomination papers.” The Court also rejected signatures collected electronically, “Because there is no evidence that the Legislature has ever considered the use of such technology, let alone affirmatively endorsed it, this Court will not mandate its acceptance by judicial fiat.” The Court finally objected to electronic signature collection’s removal of the petition circulator from the signature-gathering process.
A new law is needed to affirm the equivalence of an electronic signature to an ink signature.
The model e-signature law is a simple fix to the long-standing problem of the inability of average citizens to use direct democracy as a tool to hold special interests and government accountable.
A model law for electronic signature-gathering in California can now address concerns about voter security that have been the biggest obstacle to creating a ballot initiative process that will give the public more power, choices and control.
Legislation or a ballot measure could establish that an electronic signature is the equivalent of a handwritten signature.
The proposal could also: 1)Specify that the Secretary of State’s Office be directed to implement an online system where voters are able to review petitions and sign them electronically; 2)Require software be utilized that incorporates two factor authentication technology so that voters can be sure they control their signature and no fraud is permitted; 3)Potentially increase the signature threshold for electronic signatures over wet ink signatures if it is determined that electronic signature qualification would result in a large number of petitions; 4)Potentially limit the number of electronically qualified initiatives in order to ascertain whether too many initiatives would qualify under the system during a trial period.
The public is very hesitant to enact ballot measures. Initiatives pass less than 60% of the time. The California public is the best check on ill-advised or knee-jerk proposals. It has proved its mettle time and again.
Yet volunteer qualified initiatives have gone the way of the dinosaurs. It’s time to bring them back and put the power over lawmaking in the public’s hands when the legislature is not doing its job.
An electronic signature gathering system can restore Hiram Johnson’s original vision of direct democracy. Voters are very likely to adopt that initiative proposal, based on their affection for the system and the recent example from Boulder.
The only hurdle is qualifying such a measure in an environment where $7 per signature is the ante for public origination of policymaking proposals.
Appendix I. California Ballot Initiative Petition Signature Cost 2005-2020
2005 2006
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 73 | Abortion | Bader & Associates, Inc. | $2,527,611 | $4.23 |
| Proposition 74 | Labor | NPM, Arno and Forde | $1,969,118 | $1.01 |
| Proposition 75 | Labor | NPM, Arno and Forde | $1,969,118 | $1.01 |
| Proposition 76 | Spending | NPM, Arno and Forde | $1,969,118 | $1.01 |
| Proposition 77 | Redistricting | NPM, Arno and Forde | $1,969,118 | $1.01 |
| Proposition 78 | Healthcare | Progressive and Bader | $2,415,397 | $6.46 |
| Proposition 79 | Healthcare | Kimball Petition Management | $4,635,466 | $12.40 |
| Proposition 80 | Energy | Kimball Petition Management | $4,839,466 | $12.95 |
| TOTAL: | $22,294,412 |
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 82 | Education | Kimball Petition Management | $1,616,569 | $2.70 |
| Proposition 83 | Law enforcement | Bader & Associates | $700,000 | $1.87 |
| Proposition 84 | Bond issues | Kimball Petition Management | $1,043,484 | $2.79 |
| Proposition 85 | Abortion | Bader & Associates | $2,527,615 | $4.22 |
| Proposition 86 | Taxes | Master’son & Wright | $2,558,147 | $4.28 |
| Proposition 87 | Taxes | Kimball Petition Management | $2,382,280 | $3.98 |
| Proposition 88 | Taxes | National Petition Management | $4,226,621 | $7.06 |
| Proposition 89 | Elections and cam | paigns | ||
| Proposition 90 | Eminent domain | Arno Political Consultants | $1,788,706 | $2.99 |
| TOTAL: | $16,843,422 |
2008 2010
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 93 | Term limits | Kimball Petition Management | $2,238,538 | $3.22 |
| Proposition 94 | Gambling | Arno Political Consultants | $926,133 | $2.13 |
| Proposition 95 | Gambling | Arno Political Consultants | $926,133 | $2.13 |
| Proposition 96 | Gambling | Arno Political Consultants | $926,133 | $2.13 |
| Proposition 97 | Gambling | Arno Political Consultants | $926,133 | $2.13 |
| Proposition 98 | Eminent domain | Arno Political Consultants | $1,583,000 | $2.28 |
| Proposition 99 | Eminent domain | Progressive Campaigns, Inc. | $3,559,970 | $5.13 |
| Proposition 2 | Animal rights | Progressive Campaigns, Inc. | $416,756 | $0.96 |
| Proposition 3 | Bonds | Arno Political Consultants | $1,028,000 | $2.37 |
| Proposition 4 | Abortion | Bader & Associates, Inc. | $2,555,000 | $3.68 |
| Proposition 5 | Marijuana | Progressive Campaigns, Inc. | $1,762,000 | $4.06 |
| Proposition 6 | Criminal justice | National Petition Management | $1,022,000 | $2.35 |
| Proposition 7 | Energy | Progressive Campaigns, Inc. | $1,367,000 | $3.15 |
| Proposition 8 | Marriage | Bader & Associates, Inc. | $882,900 | $1.27 |
| Proposition 9 | Criminal justice | Bader & Associates, Inc. | $2,258,000 | $3.25 |
| Proposition 10 | Energy | Progressive Campaigns, Inc. | $3,078,263 | $7.09 |
| Proposition 11 | Redistricting | Kimball Petition Management | $2,332,988 | $3.36 |
| TOTAL: | $27,826,947 |
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 19 | Marijuana | Master’son & Wright | $987,833 | $2.27 |
| Proposition 20 | Elections | National Petition Management | $1,937,380 | $2.79 |
| Proposition 21 | Taxes | Master’son & Wright | $1,144,515 | $2.64 |
| Proposition 22 | State spending | Progressive Campaigns | $1,646,596 | $2.37 |
| Proposition 23 | Environment | National Petition Management | $2,222,312 | $5.12 |
| Proposition 24 | Taxes | Kimball Petition Management | $1,587,363 | $3.65 |
| Proposition 25 | State spending | Kimball Petition Management | $2,626,808 | $3.78 |
| Proposition 26 | Taxes | National Petition Management | $2,341,023 | $3.37 |
| Proposition 27 | Elections | Kimball Petition Management | $3,031,085 | $4.37 |
| TOTAL: | $21,998,454 |
2012 2014
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 40 | Redistricting | Bader & Associates | $584,126 | $1.18 |
| Proposition 39 | Taxes | Masterson & Wright | $1,796,003 | $3.56 |
| Proposition 38 | Taxes | Arno Political Consultants, 12 other | s $4,952,513 | $9.81 |
| Proposition 37 | Regulation | Masterson & Wright | $1,463,968 | $2.90 |
| Proposition 36 | Law enforcement | Progressive Campaigns (PCI) | $1,475,775 | $2.92 |
| Proposition 35 | Law enforcement | Progressive Campaigns (PCI) | $1,437,523 | $2.85 |
| Proposition 34 | Death penalty | Kimball Petition Management | $1,418,122 | $2.81 |
| Proposition 33 | Insurance | Arno Political Consultants | $1,700,916 | $3.37 |
| Proposition 32 | Labor | Bader & Associates | $1,170,886 | $2.32 |
| Proposition 31 | Budgets | Progressive Campaigns (PCI) | $2,806,880 | $3.48 |
| Proposition 30 | Taxes | Kimball Petition Management | $8,773,490 | $10.86 |
| TOTAL: | $28,244,069 |
Ballot measure Subject Signature collection company Cost CPRS Proposition 45 Insurance Kimball Petition Management $1,728,998 $3.43 Proposition 46 Healthcare Kimball Petition Management $1,692,673 $3.35 Proposition 47 Trials PCI Consultants, Inc $1,847,882 $3.66 Proposition 48 Gambling Arno Political Consultants and The Monaco Group $2,636,173 $5.22 TOTAL: $6,136,162
2016
| Ballot measure | Subject | Signature collection company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 51 | Education | National Petition Management, Inc. | $1,252,534.01 | $3.42 |
| Proposition 52 | Healthcare | Arno Political Consultants and The Monaco Group | $2,192,811.85 | $2.72 |
| Proposition 53 | Gov’t Finance | National Petition Management, Inc. | $2,669,093.95 | $4.56 |
| Proposition 54 | Gov’t Acc | National Petition Management, Inc. | $6,622,935.93 | $11.31 |
| Proposition 55 | Taxes | Kimball Petition Management, Inc. and Million Voter Project Action Fund | $4,236,577.66 | $7.24 |
| Proposition 56 | Tobacco | Boven Consulting, Kimball Petition Management, Inc., Bridge Street, Inc. and Million Voter Project Action Fund | $4,524,176.13 | $7.73 |
| Proposition 57 | Trials | Kimball Petition Management, Inc. and Groundwork Campaigns, Inc. | $4,818,267.20 | $8.23 |
| Proposition 60 | Movies | PCI Consultants, Inc. and The Monaco Group | $1,409,273.68 | $3.85 |
| Proposition 61 | Healthcare | PCI Consultants, Inc. | $1,355,765.65 | $3.36 |
| Proposition 62 | Death Penalty | PCI Consultants, Inc. | $3,192,775.30 | $8.73 |
| Proposition 63 | Firearms | PCI Consultants, Inc. | $2,228,384.05 | $6.09 |
| Proposition 64 | Marijuana | Kimball Petition Management, Inc. | $2,093,616.10 | $5.72 |
| Proposition 65 | Environment | National Petition Management, Inc. | $2,137,992.45 | $5.84 |
| Proposition 66 | Death Penalty | National Petition Management, Inc. and The Monaco Group | $3,065,943.08 | $8.38 |
| Proposition 67 | Business | National Petition Management, Inc. | $2,911,945.89 | $5.77 |
| TOTAL: | $44,712,092.93 |
2018 2020
| Ballot Measure: | Topic: | Petition company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 3 | Bond issues | Masterton & Wright | $1,883,203.00 | $5.15 |
| Proposition 4 | Bond issues | National Petition Management, INC. | $2,645,311.84 | $7.23 |
| Proposition 5 | Taxes | AAP Holding Company, Inc. and The Monaco Group | $5,140,990.49 | $8.78 |
| Proposition 6 | Direct democracy measures | GOCO Consulting and The Monaco Group | $2,094,520.02 | $3.58 |
| Proposition 8 | Healthcare | Kimball Petition Management | $1,648,357.38 | $4.51 |
| Proposition 10 | Housing | AAP Holding Company, Inc. and The Monaco Group | $1,982,004.92 | $5.42 |
| Proposition 11 | Labor and unions | National Petition Management, Inc. | $2,892,967.03 | $7.91 |
| Proposition 12 | Treatment of animals | AAP Holding Company, Inc. and The Monaco Group | $2,199,613.72 | $6.01 |
| TOTAL: | $20,486,968.40 |
| Ballot Measure: | Topic: | Petition company | Cost | CPRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 14 | Healthcare | Robert N. Klein II (In-Kind) | $4,145,719.73 | $6.65 |
| Proposition 15 | Taxes | Kimball Petition Management, Inc. | $3,490,600.39 | $5.96 |
| Proposition 20 | Law Enforcement | Arno Petition Consultants | $2,046,104.99 | $5.59 |
| Proposition 21 | Housing | BH-AP Petitioning Partners LLC | $3,565,077.00 | $5.72 |
| Proposition 22 | Employment Regulation | National Petition Management, Inc. | $6,461,617.23 | $10.37 |
| Proposition 23 | Healthcare | Kimball Petition Management, Inc. | $5,524,184.44 | $8.86 |
| Proposition 24 | Privacy | Alastair Mactaggart (In-Kind) | $4,365,296.75 | $7.00 |
| Proposition 25 | Law Enforcement | National Petition Management, Inc. | $2,778,434.11 | $7.59 |
| TOTAL: | $32,377,034.64 |
Appendix II. California Ballot Initiative Contributions 2005-2018
2005 2006
| Ballot measure | Subject | Yes Contributions | No Contributions | Total Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 73 | Abortion | $2,594,531 | $5,637,252 | $8,231,783 | N |
| Proposition 74 | Labor | $76,142,963 | $14,474,449 | $90,617,412 | N |
| Proposition 75 | Labor | $5,843,989 | $54,117,749 | $59,961,738 | N |
| Proposition 76 | Spending | $76,142,963 | $28,000,582 | $104,143,545 | N |
| Proposition 77 | Redistricting | $12,269,608 | $18,468,522 | $30,738,130 | N |
| Proposition 78 | Healthcare | $187,664,721 | $859,316 | $188,524,037 | N |
| Proposition 79 | Healthcare | $39,614,041 | $124,272,684 | $163,886,725 | N |
| Proposition 80 | Energy | $4,096,530 | $1,200,200 | $5,296,730 | N |
| TOTAL: | $404,369,346 | $247,030,754 | $651,400,100 |
| Ballot measure | Subject | Yes Contributions | No Contributions | Total Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 82 | Education | $16,007,809 | $10,820,024 | $26,827,833 | N |
| Proposition 83 | Law enforcement | $2,196,152 | $30,000 | $2,226,152 | Y |
| Proposition 84 | Bond issues | $11,436,826 | $30,000 | $11,466,826 | Y |
| Proposition 85 | Abortion | $3,808,873 | $7,255,137 | $11,064,010 | N |
| Proposition 86 | Taxes | $16,607,128 | $66,682,899 | $83,290,027 | N |
| Proposition 87 | Taxes | $61,886,129 | $94,430,014 | $156,316,143 | N |
| Proposition 88 | Taxes | $11,957,645 | $1,176,434 | $13,134,079 | N |
| Proposition 89 | Elections and cam | paign$s5,799,497 | $5,693,511 | $11,493,008 | N |
| Proposition 90 | Eminent domain | $4,046,550 | $14,338,764 | $18,385,314 | N |
| TOTAL: | $133,746,609 | $200,456,783 | $334,203,392 |
2008 2010
| Ballot measure | Subject | Yes Contributions | No Contributions | Total Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 92 | Education | $3,543,032 | $2,954,524 | $6,497,556 | N |
| Proposition 93 | Term limits | $16,840,223 | $8,958,926 | $25,799,149 | N |
| Proposition 94, 95 | G, 9a6m. b9l7ing | $108,366,370 | $64,331,873 | $172,698,243 | Y |
| Proposition 98 | Eminent domain | $6,992,782 | $15,608,527 | $22,601,309 | N |
| Proposition 99 | Eminent domain | $15,600,929 | $6,992,782 | $22,593,711 | Y |
| Proposition 2 | Animal rights | $10,499,162 | $8,973,429 | $19,472,591 | Y |
| Proposition 3 | Bonds | $7,908,647 | $0 | $7,908,647 | Y |
| Proposition 4 | Abortion | $3,202,911 | $10,504,042 | $13,706,953 | N |
| Proposition 5 | Marijuana | $7,601,079 | $2,886,965 | $10,488,044 | N |
| Proposition 6 | Criminal justice | $1,983,008 | $2,356,567 | $4,339,575 | N |
| Proposition 7 | Energy | $9,360,232 | $29,787,119 | $39,147,351 | N |
| Proposition 8 | Marriage | $28,200,000 | $32,300,000 | $60,500,000 | Y |
| Proposition 9 | Criminal justice | $5,149,931 | $2,356,567 | $7,506,498 | Y |
| Proposition 10 | Energy | $22,720,573 | $173,218 | $22,893,791 | N |
| Proposition 11 | Redistricting | $16,279,892 | $1,525,816 | $17,805,708 | Y |
| TOTAL: | $264,248,771 | $189,710,355 | $453,959,126 |
| Ballot measure | SubjecYtes Co | ntributions (sNpeon Ct/or | naitsreibdu?t)ions (Spent/r | aiTsoetda?l )Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 16 | Elections | $46,500,000 | $130,000 | $46,655,827 | N |
| Proposition 17 | Regulation | $15,800,000 | $1,500,000 | $17,354,090 | N |
| Proposition 19 | Marijuana | $4,050,581 | $319,999 | $4,370,580 | N |
| Proposition 20 | Elections | $13,400,000 | $553,000 | $15,336,360 | Y |
| Proposition 21 | Taxes | $10,300,000 | $74,000 | $10,374,000 | N |
| Proposition 22 | State spending | $5,800,000 | $1,800,000 | $7,600,000 | Y |
| Proposition 23 | Environment | $10,600,000 | $25,200,000 | $49,805,741 | N |
| Proposition 24 | Taxes | $14,200,000 | $15,400,000 | $30,598,177 | N |
| Proposition 25 | State spending | $15,200,000 | $17,753,067 | $32,679,003 | Y |
| Proposition 26 | Taxes | $17,753,067 | $6,593,639 | $26,487,706 | Y |
| Proposition 27 | Elections | $8,126,201 | $14,803,845 | $22,930,046 | N |
| TOTAL: | $161,729,849 | $84,127,550 | $264,191,530 |
2012 2014
| Ballot measure | Subject | Yes Contributions | No Contributions | Total Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 29 | Taxes | $12,300,000 | $46,800,000 | $59,100,000 | N |
| Proposition 30 | Taxes | $67,100,000 | $53,400,000 | $120,500,000 | Y |
| Proposition 31 | Budgets | $4,400,000 | $573,700 | $4,973,700 | N |
| Proposition 32 | Labor | $60,500,000 | $73,300,000 | $133,800,000 | N |
| Proposition 33 | Insurance | $17,100,000 | $275,700 | $17,375,700 | N |
| Proposition 34 | Death penalty | $7,400,000 | $391,900 | $7,791,900 | N |
| Proposition 35 | Law enforcement | $3,700,000 | $0 | $3,700,000 | Y |
| Proposition 36 | Law enforcement | $2,700,000 | $119,900 | $2,819,900 | Y |
| Proposition 37 | Regulation | $8,700,000 | $45,600,000 | $54,300,000 | N |
| Proposition 38 | Taxes | $47,800,000 | $42,300 | $47,842,300 | N |
| Proposition 39 | Taxes | $31,400,000 | $45,000 | $31,445,000 | Y |
| Proposition 40 | Redistricting | $601,100 | $2,300,000 | $2,901,100 | Y |
| TOTAL: | $263,701,100 | $222,848,500 | $486,549,600 |
| Ballot measure | Subject | Yes Contributions | No Contributions | Total Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 45 | Insurance | $6,274,002 | $56,954,326 | $63,228,328 | N |
| Proposition 46 | Healthcare | $12,392,768 | $57,835,713 | $70,228,481 | N |
| Proposition 47 | Trials | $10,791,022 | $501,925 | $11,292,947 | Y |
| Proposition 48 | Gambling | $448,730 | $22,081,047 | $22,529,777 | N |
| TOTAL: | $29,906,522 | $137,373,011 | $167,279,533 |
2016 2018
| Ballot measure | Subject | Yes Contributions | No Contributions | Total Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 51 | Education | $12,094,121 | $0 | $12,094,121 | Y |
| Proposition 52 | Healthcare | $60,282,907 | $11,562,866 | $71,845,773 | Y |
| Proposition 53 | Gov’t Finance | $6,034,361 | $21,992,199 | $28,026,559 | N |
| Proposition 54 | Gov’t Acc | $10,883,569 | $27,330 | $10,910,899 | Y |
| Proposition 55 | Taxes | $58,728,058 | $3,000 | $58,731,058 | Y |
| Proposition 56 | Tobacco | $35,527,765 | $70,978,345 | $106,506,110 | Y |
| Proposition 57 | Trials | $15,044,822 | $1,506,030 | $16,550,852 | Y |
| Proposition 60 | Condoms | $5,047,809 | $556,169 | $5,603,978 | N |
| Proposition 61 | Healthcare | $19,170,610 | $109,106,161 | $128,276,770 | N |
| Proposition 62 | Death Penalty | $10,141,301 | $12,698,420 | $22,839,721 | N |
| Proposition 63 | Firearms | $4,559,534 | $1,060,034 | $5,619,568 | Y |
| Proposition 64 | Marijuana | $25,066,821 | $2,077,439 | $27,144,260 | Y |
| Proposition 65 | Environment | $6,146,383 | $0 | $6,146,383 | N |
| Proposition 66 | Death Penalty | $13,354,271 | $13,916,025 | $27,270,296 | Y |
| Proposition 67 | Business | $3,690,669 | $6,146,383 | $9,837,052 | Y |
| TOTAL: | $285,773,000 | $251,630,402 | $537,403,402 |
| Ballot Measure: | Topic: | Yes Contributions | No Contributions | Total Contributions | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposition 3 | Bond issues | $4,936,583 | $0 | $4,936,583 | N |
| Proposition 4 | Bond issues | $11,465,759 | $0 | $11,465,759 | Y |
| Proposition 5 | Taxes | $13,224,875 | $3,324,419 | $16,549,294 | N |
| Proposition 6 | Direct democracy | measu$r5e,s161,189 | $46,719,588 | $51,880,776 | N |
| Proposition 8 | Healthcare | $18,943,228 | $111,482,980 | $130,426,208 | N |
| Proposition 10 | Housing | $25,295,591 | $71,366,691 | $96,662,282 | N |
| Proposition 11 | Labor and unions | $29,887,770 | $0 | $29,887,770 | Y |
| Proposition 12 | Treatment of anim | als $13,312,539 | $689,279 | $14,001,818 | Y |
| TOTAL: | $122,227,534 | $233,582,957 | $355,810,491 |
2005-2006 Lobby Spending
| Employer Name | Total Payments | Interests |
|---|---|---|
| AT&T INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES (E00663) | $23,682,808 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| TV 4 US (1287999) | $15,893,472 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (E00322) | $11,669,746 | EDUCATION |
| WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (E24747) | $6,652,641 | OIL AND GAS |
| CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (E00169) | $5,563,667 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| COMCAST CORPORATION (1274966) | $3,629,408 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES (E00789) | $3,333,162 | LABOR UNIONS |
| VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (E00476) | $3,234,252 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (E00981) | $3,129,225 | LABOR UNIONS |
| CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (E22985) | $2,984,209 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES OF AT&T INC. (E00663) | $2,942,496 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA (E00021) | $2,906,092 | LEGAL |
| BHP BILLITON LNG INTERNATIONAL, INC. (1264554) | $2,814,590 | OIL AND GAS |
| EDISON INTERNATIONAL & SUBSIDIARIES (E00768) | $2,789,483 | UTILITIES |
| CHEVRON CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES (E00352) | $2,536,570 | OIL AND GAS |
| LOS ANGELES, COUNTY OF (E00582) | $2,531,800 | GOVERNMENT |
| SEMPRA ENERGY AND ITS AFFILIATES: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SEMPRA ENERGY GLOBAL ENTERPRISES (E22327) | $2,398,932 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (E00246) | $2,368,373 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (E00559) | $2,282,624 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (E00243) | $2,255,089 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
2007-2008 Lobby Spending
| CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION/CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS (E00218) | $2,130,202 | HEALTH |
|---|---|---|
| ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANIES (E00048) | $2,083,802 | FINANCE/INSURANCE |
| CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION (E00259) | $2,060,856 | LABOR UNIONS |
| CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (E00397) | $2,033,833 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (E00138) | $1,997,231 | REAL ESTATE |
| Employer Name | Total Payments | Interests |
|---|---|---|
| WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (E24747) | $10,587,795 | OIL AND GAS |
| CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES (E00789) | $10,292,428 | LABOR UNIONS |
| CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (E00322) | $7,976,041 | EDUCATION |
| BURSON-MARSTELLER, ON BEHALF OF THE BROMINE SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM, ALSO DBA CALIFORNIANS FOR FIRE SAFETY (1254267) | $6,500,666 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION/CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS (E00218) | $5,961,373 | HEALTH |
| AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL (C00382) | $5,717,319 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (E00169) | $5,635,119 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (E00559) | $4,415,331 | GOVERNMENT |
| MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS (C25254) | $4,389,198 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| AT&T INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES (E00663) | $4,219,199 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (E22985) | $4,161,285 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| ANTHEM BLUE CROSS (A SUBSIDIARY OF WELLPOINT, INC.) (E24538) | $4,057,687 | FINANCE/INSURANCE |
| HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (1298909) | $4,010,773 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS & TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (E00243) | $3,851,983 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL-CIO (E00234) | $3,382,835 | LABOR UNIONS |
2009-2010 Lobby Spending
| CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (E00981) | $3,314,954 | LABOR UNIONS |
|---|---|---|
| AARP (C28030) | $3,297,554 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CHEVRON CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES (E00352) | $3,160,626 | OIL AND GAS |
| SEMPRA ENERGY AND ITS AFFILIATES: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SEMPRA ENERGY GLOBAL ENTERPRISES (E22327) | $3,103,720 | UTILITIES |
| LOS ANGELES; CITY OF (E00581) | $2,701,659 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (E00246) | $2,656,275 | HEALTH |
| CITIZENS FOR FIRE SAFETY INSTITUTE (1303817) | $2,624,361 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES OF ENTITIES (E01982) | $2,535,501 | UTILITIES |
| GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY (C27014) | $2,533,179 | UTILITIES |
| AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS (C27918) | $2,464,163 | GOVERNMENT |
| Employer Name | Total Payments | Interests |
|---|---|---|
| WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (E24747) | $9,345,305 | OIL AND GAS |
| CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (E00322) | $9,164,422 | EDUCATION |
| CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES (E00789) | $8,665,882 | LABOR UNIONS |
| CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (E00169) | $6,715,019 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL-CIO (E00234) | $5,967,559 | LABOR UNIONS |
| CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION/CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS (E00218) | $4,483,216 | HEALTH |
| CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (E00981) | $4,475,375 | LABOR UNIONS |
| AT&T INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES (E00663) | $4,043,806 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CHEVRON CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES (E00352) | $3,848,147 | OIL AND GAS |
| HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (1298909) | $3,823,311 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS’ AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (E00243) | $3,564,085 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (E00559) | $3,364,647 | GOVERNMENT |
|---|---|---|
| LOS ANGELES; CITY OF (E00581) | $3,167,271 | GOVERNMENT |
| PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES OF ENTITIES (E01982) | $3,167,200 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (E22985) | $3,080,220 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY (E24636) | $2,993,142 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (E00246) | $2,983,564 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (E00397) | $2,798,287 | GOVERNMENT |
| LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF (E00582) | $2,706,317 | GOVERNMENT |
| METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (E00601) | $2,465,675 | GOVERNMENT |
| ORANGE; COUNTY OF (C00650) | $2,376,784 | GOVERNMENT |
| SEMPRA ENERGY AND ITS AFFILIATES, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY & SEMPRA GLOBAL (E22327) | $2,357,809 | UTILITIES |
| ALAMEDA; COUNTY OF (C00235) | $2,313,597 | GOVERNMENT |
| ANTHEM BLUE CROSS (A SUBSIDIARY OF WELLPOINT, INC.) (E24538) | $2,288,062 | FINANCE/INSURANCE |
| EDISON INTERNATIONAL & SUBSIDIARIES (E00768) | $2,272,734 | UTILITIES |
2011-2012 Lobby Spending
| Employer Name | Total Payments | Interests |
|---|---|---|
| CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES (E00789) | $8,673,835 | LABOR UNIONS |
| WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (E24747) | $8,481,004 | OIL AND GAS |
| CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (E00322) | $8,392,913 | EDUCATION |
| CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (E00169) | $6,656,838 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. (E00550) | $5,969,645 | HEALTH |
| CHEVRON CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES (E00352) | $5,664,625 | OIL AND GAS |
| CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION/CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS (E00218) | $5,042,077 | HEALTH |
| CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (E00243) | $4,572,312 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| AT&T INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES (E00663) | $4,367,381 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| VERNON; CITY OF (C01345) | $4,319,069 | GOVERNMENT |
| HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (1298909) | $3,980,961 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (E00981) | $3,654,399 | LABOR UNIONS |
| LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (E00559) | $3,563,819 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (E22985) | $3,402,596 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| LOS ANGELES; CITY OF (E00581) | $3,330,198 | GOVERNMENT |
| SEMPRA ENERGY AND ITS AFFILIATES, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY & SEMPRA GLOBAL (E22327) | $3,305,741 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL-CIO (E00234) | $3,197,924 | LABOR UNIONS |
| EDISON INTERNATIONAL & AFFILIATES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, KERN RIVER COGENERATION COMPANY, MIDWAY SUNSET COGENERATION COMPANY, SYCAMORE COGENERATION COMPANY, AND WATSON COGENERATION COMPANY (E00768) | $3,015,605 | UTILITIES |
2013-2014 Lobby Spending
| PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES (E01982) | $2,968,384 | UTILITIES |
|---|---|---|
| CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (E00397) | $2,937,766 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (E00246) | $2,898,355 | HEALTH |
| LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF (E00582) | $2,788,739 | GOVERNMENT |
| ALAMEDA; COUNTY OF (C00235) | $2,471,336 | GOVERNMENT |
| SAN BERNARDINO; COUNTY OF (C22870) | $2,360,227 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION (E00286) | $2,266,529 | MERCHANDISE/RETAIL |
| Employer Name | Total Payments | Interests |
|---|---|---|
| WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (E24747) | $13,553,943 | OIL AND GAS |
| CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES (E00789) | $9,993,316 | LABOR UNIONS |
| CHEVRON CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES (E00352) | $8,275,361 | OIL AND GAS |
| CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (E00169) | $7,639,130 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION/CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS (E00218) | $6,118,525 | HEALTH |
| KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. (E00550) | $5,237,233 | HEALTH |
| CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (E00246) | $4,125,207 | HEALTH |
| AT&T INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES (E00663) | $3,929,936 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES (E01982) | $3,701,041 | UTILITIES |
| SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (E00768) | $3,506,398 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (E00981) | $3,486,958 | LABOR UNIONS |
| CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (E00243) | $3,451,786 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (1298909) | $3,199,131 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA (E00021) | $3,146,909 | LEGAL |
| CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (E00322) | $3,116,740 | EDUCATION |
| CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (E00397) | $3,112,116 | GOVERNMENT |
2015-2016 Lobby Spending
| LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF (E00582) | $2,937,429 | GOVERNMENT |
|---|---|---|
| CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (E22985) | $2,735,227 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (E00559) | $2,586,512 | GOVERNMENT |
| METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (E00601) | $2,478,095 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (E00138) | $2,407,856 | REAL ESTATE |
| PHILLIPS 66 (1348342) | $2,397,484 | OIL AND GAS |
| LOS ANGELES; CITY OF (E00581) | $2,315,029 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH PLANS (E22652) | $2,297,552 | HEALTH |
| ALAMEDA; COUNTY OF (C00235) | $2,260,822 | GOVERNMENT |
Employer Name Total Payments Interests WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION $18,718,663 OIL AND GAS CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION/CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS $11,980,669 HEALTH CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES $11,799,828 LABOR UNIONS NEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION $9,385,933 MISCELLANEOUS CHEVRON CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES $7,179,341 OIL AND GAS CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $7,033,032 PROFESSIONAL/TRADE KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. $4,525,441 HEALTH AT&T INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES $4,307,774 MISCELLANEOUS CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION $4,069,123 LABOR UNIONS CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION $3,981,703 EDUCATION SOLARCITY CORPORATION $3,763,555 MISCELLANEOUS CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION $3,456,039 LABOR UNIONS CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION $3,430,589 MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (E00246) $3,383,372 HEALTH
2017-2018 Lobby Spending
| PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES | $3,337,245 | UTILITIES |
|---|---|---|
| HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (1298909) | $3,300,903 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF (E00582) | $3,230,362 | GOVERNMENT |
| SEMPRA ENERGY AND ITS AFFILIATES: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (E22327) | $3,218,926 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (E22985) | $3,056,552 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA (E00021) | $2,704,500 | LEGAL |
| SAN DIEGO; COUNTY OF (C00727) | $2,703,501 | GOVERNMENT |
| METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (E00601) | $2,643,207 | GOVERNMENT |
| ORANGE; COUNTY OF (C00650) | $2,540,234 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (E00138) | $2,399,897 | REAL ESTATE |
| CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION (E21062) | $2,263,163 | REAL ESTATE |
| Employer Name | Total Payments | Interests |
|---|---|---|
| WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (E24747) | $15,768,069 | OIL AND GAS |
| CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. AND AFFILIATES (E00352) | $14,211,936 | OIL AND GAS |
| PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES (E01982) | $11,837,662 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES (E00789) | $8,049,014 | LABOR UNIONS |
| EDISON INTERNATIONAL AND AFFILIATES, INCLUDING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (E00768) | $6,020,581 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (E00169) | $5,882,829 | PROFESSIONAL/TRADE |
| CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION/CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS (E00218) | $5,516,561 | HEALTH |
| AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION/NORTHERN CALIFORNIA/SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA/SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES (E01634) | $4,973,239 | LEGAL |
| CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION (E01343) | $4,652,228 | EDUCATION |
| CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (E00322) | $4,329,682 | EDUCATION |
|---|---|---|
| AT&T INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES (E00663) | $4,305,854 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (1298909) | $3,959,932 | MISCELLANEOUS |
| CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (E00246) | $3,839,675 | HEALTH |
| CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (E00243) | $3,733,691 | MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL |
| METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (E00601) | $3,643,886 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS (E00138) | $3,361,194 | REAL ESTATE |
| TESORO REFINING & MARKETING CO. LLC, INCLUDING ALL TESORO OPERATIONS IN THE STATE (LOGISTICS, RETAIL) (1244770) | $3,232,152 | OIL AND GAS |
| SEMPRA ENERGY AND ITS AFFILIATES: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (E22327) | $3,131,643 | UTILITIES |
| CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION (E00259) | $2,984,258 | LABOR UNIONS |
| KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. (E00550) | $2,906,895 | HEALTH |
| CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA (E00021) | $2,862,451 | LEGAL |
| CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH PLANS (E22652) | $2,817,401 | HEALTH |
| LOS ANGELES; CITY OF (E00581) | $2,730,573 | UTILITIES |
| LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF (E00582) | $2,723,451 | GOVERNMENT |
| CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (E22985) | $2,651,017 | MISCELLANEOUS |
Appendix IV. Top 5 Initiative Contributors by Election, 2005-2018
| 2005 Prop 76 – N | California Teachers Association | $13,676,047 |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 Prop 75 – N | California Teachers Association | $12,102,416 |
| 2005 Prop 75 – N | Alliance for a Better California (teachers unions, service emplo | ye$e1s0, ,A1F3L0-,C51IO7, |
| 2005 Prop 75 – N | California State Council of Service Employees | $10,013,957 |
| 2005 Prop 76 – N | Alliance for a Better California (teachers unions, service emplo | yee$s9,, 9A7F7L,-1C0I1O, |
| 2006 Prop 87 – Y | Stephen L. Bing | $49,581,810 |
|---|---|---|
| 2006 Prop 87 – N | Chevron | $38,000,000 |
| 2006 Prop 86 – N | Philip Morris | $35,091,862 |
| 2006 Prop 87 – N | AERA Energy | $32,824,243 |
| 2006 Prop 86 – N | R.J. Reynolds | $25,355,574 |
| 2008 Prop 94,95,96,97 – Y | Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians | $41,896,993 |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 Prop 94,95,96,97 – Y | Morongo Band of Mission Indians | $37,875,177 |
| 2008 Prop 94,95,96,97 – Y | Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians | $20,865,025 |
| 2008 Prop 10 – Yes | Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (originally called “Pickens Fuel”) | $18,647,250 |
| 2008 Prop 7 – No | Pacific Gas & Electric | $13,895,250 |
| 2010 Props 22-26 | California Teachers Association | $13,703,624 |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 Props 20 and 27 | Charles Munger, Jr. & Charlotte A. Lowell | $12,633,523 |
| 2010 Props 23 and 26 | Thomas Steyer & Kathryn Taylor | $6,099,000 |
| 2010 Props 23-27 | California & American Federations of Teachers | $5,387,240 |
| 2010 Prop 23 – Y | Valero Services, Inc | $4,065,636 |
| 2012 Prop 38 – Y | Molly Munger | $44,128,399 |
|---|---|---|
| 2012 Prop 30 – N/Prop 32 – Y | Charles Munger, Jr. | $35,075,000 |
| 2012 Prop 32 – N/Prop 30 – Y | California Teachers Association | $32,589,260 |
| 2012 Prop 39 – Y | Thomas Steyer | $29,580,000 |
| 2012 Prop 32 – N/Prop 30 – Y | SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees | $24,243,639 |
Appendix III. Top 25 Lobbyist Employers, 2005-2018
| 2014 Prop 45 – N | Kaiser | $18,866,574 |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 Prop 45 – N | Wellpoint, Inc. and affiliated entities | $18,866,574 |
| 2014 Prop 45 – N | Blue Shield of California | $12,476,424 |
| 2014 Prop 48 – N | Table Mountain Rancheria | $12,263,327 |
| 2014 Prop 46 – N | Norcal Mutual Insurance Company | $11,000,000 |
| 2016 Prop 56 – N | Philip Morris USA Inc. | $38,642,580 |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 Prop 55 – Y | CA Association of Hospitals and Health Systems (CAHHS) spo | ns$o2r5e,d1 2th1e,3 C70A |
| 2016 Prop 56 – N | R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | $24,897,480 |
| 2016 Prop 55 – Y | CA Teachers Association | $21,053,224 |
| 2016 Prop 61 – Y | AIDS Healthcare Foundation | $18,717,068 |
| 2018 Prop 8 – N | Davita | $67,027,872 |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 Prop 8 – N | Fresenius Medical Care North America | $33,986,507 |
| 2018 Prop 10 – Y | AIDS Healthcare Foundation | $22,838,974 |
| 2018 Prop 8 – Y | California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committe | e$18,943,228 |
| 2018 Prop 5 – N | CA Assoc of Realtors | $10,204,825 |
Appendix V. Highest Cost Propositions, 2005 – 2018
| Year | Prop | Title | Yes Contribution $ | No Contribution $ | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 32 | “Paycheck Protection” Initiative | $60,500,000 | $73,300,000 | $133,800,000 | N |
| 2018 | 8 | Limits on Dialysis Clinics’ Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative | $18,943,227.65 | $111,482,980 | $130,426,208 | N |
| 2016 | 61 | Drug Price Standards | $19,170,609.60 | $109,106,160 | $128,276,770 | N |
| 2012 | 30 | Sales and Income Tax Increase | $67,100,000 | $53,400,000 | $120,500,000 | Y |
| 2005 | 78 | Prescription Drug Discounts | $118,766,471 | $859,316 | $119,625,787 | N |
| 2016 | 56 | Tobacco Tax increase | $35,527,764.76 | $70,978,345 | $106,506,110 | Y |
| 2018 | 10 | Local Rent Control Initiative | $25,295,590.67 | $71,366,691 | $96,662,282 | N |
| 2008 | 8 | Eliminates Right of Same- Sex Couples to Marry | $39,046,062 | $44,123,811 | $83,169,873 | Y |
| 2014 | 46 | Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Cap and Drug Testing of Doctors | $13,306,775 | $59,602,909 | $72,909,684 | N |
| 2016 | 52 | Continued Hospital Fee Revenue Dedicated to Medi-Cal Unless Voters Approve Changes | $60,282,906.94 | $11,562,866 | $71,845,773 | Y |
| 2014 | 45 | Public Notice Required for Insurance Company Rates Initiative | $6,935,612 | $56,954,326 | $63,889,938 | N |
| 2012 | 37 | Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food | $8,700,000 | $45,600,000 | $54,300,000 | N |
| 2018 | 6 | Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative | $5,161,188.80 | $46,719,588 | $51,880,776 | N |
| 2008 | 7 | Standards for Renewable Resource Portfolios | $9,360,232 | $29,787,119 | $39,147,351 | N |
