How Interest Groups Use the Initiative Process in California
Progressive Era reformers designed the initiative process around the turn of the
century to circumvent the power of wealthy economic interests in the state
legislature. Today, many observers argue that the initiative process has been
captured, paradoxically, by those very sorts of special interests. Elisabeth R.
Gerber, however, provides compelling evidence to the contrary in Interest
Group Influence in the California Initiative Process. Her analysis indicates
that economic groups do not have the unbridled influence commonly claimed by
critics of this form of legislation. Economic groups are generally unable to
enlist the sympathy of a sufficiently large number of people to pass new laws
through the ballot box. In fact, vast sums of money poured into a campaign by
special interest groups, such as the insurance or tobacco industries, may be
self-defeating, suggesting to voters that the proposed legislation is unlikely
to be in their own best interest. Hence, economic groups' use of the initiative
process is largely limited to blocking measures or to signaling their
preferences to the state legislature. In contrast, citizen groups, which often
deal with social issues that involve strong emotional appeal and which rely on a
coalition of support from many diverse interests, have a relatively easier time
passing ballot measures.
Why There Is Concern
Perhaps the most dramatic change in the California political system over the
past two decades has been the increasing use of the initiative process. Between
1976 and 1996, Californians voted on 106 statewide ballot initiatives. By
comparison, in the preceding two decades, from 1954 to 1974, only 29 initiatives
were placed on the ballot. The growth in the number of initiatives has been
matched by a similar growth in spending on initiative campaigns, which peaked at
an all-time high of $140 million in 1996, as shown in the figure. Although
concern about the influence of money in politics is not new, several factors
make spending on initiatives seem more worrisome. First, contributions to and
spending by initiative campaigns are constitutionally unlimited. Second, most
initiatives deal with new and complex issues, which voters may not well
understand. Thus, voters may rely heavily on information provided by interest
groups during the campaign. Third, a large majority of the money spent in
initiative campaigns comes from special interest groups whose motivations and
preferences are often at odds with broad-based citizen interests.
Spending on Initiative Campaigns,
California, 1976-1996
The large sums of money spent on initiative campaigns have raised
the question of whether economic interests are able to
"buy" favorable initiative legislation.
Differences in Spending by Economic Groups and Citizen Groups
To analyze differences between economic groups and citizen groups in both
behavior and outcomes, the author examined all contributions over $250 to
support or oppose California statewide ballot measures between 1988 and 1990.
This included tens of thousands of contributions targeted at 31 initiatives in
four elections.
Spending Patterns. Economic interests generally spend to preserve the
status quo, whereas citizen interests spend to promote change. As Table 1 shows,
economic interests spent over 78 percent of their $99 million in contributions
to defeat ballot measures and thereby preserve the existing environment. In
contrast, citizen interests spent overwhelmingly to support the passage of
initiative measures, with 88 percent of their $33 million in contributions
supporting proposed changes in the status quo.
Table 1--Spending For and Against Initiatives
Contributor
Type |
Total
Amount |
% For |
% Against |
| Economic |
$98,680,452 |
22 |
78
|
| Citizen |
$33,483,959 |
88 |
12 |
Initiative Passage Rates. Economic interests not only devote few
resources to support initiatives but also have low success rates in passing
those they do support. Whereas citizen groups are able to pass 60 percent of the
initiatives they support, economic groups are able to pass only 22 percent.
Initiative Failure Rates. Economic and citizen interests are both
moderately successful in defeating initiatives. Fifty-eight percent of the
measures opposed by economic groups fail to pass, compared to 59 percent of the
measures opposed by citizen groups.
These statistics reflect the overall success rates of economic and citizen
interest groups in passing and defeating initiatives. However, the initiative
process is not dichotomous, with citizens always on one side of an issue and
economic groups on the other. Hence, it is useful to also examine how
initiatives fare when the various combinations of contributors are taken into
account.
The first column of Table 2 shows that measures supported by some citizen
groups and opposed by others passed 43 percent of the time. Propositions
supported by citizen groups and opposed by economic groups passed at an even
higher rate, 64 percent. The second column of the table reports passage rates of
measures that received greater support from economic groups. When opposed by
citizen groups, these measures passed 29 percent of the time. When economic
measures were opposed by other economic groups, they passed only 20 percent of
the time. These results reflect the tough sledding economic groups in California
face, even in preserving the status quo.
Table 2--Percentage of Initiatives Passing by Group Support and
Opposition
| |
Citizen
Support |
Economic
Support |
| Citizen opposition |
43 |
29 |
| Economic opposition |
64 |
20 |
Conclusions and Policy Discussion
Despite their vast monetary resources, economic interests are severely
constrained in their ability to pass new laws through the initiative process.
They use the process most often and most effectively to fight ballot
propositions they oppose. However, interest groups (whether citizen groups or
economic groups) may also use the initiative process to influence policy in more
indirect ways. For example, they may use the process to signal to policymakers
their preferences on certain issues. Thus, the initiative process provides
economic groups with an additional tool for augmenting their already substantial
influence in the legislative process.
The study's findings have several implications for political reform. They
suggest that those who are concerned about the role of money in the initiative
process should worry less about trying to limit the amount of money that special
interest groups spend and focus instead on (1) empowering citizen interests in
the face of economic group opposition and (2) limiting the power of economic
interests in the legislative process.
One reform that would empower citizen interests is the indirect initiative.
In this political process, a citizen group faced with an adverse initiative
proposed by economic interests could simply petition the state legislature to
consider an alternative measure. If the legislature passes the measure, it
becomes law; otherwise, it is placed on the ballot and treated as a direct
initiative, subject to campaign opposition.
Reforms that would limit the power of economic interests in the legislative
process include allowing some public financing of candidate campaigns or
changing campaign finance laws to increase the role of party funding in state
legislative campaigns. Both of these reforms would reduce the reliance of state
legislative candidates on the monetary resources offered by economic interest
groups and potentially decrease their influence over legislators' behavior.
| This research brief summarizes a report by Elisabeth R. Gerber, Interest
Group Influence in the California Initiative Process. The report may
be ordered by calling (800) 232-5343 [mainland U.S.] or (415) 291-4415
[Canada, Hawaii, overseas]. A copy of the full
text is also available on the Internet (www.ppic.org). The Public
Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit organization
dedicated to independent, nonpartisan research on economic, social, and
political issues that affect the lives of Californians. This project was
supported by PPIC through an Extramural Research Program contract. |
THE PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA
500 Washington Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-4400
Fax: (415) 291-4401
info@ppic.org
PPIC Home Page
|
