Laserfiche WebLink
. <br />campaigu fiu�ce Iaws. permittiu� corporatious and auy other party to speud uulunited amow.tts of <br />money to utfluence the outcoine. <br />Money Spent on Inihative and <br />Referend� CSrcumvent Populism <br />In perhaps tlie best stady to date on initiative aud refereuda, Tliomas Cronin inciicates in lus boak <br />Direct Democi�act� that manay has a decisive iuflnence on tLe autcoine of Uailot iueas�ires. For <br />example, he notes that corporate-backed sponsors win 80% of the ballot iuitiatives and that wheu liig <br />monay opposas a poorly fi�nded ballot ineasuro, "the evidence su�gests that tlxe wealtltier side has <br />about a 7S parcent or batter chance of defeatin� it." In addition, evidence demonstxates strong <br />correlations i�etween tlie amount of inoney spe�t and the nninUer o� votes cast aud that whila money <br />cannot guarantee victory, tha amotmt of money spent is decisive in defeating a ballot propositi�.. <br />Overall, tlia avideuce suggests that a popular ballot meas�ire is more o$en thau uot defeat by corporate <br />a�d Ui� money and that carporate and special �terest vaoney wd uot the wrll of the people is what <br />�enerally prevails iu uutiative and ra£erenduin decisions. <br />Big Money Distorts Public Deliberation <br />What big money bnys in debates on ballot measures is inedia exposure. Accordiug to several stuc�ies, <br />media expo�ure is tha sin�.e most important factor influencing and swaying vater decisions. Given the <br />cast of tlte media, for tha inost part, the public will be asked to make critica� public policy decisions <br />based �xpou 15 second sound Uites financed by interests that have the most money to spend on the <br />media. Clearly our canstitutirntal framers the original supporters of initiative and refexendum did uot <br />envisiou policy making prevused upon sound Uites and the cash nexus yet the evideuce sug�ests in <br />Caiifomia �d other states that this is exacdy what has liappened <br />Isutiative and Referendum has <br />Littie Lnpact on Voter Tw�ttout <br />Advocates vf iuitiative aud referendnm claun that lettiug the vaters decide iucreases tuiuout. <br />Uuforh�ately thera is littie empirical evideuce to suppoit tlus claim. Wl�eu appro�riate variaUles are <br />held constaut, there is littie diffezence iu voter tumout in states that have initiative and refereudum <br />versus those that do not. <br />In addition, in some states, saci� as Califonuis, the presence af o$en 1Q, 20, or inore initiatives on tl�e <br />bailot ltas lead to voter buniont where citizens, unable to digest the infonnatiou necessary to inake <br />intelligeut choices on all the ballot mteasures, l�ave opted not to vote on them. <br />Inidative and Referendum <br />often hurt Minority Ri�tts <br />Thomas Cronin notes in Direct Den�oeract� that uunonty ri�ts are often targets of initiatives aud <br />referenda. While it is na doubt the case that soine ballot ineasures have supported ini�ority riglxts_ tl�e <br />trutli is tliat inors often th� not ballot �easures liave Uecome another measttres for special intecest <br />groups to pnsh t�eir agenda, often at the expense of individual rights. It is unlikely tl�at deUates ou the <br />2 <br />