Posted on by

Following the money for question 1 • Rhode Island Current

Following the money for question 1 • Rhode Island Current

Who are the primary funders of referendums on state constitutional conventions? Leaders of the Rhode Island coalition opposing a convention RI Citizens for Responsible Governmentreport that “wealthy special interests,” including out-of-state and dark money interests, support congressional referendums. However, the evidence shows the opposite.

The Rhode Island “No” Coalition makes some valid general observations about ballot measure funding:

1) The rich can spend unlimited amounts of money on referendums (but they have been allowed to do so since 1978, not since 2010 as the “No” coalition claims).

2) Large sums of money were spent to influence referendums.

3) Money can influence the results of a referendum.

But when the coalition compares “no” and “yes” campaigns, the facts are wrong.

“No” campaigns far outpace the spending of “yes” campaigns. In fact, “no” campaigns are supported by the most powerful interest groups in every state. And “no” campaigns are also supported by interests outside the state – mostly by national organizations that support their state associations.

Consider Alaska in 2022the last election cycle with a congressional referendum.

The “No” side raised $4.8 million and the “Yes” side raised $61,600, a 78:1 advantage for the “Yes” side. Since political science shows that campaign money spent defending the status quo is much more effective than one spent on proposing changes, the nominal advantage of 78:1 significantly underestimates the effective advantage.

On a per capita basis, the No campaign was the most expensive No campaign among all 140 ballot measures across the United States. On a per capita basis, the largest amount of money also flowed in from abroad and in black money.

What Question 1 will look like on the November 5, 2024 ballot. (Rhode Island Secretary of State Voter Guide)

The combined foreign and black money accounted for 67.4% of the total “no” spending and all came from DC-based companies Sixteen Thirty Fundwhat is led by a former policy staffer at the National Education Association. Most of the state money came from local unions, particularly unions representing government workers. For the Yes campaign, money came predominantly from individuals, with the largest Yes contribution ($10,000) being just 0.002 times the largest No contribution ($3.2 million). .

Stop using history to shoot down a constitutional convention

In Rhode Island in 2014, the last time the congressional referendum was on the ballot, the “no” side contributed $151,800 and the “yes” side contributed $41,500, a 3.7 advantage. As in Alaska, the predominant “no” funders and organizers were unions and the predominant “yes” funders were individuals. Rhode Island didn’t have a dark money problem like Alaska; There was a problem primarily with enforcing disclosure – a campaign finance system that favors the rich and powerful over everyone else who, for example, cannot afford the high legal fees of enforcing the law.

As of October 16, 2024, the “No” coalition had raised $119,700 for campaign advertising. including $15,000 from the nongovernmental National Education Association, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Rhode Island Board of Elections. There is currently no “yes” campaign.

A key difference between the “no” and “yes” sides is in the run-up to a referendum, when polls suggest that the “yes” side could win. Here, the “no” side appears to be able to spend whatever it takes to secure a victory, while the “yes” side cannot. This may be because unions like the National Education Association have a large fund to support their local affiliates in such a situation.

“No” campaigns far outpace the spending of “yes” campaigns. In fact, “no” campaigns are supported by the most powerful interest groups in every state.

What explains the imbalance in campaign finance between “yes” and “no” campaigns? One explanation lies in the democratic function of the congressional process, which, like the ballot initiative (which is absent in Rhode Island), is to bypass the monopolistic gatekeeping power of the legislature. This makes not only the legislatures, but also the special interest groups that excel at influencing the legislatures, natural enemies of the convention process. A second explanation is that improving government infrastructure—the core function of the congressional process—is an entirely public good and therefore presents serious problems with collective action. An analogy is the different collective action problems faced by producers (e.g. airlines) and consumers (e.g. passengers). The former are well organized and financed, the latter are not. Likewise, “no” sides are better funded and organized than “yes” sides.

From the late 19th centuryTh until the early 20sTh For centuries, large companies primarily organized “no” campaigns. From the end of the 20thTh In the 19th century it became a major work. Big business still plays an important role in opposing conventions in Republican states; much less so in democratic ones like Rhode Island.

To truly understand who would benefit from a convention, all you have to do is look for who is funding and orchestrating “no” campaigns. Claims inconsistent with these funding data are Machiavellian politics. After the 2004 referendum, Providence Journal editorial page editor Edward Achorn was persuasive argued Not only did the “No” campaign successfully conceal its funding, but it did so because Timely disclosure could have resulted in the c being lostlThis choice. His findings are just as relevant today as they were back then.

GET TOMORROW’S HEADLINES.