Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

US States

  • Chapter
Financing Referendum Campaigns

Abstract

Of the three mechanisms of direct democracy — the initiative, the popular referendum, and the recall — the initiative is by far the most widely used form of direct democracy in the American states. Two dozen, mostly western American states currently permit their citizens to serve as Election Day lawmakers. With the initiative process, citizens participate directly in the making of public policy by drafting either statutory or constitutional amendments and collecting a specified number of valid signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot; fellow citizens then adopt or reject the initiative. More so than the popular referendum, which allows citizens to challenge state laws, the initiative is the most important mechanism of direct democracy in the United States, as virtually any public policy or governance issue may be addressed via the plebiscitary process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Allswang, J. (2000) The Initiative and Referendum in California, 1898–1998 (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. (1915) The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon (New York: The Macmillan Company).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, C. and B. Schultz (eds) (1912) Documents on the State-Wide Initiative, Referendum and Recall (New York: The Macmillan Company).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, L. and C. Holman (1989) ‘The Initiative Process and its Declining Agenda Setting Value’, Law and Policy, 11: 451–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S. and T. Donovan (1998) Demanding Choices: Opinion and Voting in Direct Democracy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S. and T. Donovan (2004) ‘Measuring the Effects of Direct Democracy on State Policy’, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4(3): 345–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunstein, R. (2004) Initiative and Referendum Voting: Governing Through Direct Democracy in the United States (New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Briffault, R. (1996) ‘Ballot Propositions and Campaign Finance Reform’, Annual Survey of American Law, 102: 413–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broder, D. (2000) Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money (New York: Harcourt Brace Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. and A. Ranney (eds) (1994) Referendums Around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy (Washington, DC: The AEI Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • California Commission on Campaign Financing (1992) Democracy By Initiative (Los Angeles: Center for Responsive Government).

    Google Scholar 

  • City Club of Denver (1927) Direct Legislation in Colorado (Denver: Eames Brothers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, T. (1989) Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, W. (1950) The Initiative and Referendum in California (Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, W. and D. McHenry (1949) California Government (Berkeley: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, R. (1916) ‘Recent Experience with the Initiative and Referendum’, American Political Science Review, 10: 532–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, T., S. Bowler and D. McCuan (2001) ‘Political Consultants and the Initiative Industrial Complex’, in L. Sabato, B. Larson, and H. Ernst (eds), Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, T. et al. (1998) ‘Contending Players and Strategies: Opposition Advantages in Initiative Elections’, in S. Bowler, T. Donovan and C. Tolbert (eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, T., C. Tolbert and D.A. Smith (2008) ‘Direct Democracy, Agendas, and Presidential Vote: Gay Marriage and the 2004 Election’, Journal of Politics, 102: 1217–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, A. (1912) The Oregon System (Chicago: McClurg and Co.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2002) Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, E. (1999) ‘Money, Agenda Setting, and Direct Democracy’, Texas Law Review, 77: 1845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, E. and D. Smith (2005) ‘Veiled Political Actors and Campaign Disclosure Laws in Direct Democracy’, Election Law Journal, 4: 295–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, E. and E. Gerber (2001) ‘Money in the Initiative and Referendum Process: Evidence of its Effects and Prospects lor Reform’, in M. D. Waters (ed.), The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, M. (1989) ‘Corporate Political Speech, Campaign Spending, and First Amendment Doctrine’, American Business Law Journal, 27: 163–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, E. (1999) The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, T. (2002) A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890–1940 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasen, R. (2004) ‘Buckley is Dead, Long Live Buckley: The New Campaign Finance Incoherence of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 31: 152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasen, R. (2005) ‘Rethinking the Unconstitutionality of Contribution and Expenditure Limits in Ballot Measure Campaigns’, Southern California Law Review, 78: 885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heard, A. (1960) The Costs of Democracy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji, C. (1998) ‘California’s Direct Democracy 1976–1998: Predictors, Outcomes, and Issues’, paper prepared for presentation at the 1999 Western Political Science Association Meeting, Seattle, Washington (March).

    Google Scholar 

  • Karp, J. (1998) ‘The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns’, in S. Bowler, T. Donovan and C. Tolbert (eds), Citizens as Legislators (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, S. (1956) Professional Public Relations and Political Power (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, V.O. (1936) ‘Publicity of Campaign Expenditures on Issues in California’, American Political Science Review, 4: 713–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. (1978) ‘California’, in D. Butler and A. Ranney (eds), Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory (Washington, DC: AEI Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, D. (1982) ‘Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory, and the First Amendment’, UCLA Law Review, 86: 505–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, D. (1992) ‘A Patternless Mosaic: Campaign Finance and the First Amendment after Austin’, Capital University Law Review, 21: 381–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A. (1994) ‘Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections’, American Political Science Review, 88: 63–76; 77: 1845–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magleby, D. (1984) Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Magleby, D. (1994) ‘Direct Legislation in the American States’, in D. Butler and A. Ranney (eds), Referendums Around the World (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, J. (2004) For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCuan, D. et al. (1998) ‘California’s Political Warriors: Campaign Professionals and the Initiative Process’, in S. Bowler, T. Donovan and C. Tolbert (eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, D. (2006) ‘Taking Aim at California Election Funding’, Los Angeles Times, 26 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, S. (2005) Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections and Ballot Propositions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, J. and L. Wade (1986) ‘Campaign Spending on California Ballot Propositions, Trends and Effects, 1924–1984’, Western Political Quarterly, 39: 675–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piott, S. (2003) Giving Voters a Voice: The Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in America (Columbia: University of Missouri Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (1975) ‘The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and the Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon’, Political Research Quarterly, 28: 243–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, C. (1988) ‘Big Money Initiatives’, California Journal, 19: 481–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchell, R. (1958) ‘The Influence of Professional Campaign Management Firms in Partisan Elections in California’, Western Political Quarterly, 11: 278–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. (1989) Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrag, P. (1998) Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, America’s Future (New York: New Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, J. (1980) The Initiative Process in Colorado Politics: An Assessment (Boulder: Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of Colorado).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, J. (1983) ‘Money in Politics: Judicial Roadblocks to Campaign Finance Reform’, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 10: 679–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shockley, J. (1985) ‘Direct Democracy, Campaign Finance and the Courts: Can Corruption, Undue Influence, and Declining Voter Confidence be Found?’, University of Miami Law Review, 39: 377–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. (1998) Fax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. (1999) ‘Reevaluating the Causes of Proposition 13’, Social Science History, 23: 173–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. (2001a) ‘Campaign Financing of Ballot Initiatives in the American States’, in L. Sabato, B. Larson and H. Ernst (eds), Dangerous Democracy? The Battle Over Ballot Initiatives in America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. (2001b) ‘Special Interests and Direct Democracy: An Historical Glance’, in M.D. Waters (ed.), The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. (2004) ‘Peeling Away the Populist Rhetoric: Toward a Taxonomy of Anti-Tax Ballot Initiatives’, Public Budgeting and Finance, 24: 88–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. (2006a) ‘Initiatives and Referendums: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Candidate Elections’, in S. Craig (ed.), The Electoral Challenge: Theory Meets Practice (Washington, DC: CQ Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. (2006b) ‘Money Talks: Ballot Initiative Spending in 2004’, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, June. Available online at http://ballot.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. and Dustin Fridkin (2008) ‘Delegating Direct Democracy: Interparty Legislative Competition and the Adoption of the Initiative in the American States’, American Political Science Review, 102: 333–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. and R. Herrington (2000) ‘The Process of Direct Democracy: Colorado’s 1996 Parental Rights Amendment’, Social Science Journal, 37: 179–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. and J. Lubinski (2002) ‘Direct Democracy during the Progressive Era: A Crack in the Populist Veneer?’, Journal of Policy History, 14: 349–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., M. DeSantis and J. Kassel (2006) ‘Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures and the 2004 Presidential Election’, State and Local Government Review, 38: 78–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.A. and C. J. Tolbert (2004) Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratmann, T. (2005) ‘The Effectiveness of Money in Ballot Measure Campaigns’, Southern California Law Review, 78: 1041–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratmann, T. (2006) ‘Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures’, American Journal of Political Science, 50: 788–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, C. (2003) ‘Cycles of Democracy: Direct Democracy and Institutional Realignment in the American States’, Political Science Quarterly, 118: 467–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, C, D. Lowenstein and T. Donovan (1998) ‘Election Law and Rules for Using Initiatives’, in S. Bowler, T. Donovan, and C. Tolbert (eds), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, M.D. (ed.) (2003) The Initiative and Referendum Almanac: A Comprehensive Reference Guide to the Initiative and Referendum Process (Durham: Carolina Academic Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, A. (1998) ‘Beyond Bellotti’, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 32: 133–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zisk, B. (1987) Money, Media, and the Grass Roots: State Ballot Issues and the Electoral Process (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Daniel A. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zürich, Switzerland

    Karin Gilland Lutz

  2. University of Geneva, Switzerland

    Simon Hug (Professor of Political Science) (Professor of Political Science)

Copyright information

© 2010 Daniel A. Smith

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, D.A. (2010). US States. In: Lutz, K.G., Hug, S. (eds) Financing Referendum Campaigns. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230248656_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation