Executive Summary
Millions of dollars are now invested in political campaign advertisements because they are very
effective in relaying political messages to the public. This report addresses how expenditures in
political advertising affected voter decisions concerning, and the election outcome of,
Washington ballot Initiative 522 regarding food labeling, which was the most expensive
initiative in Washington State’s history. This example depicts the influence of campaign
spending on voter behavior during the 2013 Washington election cycle.
Political advertising on the 2013 Washington Voter Initiative I-522,
“Labeling of foods containing genetically engineered organisms” and how it
affected voter behavior.
LWVWA Initiative and Referendum Study released in the Fall 2002, stated that “In
Washington, of the 37 initiated measures enacted since 1975, seven were passed even though
advocates were outspent by opponents. In his book, Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns
and the Power of Money, syndicated columnist David S. Broder writes: “Money does not
always prevail in initiative fights, but it is almost always a major–even dominant factor. Like
so much else in American politics, the costs of these ballot battles have escalated enormously
in the past decade. To a large extent, it is only those individuals and interest groups with
access to big dollars who can play in the arena the Populists and Progressives created in order
to balance the scales against the big-bucks operators.” He goes on to say, “...millionaires
have ...found the initiative handy for ‘empowering’ voters to endorse the initiatives’ sponsors’
agendas.” (ref. 1)
1. Campaign spending and voting pattern
The total amount of campaign spending for I-522 was approximately $42.5 million. Expenditure
by Yes-on-522 was $9.8 million and No-on-522 was $32.7 million (ref. 2). No-on-522 outspent
the Yes-on-522 campaign by more than 300%. The majority of contributors to No-on-522 were
chemical companies, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and its members, all from outside
of Washington. Fewer than ten Washingtonians contributed to the No-to-522 campaign. The
campaign price tag of 42.5 million was the most expensive ballot initiative in Washington
State’s history, with potential voters besieged by television, internet and direct mail ads. (ref.
1). By September 2013, the No-on-522 campaign had already raised $12 million from just six
donors, an average of $2 million per donor (ref. 3 & 4). In contrast, the Yes-on-522 campaign
had raised about $4 million from more than 9,000 donors (ref. 3 & 4). The sheer number of
donors who contributed to “YES” campaign indicates a much broader base of popular support.
Elway Research interviewed 405 registered voters in Washington from September 4-5, and 415
voters from October 14-15 on I-522 (Ref. 5 & 6). Elway Research is an independent, nonpartisan, public opinion research firm which tracks trends in Washington State and the
Northwest. Their poll study showed that Yes-on-522 on I-522 had 44% lead over No-on-522 in
September. However in one month, the Yes-on-522 lead dropped by 20 % and No-on-52 gained
20% (Fig. 1)
During this period the No-on-522 campaign outspent the Yes-on-522 by a nearly 4 to 1 margin
(Fig2).
Figure 3 shows contributions made by Washington (WA) and non-WA residents over the period
of Sept. 1 to Oct. 27 and changes in voter preference during the period.
2. The influence of campaign ads on voter behavior
The Elway Poll of the initiative showed significant voter behavior differences after exposure (or
non-exposure) to the campaign ads of Yes-on-522 and No-on-522 (ref 5).
Eight in ten (81%) of voters interviewed had seen advertising at the time of the polling. 56%
had seen ads on both sides; 14% had seen on ads in favor; and 11% had seen only ads against
the measure. 19% had seen no ads. Among voters who had seen both “pro” and “con” ads, 47%
planned to vote against I-522 while 43% planned to vote for it. Meanwhile the 3 in 4 voters who
had seen advertising for only one side or the other were planning to vote in the direction of the
ads they had seen. Voters who had not seen any ads supported I-522, 67% Yes-on-522 to 23%
No-on-522. This was the same margin the Yes-on-522 side had before the advertising blitz
began.
Table 1 Changes in Inclined to Vote on I-522 and the election result*
Initiative 522
Yes on 522
No on 522
UNDECIDED
September
66 %
21%
12%
October
46%
42%
12%
Election result
48.9 %
51.1%
0%
*The data were from Elway Poll of Oct. and Sept. 2013 (ref 4&5) and BALLOTPEDIA (ref1)
The poll indicated that the flood of advertising greatly influenced the decision of the voters.
During the two-week run-up to Election Day, supporters of No-on-522 contributed 4.77 million,
more than three times as much money as supporters of Yes-on-522 did (ref. 2). The 12%
percent of undecided voters who were the deciding factor on the initiative appeared to be
greatly influenced by the blitz of No-on-522 in the last two weeks. Yes-on-522 could say that
the amount of campaign money decided the outcome on labeling GEO foods initiative in
Washington. The same trend was observed in California’s Proposition 37 to label foods
containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in 2012. The anti-37 campaign outspent the
pro side by a ratio of 7 to 1. “AGAINST 37” spent 44 million vs. $7.3 million spent on the “FOR
37” side. The outcome of Prop. 37 was 51% “AGAINST” to 49% “FOR
Appendix:
Detail of the Washington I-522 poll results
(Sept. 3 – 5) Definitely YES probably YES undecided
SEPT poll
43%
23%
12%
Probably NO Definitely NO
10%
11%
(Oct. 15-17)
OCT poll
Probably NO Definitely NO
9%
33%
Definitely YES probably YES undecided
37%
9%
12%
REFERENCES:
1. The Role of Money in “Direct Democracy: The initiative and Referendum Process in
Washington”, The League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund, Oct. 2002
http://www.lwvwacustudy.org/Direct_Democracy_LWVWA_Education_Fund_2002.pdf
2. “Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods Initiative 522
(2013)”, BALLOTPEDIA,
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_F
ood_Measure,_Initiative_522_%282013%29
3. Public Disclosure Commission of Washington State, 2013 initiative
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Committee/initiative_committees?year=201
3
4. “Washingtonians Fight For GMO Labeling” by Carl Gibson Sep 30, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/washingtonians-fight-for-_b_4006054.html
5. “ November Initiative Holding Big Leads” The Elway Poll Sep 10, 2013
6. “I-522: Support for Food Labeling Initiative Swings Negative 41 Points since September”
The Elway Poll, Oct 21, 2013