Welcome to the Tuesday, June 4, 2024, Brew.
By: Ethan Rice
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Deep dive into understanding campaign finance regulation differences for candidate elections vs ballot measures
- Libertarian presidential nominee Chase Oliver completes Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey
- Fewer state legislative incumbents retiring than in 2022
Deep dive into understanding campaign finance regulation differences for candidate elections vs ballot measures
On June 2, Ohio Gov. Mark DeWine (R) signed OH HB1, a bill prohibiting foreign nationals from donating to ballot measure campaigns. This makes Ohio the ninth state to ban such donations. Let’s take a look at the federal and state campaign finance rules for ballot measures and how they differ from those for candidate elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that spending on ballot measure campaigns is similar to issue advocacy in the lawmaking process. In the court’s 1978 ruling in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Justice Lewis Powell said,” Referenda are held on issues, not candidates for public office.” The court’s 1981 ruling in Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley went further, ruling that limiting contributions to ballot measure committees violated the First Amendment. Regarding limits on contributions to candidate committees, the court’s 1975 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo said such restrictions were constitutional because they prevented real and apparent corruption.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC), citing the Supreme Court, has also said that ballot measures are not subject to regulation under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Supreme Court determined that FECA “regulates only candidate elections, not referenda or other issue-based ballot measures” and defines elections as “the process by which individuals, whether opposed or unopposed, seek nomination for election, or election.”
On May 1, 2024, the FEC issued AO 2024-05, which stated that federal officeholders and candidates are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money for ballot measure committees without violating FECA. The opinion has the effect of permitting federal candidates, including Joe Biden (D) and Donald Trump (R), to raise unlimited funds for ballot measures.
The U.S. Supreme Court and FEC have held that foreigners can contribute to ballot measure campaigns under current federal law. In Bluman v. FEC (2011), the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that said FECA prohibits foreign contributions to political candidates and that this prohibition is constitutional.
The FEC has held that foreign nationals can make contributions to ballot measure campaigns. The most recent order on foreign contributions was in 2021. In MUR 7523, the FEC held that the federal ban on foreign political contributions concerns candidate elections, not ballot measure campaigns. Therefore, the FEC affirmed that foreign individuals, corporations, and governments could contribute to ballot measure campaigns. The decision resulted from a 2018 complaint alleging that an Australian firm, Sandfire Resources, illegally contributed to a measure blocking restrictions on hard rock mining in Montana.
The definition of foreign national varies between the states:
- In California, for example, the definition does not include lawful non-citizen permanent residents.
- In Ohio, legislators introduced OH HB215 to prohibit foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures to support or oppose ballot measures. The bill was enacted as HB1. State Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R), the bill’s co-sponsor, said a 2023 ballot initiative donor, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, received funding from Georg Wyss, a Swiss national based in the U.S.
- In Maine, voters passed a measure in 2023 prohibiting foreign governments and foreign government-owned entities from making contributions to ballot measure campaigns, but it did not mention other foreign persons.
During the 118th U.S. Congress, legislation has been introduced addressing foreign spending and ballot measures. In the House, Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R) introduced House Resolution 4484 (HR 4484), the Keeping Foreign Money out of Ballot Measures Act. In the Senate, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) introduced Senate Bill 4145 (SB 3145), the Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act. Both bills are still in committee and have not been scheduled for a vote.
To see more of Ballotpedia’s coverage of laws governing foreign spending in ballot measure campaigns, click here.
Libertarian presidential nominee Chase Oliver completes Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey
On May 26, 2024, Libertarian Party delegates selected Chase Oliver as the party’s 2024 presidential nominee. Oliver completed Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey. These survey responses allow voters to hear directly from candidates about what motivates them to run for office. Below are excerpts from his responses. Oliver also took the survey as a Libertarian candidate in the 2020 special election for Georgia’s 5th Congressional District. To read his full survey, click here.
What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?
- “Voters deserve a President who will respect their inherent individual rights.”
- “Our democracy is functionally broke[n] under a [two]-party system.”
- “The United States should take the lead in engendering peace both at home and abroad.”
What is the first action you would take as president of the United States?
“Pardoning Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Ross Ulbrect, and Leonard Peltier.”
Why should people vote for you instead of one of your opponents?
“Voting for one of my opponents continues the cycle of the lesser of two evils that results in ever-worsening candidates. Voting for me signals a true desire for change while building a foundation for a party that can continue to challenge the duopoly.”
What would your approach be to foreign policy?
“I would focus [on] the primacy of market and diplomatic relationships while greatly lessening the importance of military ties and action.”
What would you consider to be the greatest strength of each of the last four presidents (Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden)? Is there anything you would seek to emulate from one or more of them?
“Obama was an effective communicator even if I disagreed with his message. Biden’s commitment to his family is inspiring, even though I disagree with his politics.
Although this may not necessarily be a strength, Trump is open and honest about being a disruptor. I like Bush’s artistic endeavors.”
We ask all federal, state, and local candidates with profiles on Ballotpedia to complete a survey and share what motivates them on political and personal levels. Ask the candidates in your area to fill out the survey.
Fewer state legislative incumbents retiring than in 2022
Ballotpedia’s 2024 state primary election competitiveness data analyzes all state legislative, state executive, and congressional elections taking place this year. Today, let’s look at trends for state legislative incumbents in the 26 states where candidate filing deadlines have passed.
Incumbent trends since 2010
From 2010 to 2024, an average of 18.9% of state legislative seats have been open, meaning an incumbent has not run for re-election in those races.
- So far, 2020 has the lowest percentage of open state legislative seats (14.9%) since Ballotpedia began collecting data in 2010.
- The highest percentage of open state legislative seats was in 2022 (23.8%) after redistricting.
- Of the 3,495 seats up for election in 2024, 16.9% are open.
- Arkansas, Illinois, and Idaho are the top-three states with the highest difference between the average number open seats between 2010-2022 and the number of open seats in 2024.
- An average of 21.9% of incumbents who ran for re-election had primary competition from 2010 to 2024.
- This year, 24.3% of incumbents who are running for re-election have primary competition.
Incumbents retiring by state
- Six states so far have more retiring incumbents this year than in 2022: Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota.
- Nineteen states so far have fewer retiring incumbents this year than in 2022: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.
- One state so far has the same number of retiring incumbents in 2024 as it did in 2022: California.
Contested incumbents
- Twelve states so far have more incumbents in contested primaries than in 2022: Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
- Thirteen states so far have fewer incumbents in contested primaries than in 2022: Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
- One state so far has the same number of incumbents in contested primaries as in 2022: Colorado.
To check out Ballotpedia’s coverage of primary election competitiveness across all 50 states, click here. Be sure to check back for a full Daily Brew report on state legislative, state executive, and congressional elections taking place in 2024 later this summer!