Proponents of the abortion rights ballot measure across the country have raised nearly eight times as much as groups protesting the changes on the November ballot. But that advantage may not translate into much of an advantage in Florida, the most exorbitant of the nine statewide campaigns to enshrine abortion rights in state constitutions.
So far, campaign finance data compiled by the watchdog group Open Secrets and analyzed by The Associated Press shows a similar story in most of these states: Amendment supporters have raised many times as much money and have far more donors, by comparison, nearly 108 million U.S. dollars -Dollars raised $14 million for their opponents, according to reports compiled as of Tuesday. But it’s not certain whether there will be more spending to support the measures in all states in the final weeks before the Nov. 5 election.
(*1*) said Kelly Hall, executive director of The Fairness Project, which provides money and other support to abortion rights groups for several campaigns.
The measures would lift restrictions in some states and enshrine protections in the constitutions in others after the Supreme Court’s 2022 Roe v. Wade had picked up. Most Republican Party-controlled states implemented bans or restrictions after the ruling. Most Democratic-controlled states offered some protections for access to abortion.
The ballot measures could also raise voter turnout.
The money goes into advertising – and elsewhere
Campaigns that raise more money have an advantage in reaching voters with ads on television, radio and websites, along with mailers and yard signs and more organizing power for door-knocking and other activities.
That’s evident so far in Missouri and Montana, where massive funding advantages have led to significantly more ad buys, according to media tracking firm AdImpact.
In Missouri, Open Secrets data shows abortion rights groups have raised more than $5 million, and state records show millions more in donations, including $1 million from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The donation fueled more than $11 million in ad spending in support of a measure that would repeal the state’s ban, compared to less than $50,000 opposed.
In Montana, pro-change groups lead the way in ad spending with more than $11 million, compared to less than $50,000 for opponents.
There hasn’t been as much promotional activity in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada or South Dakota. In Nebraska, abortion opponents raised slightly less money but spent slightly more on ad buys. Contribution amounts do not have to be reported until later this month in Nevada or South Dakota.
Proponents of the ballot measures also have some costs that opponents do not.
Placing most abortion issues on the ballot required signature gatherings, which was costly for their sponsors. And most issues resulted in legal disputes over whether the voting requirements were met. Pay for lawyers in these fights often falls to the groups behind the campaigns, reducing how much of the money they raise is available to the electorate.
The costs of legal challenges often do not have the same impact on the fundraising of their opponents.
The Thomas More Society, for example, challenged initiatives in Missouri and Nebraska. The group is not required to file campaign finance reports.
And in Florida, the attorney general has challenged that state’s measure, shifting legal costs to taxpayers.
Florida’s opposition is getting lend a hand from the GOP – and the state government
Florida’s breed has several other unique features.
For one thing, passage of the measure requires approval from 60% of voters, while other states require lower thresholds.
If approved, Florida’s amendment would legalize abortions until the fetus is viable or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by a health care provider. Florida currently bans most abortions after six weeks, with some exceptions.
Abortion rights groups have reported raising more than $60 million and opponents have raised $9 million. But that doesn’t reflect all spending.
The state Republican Party has aired commercials urging voters to reject the amendment. AdImpact data shows the GOP spent $9.6 million running TV and online ads. That’s about half of the $20.7 million bought by the groups supporting the change. But if you exploit an industry calculation of how many people see TV ads, the ballot measure’s opponents are ahead.
Even this spending does not add further fuel to the argument that the change goes too far. A state government website says, “Amendment 4 endangers women’s safety.” Advocates sued last month to stop the taxpayer-funded messaging. A judge ruled Monday that the website could remain energetic.
Donors include both massive names with vast financial resources and smaller donors
Peter Northcutt, director of government strategy at National Right to Life, portrays the anti-abortion movement as an outsider to funding from those with a financial interest in abortion.
“The abortion industry and its allies bring enormous resources to the table,” he said. “Those trying to resist these extreme changes have an uphill climb ahead of them.”
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and some of its regional affiliates are among those that have committed more than $1 million to support the changes. But the biggest donor so far is Marsha Zlatin Laufer, who frequently donates to liberal causes. She has donated more than $9 million in Florida.
Other abortion rights groups that have donated more than $1 million in several states include the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Fairness Project and the Advocacy Action Fund, which are not required to disclose their donors, and the George Soros-affiliated Open Society Action Fund.
Nationally, the abortion rights site also has significantly more donors: more than 94,000 to fewer than 2,600.
On the opposing side, the major individual donors are U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Republican from Nebraska, and his mother, Marlene Ricketts. Each of them has donated at least $1 million in Nebraska. Nebraska is the only state where campaign finance records show both sides have raised similar amounts of money, both between $3 million and $4 million.
There’s a reason for this: There are competing ballot measures in Nebraska. One would expand access to abortion and the other would enshrine the current ban on most abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Some major anti-abortion groups haven’t put money into the races
The fundraising gap can be explained in part by the fact that two vast national organizations that together spent about $40 million last year in Ohio to prevent a similar campaign are not contributing heavily to funding the campaign this year participated in the campaign.
One is the Concord Fund, which spent more than $25 million in Ohio last year — more than 40% of the total opposing the change. As with abortion-related ballot measures in six other states since 2022, the pro-abortion rights side prevailed.
The group, formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network, is part of a network of political groups surrounding Leonard Leo, a prominent conservative legal activist and a driving force in the appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The other is Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which donated nearly $15 million in Ohio last year. The group said it plans to raise $92 million for political campaigns this year, but that the focus will not be on abortion-related policies. Instead, it said it would primarily lend a hand (*8*) win the presidency and Congress.
Neither organization provided comment for this article.
