Ariz. groups spent millions to push initiatives

Payday lenders spent more than $17 for each of the 860,607 votes they got for their proposal to keep their industry alive in Arizona beyond 2010.

And they lost.

Final figures for this year’s election show that the industry spent more than $14.6 million on the campaign for Proposition 200. That’s the most money spent on a losing campaign.

Indian tribes, however, put up $21.1 million in 2002 in their successful bid to let them keep the right to operate casino-style gaming and allow expansion into areas such as blackjack. It also guaranteed Indians the exclusive right to operate casinos in exchange for a share of the profits.

Groups opposing Proposition 200, by contrast, spent a total of $358,831. Their successful effort cost them just 28 cents per vote. But that campaign was not the most cost-efficient.

Opponents of Proposition 202 had just $110,872 to fight the initiative that would have diluted many of the provisions of Arizona’s year-old law that allows judges to suspend or revoke the licenses of businesses found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers. That successful effort cost just 8.7 cents per vote.

Proponents, financed largely by companies opposed to the idea of employer sanctions, were unable to persuade voters despite the more than $1 million they spent.

The successful campaign to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage had more than $7.7 million to spend, with funding from various sources, many of them families. That overwhelmed the less than $820,000 expended by opponents of Proposition 102.

Only one other ballot measure gained voter approval this year: Proposition 100, which prohibits state or local governments from imposing any taxes or fees on the sale or transfer of homes or other real estate. There is no such levy now, but the Arizona Association of Realtors, which financed virtually the entire $5.8 million campaign, wanted to constitutionally preclude lawmakers from considering it in the future as they look for new sources of revenue. No organized opposition developed.

Backers of Proposition 101, to constitutionally bar the state from imposing universal health care, spent $684,550, with some of it from doctors. It was defeated.

The opposition, financed largely by the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, spent more than $1 million.

Also defeated was a proposal to require future ballot measures to get the backing of a majority of people registered to vote — as opposed to a majority of those who went to the polls — for any measure that increased state taxes or mandated new spending by either the state or any private organization.

Financing for Proposition 105, which totaled nearly $1.6 million, came largely from Jason LeVecke, who owns all the Carl’s Jr. and Pizza Patron franchises in Arizona.

An almost equal amount was spent by the successful foes, with $500,000 donations coming from the National Education Association and John Sperling, founder of the Apollo Group, the parent company of the University of Phoenix.

Homebuilders provided most of the $2.4 million spent to successfully defeat Proposition 201, which would have required them to provide 10-year warranties on new houses.

No report was filed on time by the Homeowner Bill of Rights Committee, which pushed the measure. But other documents show that the Sheet Metal Workers International Association contributed about $350,000 to that effort.

There were no organized efforts on either side of Proposition 300, a proposal to increase the salary of state lawmakers to $30,000 a year from $24,000. It failed.