A donation from Chevron raises questions about corporate support for election reform in Colorado

Chevron, Colorado’s largest oil and gas producer, last week backed a broad election reform measure, donating $500,000 to support a well-financed campaign that could change the way voters choose most of their political leaders.

Proposition 131 would apply to all elections for Congress, the state legislature, governor and other statewide offices. If approved by voters on Nov. 6, it would abolish party primaries in favor of one ballot for all qualified candidates. The top four candidates would advance to the general election, and what is known as a “ranked choice” or “instant runoff” voting process to determine the ultimate winner.

Chevron’s donation represents a small portion of the more than $14 million donated to support the initiative, state election data show. The initiative’s largest individual backer is Kent Thiry, the former CEO of kidney dialysis company DaVita, followed by a Walmart heir and Netflix co-founder. The Colorado Chamber of Commerce also donated $500,000 to support the initiative, which was also endorsed by Governor Jared Polis and U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper.

The campaigns against the initiative have received less than half a million dollars.

U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, a leading opponent of the ballot measure, has argued that the lopsided fundraising picture shows that wealthy donors and corporations expect the proposal would further increase their political influence. He used Chevron’s recent donation to reiterate this point. On Monday, Bennet posted a video on social media asking voters if they think the company supports the proposal because it “cares about democracy in Colorado.”

Advocates who focus on the donation distract from the opportunity to empower voters and limit the influence of political insiders. Curtis Hubbard, a spokesman for the Yes on 131 campaign, also said Bennet’s objections are hypocritical since Chevron donated to his 2016 Senate bid. A spokesperson said the senator stopped receiving corporate contributions in 2019.

The debate nevertheless provides an opportunity to try to answer Bennet’s question in the final rush before Election Day: Why would the state’s largest oil and gas producer throw its support behind Proposition 131?

Why Chevron says it donated to the campaign

Patty Errico, senior communications adviser at Chevron, said there is no nefarious reason the oil and gas company joined the League of Women Voters and the Colorado Chamber of Commerce in supporting the ballot initiative. The company expects it will be “good for Colorado.”

“Chevron supports expanding opportunities for Colorado voters to elect candidates running for public office. Opening primaries and moving to ranked choice voting in the general election will improve voter options and increase accountability for elected officials,” Errico told CPR News in an emailed statement.

However, it is clear that the company has an interest in shaping state policy.

For example, during the last legislative session, progressive lawmakers made proposals a package of bills designed to reduce smog-forming pollution from the oil and gas industry. Meanwhile, Protect Colorado, a political group backed by Chevron and other oil and gas companies, proposed a proposal a series of voting proposals designed in part to prevent cities from restricting natural gas in buildings.

Governor Jared Polis later negotiated a deal to avoid the expensive voting fight. In exchange for dropping air quality laws, Protect Colorado agreed to drop its ballot proposals.

The governor also signed a new oil and gas production allowance to help fund transit projects and said all parties had agreed to avoid any new drilling policy until 2028. Chevron was a key player in the negotiations, Polis said at the time.

A theory of the rationale for corporate support

State Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Democrat from Denver, said Proposition 131 could help the oil and gas industry avoid a similar situation in the future. Under the proposed system, a company could throw its support behind a candidate in a nonpartisan primary, then likely double its donations in the top-four general elections.

Any other candidate would face an inherent disadvantage, Mayberry said.

“(Chevron) and other money groups and interests are concerned about the increasing influence and power of non-business-backed candidates,” Mabrey said. “This is intended to return us to a place where the default Democrat who is elected is not strong on economic or environmental policy.”

Hubbard, the spokesperson for the Yes on 131 campaign, spoke with Chevron about the company’s reasons for supporting the ballot initiative. For anyone concerned about the oil and gas company’s donation, he said the voting rights overhaul would give voters more power over any political party or interest group.

He added that it is important to consider how the current system contributes to political polarization. Deciding on candidates through party primaries often forces elected officials to worry about a challenge from their own political flank. A nonpartisan election would instead encourage candidates to align more closely with their districts, Hubbard said.

A fact sheet spread by the campaign also said the plan would reduce partisanship, which has resulted in “regulatory roadblocks for business and industry” that are “incentivizing business to leave the state.”

There is limited empirical evidence Nonpartisan primaries help more moderate politicians win political office. However, Hubbard said the new system would force candidates to reach consensus on a range of issues such as climate change and immigration.

“This is a system where our elected officials don’t have to live in the middle, but meet in the middle,” he said.

Andrew Eggers, a political science professor at the University of Chicago who has studied ranked-choice voting, agrees that there isn’t enough empirical evidence for the kind of electoral reforms proposed by Proposition 131. However, his work suggests that similar systems tend to result in more broadly popular candidates, which he said could be one reason why Chevron supports the plan in Colorado.

“If they support this idea, it means they think a candidate with a broad base of support is likely to be safer for them,” Eggers said.