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

Chevron, Colorado’s biggest oil and gas producer, threw its support behind a broad election reform ballot measure last week, donating $500,000 to a well-financed campaign that could overhaul how 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 a single ballot for all qualified candidates. The top four candidates would proceed to the general election, and what’s known as a “ranked-choice” or “instant runoff” voting process to determine the final winner. 

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

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

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

Supporters counter focusing on the donation distracts from an opportunity to empower voters and limit the influence of political insiders. Curtis Hubbard, a spokesperson 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 taking corporate contributions in 2019.

The debate nevertheless raises an opportunity to try to answer Bennet’s question in the final rush before election day: Why would the state’s biggest oil and gas producer throw its weight behind Proposition 131? 

Why Chevron says it donated to the campaign 

Patty Errico, a senior communications advisor for Chevron, said there’s no nefarious reason the oil and gas company joined the League of Women Voters and the Colorado Chamber of Commerce to support the ballot initiative. The company expects it will be “good for Colorado.” 

“Chevron supports expanding opportunities for Colorado voters to choose candidates who run for public office. Opening up 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. 

It’s clear, however, that the company has an interest in shaping state policy. 

In the last legislative session, for example, progressive lawmakers proposed a package of bills designed to limit 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 slate of ballot proposals partially designed to stop cities from limiting natural gas in buildings. 

Gov. Jared Polis later negotiated a deal to avoid the expensive ballot fight. In exchange for lawmakers dropping the air quality bills, Protect Colorado agreed to scuttle its ballot proposals. 

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

A theory on the reason for corporate support

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

Any other candidate would end up at an inherent disadvantage, Mabrey said.

“[Chevron] and other money and interests are worried about the increasing influence and power of non-corporate backed candidates,” Mabrey. “This is designed to take us back to a place where the default Democrat who gets elected is not strong on economic or environmental policy.”

Hubbard, the spokesperson for the Yes on 131 campaign, deferred to Chevron to speak 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 overhaul would empower voters over any political party or special interest group. 

He added it’s important to consider how the current system contributes to political polarization. By deciding candidates through party primaries, elected officials often have to worry about a challenge from their own political flank. A nonpartisan election would instead incentivize candidates to align more closely with their district, Hubbard said. 

A fact sheet distributed by the campaign also said the plan would decrease partisanship, which has resulted in “regulatory roadblocks for business and industry” that are “driving business to look out of state.”

There is limited empirical evidence nonpartisan primaries help more moderate politicians win political office. Hubbard, however, said the new system would force candidates to find consensus on a range of issues like climate change and immigration.

“This is a system in which our elected officials don't have to live in the middle, but they'll need to meet in the middle,” he said. 

Andrew Eggers, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago who has studied rank-choice voting, agrees there’s not enough empirical evidence on the sorts of electoral reforms suggested by Proposition 131. His work, however, suggests similar systems tend to result in more widely popular candidates, which he says might indicate one reason 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 safer for them,” Eggers said.