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

Proposition 131 would apply to all elections for Congress, state legislature, governor and other statewide offices. If approved by voters on Nov. 6, it would eliminate party primaries and instead provide a single ballot for all qualified candidates. The four top candidates would compete in the general election and determine the ultimate winner in a so-called “ranked choice” or “instant runoff” voting process.

Chevron's donation represents a small portion of the more than $14 million donated to support the initiative, state election records show. The initiative's biggest single supporter is Kent Thiry, the former CEO of kidney dialysis company DaVita, followed by a Walmart heir and co-founder of Netflix. The Colorado Chamber of Commerce also donated $500,000 to support the initiative, which was also supported 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, argued that the one-sided fundraising picture shows that wealthy donors and corporations believe the proposal would further increase their political influence. He used Chevron's recent donation to reinforce that point. On Monday, Bennet posted a video on social media asking voters if they believed the company supported the proposal because it “cares about democracy in Colorado.”

Advocates counter that the focus on donations distracts 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 were hypocritical since Chevron donated to his Senate bid in 2016. A spokesman said the senator stopped accepting corporate donations in 2019.

The debate still offers an opportunity, in the final push before Election Day, to try to answer Bennet's question: Why would the state's largest oil and gas producer throw its weight behind Proposition 131?

Why Chevron says it donated to the campaign

Patty Errico, a senior communications adviser at Chevron, said there was no nefarious reason why 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 select candidates to run for public office. Opening primary elections and moving to ranked-choice voting in the general election will improve voter options and increase the accountability of elected officials,” Errico told CPR News in an emailed statement.

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

In the last legislative session, progressive lawmakers introduced a legislative package to limit smog-causing pollution from the oil and gas industry. Meanwhile, Protect Colorado, a policy group backed by Chevron and other oil and gas companies, proposed a series of ballot proposals aimed in part at stopping cities from limiting natural gas in buildings.

Gov. Jared Polis later negotiated a deal to avoid the expensive election campaign. In exchange for lawmakers dropping the air quality laws, Protect Colorado agreed to scrap its ballot proposals.

The governor also agreed to a new fee on oil and gas production to fund transit projects and said all parties had agreed to waive new drilling policies through 2028. Chevron was an important player in the negotiations, Polis said at the time.

A theory on the reason for business 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 support a candidate in a nonpartisan primary and then likely match its donations in the top four general elections.

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

“(Chevron) and other donors and interests are concerned about the increasing influence and power of non-corporate candidates,” Mabrey. “This is intended to get us back to a point where the default elected Democrat is not strong on either economic or environmental policy.”

Hubbard, the spokesman for the Yes on 131 campaign, deferred to Chevron to discuss the company's reasons for supporting the ballot initiative. For anyone concerned about the oil and gas company's donation, he said revamping voting rights 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. When 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 reduce partisanship, which has resulted in “regulatory hurdles for business and industry” that are “prompting companies to look outside the state.”

There is limited empirical evidence that nonpartisan primaries help more moderate politicians win political office. But Hubbard said the new system would force candidates to find 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, they have to 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 is not enough empirical evidence to support the type of voting reforms proposed in Proposition 131. However, his work suggests that similar systems tend to do so. This, he believes, could be one reason Chevron supports the Colorado plan.

“If they support this idea, that means they believe a candidate with a broad base of support is probably safer for them,” Eggers said.