Winning for Animals in American Politics

his election clustered some startlingly good outcomes — from the turnaround effort we orchestrated on a “right to hunt and trap” ballot measure in Colorado to the ouster of some of the most determined opponents of animal welfare in Congress.

The trophy hunting lobby strained to cast Amendment 83 as a modest effort to safeguard basic hunting rights. But it was anything but benign.

It sought to repeal voter-approved laws to protect key wildlife reforms, including ballot measures to restrict cruel body-gripping traps and sickening hunting practices such as baiting or hounding bears and killing them during their nursing period in the spring.

But Amendment 83 did even more than that: its vague language threatened to upend the mechanisms of achieving wildlife reforms. It sought to prevent voters, state lawmakers, and even Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners from placing restrictions on any form of hunting or trapping until the end of time.

Our campaign was grounded on a compact message: Amendment 83 would bring back steel traps and bear baiting. These are cruel practices that Coloradans had long ago decided to kick to the curb.

By the close of the campaign, voters were repeating our own message back to us. They understood the threat. And so many of them were “No on 83” converts.

Meanwhile, our opponents had immense sums of money but they squandered that money with a muddled message and a deeply flawed measure.

Strategic Action Delivered Votes

At Animal Wellness Action, we operate with a lean, highly efficient team, using the most sophisticated campaign tactics in the digital age. In Colorado and in our candidate campaigns, we relied heavily on digital streaming advertising and Meta platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, to reach voters with more than 30 million impressions of our ads.

We concentrated our resources on persuadable voters, using daily county reports of completed ballots to remove people who had already voted from our advertising audiences, ensuring that every dollar you donate to us counts.

At the same time, we understood the importance of reaching a broader audience and establishing a visible public presence. Billboards helped take our message beyond individual screens and into the daily lives of Coloradans.

Before we got involved, there was polling in July that showed the Yes on 83 team was up 3 to 1. Once we entered the contest, we could feel we were turning things around. Our opponents saw that, too, and in the last two weeks, they started dumping more cash in — millions more.

Trophy hunting groups spent $3.5 million, while our side spent around $1 million. The T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance and T. Roosevelt Action spent $1,727,000 on the Yes on 83 campaign and accounted for 51% of total spending of $3,410,787 for the Yes on 83 team. Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy — our two related groups — spent $784,261, out of $1,058,358 spent for the No on 83 side.

In the end, we won with more than 55% of the vote, and they didn’t even hit 45% — 10 points shy of the required 55% “yes” vote required to pass a constitutional amendment. They spent more than $3 per vote, and we spent about 70 cents for every vote we won.

We Also Had Remarkable Wins in Candidate Campaigns

Progress for animals extended well beyond a handful of high-profile contests. Of the 254 candidates endorsed by Animal Wellness Action, 247 won their elections — an extraordinary 97.2% victory rate. Just seven of our endorsed candidates lost,demonstrating careful assessment of this fall’s contests and our ability to identify candidates who will stand up for animals.

Animal Wellness Action mounted targeted, independent expenditure campaigns to hold accountable politicians in states and districts across the country who had made themselves obstacles to progress for animals.

[We weren’t trying to influence every race in America.] We chose our battles carefully, focused on candidates with consequential records on animal welfare, and invested where our messages could make a difference.

And the results were remarkable.

• Ashley Hinson — DEFEATED in her quest to win an open U.S. Senate seat in Iowa. Hinson authored legislation to overturn California’s Prop 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, threatening humane housing standards for millions of farm animals.
• Tom Tiffany — DEFEATED in Wisconsin. Killing wolves was Tiffany’s number one policy issue, and we exposed his misplaced priorities. David Crowley beat him for governor of the Badger State.
• Derrick Van Orden — DEFEATED in Wisconsin. A member of the House Agriculture Committee, he voted to overturn Prop 12. And then to add further insult, he reneged on his support for the FIGHT Act, legislation to crack down on dogfighting and cockfighting.
• Rob Bresnahan — DEFEATED in Pennsylvania. Another Agriculture Committee member who wavered on animal fighting but didn’t waver on overturning the votes of 10 million American voters who approved ballot measures to limit extreme confinement.

There were other casualties among anti-animal lawmakers, based on the latest election returns. 

Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a leading opponent of wolf protections, also seems headed for a loss in her reelection bid. Her constituents probably didn’t think killing wolves was such an important role for her to play with high gas prices, mortgage rates, and health care costs.

Rob Wittman of Virginia, who sought to block federal restrictions on toxic lead ammunition that poisons bald eagles and other wildlife, was defeated. There are 600 peer-reviewed studies that show the adverse effects of lead dispersal from hunting into our environment.

Zach Nunn of Iowa, a supporter of legislation to overturn state farm animal welfare laws who also backed efforts to weaken his own Greyhound Protection Act, lost his seat.

In all, these lawmakers made major missteps on animal issues, and elections exist to allow voters to recall them as they warrant.

A Message That Will Resonate in Washington

For too long, some politicians have assumed they could attack animal protection laws without political consequences. We want lawmakers to understand that standing up for animals is politically rewarding, while working to dismantle humane protections carries real political risk.

They thought they could overturn voter-approved farm animal welfare measures, strip protections from wolves, weaken legislation against organized animal fighting, and obstruct reforms — all without being held accountable at the ballot box.

Not with Animal Wellness Action on the task.

And we also are focused on getting the right people into office. That’s why we celebrate the election of animal advocates such as Dr. Amish Shah in Arizona and Manny Rutinel in Colorado, along with dozens of challengers who prevailed yesterday and who signaled that they understand that compassion for animals is a mainstream American sensibility.

At Animal Wellness Action, we have always believed that protecting animals requires more than good intentions. It requires political organization, strategic investment, compelling communications, and a willingness to challenge powerful interests.

We are not one of the biggest spenders in American politics. But we are determined to be among the smartest spenders and most strategic advocates for animals in the political arena.

We choose races where animal welfare issues are consequential. We examine voting records and legislative performance. We identify audiences that can be persuaded. We develop messages that connect with voters.

These victories occurred amid broader political currents, and that’s precisely the point. We strike when there are genuine opportunities to tip the balance in a race, recognizing that broader political forces also contribute to the vulnerability of candidates who show contempt for animal protection values.

And we have something that our adversaries cannot easily replicate: a cause that resonates deeply with the American public, a message grounded in compassion and common sense, and a political strategy designed to turn that public sentiment into electoral results.

To every supporter who donated, volunteered, shared our messages, or stood with us: Thank you.

You helped make this extraordinary election possible.

We have shown that animal protection is not just a moral cause. It is a political force.

These victories show what your support makes possible. Help us build on this momentum, hold lawmakers accountable, and turn electoral victories into lasting protections for animals.