This chapter explores longstanding debates over the government’s speech to influence the public’s views about ballot initiatives, referenda, and other political contests subject to vote by the people themselves or by their elected representatives. The chapter starts by explaining the constitutional objections to the government’s persuasive speech in candidate campaigns, and then considers whether those objections still hold as applied to the government’s persuasive speech in issue campaigns. One constitutional objection to the government’s political advocacy focus on the consequences of the government’s speech, positing that the government’s voice—with its advantages of resources and power—inevitably and unfairly distorts public discourse. Another focuses on the government’s objectives when speaking, maintaining that the government’s role as sovereign requires it to remain neutral in these contests. The chapter concludes that the government’s issue advocacy valuably adds to the marketplace of ideas so long as its governmental source is transparent, so long as the government does not hold a monopoly over the relevant information, and so long as counterspeech remains unfettered.