Oregonian Editorial: Campaign finance reform takes a back seat, again
July 2, 2023
Despite all the drama and rancor that defined the 2023 legislative session, Oregonians should be pleased with the results that lawmakers delivered by session’s end. While there’s a long way to go, the Legislature made several moves to help steer a course through, if not out, of crisis.
Lawmakers authorized millions for rent assistance to support tenants and approved sensible changes in building code requirements to encourage housing construction. They passed a new child tax credit to provide some relief to the state’s lowest-income families. Their investments in science-based literacy techniques reflect an acknowledgment that Oregon must make extra efforts to compensate for years of poor educational leadership on such a critical skill. And passage of a bill making possession of more than a gram of fentanyl a misdemeanor represents a sane step to protect Oregonians from a drug that killed more than 500 people statewide in 2021.
But there’s another long-festering problem that lawmakers once again failed to address – campaign contribution limits. Despite voters repeatedly showing their support for cracking down on the unlimited donations that individuals, companies, labor unions and others can make to their preferred candidates, lawmakers have yet to pass a law curbing the massive donations of the past year, as The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Grant Stringer reported. If legislators are unable to develop a credible, fair system by the February short session, voters should be ready to make their voices known, again, and support efforts to adopt limits by initiative on the 2024 ballot.
Oregon is one of only four states in the country with no limits on contributions. In past years, the millions given by Nike co-founder Phil Knight to primarily Republican candidates have been cited as Exhibit A for why Oregon needs limits on campaign contributions. But media reports over the past year exposing multiple problematic donations to Democrats show the need for reform crosses parties.
Last October, now-disgraced FTX executive Nishad Singh sent $500,000 to the Democratic Party of Oregon, contributing the single largest donation that the party has received. But the donation was initially identified as coming from a cryptocurrency payment processing company – not from Singh. Such false reporting should raise questions about whether the Democratic Party of Oregon intentionally flubbed basic campaign finance reporting to sidestep transparency requirements.
Unfortunately, it’s unclear whether Oregonians will ever get a straight answer to that question thanks to the lackluster investigation by the secretary of state’s office, whose elections director formerly served as the Democratic Party of Oregon’s deputy director. Regardless, the influence that such a massive donation can wield is exactly what donation caps help temper.
The more than $200,000 in donations made by La Mota owners Aaron Mitchell and Rosa Cazares to top Democrats should also add pressure for imposing contribution limits. The two have donated heavily over the years to Gov. Tina Kotek, former Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, U.S. Rep. Val Hoyle, Senate President Rob Wagner and several others – sometimes in large stacks of cash – an oddity that the Legislature just voted to disallow.
Do large donations matter? Considering the relatively low salaries that statewide elected officials earn and the flexibility with which they can spend from campaign accounts, such large donations at the very least raise legitimate concerns. Fagan, who had received $45,000 in contributions from Mitchell since 2020, earned only $77,000 as secretary of state and conceded that she was having trouble making ends meet.
In 2021, she sought Cazares’ input on a draft plan for auditing the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, public records show, and appears to have incorporated her feedback into the initial audit framework. That was months before she accepted the $10,000-a-month contract with La Mota that would result in her resignation. Would Cazares have had any input on the audit without those donations to Fagan’s campaign?
Unfortunately, some of the proposals that legislators have pushed the hardest in recent years would still allow large contributions by labor unions and other “small-donor” political action committees, ensuring that some of the same players that have dominated Oregon politics would continue to wield outsized power.
Oregonians aren’t looking for a perfect system, but they are looking for a fair one. And if legislators are unable to deliver that, voters should look closely at initiative petitions by campaign finance reform advocates aimed at the 2024 ballot. Considering that it’s been hard for legislators to turn off the spigot of cash flowing their way, voters may need to do it for them.
-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board
July 2, 2023
Despite all the drama and rancor that defined the 2023 legislative session, Oregonians should be pleased with the results that lawmakers delivered by session’s end. While there’s a long way to go, the Legislature made several moves to help steer a course through, if not out, of crisis.
Lawmakers authorized millions for rent assistance to support tenants and approved sensible changes in building code requirements to encourage housing construction. They passed a new child tax credit to provide some relief to the state’s lowest-income families. Their investments in science-based literacy techniques reflect an acknowledgment that Oregon must make extra efforts to compensate for years of poor educational leadership on such a critical skill. And passage of a bill making possession of more than a gram of fentanyl a misdemeanor represents a sane step to protect Oregonians from a drug that killed more than 500 people statewide in 2021.
But there’s another long-festering problem that lawmakers once again failed to address – campaign contribution limits. Despite voters repeatedly showing their support for cracking down on the unlimited donations that individuals, companies, labor unions and others can make to their preferred candidates, lawmakers have yet to pass a law curbing the massive donations of the past year, as The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Grant Stringer reported. If legislators are unable to develop a credible, fair system by the February short session, voters should be ready to make their voices known, again, and support efforts to adopt limits by initiative on the 2024 ballot.
Oregon is one of only four states in the country with no limits on contributions. In past years, the millions given by Nike co-founder Phil Knight to primarily Republican candidates have been cited as Exhibit A for why Oregon needs limits on campaign contributions. But media reports over the past year exposing multiple problematic donations to Democrats show the need for reform crosses parties.
Last October, now-disgraced FTX executive Nishad Singh sent $500,000 to the Democratic Party of Oregon, contributing the single largest donation that the party has received. But the donation was initially identified as coming from a cryptocurrency payment processing company – not from Singh. Such false reporting should raise questions about whether the Democratic Party of Oregon intentionally flubbed basic campaign finance reporting to sidestep transparency requirements.
Unfortunately, it’s unclear whether Oregonians will ever get a straight answer to that question thanks to the lackluster investigation by the secretary of state’s office, whose elections director formerly served as the Democratic Party of Oregon’s deputy director. Regardless, the influence that such a massive donation can wield is exactly what donation caps help temper.
The more than $200,000 in donations made by La Mota owners Aaron Mitchell and Rosa Cazares to top Democrats should also add pressure for imposing contribution limits. The two have donated heavily over the years to Gov. Tina Kotek, former Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, U.S. Rep. Val Hoyle, Senate President Rob Wagner and several others – sometimes in large stacks of cash – an oddity that the Legislature just voted to disallow.
Do large donations matter? Considering the relatively low salaries that statewide elected officials earn and the flexibility with which they can spend from campaign accounts, such large donations at the very least raise legitimate concerns. Fagan, who had received $45,000 in contributions from Mitchell since 2020, earned only $77,000 as secretary of state and conceded that she was having trouble making ends meet.
In 2021, she sought Cazares’ input on a draft plan for auditing the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, public records show, and appears to have incorporated her feedback into the initial audit framework. That was months before she accepted the $10,000-a-month contract with La Mota that would result in her resignation. Would Cazares have had any input on the audit without those donations to Fagan’s campaign?
Unfortunately, some of the proposals that legislators have pushed the hardest in recent years would still allow large contributions by labor unions and other “small-donor” political action committees, ensuring that some of the same players that have dominated Oregon politics would continue to wield outsized power.
Oregonians aren’t looking for a perfect system, but they are looking for a fair one. And if legislators are unable to deliver that, voters should look closely at initiative petitions by campaign finance reform advocates aimed at the 2024 ballot. Considering that it’s been hard for legislators to turn off the spigot of cash flowing their way, voters may need to do it for them.
-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board
Yamhill County News-Register Editorial: One thing left utterly undone: campaign finance reform
This year’s 160-day Oregon legislative session featured a 42-day walkout by conservative senators, all Republican except our own Brian Boquist, a longtime Republican now claiming independent allegiance.
But because the dissidents limited their protest to denying the Senate a quorum for floor sessions, legislation continued to move through the pipeline. So when they returned to full-fledged duty June 14, fast-tracking the final frantic days allowed the Legislature to flush through a relatively normal 600 bills.
The roster included the two bellwether bills triggering the walkout in the first place, SB 2002, expanding abortion rights, and SB 2005, limiting gun rights, albeit with concessions from the majority Democrats on particularly inflammatory points. It also included all but one major element in Gov. Tina Kotek’s headliner homelessness package.
So, mission accomplished? No, not in our book. Not by a long shot.
While Kotek most misses easing UGB rules to make housing more affordable, we most miss tightening political funding rules to make campaigning more affordable.
Despite the best efforts of corporate titans like Nike’s Phil Knight, who dumped more than $7 million into Republican coffers in the 2022 mid-terms, union largesse, particularly public employee union largesse, continues to give the state’s majority Democrats a decided edge. While they adamantly assert otherwise, we see that largely driving their extended inaction.
It’s gotten to the point where they seem even more loath to join 45 sister states in enacting meaningful campaign finance reform than they do to touch the third rail of Democratic politics by enacting meaningful PERS pension reform. And that’s saying something.
This year, the walkout gave them a convenient excuse. But they didn’t really need one, as the Watergate-fueled issue has been languishing in Salem for five decades now.
What would it take to spur action? Maybe a Bahama bitcoin czar dumping $11 million into a single House primary, just before his empire imploded in spectacular fashion?
Well, yes — except for the fact the beneficiary was running under the Democratic Party banner and the benefactor was also showering money on the party itself.
Oregon is not only one of just five states failing to limit corporate contributions. It is also the only state of our 50 failing to limit individual contributions — contributions like those of the shoe peddler and bitcoin conniver.
The upshot? Oregon leads the nation in corporate political contributions and is making a run for the top in individual political contributions.
A few years back, an OSPIRG study had donations of $100 or less running $6.5 million and donations of $5,000 or more running $64 million. Worse, more than two-thirds of the high-roller donations were from out of state.
While our legislators have been standing idly by, voters have been trying their best to fill the gap.
They approved Measure 9 in 1994, only to see in struck down in state and federal court, and Measure 47 in 2006, only to see it struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court. The latter ruling was unanimously reversed in subsequent action, but relying on an internal opinion she declined to make public, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said that did not provide sufficient grounds to reinstate the measure.
Limiting the insidious monetizing Oregon political campaigns demands three things: 1) reasonable contribution limits capable of passing constitutional measure; 2) reporting requirements ensuring greater timeliness and clarity in source identification; and 3) enforcement provisions holding rulebreakers accountable in meaningful terms.
We don’t think that’s too much to ask some 50-years post-Watergate. And you can bet Oregon Republicans wouldn’t walk out if Oregon Democrats suffered sufficient pangs of conscience to finally take action.
This year’s 160-day Oregon legislative session featured a 42-day walkout by conservative senators, all Republican except our own Brian Boquist, a longtime Republican now claiming independent allegiance.
But because the dissidents limited their protest to denying the Senate a quorum for floor sessions, legislation continued to move through the pipeline. So when they returned to full-fledged duty June 14, fast-tracking the final frantic days allowed the Legislature to flush through a relatively normal 600 bills.
The roster included the two bellwether bills triggering the walkout in the first place, SB 2002, expanding abortion rights, and SB 2005, limiting gun rights, albeit with concessions from the majority Democrats on particularly inflammatory points. It also included all but one major element in Gov. Tina Kotek’s headliner homelessness package.
So, mission accomplished? No, not in our book. Not by a long shot.
While Kotek most misses easing UGB rules to make housing more affordable, we most miss tightening political funding rules to make campaigning more affordable.
Despite the best efforts of corporate titans like Nike’s Phil Knight, who dumped more than $7 million into Republican coffers in the 2022 mid-terms, union largesse, particularly public employee union largesse, continues to give the state’s majority Democrats a decided edge. While they adamantly assert otherwise, we see that largely driving their extended inaction.
It’s gotten to the point where they seem even more loath to join 45 sister states in enacting meaningful campaign finance reform than they do to touch the third rail of Democratic politics by enacting meaningful PERS pension reform. And that’s saying something.
This year, the walkout gave them a convenient excuse. But they didn’t really need one, as the Watergate-fueled issue has been languishing in Salem for five decades now.
What would it take to spur action? Maybe a Bahama bitcoin czar dumping $11 million into a single House primary, just before his empire imploded in spectacular fashion?
Well, yes — except for the fact the beneficiary was running under the Democratic Party banner and the benefactor was also showering money on the party itself.
Oregon is not only one of just five states failing to limit corporate contributions. It is also the only state of our 50 failing to limit individual contributions — contributions like those of the shoe peddler and bitcoin conniver.
The upshot? Oregon leads the nation in corporate political contributions and is making a run for the top in individual political contributions.
A few years back, an OSPIRG study had donations of $100 or less running $6.5 million and donations of $5,000 or more running $64 million. Worse, more than two-thirds of the high-roller donations were from out of state.
While our legislators have been standing idly by, voters have been trying their best to fill the gap.
They approved Measure 9 in 1994, only to see in struck down in state and federal court, and Measure 47 in 2006, only to see it struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court. The latter ruling was unanimously reversed in subsequent action, but relying on an internal opinion she declined to make public, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said that did not provide sufficient grounds to reinstate the measure.
Limiting the insidious monetizing Oregon political campaigns demands three things: 1) reasonable contribution limits capable of passing constitutional measure; 2) reporting requirements ensuring greater timeliness and clarity in source identification; and 3) enforcement provisions holding rulebreakers accountable in meaningful terms.
We don’t think that’s too much to ask some 50-years post-Watergate. And you can bet Oregon Republicans wouldn’t walk out if Oregon Democrats suffered sufficient pangs of conscience to finally take action.
Oregonian Editorial: Campaign finance reform bill missing the ‘reform’
By The Oregonian Editorial Board
May 26, 2021
There are two bills in the Oregon House proposing campaign contribution limits. One, House Bill 3343, proposes clear, modest limits and has the support of good-government groups that have long fought to cap donations. The other, House Bill 2680, does little to curb the massive contributions that corporations and labor unions have long donated to candidates and political parties.
So, guess which bill has the momentum?
Unfortunately for Oregonians who want to get big money out of politics, that would be HB 2680, which is scheduled for a work session in the House Rules Committee on Friday.
The bill, in its current version, does impose some limits. Candidates for a statewide office – such as governor or secretary of state – could not accept more than $2,900 per election from a person or $40,000 from a political party caucus committee. Candidates for state house and senate seats face lower limits. Local governments could set their own caps, provided they do not exceed the state’s.
The range of per-person contributions are much higher than the $500 to $1,000 caps contemplated by HB 3343, but more important, HB 2680 would have little effect on changing the dynamics set by the same players who have long dominated the political landscape – corporations and unions. Loopholes and design flaws abound in the legislation, which is opposed by League of Women Voters of Oregon, Common Cause Oregon, OSPIRG, Honest Elections Oregon and several other groups that have pressed for meaningful contribution caps.
Among the flaws: A “person” who can give to a candidate is defined as an “individual, labor union or corporation, including any corporation operated for economic gain or any not-for-profit corporation.” Entities can easily skirt the limit by forming new corporations, which takes $100 and a couple of minutes, as campaign finance reform activist and lawyer Dan Meek has said, noting that many exploited a similar campaign contribution loophole in New York before the state closed it.
There’s more. The bill would allow corporations – for-profit and nonprofit – to provide a candidate with $50,000 a year in paid staff time, such as a political consultant. That gives the donor considerable influence in a candidate’s campaign. It would permit Democratic and Republican caucus committees to amass and redirect donations at levels far higher than most other political committees. And it would continue to bless game-changing donations by public-employee unions and other so-called “membership organizations” that would still be able to indirectly steer massive sums to candidates through “small-donor committees,” as The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Hillary Borrud reported.
Corvallis Democratic Rep. Dan Rayfield, the bill’s chief sponsor, deserves credit for wading into the campaign finance morass. But even he can’t support the current version without changes, telling The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that he would want the amendment allowing donation of staff time to be narrowed, though not eliminated. He said the provision furthers a legitimate policy objective – helping organizations that have been historically left out of the political process to participate on behalf of candidates.
That’s a worthy consideration. But legislators should look for other avenues to support that goal that don’t allow the same old players to keep playing the same old game. Nineteen states ban contributions from corporations and unions outright, according to Meek, who helped author the successful campaign finance limit initiatives in Portland and Multnomah County. Another 23 states have limits far stricter than those under consideration in Oregon.
The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Polluted by Money series in 2019 exposed how Oregon’s lack of campaign contribution limits has translated into weaker environmental laws and lower standards than neighbors with stricter campaign-finance requirements. Oregonians responded by overwhelmingly supporting a constitutional amendment last year to allow the setting of campaign limits. And voters in Portland and Multnomah County have already enthusiastically embraced ballot initiatives establishing strict caps. The only part that’s missing is the Legislature.
While it’s an admittedly difficult challenge to divorce campaigns from the limitless cash infusions that have fed them, lawmakers across the Capitol need to summon their political courage to do what Oregonians elected them to do.
They should start by scrapping HB 2680, embracing the straightforward approach in HB 3343 and committing to pass meaningful campaign finance reform this session.
By The Oregonian Editorial Board
May 26, 2021
There are two bills in the Oregon House proposing campaign contribution limits. One, House Bill 3343, proposes clear, modest limits and has the support of good-government groups that have long fought to cap donations. The other, House Bill 2680, does little to curb the massive contributions that corporations and labor unions have long donated to candidates and political parties.
So, guess which bill has the momentum?
Unfortunately for Oregonians who want to get big money out of politics, that would be HB 2680, which is scheduled for a work session in the House Rules Committee on Friday.
The bill, in its current version, does impose some limits. Candidates for a statewide office – such as governor or secretary of state – could not accept more than $2,900 per election from a person or $40,000 from a political party caucus committee. Candidates for state house and senate seats face lower limits. Local governments could set their own caps, provided they do not exceed the state’s.
The range of per-person contributions are much higher than the $500 to $1,000 caps contemplated by HB 3343, but more important, HB 2680 would have little effect on changing the dynamics set by the same players who have long dominated the political landscape – corporations and unions. Loopholes and design flaws abound in the legislation, which is opposed by League of Women Voters of Oregon, Common Cause Oregon, OSPIRG, Honest Elections Oregon and several other groups that have pressed for meaningful contribution caps.
Among the flaws: A “person” who can give to a candidate is defined as an “individual, labor union or corporation, including any corporation operated for economic gain or any not-for-profit corporation.” Entities can easily skirt the limit by forming new corporations, which takes $100 and a couple of minutes, as campaign finance reform activist and lawyer Dan Meek has said, noting that many exploited a similar campaign contribution loophole in New York before the state closed it.
There’s more. The bill would allow corporations – for-profit and nonprofit – to provide a candidate with $50,000 a year in paid staff time, such as a political consultant. That gives the donor considerable influence in a candidate’s campaign. It would permit Democratic and Republican caucus committees to amass and redirect donations at levels far higher than most other political committees. And it would continue to bless game-changing donations by public-employee unions and other so-called “membership organizations” that would still be able to indirectly steer massive sums to candidates through “small-donor committees,” as The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Hillary Borrud reported.
Corvallis Democratic Rep. Dan Rayfield, the bill’s chief sponsor, deserves credit for wading into the campaign finance morass. But even he can’t support the current version without changes, telling The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that he would want the amendment allowing donation of staff time to be narrowed, though not eliminated. He said the provision furthers a legitimate policy objective – helping organizations that have been historically left out of the political process to participate on behalf of candidates.
That’s a worthy consideration. But legislators should look for other avenues to support that goal that don’t allow the same old players to keep playing the same old game. Nineteen states ban contributions from corporations and unions outright, according to Meek, who helped author the successful campaign finance limit initiatives in Portland and Multnomah County. Another 23 states have limits far stricter than those under consideration in Oregon.
The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Polluted by Money series in 2019 exposed how Oregon’s lack of campaign contribution limits has translated into weaker environmental laws and lower standards than neighbors with stricter campaign-finance requirements. Oregonians responded by overwhelmingly supporting a constitutional amendment last year to allow the setting of campaign limits. And voters in Portland and Multnomah County have already enthusiastically embraced ballot initiatives establishing strict caps. The only part that’s missing is the Legislature.
While it’s an admittedly difficult challenge to divorce campaigns from the limitless cash infusions that have fed them, lawmakers across the Capitol need to summon their political courage to do what Oregonians elected them to do.
They should start by scrapping HB 2680, embracing the straightforward approach in HB 3343 and committing to pass meaningful campaign finance reform this session.
Oregonian Editorial: Proposed campaign donation limits only limit who holds the power
June 9, 2019
By The Oregonian Editorial Board
Oregon House members hailed last week’s passage of campaign finance legislation as a historic event. They predicted that the contribution limits detailed in House Bill 2714 would empower individuals while reining in large donors. And they noted that finally, they were responding to Oregonians’ repeated calls and growing pressure to get big money out of Oregon politics.
But for all legislators’ celebratory words, this isn’t the reform Oregonians need. Rather than get big money out of Oregon politics, HB 2714 concentrates the power to make big donations in the hands of fewer entities, turning today’s free-for-all into tomorrow’s oligarchy. The bill grants the state’s Democratic and Republican legislative caucuses the authority to make unlimited contributions to candidates – a power that none of the minor political parties get – which will further entrench two-party dominance in a state becoming increasingly unaffiliated. And even though HB 2714 effectively clamps down on businesses’ campaign donations, it does little to restrain labor unions from funneling tens of millions of dollars into future Oregon races, just as they do now.
The biggest problem? None of this resolves the most significant barrier to reform: the Oregon Supreme Court’s 1997 decision that ruled such contribution limits violate the Oregon constitution’s free speech protections. Fixing that requires either a constitutional amendment or a reversal by the court.
With little time to fix the legislation’s flaws, Oregon state senators should reject HB 2714 and focus their attention instead on a constitutional referral that would explicitly allow the government to impose donation and spending caps. Provided Oregonians in November 2020 approve the change, limits already adopted by voters in 2006, 2016 and 2018 ballot measures can take effect. Legislators, or voters themselves, can then revise, enhance or replace them with better alternatives that don’t advantage favored groups over others.
The current matrix of spending limits detailed by HB 2714 would certainly curb some contributions, notably donations by businesses. But it includes enormous loopholes, as The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Rob Davis has reported. The bill caps individuals’ donations to candidates to $2,800 per election per statewide race, $2,800 to a state party committee and $2,800 to a legislative caucus committee. But it allows unlimited two-way transferring of donations between those committees, meaning they can amass and funnel money to whichever candidate’s race needs it the most. That means a wealthy individual could easily exploit the system to skirt limits to direct huge sums of cash to a single candidate, as longtime reform advocate Dan Meek testified. Meek, a key architect of the three successful ballot measures limiting contributions, has argued that putting limits on these inter-committee transfers would close that loophole, but legislators declined to amend it.
Also, while Democrats and Republicans would have a caucus committee, no other political party has such a benefit.
And the bill ensures that labor unions, among the most generous and reliable campaign donors in Oregon to Democratic candidates and causes, will be able to continue funneling millions to their preferred candidate or party. Under HB 2714, labor unions qualify as “membership organizations” that may steer as much as 40 percent of their membership dues, or $250 per member, to a small donor committee which, in turn, has no limits on the donations it can make. Considering that public employee unions can have tens of thousands of members, a $250 per member contribution can quickly add up to a multi-million dollar donation that a small donor committee can spend at will. That’s hardly a limit for entities whose political clout has helped protect a pension system that now threatens to break Oregon’s financial future.
While bill sponsor Rep. Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, noted that companies can also encourage employees to donate to small donor committees, the bill allows unions and other nonprofits to skip the step of asking members for a separate political donation. Rather, they can simply carve out those donations from membership dues.
The bill’s byzantine structure, complexity and loopholes are reasons that Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, won’t support the bill as is. Golden, who has fervently supported campaign finance reform, told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that legislators should keep their eye on the constitutional amendment referral. Contribution limits that lack transparency and simplicity will only fan Oregonians’ suspicions even more than they are now, he said.
Despite HB 2714’s flaws, the House passed two other campaign finance reform bills that should move forward with some additional amendments. Those bills, HB 2716 and HB 2983, call for greater disclosure of contributors to political ads and to nonprofits involved in political communications. The Senate should look to increase the transparency provisions so that Oregonians know exactly who is behind communications seeking to influence them.
It should be said that Rayfield, who led the efforts to draw up contribution limits, made a valiant effort to achieve what may be impossible: Getting people who represent the status quo to agree to dismantle it. The complexity of campaign finance, the lure of large donations and the fear of change all can make finding a politically viable solution extremely difficult. It may simply be unrealistic to expect those who have benefited greatly from a system of no limits to champion adopting strict caps.
And Oregonians should recognize that elected officials are finally hearing them, which is a step forward in itself. Overwhelming voter approvals of campaign finance ballot measures in Multnomah County in 2016 and in Portland in 2018 sent an emphatic message to leaders. At the beginning of the legislative session, Gov. Kate Brown said campaign finance reform would be a priority. Oregonians testified, wrote letters to the editor and called legislators to demand reforms after reading Davis’ “Polluted by Money” series in The Oregonian/OregonLive, which showed in devastating detail the connections between unlimited corporate campaign donations and rollbacks of environmental policies. The momentum is clear and continuing.
Only a few weeks remain in the legislative session and even passing legislation to refer a constitutional amendment to voters could be difficult. But Oregonians have been resolute in their passion for contribution limits. If the Senate cannot get it together to refer an amendment, then Oregonians, luckily, have an option to do so themselves by supporting an initiative already filed by Meek. Voters should be ready to show legislators just how it’s done. Again.
- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board
June 9, 2019
By The Oregonian Editorial Board
Oregon House members hailed last week’s passage of campaign finance legislation as a historic event. They predicted that the contribution limits detailed in House Bill 2714 would empower individuals while reining in large donors. And they noted that finally, they were responding to Oregonians’ repeated calls and growing pressure to get big money out of Oregon politics.
But for all legislators’ celebratory words, this isn’t the reform Oregonians need. Rather than get big money out of Oregon politics, HB 2714 concentrates the power to make big donations in the hands of fewer entities, turning today’s free-for-all into tomorrow’s oligarchy. The bill grants the state’s Democratic and Republican legislative caucuses the authority to make unlimited contributions to candidates – a power that none of the minor political parties get – which will further entrench two-party dominance in a state becoming increasingly unaffiliated. And even though HB 2714 effectively clamps down on businesses’ campaign donations, it does little to restrain labor unions from funneling tens of millions of dollars into future Oregon races, just as they do now.
The biggest problem? None of this resolves the most significant barrier to reform: the Oregon Supreme Court’s 1997 decision that ruled such contribution limits violate the Oregon constitution’s free speech protections. Fixing that requires either a constitutional amendment or a reversal by the court.
With little time to fix the legislation’s flaws, Oregon state senators should reject HB 2714 and focus their attention instead on a constitutional referral that would explicitly allow the government to impose donation and spending caps. Provided Oregonians in November 2020 approve the change, limits already adopted by voters in 2006, 2016 and 2018 ballot measures can take effect. Legislators, or voters themselves, can then revise, enhance or replace them with better alternatives that don’t advantage favored groups over others.
The current matrix of spending limits detailed by HB 2714 would certainly curb some contributions, notably donations by businesses. But it includes enormous loopholes, as The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Rob Davis has reported. The bill caps individuals’ donations to candidates to $2,800 per election per statewide race, $2,800 to a state party committee and $2,800 to a legislative caucus committee. But it allows unlimited two-way transferring of donations between those committees, meaning they can amass and funnel money to whichever candidate’s race needs it the most. That means a wealthy individual could easily exploit the system to skirt limits to direct huge sums of cash to a single candidate, as longtime reform advocate Dan Meek testified. Meek, a key architect of the three successful ballot measures limiting contributions, has argued that putting limits on these inter-committee transfers would close that loophole, but legislators declined to amend it.
Also, while Democrats and Republicans would have a caucus committee, no other political party has such a benefit.
And the bill ensures that labor unions, among the most generous and reliable campaign donors in Oregon to Democratic candidates and causes, will be able to continue funneling millions to their preferred candidate or party. Under HB 2714, labor unions qualify as “membership organizations” that may steer as much as 40 percent of their membership dues, or $250 per member, to a small donor committee which, in turn, has no limits on the donations it can make. Considering that public employee unions can have tens of thousands of members, a $250 per member contribution can quickly add up to a multi-million dollar donation that a small donor committee can spend at will. That’s hardly a limit for entities whose political clout has helped protect a pension system that now threatens to break Oregon’s financial future.
While bill sponsor Rep. Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, noted that companies can also encourage employees to donate to small donor committees, the bill allows unions and other nonprofits to skip the step of asking members for a separate political donation. Rather, they can simply carve out those donations from membership dues.
The bill’s byzantine structure, complexity and loopholes are reasons that Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, won’t support the bill as is. Golden, who has fervently supported campaign finance reform, told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that legislators should keep their eye on the constitutional amendment referral. Contribution limits that lack transparency and simplicity will only fan Oregonians’ suspicions even more than they are now, he said.
Despite HB 2714’s flaws, the House passed two other campaign finance reform bills that should move forward with some additional amendments. Those bills, HB 2716 and HB 2983, call for greater disclosure of contributors to political ads and to nonprofits involved in political communications. The Senate should look to increase the transparency provisions so that Oregonians know exactly who is behind communications seeking to influence them.
It should be said that Rayfield, who led the efforts to draw up contribution limits, made a valiant effort to achieve what may be impossible: Getting people who represent the status quo to agree to dismantle it. The complexity of campaign finance, the lure of large donations and the fear of change all can make finding a politically viable solution extremely difficult. It may simply be unrealistic to expect those who have benefited greatly from a system of no limits to champion adopting strict caps.
And Oregonians should recognize that elected officials are finally hearing them, which is a step forward in itself. Overwhelming voter approvals of campaign finance ballot measures in Multnomah County in 2016 and in Portland in 2018 sent an emphatic message to leaders. At the beginning of the legislative session, Gov. Kate Brown said campaign finance reform would be a priority. Oregonians testified, wrote letters to the editor and called legislators to demand reforms after reading Davis’ “Polluted by Money” series in The Oregonian/OregonLive, which showed in devastating detail the connections between unlimited corporate campaign donations and rollbacks of environmental policies. The momentum is clear and continuing.
Only a few weeks remain in the legislative session and even passing legislation to refer a constitutional amendment to voters could be difficult. But Oregonians have been resolute in their passion for contribution limits. If the Senate cannot get it together to refer an amendment, then Oregonians, luckily, have an option to do so themselves by supporting an initiative already filed by Meek. Voters should be ready to show legislators just how it’s done. Again.
- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board