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.
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
Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2019/06/editorial-proposed-campaign-donation-limits-only-limit-who-holds-the-power.html
If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.
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
Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2019/06/editorial-proposed-campaign-donation-limits-only-limit-who-holds-the-power.html
If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.