Oregon Voters Overwhelmingly Said Yes to Limiting Money in Politics. Then Politicians Had Their Say.
Why resist verification?
Back in 2019, it looked like Oregon lawmakers might finally commit to ending the state’s outlier status on campaign finance.
I had just authored an investigative series for The Oregonian/OregonLive, my previous newsroom, revealing how Oregon’s lack of limits on campaign donations had allowed corporate America to give more to sitting lawmakers, per capita, than anywhere else in the country and led to some of the weakest environmental protections on the West Coast. The state Supreme Court had allowed it to happen by saying campaign donations were protected free speech under the Oregon Constitution.
Lawmakers in Oregon, one of five states without any limits at all, seemed willing to do something about what we’d revealed. They asked Oregonians to change the constitution and explicitly allow contribution limits, something legislators had repeatedly tried and failed to do before. At the ballot in 2020, 78% of voters said yes, one of the widest margins for any ballot measure in decades. All lawmakers needed to do was to write legislation limiting donations.
But for the next four years, no limits were adopted. When lawmakers eventually set caps in 2024, individual donations were restricted to $3,300 per election, well short of caps in the $1,000 to $2,000 range that good-government groups had sought previously. Lawmakers left other avenues for donors to give their time and money. They allowed corporate donations, which many states ban, to continue. They made it so the limits wouldn’t take effect until 2027, after the current race for governor is over.
And now, lawmakers have voted to ratchet the spigot open further — and perhaps, campaign reform advocates say, all the way.
On March 5, Oregon’s Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that supporters described as containing little more than technical fixes to what they’d written two years ago.
Groups that seek to limit the influence of money in politics said the changes are far more serious than housekeeping. They said the new bill inserted loopholes that, among other things, will allow companies to bypass the limits by giving through corporate affiliates.
Dan Meek, an attorney who for years has been at the center of efforts to curtail money in Oregon politics, labeled it “the bill to destroy campaign finance reform in Oregon.”
Oregon elections haven’t had contribution limits since briefly in the 1990s. Phil Keisling, a former secretary of state who advocated for those caps only to see them overturned in court, described the Legislature’s track record on campaign finance as “one of the most profound public policy failures” in Oregon’s recent history.
“Limits should have been in place decades ago,” he said. “The base problem is that there are powerful forces within both political parties who prefer the system as it is.”
Legislative leaders defended their work.
In a floor speech, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman described the contribution limits the Legislature adopted as delivering on “elections where the voices of everyday people are not drowned out by wealthy and powerful interests making unlimited political contributions.” He described this year’s changes as necessary for the …
Why resist verification?
Back in 2019, it looked like Oregon lawmakers might finally commit to ending the state’s outlier status on campaign finance.
I had just authored an investigative series for The Oregonian/OregonLive, my previous newsroom, revealing how Oregon’s lack of limits on campaign donations had allowed corporate America to give more to sitting lawmakers, per capita, than anywhere else in the country and led to some of the weakest environmental protections on the West Coast. The state Supreme Court had allowed it to happen by saying campaign donations were protected free speech under the Oregon Constitution.
Lawmakers in Oregon, one of five states without any limits at all, seemed willing to do something about what we’d revealed. They asked Oregonians to change the constitution and explicitly allow contribution limits, something legislators had repeatedly tried and failed to do before. At the ballot in 2020, 78% of voters said yes, one of the widest margins for any ballot measure in decades. All lawmakers needed to do was to write legislation limiting donations.
But for the next four years, no limits were adopted. When lawmakers eventually set caps in 2024, individual donations were restricted to $3,300 per election, well short of caps in the $1,000 to $2,000 range that good-government groups had sought previously. Lawmakers left other avenues for donors to give their time and money. They allowed corporate donations, which many states ban, to continue. They made it so the limits wouldn’t take effect until 2027, after the current race for governor is over.
And now, lawmakers have voted to ratchet the spigot open further — and perhaps, campaign reform advocates say, all the way.
On March 5, Oregon’s Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that supporters described as containing little more than technical fixes to what they’d written two years ago.
Groups that seek to limit the influence of money in politics said the changes are far more serious than housekeeping. They said the new bill inserted loopholes that, among other things, will allow companies to bypass the limits by giving through corporate affiliates.
Dan Meek, an attorney who for years has been at the center of efforts to curtail money in Oregon politics, labeled it “the bill to destroy campaign finance reform in Oregon.”
Oregon elections haven’t had contribution limits since briefly in the 1990s. Phil Keisling, a former secretary of state who advocated for those caps only to see them overturned in court, described the Legislature’s track record on campaign finance as “one of the most profound public policy failures” in Oregon’s recent history.
“Limits should have been in place decades ago,” he said. “The base problem is that there are powerful forces within both political parties who prefer the system as it is.”
Legislative leaders defended their work.
In a floor speech, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman described the contribution limits the Legislature adopted as delivering on “elections where the voices of everyday people are not drowned out by wealthy and powerful interests making unlimited political contributions.” He described this year’s changes as necessary for the …
Oregon Voters Overwhelmingly Said Yes to Limiting Money in Politics. Then Politicians Had Their Say.
Why resist verification?
Back in 2019, it looked like Oregon lawmakers might finally commit to ending the state’s outlier status on campaign finance.
I had just authored an investigative series for The Oregonian/OregonLive, my previous newsroom, revealing how Oregon’s lack of limits on campaign donations had allowed corporate America to give more to sitting lawmakers, per capita, than anywhere else in the country and led to some of the weakest environmental protections on the West Coast. The state Supreme Court had allowed it to happen by saying campaign donations were protected free speech under the Oregon Constitution.
Lawmakers in Oregon, one of five states without any limits at all, seemed willing to do something about what we’d revealed. They asked Oregonians to change the constitution and explicitly allow contribution limits, something legislators had repeatedly tried and failed to do before. At the ballot in 2020, 78% of voters said yes, one of the widest margins for any ballot measure in decades. All lawmakers needed to do was to write legislation limiting donations.
But for the next four years, no limits were adopted. When lawmakers eventually set caps in 2024, individual donations were restricted to $3,300 per election, well short of caps in the $1,000 to $2,000 range that good-government groups had sought previously. Lawmakers left other avenues for donors to give their time and money. They allowed corporate donations, which many states ban, to continue. They made it so the limits wouldn’t take effect until 2027, after the current race for governor is over.
And now, lawmakers have voted to ratchet the spigot open further — and perhaps, campaign reform advocates say, all the way.
On March 5, Oregon’s Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that supporters described as containing little more than technical fixes to what they’d written two years ago.
Groups that seek to limit the influence of money in politics said the changes are far more serious than housekeeping. They said the new bill inserted loopholes that, among other things, will allow companies to bypass the limits by giving through corporate affiliates.
Dan Meek, an attorney who for years has been at the center of efforts to curtail money in Oregon politics, labeled it “the bill to destroy campaign finance reform in Oregon.”
Oregon elections haven’t had contribution limits since briefly in the 1990s. Phil Keisling, a former secretary of state who advocated for those caps only to see them overturned in court, described the Legislature’s track record on campaign finance as “one of the most profound public policy failures” in Oregon’s recent history.
“Limits should have been in place decades ago,” he said. “The base problem is that there are powerful forces within both political parties who prefer the system as it is.”
Legislative leaders defended their work.
In a floor speech, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman described the contribution limits the Legislature adopted as delivering on “elections where the voices of everyday people are not drowned out by wealthy and powerful interests making unlimited political contributions.” He described this year’s changes as necessary for the …
0 Comments
0 Shares
40 Views
0 Reviews
