Hot Topics (Previous)

On October 10, 2006 The Oregonian published an opinion on Measures 46 and 47
containing many errors. OSBRL recommends the following response:

While The Oregonian admits that Oregon’s initiative system, once designed to express the hopes of the Oregon voters, has become the playground of out-of state millionaires and a cover for out-of-state deep pockets, the newspaper calls Measure 47 an elaborately complicated, constitutionally questionable solution that identifies the problem, but not the answer. This circular argument, deceptive at best, is premised on a number of factual errors.

1. The Oregonian created its own and indeed complicated flow chart of Measure 47 proposed contributions structure, adding extra categories and links not found in the Measure, while omitting or misstating limits and relationships between contribution categories, thus rendering the system incomprehensible. Although The Oregonian article states that the chart was provided by a Measure 47 supporter, in fact the flow chart was created by The Oregonian and bears no resemblance to the chart provided by the authors of the Measure.
   
   

2. Armed with a visually deceptive flow chart, The Oregonian claims the system of limits in Measure 47 is "more likely to swamp Oregon courts than improve Oregon politics."

   In fact, the proposed system is very specific and straightforward. Litigation is invited by vague laws subject to many interpretations, not by laws that are clear and specific, like in Measure 47. Measure 9 passed in Oregon in 1994 was longer and in many ways truly complex, but it did not create a flood of litigation. Traditionally, these measures are carefully written and tend to discourage litigation.

3. The Oregonian says that limits on candidate use of personal wealth "have not been upheld by any court, …a free speech issue…"

   This assertion is misleading, as courts have not ruled on the issue directly. Instead, the Us Supreme Court has recently adopted the circumvention rationale to uphold limits, such as the ban on corporation and union contributions of soft money to political parties. The rationale is that activity which circumvents limits on contributions is subject to control, and does not violate the First Amendment. Unlimited use of personal wealth by a candidate is an easy and apparent way of circumventing the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. Corporations are already practicing it by paying large bonuses to executives to have them retire and run for office.

   Measure 47 is flexible. It contains an automatic adjustment provision should the US Supreme Court hold that Measure 47 limits are too low to satisfy the First Amendment issues. This provision is fashioned after the McCain-Feingold Act.

   Currently, any candidate can spend an unlimited amount of her own money on her campaign. Measure 47 limits this to:

   1. $50,000 in the primary for a statewide office and $50,000 in the general election for a statewide office;
   2. $10,000 in the primary for a non-statewide office and $10,000 in the general election for a non-statewide office;
   3. 50% more than these limits, if the candidate is not the incumbent officeholder.

   Limits on use of personal money by candidates in their own campaigns already exist in Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois (judicial races only), Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Washington (last 21 days before the election only), and West Virginia. [source: Federal Election Commission, http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/cfl/cfl02/cfl02.shtml]

4. The Oregonian says that limits on individual independent expenditures "have not been upheld by any court."

   This statement is irrelevant to what Measure 47 aims to do with the individual independent expenditures. Measure 47 also independent expenditures by corporations and unions and that the United States Supreme Court has always upheld such bans.

   The only limit on individual independent expenditures found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court was a $1,000 limit in federal elections, enacted in 1974. Our limit is 10 times higher.

   The rationale and justification for limiting individual independent expenditures is the same as that for limiting individuals' contributions to candidates -- avoiding the appearance or actuality of obtaining government favors in exchange for campaign funding. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently recognized this rationale as creating a compelling state interest in adopting these limits.

   If all limits on independent expenditures are removed, then we have system similar to the current federal system, and nothing stops any individuals, supporting or opposing any candidate, from making independent expenditures. It is currently the Republicans in Congress, not the Democrats, who are seeking to restrict individual independent expenditures, largely because of one person -- George Soros, who in 2004 gave $23 million to liberal 527 groups. In total, it appears that 25 individuals accounted for $142 million in donations to the 527s in 2004. Houston construction mogul Bob Perry contributed $8 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

5. Oregonian says that "requiring a 3/4 supermajority seems to miss the point of democracy."

   They are referring to the 3/4 majority required by Measure 46 before the Legislature can amend limits on political contributions established by initiative. Without this provision, the 2007 Legislature would probably repeal the limits in Measure 47.The Legislature, elected under the current big money system, has a fundamental conflict of interest. The legislators are those who have succeeded under the big money system and will have every incentive to repeal or radically change the strict limits in Measure 47. That is why Measure 46 does not allow repeal or change by a simple majority vote.

6. The Oregonian refers to a few groups opposing Measures 46 and 47, but never mentions at all a long list o f the supporters of the Measures, which include the state's largest progressive voluntary membership organizations

   Sierra Club of Oregon
   OSPIRG (Oregon State Public Interest Research Group)
   Alliance for Democracy
   Physicians for Social Responsibility
   Pacific Green Party
   Democratic Party of Clackamas County
   Northwest Progressive Community
   Granny D
   Oregon Gray Panthers
   Native Forest Council
   Don't Waste Oregon
   Utility Reform Project
   Injured Workers Alliance
   State Senator Charlie Ringo
   State Senator Bill Morrisette
   Health Care for All Oregon
   Public Action for Clean Elections
   Universal Health Care for Oregon
   Jackson County Citizens for the Public Good
   First Unitarian Church, Economic Justice Action Group
   Ken Lewis, former President of Port of Portland
   Ron Buel, founder of Willamette Week
   Peter Sorensen, former candidate for governor (Democrat)
   State Senator Ryan Deckert (Measure 46)
   State Rep. Dave Hunt (Measure 46)
   Rural Organizing Project (Measure 46)
   Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership (OSBRL)

   Finally, we thankfully note that The Oregonian rightfully described Measures 46 and 47 as “aimed at a very real problem of money in Oregon Politics” and has not come out against Measure 46.