Oregon has an election problem. It isn't that we vote by mail. That seems to work.
It is campaign finance money. Unlimited amounts of it, from anyone and anywhere.
Oregon has a reputation as a "good government" state with well-run elections and clean politics. I think it is a well-deserved reputation, with one, big glaring problem: Campaign finance.
Tam Moore is a lifelong journalist, who worked in television in his early days and then in print, writing for the Capital Press, a regional newspaper focusing on the agricultural industry. In the mid-1970’s, Moore served as an elected Jackson County Commissioner in southern Oregon.
Guest Post by Tam Moore
Another election season is dawning in Oregon. This time around much attention will focus on sorting out the candidates for governor. Early on well-known Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, is muddling the scene.
Tam Moore
Johnson is running “unaffiliated.” That means when the May primary election rolls around most of Oregon’s 2.9 million registered voters won’t be able to cast a ballot for her. It’s the result of the state allowing political parties to have “closed” primary elections – restricted to voters registered to their party.
What will emerge from a closed primary are two candidates favored by Democrats (with 1,026,313 registered voters) and Republicans (with 729,676 registered voters).
Johnson will earn a place on the November ballot with a petition containing signatures of at least 1 percent of those voting in the 2020 general election. That’s just under 24,000 valid signatures.
Johnson said she grew up a Republican and became a Democrat as the GOP “moved too far to the right.”
In an email sent to supporters last month she said, “Having to choose between another left-wing liberal promising more of the same or a right-wing Trump apologist — is no choice at all.”
Johnson’s declaration prompted The Oregonian/Oregon Live to editorialize, urging both major political parties to voluntarily open their May primary elections to nonaffiliated voters. They could make that choice internally, without a change in Oregon law.
Don’t bet on that happening with either party. In fact don’t bet on much electoral reform at all in Oregon until the people or the Legislature tackle the Elephant in Oregon’s Political Front Room: Campaign Finance reform.
Our problem has its roots in one of this nation’s most specific constitutional free-speech clauses:
“No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.” (Article 1, section 8 Oregon Constitution).
The courts have repeatedly found unconstitutional legislative and initiative efforts to reign in political spending. After voter-approved campaign spending limits passed in November 1994, the Oregon Supreme Court two years later found that seven sections of Measure 9 violate the Oregon Constitution’s free-speech clause.
“[W]e conclude that both campaign contributions and expenditures are forms of expression for the purposes of Article I, section 8,” said the court’s 1996 opinion.
You can read part of what resulted in a four-part series published by The Oregonian in 2019 Click. Reporter Rob Davis built his series around links between Oregon campaign finance law and how government dealt with environmental issues.
“Oregon’s failure to regulate campaign cash has made it one of the biggest money states in American politics,” Davis wrote. “The flood of money created an easy regulatory climate where industry gets what it wants, again and again.”
Among his findings:
· Oregon is one of 11 states allowing people to give as much as they want to political candidates.
· Oregon is one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions.
· On a per capita basis, Oregon ranks first among the 50 states in corporate giving to political campaigns.
The Oregonian looked at 114,000 transactions between 2008 and 2018 involving state legislator’s use of a total of $83 million in campaign contributions. It found that $2.2 million of that spending would have violated the law in at least one other state. The two largest categories were out-of-state travel and family members on campaign payrolls. Oregon allows use of campaign money for expenses “connected with” a legislator’s official duties.
Voters passed Measure 107, a constitutional amendment, in November 2020. It authorizes both the Legislature and local governments to limit campaign contributions and expenditures. The measure earned approval of 78 percent of voters.
So what happened in the 2021 session? Bills that would limit campaign contributions were on the sidelines when the Legislature adjourned.
Honest Elections Oregon, a political action committee which promoted passage of Measure 107, is working on a couple of initiatives which would implement the new constitutional amendment. Dan Meek, part of leadership at Honest Elections, says draft language would include disclaimer requirements, contribution limits and additional disclosure requirements. One version of the initiative would include some form of public funding of campaigns for statewide office. Meek says the draft initiatives use statutory language rather than proposing constitutional amendments.
While Honest Elections works on its initiatives, the cash flows into Oregon’s pending gubernatorial races. Nick Kristoff, the Yamhill native and former New York Times columnist made recent headlines with an initial campaign finance report showing $1 million in donations.
On November 18, Senator Johnson's initial campaign finance report came out--over $2.3 million in the bank! Wow, what a start to an election that's one year away.
3 comments:
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech, based on a core conservative principle: money talks. Thus, the more money you give politicians, the better they can hear you.
Not much is likely to change until that does. As a Nobel prize-winning poet once noted, “Money doesn’t talk, it swears.”
Money = Speech.
OK...
To my way thinking this is rational only if humans are incorruptible. To determine a candidate's qualifications for public office by the amount of money they can raise and spend seems absurd, yet this is what has evolved. Citizens United and other rulings that lift restraints on corporate spending tilt political power away from the common good as well as creating conflicts of interest for corporations that cannot support initiatives that impact their bottom line, like environmental regulation.
Most of the money is spent on coercive media advertising, much of which is misleading and irrelevant to actual issues. If anything, money in politics drowns out speech and encourages voter apathy.
Public funding through political parties and strict limits or bans on private donations would go a long way to solving this dilemma, but this is another place where Progressives are boxed in by Regressives and at a disadvantage if they promote actual fairness, so we cannot move forward.
For what it's worth it is generally corrupt third world countries that don't have common sense political funding mechanisms.
If corporations are people too, how come none have ever died in wars that kill/main Americans?
Corporations don't make sacrifices. They make money for their owners. They provide jobs so they can exploit people in a quest for profits.
Post a Comment