Document text
Campaign finance reform more crucial than ever by Mail Tribune Editorial Board Thursday, March 28th 2019 A A editorial.jpg We wrote in this space Feb. 1 that Oregon should set limits on campaign contributions to candidates. We still think so, but since then, a series of stories in The Oregonian described the colossal scope of the problem. The conclusion is clear: Oregon must act, and voters must make that possible by amending the Oregon Constitution. The Oregonian’s series described a current system that sets no limits at all on contributions — one of only five states in the country where that is true. Corporations and industry groups in particular have taken full advantage of that, giving more money to the average lawmaker per state resident than all but five other states. Some examples: The trucking industry gave 74 percent more money per legislative seat in Oregon in one decade than it did in Washington state, which limits contributions. The timber industry gave more money to winning candidates per capita, per lawmaker and in total dollars in Oregon than anywhere else. Lawmakers will say that campaign contributions don’t guarantee they will vote with the industries that bankroll their campaigns. But The Oregonian’s reporting makes a strong case that the dollars have an effect. Despite its reputation as a green state that values the environment, Oregon has weakened environmental protections or failed to enact new ones in response to corporate pressure. Oregon lags behind most other states in enforcement actions against water polluters, and ranks last among West Coast states on many environmental protections. In 2006, a pair of ballot measures asked Oregon voters if they wanted to set limits on campaign contributions. One of the initiatives, Ballot Measure 47, capped individual donations at $500 for statewide offices and $100 for legislative races. It passed with 53 percent of the vote. But a companion measure that would have amended the state constitution to allow limits failed. So the contribution limits voters said they wanted could not take effect. The free speech clause of the Oregon Constitution is stronger than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the state Supreme Court has ruled that any limits on campaign contributions would be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. Now lawmakers are contemplating a new constitutional amendment to appear on the 2020 ballot, but one that would disqualify the 2006 voter-approved limits and allow lawmakers to set their own limits. Does that idea bother you? It should. News In Photos Loading ...