Document text
Campaign financing a hard sell Bottom line trips some candidates By PETER WONG When its lines were redrawn in 1991 to match Medford's city limits, House District 50 appeared to be made to order for Bill Mansfield, then a Medford City Council member. Mansfield, a Democrat, was preparing to run against John Watt, a Republican completing his first term in the old district that extended outside the city. But that was before Mansfield learned about the bottom line for a state legislative race. Watt spent almost $100,000 to unseat a Democratic incumbent in 1990, and Mansfield faced the prospect of having to raise even more to mount a serious challenge to Watt in 1992. "I was still trying to earn a living then, and I learned I would have to take off the year before the election to spend my time getting contributions," said Mansfield, a Medford lawyer. "The system deters people if they are working for a living, and so most people cannot afford to do it." Secretary of State Phil Keisling, the state's chief elections officer, said Mansfield's fate is all too common in an era when money dominates campaigns. "If all you have are great ideas and the willingness to knock on 20,000 doors, but no money, you probably are going to lose," he said. Mansfield now is an outspoken advocate of partial public financing, the latest attempt to change the way candidates for Oregon legislative seats and other state offices raise money for campaigns. He said almost any change is preferable to the current system. "I believe a majority of the public wants to see a change in which legislative offices are not purchased, as we are doing currently," he said. "Shame on the Democrats for not doing something about the system when they controlled the Legislature. Shame on the Republicans for not doing it now." A proposal was introduced in the 1999 session, but committees in both chambers ignored it. Keisling said the Legislature appears incapable of changing the system. The Senate passed changes in 1989, 1991 and 1993, but all the bills died in the House. "To reform campaign finance, you are asking 90 legislators who got elected by the old rules to throw them out and make new rules," he said. "It is self-interest that has resulted in a quarter century of legislative failure to enact meaningful reform." Ron Grensky of Jacksonville, who spent more than $100,000 to unseat an incumbent Republican senator and went on to win the seat in 1988, said he worked with other legislators during his term to effect change. But he said change usually is couched in terms of restrictions that work to favor incumbents. "The worst part is that it makes it difficult for a challenger to come from nowhere to beat a sitting legislator," said Grensky, a Medford lawyer. "I'd like to see change, but I am not sure how you are going to do it." Partial public financing has been approved by voters in Arizona, Massachusetts and Maine, and by the legislature in Vermont. It also exists in Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Wisconsin, and in some communities. "Each state is trying something different," said Robert Stern, co-director of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, which studies state and federal campaign finances. "There is no cookie-cutter law that every state should adopt." Stern said states that have had partial public financing of political campaigns the longest have mixed experiences. "Minnesota gives the candidates more money," he said. "Wisconsin does not give the candidates much money, so they do not agree to the spending limits and the system has little effect." State Rep. Judy Uherbelau, D-Ashland, said she is concerned that a candidate who accepts public funds and agrees to spending limits could be at a disadvantage if an opponent declined to do either. "The playing field would be unequal," said Uherbelau, whose 1998 opponent chose not to abide by a voluntary spending limit that Uherbelau had agreed to. "I think there's a germ of a good idea, but it needs work." Bill Lunch, a political science professor at Oregon State University, said he doubts whether Oregon voters are ready to embrace public financing. "If you ask people whether they want to end the current abuses in campaign finances, they say yes overwhelmingly," he said. "But if you ask them whether their tax dollars should be used for political campaigns, they say no." Two previous attempts to change the way Oregon politicians pay for campaigns have fallen victim to the Oregon Supreme Court, which said they violate the free-expression guarantee in the state constitution. The 1973 Legislature limited spending on legislative campaigns to 25 cents per voter, but the court struck that limit down in 1975. Voters approved a 1994 ballot measure setting a $100 limit for contributions to legislative candidates, and instituting voluntary spending limits, but the court struck down the contribution limits after the 1996 campaign. A 1994 measure that limited contributions to a candidate's district or the state also was struck down. State Sen. Lenn Hannon, R-Ashland, said all those efforts at change head in the wrong direction. He thinks those efforts ought to be aimed at changing legislative term limits. "I take exception to the idea that we need campaign finance reform in this country," said Hannon, a senator for 25 years. "I especially do not want to see public financing of campaigns that denies the individual's right to participate." Kip Lombard of Ashland, a state representative from 1977 to 1985, said there's something wrong with the implicit premise by proponents of change that private contributions are bad. "Even in my day, a contribution of $2,500 or $5,000 was not out of the ordinary," he said. "I recall numerous contributions to me in that range -- but I did not feel beholden to any of them." But Keisling said he thinks the public is ready for change. "People think we have a campaign system in which legislators in Salem are far more interested in what contributors want than what citizens want," he said. "They say we cannot deal with funding schools, fixing roads, providing health care and feeding the hungry the way we should. "People know that a change in our system will not cure all the problems. But they like it because they think it will restore a better balance, better people are going to run, candidates will talk about their ideas -- and voters can evaluate them." Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA