Common Sense Campaign Finance
Earlier today, a new campaign finance initiative was filed with the Secretary of State. Sponsored by Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland), former Rep. Larry Perry (D-Eugene), and former AP capitol reporter Chuck Beggs, the measure is known as the "Common Sense Campaign Finance" measure. [Previously, Buckley withdrew his support for other campaign finance efforts currently collecting signatures.]
The complete text of the proposed constitutional amendment:
The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section 25 to be added to and made a part of Article II, such section to read:Section 25. (1) A corporation or labor organization may not make a contribution from treasury funds to any candidate for nomination or election to state or local public office, or to any political committee supporting or opposing a candidate for nomination or election to state or local public office.
(2) In a calendar year, an individual may not contribute an aggregate amount exceeding $15,000 to all candidates for nomination or election to state or local public office and all other political committees supporting or opposing a candidate for nomination or election to state or local public office. This subsection does not apply to contributions made from the personal funds of a candidate to the candidate.
(3) For each calendar year, the Secretary of State, by rule, shall adjust the amount of the aggregate contribution limit described in subsection (2) of this section to account for changes in consumer prices. The secretary shall use an official indicator of consumer prices and round the adjusted amount to the closest dollar.
More details after the jump....
From the press release:
“For campaign finance reform to work, it must be simple and clear,” Buckley said. “This initiative is but a few short paragraphs, but it would fundamentally change Oregon politics by putting an end to a system dominated by large corporations and a handful of super-rich individuals.”“Big-money political campaigns have badly undermined democracy in Oregon,” Perry stated. “The moneyed interests have diminished the role of ordinary citizens in their own government. People distrustful and skeptical of a system awash in money are non-participants.”
Regarding the other two measures on the street:
The “Common Sense Campaign Finance Reform” will join two other campaign finance reform efforts, Petitions 8 and 37, in the signature-gathering arena this year. Buckley was an early proponent and a chief petitioner for Petition 37, but announced his opposition to the proposal following months of discussions with individuals throughout the state, legal consultants, and organizations such the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and a number of grassroots political groups.“Petition 37 has a potential to backfire in very significant ways,” Buckley explained. “Every attorney I have spoken to has stated that at least two of its key provisions will be challenged and overturned by the courts, and if that should happen, the campaign system left in place would have the exact opposite result of what is desired with reform—it would actually provide significantly greater advantages to wealthy candidates and wealthy political players.”
On the chance for success:
“It took 18 months, but I think we finally got the language right,” Buckley explained. “We want to make sure that the changes we make are effective as well as legally sound. I’m confident that if we can get the initiative on the ballot, it will pass. And if we get it passed it will be a significant step in the direction the vast majority of Oregonians want to go in—campaigns that are less expensive, fairer and more representative of the people of our state.”Buckley acknowledges that gathering the required signatures prior to the July 2 deadline will be a significant challenge.
“To succeed in bringing about real reform, we need to all work together,” said Buckley. “In filing this petition, we call upon campaign finance advocates to unite around the Common Sense Campaign Finance Reform Initiative – a clear, workable proposal that the voters of Oregon can endorse in good conscience.”
Discuss.
|
February 7, 2006 |
open discussion | Comments (95 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Rodney King | Feb 7, 2006 4:52:54 PM
So let me get this straight: Buckley was a chief petitioner on #37, but is now opposed to the measure because he thinks it will backfire when its limits on independent expenditures are overturned.
But other folks won't give up #37, so now we have the left divided on campaign finance reform, which ought to be an issue we can unite around.
Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 7, 2006 5:02:15 PM
Pretty much this is an argument between the folks who don't want anything unless they can craft the perfect end-all-be-all measure (in their view) -- and the folks who want to successfully take a first step, make it a solid one, and then build on that success.
Posted by: JTT | Feb 7, 2006 5:07:29 PM
Rodney-
The left is not devided on campaign finance reform. All of the major progressive organizations (unions, coalitions, etc.) in the state, including the Democratic Party, oppose P37. It's just really bad policy.
JB-
Do you really think that individuals should be able to write $700,000 checks?(to Mannix in 2002) If you read the text of the measure, the limit on individuals is $15k per year (adjusted to inflation). Come on $15 big ones? What average voter contributes more than $15k/year to politicians? Sounds reasonable to me. While I too support public financing, the state on the whole isn't ready for it. This seems to be a logical first step in the right direction.
Furthermore, Oregon currently does not have ANY restrictions on campaign contributions. We are one of only 6 (or is it 5) states with NO campaign limits.
Posted by: Down with 37 | Feb 7, 2006 5:17:17 PM
Three cheers for Buckley!
At least he figured out that the history of CFR is littered with overly complicated reform that ends up making things worse.
We never would have had Swift Vote Veterans for Truth without McCain Feingold, for instance.
Petition 37 is awful for more reasons than he points out. We do need contribution limits In Oregon, but not a soviet-style regime that seeks to proscribe what everyone can say and do in politics.
It would take away the voice of progressive non-profits by severely limiting what they can say and do to educate voters on elections.
It would give the right a huge advantage by letting so called small donor committees which receive contributions of $50 or less (like Oregon Right to Life PAC) spend whatver they want, while prohibiting political non-profits like NARAL from raising more than $500 from any donor. (So much for paid staff.)
It would require political donors to actually register in advance with the state and receive an ID number --Patriot Act, anyone?-- so their actions can be tracked.
Finally, it does nothing to stop the flow of money into ballot measures, which is where the fight is these days.
Seems like Buckley's measure is a step in the right direction. Here's hoping the left will jump on board and not throw up their hands at the confusion between Buckley's old petition #37 and the new Common Sense petition.
Posted by: TM | Feb 7, 2006 5:41:23 PM
Patty is that you? Folks, literally every example stated in the post by "Down with 37" is false, and is unfortunately part of a coordinated smear campaign by an organization calling itself "Our Oregon". If you would like to get the facts on the matter, visit Fair Elections Oregon's webiste at www.fairelections.net.
Posted by: Progvoice | Feb 7, 2006 6:00:41 PM
Kari Chisholm -
and the folks who want to successfully take a first step, make it a solid one, and then build on that success.
I wouldn't call putting all the language of the measure into the constitution a first step. I would call opening the door to campaign finance via the constitution (Petition 8,) and drafting language that closes the loop holes (Petition 37.) A good way to start the experiment.
JTT-
All of the major progressive organizations (unions, coalitions, etc.) in the state, including the Democratic Party, oppose P37. It's just really bad policy.
None of these Orgs have stated that they oppose as yet. Where are you getting this information? Bad policy? Please explain how.
What average voter contributes more than $15k/year to politicians??
Tom Moyer for one. In fact he could funnel money to candidates as he has in the past through his secretary, grandaughter, other family etc... enough to surpass any real limitations. And you don't think that other weathly (and right wing,) people wouldn't do the same? You don't think that money would pour in from all over in 15k increments? How would that help progessive causes? Low limits are the key to blocking that loophole. I for one would love to see a day when candidates would have to appeal one-on-one to Oregonians to get those small checks and votes.
Down with 37-
It would give the right a huge advantage by letting so called small donor committees which receive contributions of $50 or less (like Oregon Right to Life PAC) spend whatver they want, while prohibiting political non-profits like NARAL from raising more than $500 from any donor. (So much for paid staff.)
Please explain why NARAL and gang could not set up small donor commities. Do you know how much Oregon Right to Life PAC has spent on canditate campaigns compared to corporations? It doesn't even register on a graph.
The rest of your comments seem geared to inflame or mislead so I won't even respond.
Regardless, it seems unlikely that Peter's Contitutional Ammendment will even be able to garnish the requisite signatures in time to make the ballot without heroic levels of money. I'd be interested in seeing what special interest will fund that. I'd also like to see who will collect the sigs for that. I guess he could go to Ted Blasak who just took $350k from corps to counter public funding of elections. He's a friend of the unions too.
Posted by: Ron Ledbury | Feb 7, 2006 6:07:20 PM
Facially unconstitutional with this very utterance "labor organization[.]"
Who drafts these things?
The US Constitution's First Amendment already has a dividing line, and that is the absence of the advocacy of violence.
The right of association is right there in the First Amendment too. And an association to do nothing more than rant or rave about a candidate would be about as "core" as one could possibly come to the notion of retaining the individual right to tell the government to go jump in a lake.
I would hope that our lives are not supposed to be fully consumed with saving and consumption for its own sake, and that we must confine our dollar investment in the political process. Why not target something even remotely closer to being wealth neutral . . . say limiting ones participation to 500 hours in a given year. But then we would get to realize our scarcity of free time, like maybe 2 hours per week for most folks if they fight to make time. So to be fair and even handed to the poor and free-time-rich we could further restrict it to 100 hours of whatever in a given year. And then who would monitor the limit on the hours? You guys are crazy.
While the corporate form of organization must necessarily involve consent to statutory conditions to avail themselves of limited liability a labor organization does not need to have filed anything with the state. A bargaining unit, without an affiliation with any other entity, can surely speak collectively, and even create effigies of their opponent to fire up in the heat of a strike, out on the street. And then the issue is whether it is a fire hazard or not. It is not whether it is a fire hazard, but only if it was a labor organization that started it.
Labor needs no enemies with friends like these at their side.
Suppose that the OEA and the NEA agree to accept the restrictions on individual liberties, for political expediency reasons. That will tell me more about their organization, and their legal representatives, than the proposed initiative.
If you don't believe me then go get a copy of the my Articles of Incorporation for Associated Portland Educators (via pdxape.us) and trot on over to the offices of the recognized top civil liberties advocate in this state and ask him. You will save yourself some money.
Posted by: activist kaza | Feb 7, 2006 6:49:40 PM
As much as I appreciate Peter Buckley and his positions on many issues, I am VERY disappointed with him on this one. Backing away from 37 (presumably due to union pressure) and introducing this alternative which is: (a) tepid; (b) likely unconstitutional in its own right; and (c) has no chance of making it to the ballot this year...smells a lot like a plan to divide and conquer!
Progressives should unite around 8/37 and read the language at their website before believing any of the nonsense that opponents throw out ("soviet-style regime"...puhleez!).
Can anybody give me a good reason why individuals should be able to give $15k in an Oregon race (allowable under Buckley's measure) when you can give only $4,000 to a Federal candidate (House, Senate, Prez.)? Does this really sound campaign finance reform?
Posted by: Dan Meek | Feb 7, 2006 6:51:33 PM
Unfortunately, Petition 150 would be completely ineffective in limiting corporate or union money going to elect or defeat candidates.
First, it authorizes only limits on funds contributed directly to candidates or political committees. It does not authorize any limits on independent expenditures. Thus, any corporation that wishes to support Cindy Smith for office remains perfectly free to use infinite funds to promote Cindy Smith in TV ads, radio ads, newspapers, and all other media. They do not even have to identify themselves in any of the ads, because the Oregon Legislature repealed the political "tagline" requirement just a few years back. Even if independent spenders did need to identify themselves, they could use a nice name, like the "Better Government Committee." The result will be essentially identical to making contributions directly to Cindy Smith's campaign, and big money will continue to dominate elections in Oregon.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 upheld Michigan's ban on independent expenditures by corporations to support or oppose candidates (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce). In 2005, the Court reiterated that position in upholding the McCain-Feingold limits on the federal level and extended it to unions. The Court stated: "Congress’ power to prohibit corporations and unions from using funds in their treasuries to finance advertisements expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates in federal elections has been firmly embedded in our law." 124 S. Ct. at 694. That also means that states can do the same, under the First Amendment.
Yet, Petition 150 does not attempt to allow limits on independent expenditures. Petition 8, on the other hand, authorizes the Legislature and the people using the initiative process to limit independent expenditures, because it authorizes limits on "contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election."
Second, a major problem with Petition 150 is that it leaves large gaps in defining entities that can be limited. It allows only restrictions on "a corporation or labor organization" or "an individual." What about entities that are not corporations or labor organizations, such as unincorporated groups or associations? Petition 150 would not allow any limits on such organizations (including, for example, sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships, associations, joint ventures, clubs, groups), as long as those entities have money.
Third, Petition 150 expressly does not limit use of a candidate's personal wealth. If its other limits were in any way effective, the result would be reserving important public offices for those wealthy enough to personally fund their own campaigns. Note that limits on use of personal wealth are already law in Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, and West Virginia (according to the Federal Election Commission's survey of state laws). Washington also has a limit but it kicks in only during the last 21 days of the campaign.
Fourth, Petition 150 uses many terms that it does not define. This will allow the Legislature to define those terms as it likes. Since the Legislature in power whenever this amendment would take effect would consist of those elected under the current system of big money and no limits, those officeholders will almost certainly want to avoid limits (just like the Massachusetts legislature in 2003 repealed that state's campaign finance reform law on a voice vote). If they wished to continue to receive direct contributions from corporations and unions (in addition to benefiting from their unlimited independent expenditures), they could simply pass a statute allowing entities that are not "political committees" to expend funds supporting or opposing candidates. Call those entities "democracy cooperatives," and the limits in Petition 150 do not apply (because Petition 150 allows only limits on contributions to a candidate or a "political committee," without defining that term).
I would prefer a constitutional amendment that would be effective in limiting big money in Oregon politics. That is Petition 8, which reads:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people through the initiative process, or the Legislative Assembly by a three-fourths vote of both Houses, may enact and amend laws to prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election."
More information is available at:
FairElections Oregon
Posted by: Dan Meek | Feb 7, 2006 7:23:46 PM
I see comments above about Petition 37, the detailed campaign finance reform statute now on the streets.
For a complete response to those comments, check out FairElections Facts (response to "Our Oregon")
Posted by: Down with 37 | Feb 7, 2006 7:40:44 PM
A smear campaign? Oh my! No need to start calling names ("patty" seems to be a particularly vicious smear!) Although I do trust Our Oregon over some anonymous web blog, and their information was useful as I started researching the measure.
But by all means, read the text of the measure on the fair elections site. I did. All 8,278 words of it. Or, just look at this convoluted chart they put up to make it all seem so simple:
http://www.fairelections.net/pet37chart.pdf
Or, just read the Albany Democrat Herald, which I found online:
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2005/12/04/news/opinion/edit01.t
Welcome to the Gulag!
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 7, 2006 7:43:20 PM
I believe that Buckley's new CFR is a great first step and is much more likely to pass than M37 will.
Representatives with the Democratic Party have already come out against M37. Many progressive and labor organizations have stated they are against it as well. I've heard quite a bit of opposition to it at the meetings I go to-- and that's amongst the Democrat/progressive community.
Do I think the measure goes far enough? No.
Do I think it's a really good start? Yes.
That's one of the things that has driven me crazy about Dems over the past decade-- if you can't get it all at once, then it's not good enough.
Do you think that's how the Republicans went about taking over the country? No. It took the Christian Coalition type R's 15 years to take over their party and then 15 to take over the country.
Change isn't made overnight, nor is it made in one huge step.
Sometimes you've got to make a small change, let people see how that small change helped, and then make another small change.
And before anyone starts attacking me-- I'm not with any labor organization, nor Our Oregon. I originally felt lukewarm support for 8/37-- I even did some paid work for the organization that put it forth. However, the more I thought on it, the more I realized that it was too much at once and would likely fail at the ballots.
Posted by: TM | Feb 7, 2006 8:03:02 PM
Down with 37 wrote: "Welcome to the Gulag!"
What's that supposed to mean anyway? We'll okay, I went to the Albany Democrat Herald to check out the op-ed you referenced. Here's my favorite part:
"Most people might be inclined to favor a limit or a ban on contributions made by fat cats in order to get favors in the legislative process. But the facts of life are that big money will find a way to affect the political process one way or another."
Posted by: Patty | Feb 7, 2006 8:08:50 PM
"Patty is that you?"
LOL. No, TM (if that's your real name), it isn't me. I've been too busy looking at the contribution and expenditure reports for the ballot measures. I don't post on BlueOregon anonymously. When I've got something to say, you'll know it's me.
For example: Where are are the C & E reports for the 8 and 37 campaigns? They were due yesterday. The Statesman Journal reports that they weren't turned in. Did you guys turn them in today so late that they haven't been posted? (FreedomWorks turned theirs in today and they're online.)
The current campaign finance laws are there to add transparency to the system. That's why there are legal deadlines that even Bill Sizemore right-wing meets.
Would I being too coy by half to make the point that the 8 and 37 backers say they want to reform Oregon's campaign laws yet they aren't meeting the ones that are already in place? Maybe. But I'm going to say it anyway.
Patty
Posted by: Bill Hooker | Feb 7, 2006 8:13:45 PM
The "common sense" petition: I cannot see a way past Dan's arguments against this. It is simply too weak to have any effect.
P8: strikes me as an essential first step
P37: seems reasonable to me on first read. The most damning criticism was Peter Buckley's "at least two of its key provisions will be challenged and overturned by the courts, and if that should happen, the campaign system left in place would have the exact opposite result of what is desired". Which two provisions, and on what basis would they be overturned? This is not addressed by FairElections Oregon as far as I can see (I looked around the website and read the "response to Our Oregon" pdf).
Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Feb 7, 2006 8:16:52 PM
Several points here--
First, why is everybody typing in italics?
Second, thanks to Kari and Blue Oregon for giving some focus to this issue.
Third, one thing I very much respect about Dan Meek (besides his constant and tireless work on behalf of all of us who want basic fairness and justice in Oregon) is that he absolutely gets the need for campaign finance reform and has done a great job in defining campaign funding as a plumbing system with the flow of money moving through it. His work on P37 (and people should know he wrote over 35 drafts of the proposal, and constantly sought feedback) is a strong attempt to create a plumbing system that will reduce the amount of water in the system and to funnel it through pipes that are people-powered. His desire for true democracy is what fuels the effort.
My disagreement with 37 and the push I'm making with 150 is based on that same kind of view of campaign financing as a plumbing system. Petition 37 seeks to create a number of small pipes (individual contributions to campaigns), some medium pipes (independent expenditures, candidates' contributions to their own campaigns, PAC and party donations) and one large pipe (small donor committees). The problem is that virtually every legal consultant who has read 37 says that that plumbing system will be overturned by the courts, that we will end up with a plumbing system instead with huge pipes for independent expenditures and candidates's contributions to their own campaigns, along with the small donor big pipe, and those three pipes will dominate the entire system.
I can't see that system as being beneficial. I very much back the small donor committee concept, but it cannot, by itself, compete with the major pipes of independent expenditures and personal contributions. I know Dan disagrees, but my view is that if the Oregon Supreme Court is going to uphold pole dancing as protected expression, it is never going to agree to limits on individual independent expenditures or limits on personal contributions to one's own campaign.
Givent that as a reality, Petition 150, as a first step, proposes a plumbing system with a series of medium sized pipes, small enough to cut out corporate dominance or mega-rich dominance of campaign funding but large enough to protect the system from being overwhelmed the funds flowing through any other pipe.
Will Petition 150, by itself, clean up the entire system in one fell swoop? Nope. But it will clean the system and regulate it, and set the stage for the next steps that must happen.
Andrew expressed disappointment that 150 would allow someone to donate up to $15,000 to a single campaign. I also believe that is too much for one individual to donate to a single campaign, even if that means that the individual can't donate to any other campaign that year. Let's go after that next. At present, we have no plumbing system at all, just a free flowing, overwhelming stream of money. The first step is to get it flowing through a defined, fair system. The next step is to upgrade the system with balanced limits on the pipes that the courts will let us limit, while making sure the other pipes don't get too large in the process. The ultimate step, for me, is voter-owned elections, as Portland is trying to bring forth. Petiton 150 compliments that effort in a significant way. It's a great step forward, in my view, and I very much appreciate the time and care given to it over the many months of conversation, proposals and refining.
Thanks for all of you who care enough to post and debate this as well.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 7, 2006 8:26:27 PM
Thanks to whoever fixed the italics. It's one of the downsides to not being able to edit your posts-- when someone sees they've left the italics or bold open, they can't easily go back and fix it.
Rep. Buckley-- I have one quick question.
Would the individual contribution limits apply to those from out-of-state who contribute to campaigns?
I hope so, as it was amazing to see the individual contributions of $20,000 to Republican legislative candidates and the Republican PACs for the legislature from the heads of the big payday loan companies.
It'll also be nice to not see those multi-thousand dollar checks from pharmaceutical companies, telecommunication companies, etc.
I've recently finished an Excel file that has all the contributions that Minnis received over the past few years. Speaker's PAC and Majority 2004 (now 06) are next. It's something else to see how many $5000, $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 contributions from the heads of companies and corporations show up in those C&E reports.
Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Feb 7, 2006 8:56:09 PM
Jenni--
I think the italics are still on...
The $15,000 cap applies to everyone, no matter if they live within the state or not. Just to be clear, though, this is only the first step. We will still need to push forward in 2008, 2010, and so on to get to the kind of system we need.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 7, 2006 9:04:24 PM
Odd... the italics have disappeared at the bottom for me.
I'm glad to hear it applies to everyone.
And you're right, it's a first step. We can't then stop working on the issue just because we move forward a step. We keep working on it until it is the best system it can be.
I get tired of people shooting down ballot measures or legislation just because it doesn't do everything. Instead of looking at it that way, we should look at it this way:
Does it forward the cause, whether it be CFR, environmental protection, consumer protection, etc.?
Is it a step in the right direction?
Would we be better off with those changes than what we have now?
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 7, 2006 9:22:46 PM
#8 and #37 sponsors/supporters: Are you going to self-impose contribution limits of $15,000 or under to qualify and pass your initiatives?
Posted by: Progvoice | Feb 7, 2006 9:36:06 PM
#8 and #37 sponsors/supporters: Are you going to self-impose
contribution limits of $15,000 or under to qualify and pass your
initiatives?
Well since the point of the measure is to create a level playing field, it would be assinine to hold your self to a standard that your opponents won't. I would think that with the corporate money that is going to flow in against this, it would be unwise to work that way.
If it's a matter of "principles," this measure only affects candidate campaigns, not initiatives, so there is no connect. There are suitable and numerous roadblocks to initiative qualification as it is.
Posted by: LT | Feb 7, 2006 11:00:38 PM
Backing away from 37 (presumably due to union pressure) and introducing this alternative which is: (a) tepid; (b) likely unconstitutional in its own right; and (c) has no chance of making it to the ballot this year...smells a lot like a plan to divide and conquer!
Kaza: where do you get your presumption of union pressure?
As I understand it, there were rural Democratic chairs worried that the Lonsdale-supported measure would make people spend more time than they do now dialing for dollars because the limits were too low (would they be so low that a contribution wouldn't pay for the gas for a trip around a large rural district?).
I don't know if that is petition 37 or not, but it seems to me that too many people are too willing to demonize unions as the cause of all problems and if only unions went away there would be no problems.
Kaza, if that is what you are saying, I wonder if you personally would have provided the resources the unions provided to rein in the excesses of Sizemore et. al? Or are you a Sizemore fan? Or are you one of those who believes in an unregulated paid initiative system because you think being an initiativemeister is an honest way to make a living?I know people who never belonged to unions who have been grateful for restrictions on the initiative business--was making a living off initiatives what Wm. S. U'ren had in mind when he was the father of our current system about a century ago?
I remember the Measure 9 campaign finance reform measure--the one which passed in all 36 counties and was later struck down. That measure was not perfect, but it proved campaign finance reform could pass in Oregon. But I DO think it matters how the measures are worded, and if Buckley thinks another measure is better worded than an earlier measure, I'm glad he changed his mind.
Or would Kaza have us believe that any Oregonian who ever had anything to do with any version of a ballot measure was obligated to support it all year even if someone pointed out flaws in the wording?
And which union do all the Democratic county chairs belong to? Is it possible some of them are self-employed?
Posted by: Dan Meek | Feb 7, 2006 11:55:50 PM
I have learned that the C&Es for the chief petitioner committees for Petitions 8 and 37 were sent to the Secretary of State by email today and that the C&E guru was laid up (diagnosis: severe bronchitis, perhaps pneumonia).
Did "Our Oregon" file a C&E? Does it disclose its sources of funding and amounts for its activities, including opposing the qualification Petitions 8 and 37 for the ballot?
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 8, 2006 12:36:38 AM
I asked earlier: #8 and #37 sponsors/supporters: Are you going to self-impose
contribution limits of $15,000 or under to qualify and pass your
initiatives?
Prog responded: Well since the point of the measure is to create a level playing field, it would be assinine to hold your self to a standard that your opponents won't.
Dan Meek, are you and other sponsors of #8 & #37 willing to limit your contributions to $15K if the other side limits contributions to the same level as well?
Posted by: Ron Ledbury | Feb 8, 2006 12:47:43 AM
Keep it simple.
No artificial entity that receives tax deductible donations or that receives funds that are not derived directly from individuals with their complete verifiable consent or that can claim the benefit of limited liability under the laws of this state or under the laws of any other state or the federal government shall use any of their resources or their name to support or oppose candidates for elective office.
Under such a formulation the owner members of Oregon Restaurant Association could themselves form an association of "owners" from their personal resources, their individual after tax personal resources.
Under such a formulation the individual members of Oregon Education Association could themselves form a parallel association, with funds derived from their individual after tax personal resources.
A state constitution is a document of limitation, not authorization. The above formulation would limit the ability of the legislature to play favorites in the election process through authorizing the creation of an ever growing, and dizzying, array of artificial entities.
I see no reason why a rich person should not be free to spend themselves into the poor house by supporting or opposing some candidate or issue, other than their receipt of a loan, in which case the lender should immediately be deemed to have been the contributor.
I say let the advocates of artificial entities fight those who believe that free speech and our government belongs to individuals. Let them knock themselves out and let them show their true colors as the principal opponents of individual liberty.
Posted by: activist kaza | Feb 8, 2006 6:10:03 AM
LT:
Sorry, but I don't get most of your rant against me. I am not "anti-union," and neither are petitions 8 & 37. I believe (rightly or wrongly) that most of the opposition to these petitions is not with the average Joe but coming from organizations (including unions) with a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Unfortunately, Rep. Buckley (whom I respect enormously) pretty much keeps the status quo intact with his proposed language, IMHO. Of course I respect his right to change his mind as I know he respects my right to disagree with his decision!
BTW, I am not an "initiativemeister" (whatever that means) or independently wealthy either...
Posted by: visitor | Feb 8, 2006 7:37:51 AM
Why have none of the advocates of contribution limits (whether it is the Petition #8 & #37 style, or the new #150 style) addressed the first comment by JB? It seems like we are engaged in a "drug war" on campaign money without really addressing the so-called "need" for big money in campaigns.
Why aren't the advocates for contribution/expenditure limits asking who is benefiting by the influx of money in campaigns? It certainly is true that it is not the candidate, nor is it the people. The former would probably rather spend time meeting voters and working on bringing innovative ideas to the table, and the latter doesn't get to know a candidate by the 30-second television commercial or the multiple glossy postcards with a few catch phrases. So where does the money go and why aren't we concerned with that?
Attempting to turn off the spigot of money without addressing the use/need of the money seems misguided and potentially dangerous.
We should get answers to these questions before we start amending our constitution and limiting anyone's speech. Before we limit what little (and admittedly, inadequate) public discourse we have during the campaign season, let us innovate the campaigns themselves to reduce their so-called dependence on big money.
And, in addition to those who advocate campaign limits, perhaps the gracious host of this website, who also runs campaign websites, can help answer these questions. . . .
Posted by: Chris Garrett | Feb 8, 2006 9:22:53 AM
Have the petitioners gotten a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a $15,000 cap on an individual's "aggregate" contributions to ALL state or local candidates and PACs? This seems very problematic. I don't believe the Supreme Court has approved this type of prohibition on an individual's political activity. The logic that the Court has historically accepted for limits on contributions to a single candidate -- the avoidance of actual or apparent corruption -- does not exist for limiting aggregate contributions.
I also don't understand the public policy behind the aggregate cap. If I spread my $15,000 around in $1000 contributions to 15 candidates and PACs, what is the harm to society if I want to contribute an additional $25 to one more candidate?
Posted by: Bill Hooker | Feb 8, 2006 9:34:07 AM
Re: italics, I closed 'em for my post and everyone after, but the blog owner must have fixed everything upstream of me. Just put >/i< at the start of your post.
Rep. Buckley: can you provide more detail on the potential overturn of P37? Which provisions, on what basis?
JB, visitor: there might be a way around the "freedom of speech" issue in JB's point about campaign spending limits. It seems to be pretty well established that a spending limit is a speech limit, so rather than limit individual speech, why not focus on limiting campaign speech? Just as an individual cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and claim free speech, it does not seem that a candidate for public office can make a strong claim that his/her freedom of speech is unreasonably limited by spending limits, if those same limits apply to all of his/her opponents.
Posted by: Bill Hooker | Feb 8, 2006 9:36:06 AM
I'm a dork: </i>, of course.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 8, 2006 10:04:18 AM
"The rich have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more homes, vacations, gadgets and gizmos, but they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else. " -Bill Moyers
So, init #150 is bad in part because 1) it does not limit personal wealth (Dan Meek, above) 2) it sets a $15K limit that is too high (progvoice, above). But wealthy supporters of #8 and #37 should be entitled to have more than $15K worth of speech, and no limits on the use of persoanl wealth to qualify & pass their initiatives. Even if the other side agrees to limits, is that your position?
BTW: I do not work with OurOregon and am not speaking for them or their campaign.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Feb 8, 2006 11:06:34 AM
i'm not terribly bright on these things, so could someone please explain how 150 limits corporations as it does unions? unions seem to have a blanket limit of zero; individuals just a limit (!) of $15,000. what am i missing?
2nd, why are we Oregonians so obsessed with (screwing with) our constitution? is this our only option? just reading thru this thread demonstrates how little agreement there is on this topic. perpetrators of initiatives claim they are Voices for Common Sense & Simplicity (and that we Common Citizens should be Grateful and Cooperative, if we know What's Good For Us), and that is rarely the case (well, M36 was pretty frikkin clear). most of these things die in the court because they are badly written; the ones that survive twist existing law into such knots that we lose completely the intent of those who promoted it in the first place.
granted, our Legislature has a wee problem fixing this sort of thing. how nice if they could pass CFR. and who knows? the right Leg might do so next year. i'm not holding my breath, but i've learned to fear ballot measures at least as much as the Leg. with the latter, i can drop Rep Gelser or Sen Morse an email, have a face-to-face with them, organize constituent pressure to bear on them and their (theoretically recalcitrant) colleagues. with a ballot measure that has been bought and paid into law, i get to sit back and hope the damn thing doesn't explode.
i hope Portlands Voter-owned Elections work; that's a fix i can endorse. the rest of you scare the hell out of me.
Posted by: Eulia | Feb 8, 2006 11:19:46 AM
If you do not have a copy of the Initiatives 8 and 37 please get printouts at Fairelections.net. Initiative 8 is short and clear allowing establishment of CFR through initiative either by petition or the legislature.
For 37 read when you have ample time. Direct any questions for complete answers via the contact link at the site. I have heard some supposedly educated people oppose Initiative 37 and it was shamefully obvious they did not have the time to comprehend this initiative fully. If these people are really supporters of CFR they should review each section carefully and direct any questions using the link offered at Fairelections website.
Approval of corresponding measure to Initiave 37 by vote of the people in November 2006 will immediately replace rampant political corruption that flourishes in Oregon elections now.
There will be immediate fairness for all voters because they will be able to have genuine influence in who gets elected. The present campaign patterns that insure candidates with the greatest amount of monies will win- with rare exception- will be abolished!
Furthermore: Fair elections through approval of a corresponding measure to Inititive 37 will enable for a talented candidate with little money from the middle and even lower class to run a fair campaign and to win an election!
Fair elections is the key to a bright future for Oregonians.
Initiative 150 does not provide for any fair elections. While a well intended endeavor, it was done in haste. is not thorough, does not try to stop the continuing havoc caused by BIG corporate dollars that pour into our state.
If you have not signed Inititives 8 and 37 yet as an active registered voter, please make every effort to do so. The power of your signature will help make Oregon whole again! A recent poll shows that overwhelmingly voters will approve campaign finance reform. Visit Fairelections.net. to get the real facts.
Posted by: anonymous | Feb 8, 2006 11:45:31 AM
It's funny that the same people who are saying not to worry about #8 and #37 hurting the choice community are the same geniuses who were telling anyone who'd listen in 2000 that there were no real differences between Bush and Gore.
Thanks for that great Bush energy policy folks!
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 8, 2006 12:08:24 PM
Both Rep. Buckley and Dan Meek are great guys in my book.
Buckley believes P37 would be found unconstitutional. Meek doesn't. I'll go with Meek's evaluation, based on his record of getting courts to agree with him.
Anyone who remembers 1996 should realize that not dealing with independent expenditures is a fatal flaw. Better to support an initiative that MAY be overturned in court than one that will not work if it is upheld in court.
P8 and P37 are well on their way to making the ballot. I am diappointed that Peter Buckley would file a petition that, if it makes the ballot, will confuse voters who want campaign finance reform.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 8, 2006 12:15:55 PM
t.a.,
The overturn of 1996's CFR measure makes a constitutional ammendment a necessity to set contribution limits. There is no getting around this.
Voluntary public financing, as in Portland, Arizona, and Maine is a great idea. It has, however, not been successful anywhere that does not have contribution limits as well. Is this coincidence? I believe not. Contribution limits promotes the use of the public system.
Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Feb 8, 2006 2:09:09 PM
Again, thank for all the comments and questions. Tom makes a significant point in that limits are essential to make the public financing system work, and that is where Oregon needs to go. Petition 150 is the first step towards setting limits. It will need to be followed up in order to define how much of the $15,000 per year can go to specific campaigns. Here's where 150 is similar to 8 and 37:
--it puts into the constitution our ability to limit contributions to campaigns.
--it bans corporate and union treasury funds. Unions will still be able to bundle contributions from their members to contribute to campaigns.
Here's where 150 differs from 8/37:
--it places a $15,000 per year aggregate on what an individual can contribute for or against candidates for local and state office and adjusts the aggregate for inflation; 37 places a $2,500 per year aggregate on individual contributions for or against candidates, and does not adjust for inflation. This is a vital detail in that virtually every progressive group in Oregon has stated that the $2,500 aggregate would take so much of the funding out of the system that groups like Planned Parenthood, BRO, the Bus Project, etc. would be tremendously damaged in their ability to be financially stable and participate in the political process.
Another huge concern on the aggregate level is playing itself out in Colorado, where a system similar to 37 was voted into place in 2002 and was in effect in 2004. The initial result was very positive in terms of victories by the progressive side. But the strong majority of progressives in that state that I spoke to expressed their great fear that it was the independent expenditure campaigns funded by four Colorado multi-millionaires that turned the tide, and they are far from comfortable with a system that can be so clearly dominated by a small group of wealthy individuals. In 2004, the multi-millionaires were on the progressive side. The fear is that in 2006 and beyond, the multi-millionaires will not be. And the aggregate is so low that the only entity in the system in place now that can possibly compete are the unions, not individual candidate campaigns or other organizations, and unions versus multi-millionaires is not a system I want to back.
This is the key point. Dan has placed limits on independent expenditures in 37. Even the national consultant we brought in to advise us admitted that there is no more than a 50/50 chance that the limit on independent expenditures would be upheld, and every other attorney who has weighed in on this issue, including legislative counsel, believes that there is virtually no chance that this limit will be upheld in Oregon.
Given this, I strongly urged the proponents of 37 to hold off until 2008, to wait to see how the far right reacts in Colorado this year to the independent expenditure loophole, etc. Again, given the the strong probability that the courts will not uphold the independent expenditure ban, I don't want to see a system dominated by wealthy individuals with severe limits set on progressive candidates and organizations, leaving them unable to respond and compete.
I don't approach this issue lightly in any way, and I certainly haven't acted in haste. The issue is complex, and the stakes are too high to cement into place a system with the potential to backfire. 37 is a sincere attempt to completely redefine the system, and it is balanced in a way that if any significant part of it is overturned, the system is dangerously unbalanced. 150 is a step in the process of defining a new system. It is balanced from the start, and can be upgraded in continuously progressive ways in the coming years.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Feb 8, 2006 2:56:33 PM
Charlie Burr asks if the sponsors of Petition #8 and Petition 37 are "willing to limit your contributions to $15K if the other side limits contributions to the same level as well?"
Sure. Just bring me an enforceable agreement under which all opponents of the measures, current and future, agree to accept no funding from corporations or unions or individuals in amounts greater than $15,000 per person per year. Also, all opponents must file C&E reports showing all of their contributors (and their employers and occupations) and all of the expenditures, just as is required of those who seek to qualify a measure for the ballot. I would agree to that deal in a minute.
What our opponents are suggesting, of course, is that we limit the funding available for advocating Petitions 8 and 37, while they not limit the funding available for opposing those petitions, both in the circulation stage and after qualification for the ballot.
And limiting contributions or spending on ballot measures is not part of our petitions, anyway, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down such limits as contrary to the First Amendment (while upholding limits on contributions for candidates and on independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates).
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 8, 2006 5:26:44 PM
Peter Buckley suggests that the major problem with P37 is the $2500 annual aggregate contribution limit. It seems to me that a political system that depends on individuals who give more than $2500 per year to [instate] candidates is broken and undemocratic, yet this is the system Rep. Buckley sees as an improvement worth the gathering of over 100,000 signatures and the running of an initiative campaign.
We will not know if P37's limitations on independent expenditures (IEs) will be upheld unless it becomes law and is tested. Short of that, IEs will remain part of our candidate elections.
So I am asked to choose between a system (P150) that allows individuals to give $15,000 yearly [adjusted upward for inflation] and leaves IEs in place, and another system (P8 & 37) that caps individual annual contributions at $2500 and limits IEs, although this limit may or may not stand up in court. Under either system direct corporate and union contributions are banned, but any group can bundle small contributions [a clear advantage for labor unions not too lazy to organize].
It seems to me that the latter system is the COMMON SENSE choice for progressives who support democratic government.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Feb 8, 2006 5:36:41 PM
Having both sides of this debate limit their supporters' contributions to $15K and under this cycle seems pretty fair to me, but under current Oregon election law, both supporters and opponents of ballot measures already have to file C&Es with the Secretary of State, albeit on different calendars. You were asking Our Oregon why they haven't filed yet with the SOS; I'd be truly suprised if they missed their deadline when it comes up.
Dan wrote: What our opponents are suggesting, of course, is that we limit the funding available for advocating Petitions 8 and 37, while they not limit the funding available for opposing those petitions, both in the circulation stage and after qualification for the ballot.
Again, what I was asking about - a $15K limit per individual - would apply to both supporters and opponents of 8/37, as mentioned above.
Posted by: Ron Ledbury | Feb 8, 2006 10:30:48 PM
Suppose a write-in candidate were to receive 50 percent of the vote, plus one.
Is there any feature of the manner of campaigning leading to that vote that would allow the presently empowered government officials to use their position to prevent the people's new choice from assuming the new title associated with an elected office?
A necessary component of democracy is the willingness of present elected officials to voluntarily consent to transfer to someone else. You need to go study some more about violent battles in many places around the world where the issue of voluntary transfer of democratic power has been illuminated in great detail.
I would surely not like to see the day that officials within our government would claim that because some person X had spent in excess of prescribed spending limit Z that a write-in candidate with 50 percent plus one of the votes was not validly chosen by the electors. That frustration would apply equally based on whether a person joined forces with another person to help advocate for a candidate; such association should not be called a criminal conspiracy.
Note the semi-colon in the following sentence that recognizes two parts to the section
"Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. 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."
The second part involves a potential cause of action that is independent of the successful election of write-in candidate as posed above. The formulation which I posed in a previous comment would not prohibit the legislature from authorizing the Secretary of State to subsequently dissolve a corporation and thus deny them the conditional privileges they had obtained via some sort of incorporation.
The actual character of an artificial entity is largely a matter of a choice by an incorporator and is not based on a crystal clear multiple choice style test to verify that the claimed character exactly matches the actual entity, to the exclusion of the other conceivable characterizations. Someone would have to claim to be God or something to stir the passions of the folks that accept the filing that this might not be a legitimate entity, and even then they might say whatever, we'll let you file it if that is what you want.
This is to say that I would not want to place too much emphasis upon the claimed character of an entity by either the incorporator or the government. Rather it would be confined to an examination of whether an association was comprised of individuals, to the exclusion of any artificial entities, and that each participant consented to the expression of the association. Individual members can have private claims against an association but that is a private matter and not one that involves a government restraint for purposes of state action.
Apply the above to Nader:
The Nader legal battle was never perceived as hot as it would not have resulted in him even gaining a plurality. Nevertheless, the legal inquiry could have and should have been treated with the same vigor that would have been applicable if the court determination would have resulted in Nader being recognized as Oregon's choice for president in the general election.
The low level attacks on speech are no less hideous than where the voters for a write-in candidate are denied representation by someone they chose. In the early battles over unionization and the conduct of organizing efforts it was recognized that protection must be accorded to the "formation" of unions, as it is a critical and necessary step in the process that might lead to a majority decision to bargain collectively. If government could interfere in formation then they might never have to bargain. The formation stage of elections that involve candidates such as Nader is illustrative of the potential for mischief by the folks in power.
The First Amendment was never intended to empower the government to stop opponents but rather it is designed to lend credibility to any resulting set of elected officials to a claim to represent all. Any increase in power that is given to (or taken by) the government itself, or government authorized artificial entities, comes at the direct expense of the credibility of the government and thus the consent of the governed.
You can judge for yourself, I suppose, the odds that I could make a successful facial challenge to the new common sense petition presented at the start of this thread. Ah, but this just a blog. Ha. Spend away, I suppose, all your capital in a futile effort, it is your choice.
There is a world of difference between placing a condition upon the grant of a privilege on some sort of incorporation and a potential civil or criminal action against an individual that used their time or money to seek redress of their perceived grievances. It is more fun to ponder whether public advocacy in the judicial arena, rather than via elective office, would also be covered by a monetary limit? And it is more fun to think about the advertising revenue for The Oregonian that is derived from entities that are partially owned by the Oregon Investment Council on behalf of the "independent" artificial entity known as PERS?
Target your wording to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Feb 8, 2006 11:41:14 PM
Tom-
I'm afraid you misunderstood. My objection is not the $2500 aggregate--it is the probability that the independent expenditure limitation will be thrown out, leaving wealthy individuals the ability to dominate campaigns through that pipe while the rest of the system is held down by the low aggregate.
If there was a good chance that the IE limit would be upheld, we would have a signficant step forward, although there is a major concern with funding drying up for smaller progressive organizations. Since there is clearly a good chance that the IE limit won't be upheld, we would have a significant step backwards.
You seem to believe that it's worth the chance that the limits might be upheld, and that's valid. But please remember that Petition 8 requires another initiative or a 3/4 vote of the legislature to deal with the damage in the likely case that the limits are not upheld. And until it is possible to make that happen, whatever damage that is set into place will continue. Why not step forward onto solid ground, then step forward again and again, instead of leap into what looks to be a legal bog with possibly very negative consequences?
Posted by: Chris Garrett | Feb 9, 2006 9:04:10 AM
I ask again, what makes you think the $15,000 cap on aggregate contributions will be upheld? Is that "solid ground"?
This aggregate cap is a restriction on political speech. Last I checked, the Supreme Court still considered contributions to be a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Contribution limits have been upheld because the Court has recognized a compelling interest in avoiding quid pro quo corruption. A cap on *aggregate* contributions does not serve that interest. My $10 contribution to a candidate presents no risk of corruption, regardless of how much I've contributed to other candidates. Therefore, a cap on aggregate contributions would seem to be just as constitutionally vulnerable as a limit on independent expenditures.
Posted by: Bill Hooker | Feb 9, 2006 9:20:33 AM
There remain three of Dan Meek's objections to P150 that, to my mind, have yet to be addressed:
1. Petition 150 expressly does not limit use of a candidate's personal wealth. If its other limits were in any way effective, the result would be reserving important public offices for those wealthy enough to personally fund their own campaigns.
2. a major problem with Petition 150 is that it leaves large gaps in defining entities that can be limited. It allows only restrictions on "a corporation or labor organization" or "an individual."
3. Petition 150 uses many terms that it does not define. This will allow the Legislature to define those terms as it likes.
The first of these seems to me sufficient to sink P150.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 9, 2006 10:27:25 AM
Peter,
I understand your argument. What I question is the belief that progressives/Democrats/right-thinking people will be severely disadvantaged if IE limits are struck down and individuals are limited to contributing $2500 per year to Oregon candidates. What percentage of Oregonians now give more than $2500? I don't know, but I'm certain it is a tiny number. For the sake of democratic governance, our campaigns should not depend on these contributions.
Any CFR system will need to operate for several election cycles before candidates and contributors completely adjust to the new funding environment. We don't know how small contributors will react the change. Maybe they will feel their money is more relevant and will increase their contributions. Look at the tremendous difference made by internet fundraising in the last Democratic presidential primaries. Change is possible. Catering to the worst fears of the political establishment is not the way forward.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Feb 9, 2006 10:32:06 AM
Ron Ledbury,
Are you using some prose generating program or do you believe that opaque writing will impress readers? I know the words you use, but I'll be damned if I can understand what you are trying to say beyond your general attitude to the subject.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 9, 2006 11:29:30 AM
Below is text from Petition 37
(Sorry, the site won't let me use A, B, C, D for the inset list of items, so it is numbered as well. That is the only change made to this passage.)
(d) An individual may make only the following contributions:
- During any election period, to candidate committees, not
more than:
- Five hundred dollars ($500) to support or oppose
candidates contesting for any particular statewide public office; and - One hundred dollars ($100) to support or oppose
candidates contesting for any other particular public office.
- Five hundred dollars ($500) to support or oppose
- During any calendar year, not more than:
- Fifty dollars ($50) to any small donor committee;
- Five hundred dollars ($500) to any other political
committee; - Two thousand dollars ($2,000) in the aggregate to a
political party, including all subdivisions thereof; and - Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) in the
aggregate to all candidate committees, political committees (including
small donor committees), political parties, and political nonprofit
organizations.
This is what many people have a problem with. It's not just $2500/year to a candidate, or candidates. It's $2500 total per year to candidates, PACs, political non-profits, county parties, DPO, etc.
And yes, there are a lot of people, including lots of Democrats, who spend this in a year.
There are a lot of people who give organizations like the Bus Project more than $500 in a year.
$2500 may seem like a huge number, but not when you think about the fact that you're talking about such a large number of organizations & candidates. And it's really small when you see that it says per CALENDAR year, not per election cycle. So that's $2500 per calendar year, which is two election cycles in even years.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Feb 9, 2006 5:59:49 PM
Jenni assumes that Petition 37 places a $500 per person limit on contributions to groups like the Bus Project. It does not. Please read http://www.fairelections.net/fairelectionsfacts.pdf.
Petition 37 does not apply at all to the unpaid activities of volunteers. It completely exempts all "Volunteer personal services (including those of the candidate) for which no compensation is asked or given, including unreimbursed travel expenses."
Petition 37 also allows any group involved in politics to receive unlimited contributions and spend unlimited amounts on anything it wants, as long as it does not use the money to communicate with the general public to urge a vote for or against one or more candidates during the period 30 days prior to the primary election or 60 days prior to the general election.
In addition, Petition 37 allows any group unlimited contributions and spending for:
1. communicating with its own members on any subject at any time and in any manner;
2. publicizing its activities and attracting new members;
3. preparing scorecards on votes cast by public officeholders;
4. conducting surveys of candidates' positions on issues;
5. encouraging people to vote or register to vote;
6. supporting or opposing ballot measures; and
7. communicating with the general public on any or all issues, as long as it does not advocate the election or defeat of a candidate during the 30-day period prior to primary election voting or the 60-day period prior to general election voting.
In addition, any group or person can do both of the following:
1. Form a regular political committee and receive contributions from individuals of up to $500 per individual per year.
The committee can use these funds to support or oppose candidates, either by contributing to
candidate campaigns or by communicating directly with voters.
2. Form a "Small Donor Committee," which can receive only contributions from individuals in amounts not higher than $50 per person per year.
A membership organization (Sierra Club, labor union, etc.) can even transfer up to $50 per year of regular membership dues into its Small Donor Committee. A Small Donor Committee can use all of these funds to support or oppose one candidate, if it chooses, or any number of candidates.
In addition, anyone interested in any issue can also form a separate small donor committee and also receive contributions from individuals of $50 or less per year and spend all of those funds supporting or opposing any candidates. So, anyone who might wish to support pro-choice candidates, for example, could contribute up to $2,500 per year to a number of Small Donor Committees that support a woman's right to choose, and those committees could use all of those funds to support a single candidate or any number of candidates.
Petition 37 is a comprehensive system. It cannot be analyzed merely by picking out one of the limits, without understanding the scope of the limits.
Posted by: Dan Meek | Feb 9, 2006 6:14:43 PM
Chris wonders whether an aggregate limit on an individual's contributions per year (or per other period) would be upheld. Many states already have such limits, and none have been struck down.
STATE $$$ PERIOD
Arizona 3,230 per year
Conn 15,000 per election
DC 8,500 per election
Georgia 12,000 per 2 years
Maine 25,000 per year
Maryland 10,000 per 4 years
Mass 12,500 per year
New York 150,000 per year
Rhode Island 10,000 per year
Wisconsin 10,000 per year
Wyoming 25,000 per 2 years
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: JB | Feb 7, 2006 4:38:00 PM
Here is the only thing that confuses me, why we alsways talk about limiting where our money comes from but never limiting how much profit some one can make off of us. we all intrinsically want there to be campaign finance laws that reduce the power of individuals with large bank accounts, but i always say if you want to reduce the influence of money in politics reduce the need for money in politics. Making it hard to raise money doesn't mean that money is any less important it just means that a politician has to spend more time on the phone raising money or that unions will form 527's or pacs or 50c4s and so on. How about free air time, public finacing, campaign spending limits and other things that make money less important not harder raise.