For the first time in state history, a handful of concerned Oregon state representatives are sponsoring two bills aimed at limiting campaign contributions.
Last year, Oregon spent more per person on political campaigns than any other state except New Jersey and is one of only three states that does not limit campaign contributions.
The race for governor between John Kitzhaber and Chris Dudley generated more money than any previous race; Kitzhaber brought in an unprecedented $7 million for the Democrats’ side, while Dudley set the state record with over $10 million in contributions.
“My concern is if we don’t take action, it’s just going to continue to get out of control,” Rep. Greg
Matthews, D-Gresham, said at a public hearing last week.
Matthews admitted he and his opponent spent more than $900,000 in the competition for his seat.
“It’s getting harder and harder to justify races with this kind of money and of this magnitude,” Matthews said.
Proposals have been approved in the past, but none have remained Oregon law. Voters approved a ballot measure in 1994 that limited contributions, but the Oregon Supreme Court ruled it as an unconstitutional infringement on the “freedom to express opinion.”
In 2006, Measures 46 and 47 would have amended the state constitution to allow for contribution limits, but Oregonians voted them down.
The two current bills, House Bill 2239 and House Bill 2894, include ballot measures that would again need to be passed by Oregon voters.
Nevertheless, the sponsoring representatives think despite questions of constitutionality, the need for limits has become increasingly urgent.
The issue of campaign contributions has become increasingly controversial, particularly with the 2009 Citizens United v. Federal Communications Commission Supreme Court ruling, which made it illegal to restrict corporate funding of political candidates.
Still, many groups remain adamant that political donations are an individual right, and any restrictions on them are not just illegal, but inherently dangerous.
“When you tinker with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, you are playing with fire,” said David Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. “There is nothing more at the heart of the constitutional form of government than to work with other people to elect candidates of your choice.”
House Bill 2239, sponsored by Rep. Bill Kennemer, a Republican from Oregon City, would restrict contributions from political action committees, or PACs, to election candidates and impose a fine on those that exceed the established limit.
House Bill 2984, sponsored by Matthews and Rep. Jefferson Smith, D-Portland, would set maximum amounts on contributions from individuals to either a PAC or a candidate.
Both bills would only apply to state elections, not federal elections.
If both bills pass the House and the Senate and receive Oregon voter approval, they would potentially reduce the size and intensity of political campaigns, but it is uncertain what impact they would have on the people, parties and issues addressed by state government.
Although fewer contributions often mean the younger generation has more influence in politics, students could suffer if education advocates are less able to persuade candidates.
“In general, I think that the share of funding that comes from unions is much smaller than the share that comes from corporate interests,” said John Davidson, a University political science professor. “But if the proposals limit public union contributions, which are disproportionately in favor of education, the possibility exists that it could end (up) hurting students.”
[email protected]
State bills would limit campaign donations
Daily Emerald
March 7, 2011
0
More to Discover