New proposals introduced in the state Senate last week would set strict limits to quell the exorbitant spending in Oregon elections — without the same loopholes included in other bills introduced by top Democrats this session.
Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, introduced two amendments to Senate Bill 500 mirroring 2024 ballot initiatives penned by Honest Elections Oregon and the League of Women Voters. Those groups seek stringent limits on political donations and transparency in political advertising. The amendments aren’t yet published on the Legislature website.
Oregon is one of just a handful of states that allow donors to give unlimited sums of money to political campaigns. The state saw the result of that last fall when donors spent record-breaking sums in the three-way race for governor and poured an incredible amount of cash into races for the state House and Senate.
Democratic leaders have pledged to pass campaign finance limits this session after scrapping attempts to address the issue in previous years. Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek pledged to cap political donations while on the campaign trail last year. House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, has publicly urged action this year. Still, it remains unclear whether a bill to limit contributions will get over the finish line.
Kotek’s plan, House Bill 3455, would allow individuals, corporations, unions and other entities to donate up to $1,000 per primary or general election cycle to candidates for state offices, such as governor or labor commissioner, and up to $500 to candidates for the Legislature. Rayfield has introduced a separate proposal, House Bill 2003, that would limit contributions to $3,000 for a candidate for state office, $2,000 for a state Senate candidate and $1,500 for a state House candidate.
Both proposals would allow unions, corporations, limited liability companies, clubs and other entities to continue donating directly to campaigns. Both bills have been referred to the House Committee on Rules and neither has had a hearing.
“House Bill 2003 is the result of a years-long process of collaboration with a diverse set of stakeholders,” Andrew Rogers, a spokesperson for Rayfield, said in an email.
However, Honest Elections opposes both bills, which they say have significant loopholes. Dan Meek, an attorney who works with Honest Elections to limit money in politics, said Rayfield’s office hasn’t engaged with advocates as much as they’d like this spring. Meek said he and other advocates met with Rayfield’s staff once last month.
The group has bypassed state lawmakers by seeking to bring two proposals in front of voters in 2024. It plans to begin collecting signatures for one of the proposals, which would set contribution limits and require political advertisers to reveal their true funding sources, after the state Supreme Court resolved a ballot title dispute in the group’s favor, attorney Jason Kafoury told The Oregonian/OregonLive.
Golden, who has worked closely with Honest Elections, agreed to introduce two amendments last week that mirror two of the group’s ballot initiatives.
Kafoury said Honest Elections will still place the proposals on the 2024 ballot if lawmakers are unable “to reach a deal that we consider to be real campaign reform.”
If passed, Golden’s bill would prevent corporations, unions, limited liability companies and other entities from directly contributing to campaigns. Only individuals and certain kinds of entities, such as political action committees and small donor committees, could donate to candidates.
Donors could give no more than $2,000 to candidates for governor and other state offices and $1,000 for state House or Senate candidates per election cycle. Statewide candidates couldn’t accept more than a combined $50,000 from committees controlled by a single political party, with a lower limit of $10,000 for Legislature races.
The proposal would incentivize the use of small donor committees that raise money from individuals contributing under $251 per year. The committees would be capped at donating no more than $20,000 to a gubernatorial candidate, for example, which is ten times the limit that the bill sets for other political action committees that contribute money to multiple candidates.
The proposals submitted by Rayfield and Kotek also involve the use of small donor committees but neither currently includes limits for how much those committees would be able to donate. Rayfield’s bill also doesn’t currently set a limit for donations of paid staff time that can be made to candidates. Rogers did not say when the bill may be amended to add limits in both those cases.
Golden’s proposals also include a public campaign financing system modeled on Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program and rules requiring political advertisers to disclose their funding sources. Golden’s proposals are nearly identical to the ballot measures written by Honest Elections, but he says he may need to “tweak” them to build support.
In an interview, Golden said he’s sponsoring the bill because the current legislative session is the “last best chance” for lawmakers to pass campaign finance reforms themselves.
“And if we can’t put something serious together, the activists will put something serious on the ballot,” he said. “And maybe that’s how this all turns out.”
Advocates lauded Golden for sponsoring their plans.
“It’s great to see Senator Golden offering an alternative that could create meaningful limits and doesn’t create a way to bypass that,” said Kate Titus, executive director of Common Cause Oregon, which partners with Honest Elections.
However, she noted that past negotiations with Democrats have fallen short. Two measures fell by the wayside in 2021: House Bill 3343, sponsored by now-U.S. Rep. Andrea Salinas, and House Bill 2680, a weaker proposal spearheaded by Rayfield.
Reform efforts also failed last year. In addition, Democratic Secretary of State Shemia Fagan disqualified 2022 ballot initiatives penned by the good governance advocates that would have established campaign spending limits and disclosure rules because she said the proposals should have included the entire text of the laws that would be changed, not just the sections to be amended.
Oregon voters have repeatedly approved contribution limits in the past. But courts had consistently overturned those rules, until the state Supreme Court reversed previous precedent in April 2020 and found that contribution limits are constitutional. Still, Fagan, the secretary of state, and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum concluded that the Supreme Court ruling did not revive contribution limits that voters approved in 2006. Both Fagan and Rosenblum have refused to explain their reasoning.
When asked if he expects that lawmakers will finally pass campaign finance limits this session, Rayfield told reporters last week he was assessing the political landscape in talks with lawmakers and advocates.
“I don’t have a great answer for you now on whether we’re going to be able to find alignment between all the different voices,” Rayfield said.
— Grant Stringer; gstringer@oregonlive.com
