OREGON HAS NO LIMITS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. NONE!

Oregon's reputation is as a progressive state! First bottle bill. All the benches are public. First state to have the initiative, recall and referendum process.

But is that reputation still justified?

When it comes to Big Money in the election process, Oregon is not progressive at all! In fact, Oregon comes in last, because we are one of only three states with NO limitations on campaign contributions.

Big money in elections distorts real democracy because it changes who has the real power and influence over government. When the need to raise enormous amounts of money is coupled with no limits on what can be donated to political campaigns, candidates become beholden to the special interests with the deepest pockets.

Special interests have undue influence in Oregon. Special interests like Enron, like Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Special interests that receive our tax revenues in the form of tax "credits" to multinational corporations.

Take the Oregon Restaurant Association, for example. In 2004, the Oregon Lottery Commission disregarded its own study showing that Canadian provinces pay video poker outlets commissions of 15% of the money taken in, instead of the 32% paid in Oregon. So video poker parlors in Oregon get to keep an extra $85 million per year that should be going to Oregon’s schools. Why? The Commission answers to the politicians, and the Oregon Restaurant Association contributed over $1.2 million to them in the last three elections.

Corporate election influence is so strong that their share of Oregon income tax paid annually has decreased from 18% in 1975 to less than 5% today.

Polls have shown overwhelming support for contribution limits. A Riley Research Survey poll showed that, not counting undecideds, 85% of voters support limiting campaign contributions.

Oregon’s 2006 election ballot contained two initiatives to enact limitations on campaign contributions. The first one (Measure 46) was a constitutional measure to allow limitations.

The second initiative (Measure 47) was a statute with the actual limitations. Among the limitations: a complete ban on corporate and union contributions, a limit on individual contributions, and a provision allowing the formation of small donor committees to encourage small contributions. Other requirements included that the major contributors to campaigns be identified in all political ads, and a limit on so-called independent expenditures.

The statute (Measure 47) passed; the constitutional amendment (Measure 46) did not.

In direct opposition to the express will of the people of Oregon, the Oregon Attorney General (AG) and Secretary of State have decided not to enforce the statute (Measure 47). Because they have decided to act as Oregon’s Supreme Court, the constitutionality of Measure 47 will never be tested in the Oregon courts.

Following the lead of the AG, Oregon’s Secretary of State decided not to implement the statute, even those provisions that would have let citizens easily identify the major contributors to campaign ads. The Oregon Attorney General and Secretary of State have been sued to force the state to implement the people's initiative.

In 2010, a new constitutional initiative will be presented to voters, allowing Oregonians the opportunity to clarify that Oregon’s constitution does permit voters to set limits on contributions to political campaigns.

Help eliminate the influence of Big Money in Oregon elections. Go to www.fairelections.net or call 503.246.2906
Fair Elections is a citizen activist group devoted to removing the influence of Special Interest money on political campaigns in the state of Oregon.Contact David Delk, 503.232.5495, davidafd@msn.com