Bad Initiatives for 2006

Don't forget Oregon Right to Life's initiative to create more tape and government interterence for women seeking access to reproductive options.

The parental notification measure would make it more likely that young women would seek dangerous, illegal abortions. The health and safety of these young women should come first - progressives SHOULD NOT SIGN this dangerous initiative.

The web site for FairElections Oregon is www.FairElections.net not .org as listed in the original article. Forty-five state have campaign contribution limits. Oregon has none. To borrow a book title from Greg Palast, we have "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Get big money out of politics!

Elizabeth Rathbun offers several incorrect statements about Petitions 8 and 37. Let us examine them.

"Donors must register with the state."

This is very misleading. Petition 8 is a one-sentence constitutional amendment allowing enactment of campaign finance limits. It is necessary, because the Oregon Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that there can be no limits on political contributions under the current version of the Oregon Constitution. It says nothing about registering donors.

Further, all political donors in Oregon must already provide to the state their names, addresses, occupations, employer names, and amount contributed to every campaign, if the amount is more than $100 to a statewide candidate or $50 to any other candidate. Also, they must provide their names and addresses, no matter how small the contribution, and this information is available to any opponent, upon request, and can be disclosed to the public. All of this is current law.

Petition 37 just makes this more accurate (and easier for contributors) by having the Secretary of State provide a "handle" for anyone who wants one or who contributes more than $500 in an election cycle. A "handle" is just an abbreviation in place of a person's full contact information, like a user ID on Yahoo or AOL.

It is hard to track all contributions accurately. For example, Mary L. Smith could make contributions in the name of Mary Smith or M.L. Smith or Laura Smith or M. Smith. Also, there may exist more than one contributor named Mary Smith. The handle system solves this problem and makes contributing to candidates easier at the same time. Instead of having to write your name, address, and employer or occupation on every contribution, you only have to state your name and handle. For example, Mary L. Smith can make a contribution by providing only her name and her handle (such as MLS-12). This allows her contribution to be accurately recorded by the candidate or committee receiving the contribution and makes it unnecessary for her to fill in her address and employment information.

Making the existing campaign reporting requirements easier and more accurate is a benefit, not a detriment.

"The unfortunate result is that it limits the ability of progressive groups to have a voice in electoral issues. It would benefit conservative groups like Oregon Right to Life and Oregon Family Council which raise large amounts in small donor contributions, yet allow them unlimited spending."

Again, this is misleading. Our complete response is at pages 2-4 of our response to Our Oregon at www.fairelections.net/fairelectionsfacts.pdf. In brief, it ignores the fact that right-wing candidates are funded almost entirely by corporations and wealthy corporate executives. Petition 37 bans all corporate contributions and expenditures to support or oppose candidates. Such bans already exist in 24 states. Petition 37 also limits each individual's total contributions to $2,500 per year. Already, 10 states have such aggregate limits on individual contributions ($10,000 per 4-year period in Maryland, $10,000 per year in Rhode Island and Wisconsin, $12,500 per year in Massachusetts, etc.).

The premise of "Our Oregon" is that right-wing candidates in Oregon are funded primarily by right-wing groups. This is not accurate. Oregon candidates who are right-wing on social issues are overwhelmingly funded by corporations and other business interests. The corporations support them, because most candidates who are right-wing on social issues are also right-wing on economic issues. They favor giving corporations big tax breaks and allowing them to abuse the environment, workers, and consumers without effective government regulation.

In the 2004 election cycle, all "pro-life" groups combined contributed a grand total of $105,000 to state and local candidates in Oregon (81% to Republicans, 19% to Independents). But the corporations contributed about $13 million, mostly to the same group of "conservative" (right-wing) candidates. These candidates were thus funded less than 2% by all "pro-life" groups combined, including Oregon Right to Life. [source of all data: Institute for Money in State Politics, www.followthemoney.org]

In the 2004 cycle, the pro-choice groups contributed $83,000. So the pro-life groups outspent the pro-choice groups by only $22,000, while over $13 million of corporate cash went primarily to support the right-wing candidates.

The story was the same in the 2002 election cycle, with Republican candidates getting 100% of the contributions from the "pro-life" groups and the same candidates getting about 99% of their funds from business interests. In the 2002 cycle, the
corporations contributed about $20 million to Oregon candidates. Petition 37 bans all corporate contributions.

The right-wing candidates are also supported by huge contributions from wealthy individuals (some for ideological reasons and some for business reasons). The anti-choice candidate for governor in 2002, Kevin Mannix, received giant contributions of 1.2 million from 6 corporate executives, including $540,000 from Loren Parks (medical equipment), $250,000 from Rod and Rich Wendt (timber), and $200,000 from Joan Austin (medical equipment). Petition 37 limits the contributions of any individual to a total of $2,500 per year.

"Unions, environmental, pro-choice and civil rights groups that receive contributions from varied sources could accept no more than $500 from
any donor, which would greatly restrict staff and operations."

This is misleading, implying that Petition 37 allows some groups preferential treatment. Petition 37 treats all political membership groups the same. Under Petition 37, any group can have a regular PAC (receiving contributions from any individual of up to $500 per year) and also have a Small Donor Committee that could spend all that it raises in donations of $50 or less per contributor 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.

Petition 37 would not "greatly restrict staff and operations" of progressive groups. It would have that effect only on political front groups that are funded by corporations or wealthy individuals and which have few members and no ability to attract members.

For more details, see pages 1-4 of www.fairelections.net/fairelectionsfacts.pdf.

"Peter Buckley (Dem) Ashland supported this and has now withdrawn his support to endorse a better campaign finance initiative."

For reasons we cannot fathom, Peter Buckley has decided to offer a different campaign finance reform measure. His Petition 150 was filed on February 6, 2006. We believe it would be 100% ineffective, for reasons stated at www.fairelections.net/p150.pdf. Also the ACLU has commented that it would violate the U.S. Constitution, because it provides no exemptions from its ban on corporate contributions for information about candidates provided by media organizations, such as newspaper and television articles and editorials. In the event of a ballot title challenge, this petition will have perhaps 6 weeks total to gather the required 101,000 valid signatures, which makes it practically impossible to qualify for the 2006 ballot.

Hi, I submitted a response on this thread yesterday but it has not appeared here.

Thanks for the editor's reference to the FairElections web site, but the link is wrong. Our URL is www.fairelections.net, not www.fairelections.org. Thanks for correcting that.

I am not trying to be a legal expert and am reporting what was presented to me by the Our oregon Ballot watch team at their summit. (I noted that it was their position at the start.) This information is still being updated as things change, I understand.

No one's position is wrong or right, it's just a position.

My information came directly from the summary page 'What's on the Street' and also the Ballot Watch Fact sheet page stating what the reasons were for the position Our Oregon recommended (Decline to Sign) for the spending limit initiatives. (8 and 37)

I realize this is controversial and Peter Buckley said he had changed his mind about it after learning more of the unintended impact of the measures and then initiated #150. He told us that he felt this was the route he wanted to take and by passing 150, that would be a beginning point and further work still needed to be done on campaign finance reform.

Here's one of the links to what they said about donors having to register, so that you can see what they have written about 'small donors registering and the effect on progressive groups.' Or, click on facts about ballot measures.

http://www.ouroregon.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=OnTheStreet

It also says (on the fact sheet) that donors are tracked by creating a handle for every citizen who contributes to a political organization or candidate. It then says it is like an id number for political contributors.

Thanks for your comment because I had not heard it. I'm only trying to present some information because that's what people need to start thinking about initiatives. People can read the Our Oregon opinion and a contrasting opinion like Mr. Meeks and decide how they want to vote for themselves!

It is not a black and white issue to many. I'm saying that to be fair and open-minded and not hyper-critical.