Oregon’s ‘30 Years War’ over campaign finance reform approaches its final battle – Oregon Capital Chronicle

How did we get to the point in Oregon’s current legislative session that leaders of both parties and representatives of major business and labor groups are uniting in an effort to enact long-overdue limits on big money donations to candidate campaigns?

One reason: Voters clearly want something done. A 2023 poll by the Oregon Values and Beliefs Center found 75% of Oregonians agree that “laws should be passed to regulate unlimited money in political campaigns.”

Another reason: Reformers have used the initiative process to keep this issue in front of voters and the courts for 30 years now.

But the real reason: With voter approval of a constitutional amendment to authorize campaign funding and spending limits in 2020, sponsors of the latest campaign finance reform initiative (Initiative Petition 9) have the political winds at their back as they work to qualify their measure for this year’s general election ballot. 

In short, the good government reformers appear to be holding a winning hand, and institutional insiders want to reshuffle the deck. But it has taken too long, with too many election wins overturned in unfriendly courtrooms and promises made but never delivered by cagey lawmakers for the reformers to fold their hand now.

For three decades, Oregon voters have been supporting ballot initiatives to limit the role of big money in candidate elections. In 1994, they approved Measure 9 by 72% in favor and 28% against to limit contributions to candidates and campaign spending. But, just three years later, the Oregon Supreme Court gutted the measure and left candidates free to pursue unlimited contributions from wealthy donors and well-funded political action committees. 

I remember sitting in a legislative hearing room on the February morning in 1997 when the Supreme Court released its decision (in Vannatta v. Keisling) invalidating the contribution limits in Measure 9. A staff person whispered the news to the chair of the committee, who immediately recessed the hearing, took a few steps from the dais and, gesturing like a gambler pulling the lever of a slot machine, quipped to those nearby: “Ka-ching, ka-ching.” I thought at the time: That says it all.

But the good government groups behind Measure 9 never gave up. They took a two-pronged approach to the ballot in 2006, with proposals to amend the state constitution to authorize campaign contribution and spending limits (Measure 46) and another to place specific limits in statute (Measure 47). The former failed, but voters approved the contribution limits in the latter, only to have the secretary of state declare them unenforceable and the courts to affirm them as inoperative without a constitutional amendment or a reversal of the Vannatta decision.

Then, in 2020, the reformers got both. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed its decision in the Vannatta case in response to yet another campaign finance measure approved by the voters in Multnomah County. And, later that year, voters statewide approved a constitutional amendment (Measure 107) to allow the enactment of campaign contribution and spending limits at the state and local level. The vote for Measure 107 was 78% in favor, even stronger than the vote for Measure 9 in 1994.

In the wake of these victories, the drafters of IP 9 are well on their way to delivering a viable campaign finance proposal to Oregon voters. According to the summary of IP 9’s provisions approved by the Oregon Supreme Court, the initiative would limit contributions to candidates and political committees, limit the carry forward of unspent campaign funds after elections and require political advertisements to identify their top four funders, among other provisions. 

If ever there was a more determined and singularly focused use of the initiative process to advance the will of the voters over the entrenched and dogged resistance of institutional interests, I can’t think of one. And, whatever one thinks of the mind-numbing details of campaign contribution limits and the risk of driving big money into the dark corners of independent expenditure campaigns, the reformers who brought us to this point deserve our respect. 

Perhaps it is a kind of respect that they’re now getting from the Legislature. Lawmakers are not only paying attention, they’re trying to enact legislation that will give themselves a first mover advantage on an issue they’ve been resisting for decades.

In these election year legislative sessions, it’s not unusual for the governor and lawmakers to engage with the sponsors of competing ballot measures, broker compromises and enact legislation to avoid what are always called “costly ballot measure fights.” In other instances, they’ve joined those fights, by referring their own alternatives to the ballot. 

But what’s happening this time is different. Backers of IP 9 don’t want to negotiate any changes; they’re confident that they’ll have the support of the voters in November. Meanwhile, lawmakers and their major donors aren’t interested in going head-to-head with IP 9 by sending their own measure to the ballot. Instead, by enacting their own proposal, legislators hope to convince voters that there’s nothing to see here anymore and it’s time to move on to other issues.

I’m not taking sides at this point on the merits of the Legislature’s plan (House Bill 4024-3) versus IP 9. But I do think voters deserve to consider any alternative proposal from the Legislature on equal ground with IP 9. 

For now, it’s worth recognizing what has created this moment of legislative urgency and business-labor cooperation. As a spokesperson for Oregon Business and Industry, the state’s largest business group, told Oregon Public Broadcasting, “We think the current system, frankly, works just fine. But we’re responding to a reality where campaign finance reform is coming. The days of the current system are over.”

Give credit to the backers of IP 9 for creating that reality. And stay tuned for what’s likely to be the final battle in Oregon’s “30 Years War” over campaign finance reform in which the good government reformers once again take on the institutional insiders.