Brian--

Thanks for the post, although I have to disagree with you. I'm a state rep--this is my first session, but I've been involved in politics for a good hunk of years now. Chris has a good take on this--it is not an outright purchase of votes by any means. The colleagues I work with in Salem are not corrupt--they firmly believe in what they believe in. The money that gets them to Salem is the issue. If you have a certain set of beliefs, you can find significant sources of revenue to fund your campaign. Once elected, those same sources of revenue expect you to stay true to those beliefs and propose legislation and vote along those lines.

The problem is that there is only a narrow set of beliefs that provide access to that kind of funding for campaigns. The process is purchased, therefore, by only a small percentage of the people of our state and does not reflect the values and needs of our state as a whole.

My personal view is that if candidates had to find the way to address a wide set of beliefs, a broader spectrum of the people we aim to represent, it would be far, far healthier for our political process. One of the results of contribution limits is that they force candidates to seek support from a much broader spectrum. If you are interested, check out the Money in Politics Research Action Group (MIPRAP) on the internet. They have great breakdowns on how Oregon campaigns attract and spend money.

In my experience, the candidates who gather support from the greatest number of contributers become the office holders who have the clearest path to voting for the greatest good of our state.

Contribution limits combined with the option to do voter-owned campaigns would, I absolutely believe, get us beyond the dysfunctional system we have at present. They would require outreach to many, instead of candidates who appeal to a small number of well funded people or organizations.

It's not political stupidity that is hurting us, although there definitely is more of that than anyone could possibly want. It's a narrow spectrum of interests and beliefs holding sway on both campaigns and on legislation. The only way to broaden that spectrum, to move towards a healthy democracy, is by reforming the way we fund campaigns and elect candidates.

Peter Buckley State Rep HD 5

Peter- While I traditionally would agree with you, the point of my bringing up Levitt's studies is the fact that much of the debate over campaign finance reform as a discipline is grounded in theories and rhetoric that revolve around the debator's view of what role money has, both in affecting people's action and influencing the working of politics. Levitt argues that there is little in the way of votes and facts that prove this pernicious influence; that is what makes me question advocates, the fact that I'm not sure much would change with reform because I havent seen a wide array of facts and figures that incline me to believe money is causing votes to happen in ways they wouldn't or shouldn't happen otherwise.

This is a great debate, but I have to disagree with Levitt argues that there is little in the way of votes and facts that prove this pernicious influence; that is what makes me question advocates, the fact that I'm not sure much would change with reform because I havent seen a wide array of facts and figures that incline me to believe money is causing votes to happen in ways they wouldn't or shouldn't happen otherwise.

I have been around long enough to have worked on Tom McCall's re-election and been a 1984 Dem. National Convention delegate.
I was at the ceremony when the signatures were turned in for Measure 9 campaign finance reform. Someone interested in this subject as a practical matter rather than just debating theory might want to talk to Mark Hass and Ryan Deckert. As I recall, then reporter Hass did a story about Deckert originally getting elected under Measure 9 campaign finance restrictions--defeating a well known Republican, as I recall. Not that Measure 9 was perfect--it had some technical glitches--but I believe campaign finance reform is a good thing.

Whatever the studies say, it is my personal experience that beginning in the mid-1990s there began to be fewer issue debates and more fighting about the truth of the statement "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played".

When did your constitutional form of representative democracy become a "game"? Perhaps there are people who make a living at politics and want to boss the rest of us around (who are staffers responsible to?--elected officials are responsible to the voters). Does that mean there is no longer any role for the experienced volunteer in politics?

At the point when long term Oregon volunteers were being told by out of state "professionals" that volunteers should take orders and not ask questions because if they knew anything they would be on a political payroll somewhere (and yes, that happened in multiple counties in the mid-1990s, as I experienced and heard from some of my State Central Comm. friends)the Democratic party went downhill and has only recently been rescued by The Oregon Bus Project and the Dean campaign (+ DFA).

I know that ordering candidates to follow caucus orders because they couldn't possibly be elected without caucus money and "professionals" is not "the way it has always been done". I helped elect legislators whose campaign managers they knew personally and chose themselves. My guess is that Rep. Buckley was elected in the old fashioned way with a combination of local support and being on the Dean list.

Some would argue that one reason the Democrats lost the House majority in 1990 is the financial hijinks of Dix and Wiederanders. Dix was the Majority Leader who lost the majority, and Wiederanders was his sidekick who as I recall did something illegal. Steve Duin did some columns exposing the wrongdoing in maybe 1989 or 1990.

When I was a member of the State Central Comm., there were many volunteers who had accumulated experience and wisdom of the sort money can't buy. In recent years there has been an invasion of out of state "professionals" who didn't care about the individuality of districts. Some even said things like "if it didn't work in my previous state it won't work here".

I am all for reclaiming the spirit of "we the people" and I think campaign finance reform is the way to do that.

Perhaps Oregon politicians are somehow resistant to the corruption that accepting big-money donations sometime foster, but here in California, it's easy to connect the dots.

Car Dealers donate $1 million to Arnold & his committees = $4 billion rollback on Vehicle License Fees, vetoes Car Buyer's Bill of Rights

Prison Guard Union (CCPOA) contributes $3+ million to legislative campaigns 1999-2003 & $1.1 million to Gray Davis in 2002 = Prison guards get new contract with 37% salary increase from 2002-2007, costing Californians $2 billion extra over 5 years.

HMOs donated $396,800 to Arnold = Privatized Medi-Cal, rewarding HMOs with the care of patients. Cost to privatize = $200 million over 3 years. Projected 2008-2009 savings- $170 million. Loss of $30 million.

Cost of proposed Clean Money Fair Elections Bill AB583 for public campaign financing of Assembly, Senate and Statewide Offices = @ $134 million/year (@$5.50/yr per Cal. resident over 18 yrs.)

Closing the "yacht tax loophole" = +$56.2 million Quit allowing large businesses to take Small Business Subchapter S tax breaks = +$175 million Repeal sales tax exemption for diesel used in agriculture = +$17 million Repeal sales tax exemption for farm and timber machinery = +$72.7 million

Big money campaign contributions are a high yield investment. Arnold was right when he campaigned for governor saying, "Special interests have a stranglehold on Sacramento. Here's how it works: Money comes in, favors go out. The people lose."

I only wonder how he managed to keep from drooling with anticipation when he said it.

Rep. Buckley wrote: [I]t is not an outright purchase of votes by any means. * * * It's a narrow spectrum of interests and beliefs holding sway on both campaigns and on legislation.

Which one is it?

The proponents of campaign finance reform tout the political access money buys and the potential for highjacking an elected official's ideals and beliefs. At the same time, those who serve in elected positions suggest that they are not the ones who give special access to big-money donors or who change their beliefs or their votes depending on which donor gave the most money. Have we elected our community leaders who will stand on principle or have we elected mouthpieces for the big-money donors?

It appears that campaign finance reform focuses on the wrong side of the disclosure form. That is, the proponents of campaign finance reform attempt to turn off the flow of money into a campaign but have no qualms on how or where that money is spent. It is like fighting a drug war by trying to cut off the supply of drugs. Perhaps we should be focusing our limited resources on reducing the reason for big-money campaigns?

If a candidate were spending her money on issuing well-researched position papers filled thereby employing economists, statisticians, public policy experts, and writers, perhaps that would be a campaign expense worth supporting. Instead, we see campaign dollars being spent on shiny advertisements that try to summarize how to create a more fair tax system in five words or less. We see and hear 30-second television and radio advertisements that tout the benefits of education and public safety (as if any candidate would say, "I'm against education and safety."). We are bombarded with glossy mailings and volunteers drop handbills that say the exact same focus-group tested statement about the candidate. In short, the voters yearn for substance from a candidate but all the voters get from those hard-earned campaign dollars is focus-group tested, sound-byte drivel.

A quick review at the large expenditures by any given candidate surely demonstrates where the money is going: media buys and consultants.

And talk to any campaign advisor and they say that's what is needed to reach the average voter. I question whether that is true, but if that is so, doesn't it seem like no amount of campaign finance limits will ever solve that issue? Sure, we can expended our capital on trying to turn off the spigot of money, but then the voters will still be thirsting for quality, in-depth information about each candidate, his or her ideals and beliefs, and his or her plan once elected. (And this doesn’t account for the loopholes that will inevitably be exploited by those who have the time and money to find them.)

I believe that our elected officials can talk and take money from a small business or a large business, just as they talk and take money from their neighbor, and still do what is right for their district and for all Oregonians. I believe that we can stop the partisan rancor by changing ourselves, not our system. I believe that we can limit the influence of money in politics by addressing what we are spending the money on.

Let's not spend the time setting up a complicated system that rewards only those who have enough savvy to consult with an advisor to find the loopholes in the system. Let's focus on changing the need for big dollars in campaigns. Let's find ways to give the voters more information, more debates, more exchanges of ideas that will brighten our future. In doing so, we can address the legitimate concerns that campaign-finance advocates have without focusing on the wrong end of the disclosure form.

Re. Brian's "Levitt argues that there is little in the way of votes and facts that prove this pernicious influence....I havent seen a wide array of facts and figures that incline me to believe money is causing votes to happen in ways they wouldn't or shouldn't happen otherwise."

Just where have you been looking, Brian? There's actually an enormous array of such facts and figures, compiled by organizations, writers and reporters across the country, and stretching back over decades.

Robert Caro's third volume in his masterful biography of Lyndon Johnson, "Master of the Senate," details Johnson's innovative use of his role as a broker of campaign money to build and cement his power. Ever since, this has been a staple of politics in the U.S. at almost every level - and has been extensively documented.

For examples ad nauseum, you can look at places like the Center for Public Integirty and its numerous studies, and the Center for Public Integrity. The Institute on Money in State Politics has published similar studies on state level politics - and has assisted reporters in publishing scores and scores of articles in local papers, similar to the role that Janice Thomspon and the Money and Politics Research Action Project plays here in Oregon.

You could also look at the recent book by Public Campsign's Micah Sifry, "Is That A Politician In Your Pocket." Or try following the money trail on any of the recent corporate mega-scandals, from Enron to the various banking/investment scandals Eliot Spitzer has been prosecuting in New York.

I do agree that the overall sums of money we're talking about may seem small. But I disagree with the conclusion you draw from that. Instead, it points to how easily many who should be serving the public interest can be bought off.

A few years back I was riding in a cab with a crew fo folks heading to Las Vegas for a political conference. We were talking to the driver about local politics and asked for his opinion of the Vegas city council. He replied in one word: "Cheap."

Dan- I think you bring up a good point, that of the impact of the money, regardless of what size we are talking about. I, as I've said previously, traditionally share your opinion, but I like to play devil's advocate when numbers are involved and people I respect (like Levitt) argue that we may be focusing more on rhetoric than reality. His argument in this case is that the studies he has done into the effects of money show that often donations go to candidates who have already shown an inclination to support that group's goals, prior to any money being given. Additionally, he points out that PACs, which have relatively low giving limits, in the ultimate sense, almost never max out, which he implies to show that they realize that throwing large amounts of money into the system will stop influencing politicians AT ALL after a certain point.

I think that Steve brings up a good point when he notes the difference between governing the flow of money, and how that money is spent. If political candidates were using money from Ford and Enron to fund serious studies that proved those sides stories, using well-respected scientists, economists, etc., would we still be so strongly opposed? Or are we most strongly disposed to rail against the often unprovable connection between donated money and specific votes (which Levitt argues would happen the same way regardless)?

Groups like Public Campaign, in my mind, expect to see corruption, so it is easier for them to find. I don't necessarily hold this against them, because I think this is true of every advocacy group--they see what they want to, because their goals depend on having something to fight--but I always have to wonder whether at times we create a connection when in fact a politician just naturally supports Big Business due to beliefs of how the world works. Just a thought, not necessarily my belief. I'm still young, and have the luxury of flip-flopping without getting punished. (Speaking of flip-floppers, who saw this coming: John Kerry had worse grades at Yale than Bush. I digress, but wow.)

As a veteran of Oregon legislative campaigning, I agree with Rep Buckley on the reality of the campaign finance problem. The subversion of democracy is structural and pervasive.
It does not depend on individual elected officials selling individual votes - although that certainly goes on. To argue against the effect of money on the process, one has much explaining away to do. Just how are all those anti-average guy decisions in areas like pharmaceuticals, media, banking and credit, utilities, automobiles, chemical manufacturing, and trade policy made if the spending of well-healed industries on campaigns and lobbying [$ = access] is discounted?

So why don't the wealthy spend even more to buy the government? Simple: why pay more for what you now get at a bargain price.

BTW, there are now 2 Oregon initiatives on campaign finance reform gathering signatures. Please go to the fairelections website and get involved.

The proponents of campaign finance reform tout the political access money buys and the potential for highjacking an elected official's ideals and beliefs. At the same time, those who serve in elected positions suggest that they are not the ones who give special access to big-money donors or who change their beliefs or their votes depending on which donor gave the most money. Have we elected our community leaders who will stand on principle or have we elected mouthpieces for the big-money donors?

There have been House bills this session which the Oregon Restaurant Assoc. backed and in some cases ORA is in the masthead of the bill. These range from the bill to prohibit lawsuits against restaurants for obesity (suing McD for making you fat) to the capital gains tax cut bill which was probably not the best bill on the subject (a capital gains tax cut bill which paid for itself was in committee last time I heard) but by golly it had Wayne Scott and ORA in the masthead of the legislation and it passed the House. I think that was the one Vicki Berger voted against.

How many House members got money from the Oregon Restaurant Assoc.? I think that should be as much a subject of debate as whether some study says campaign money should be spent a particular way or whatever.

LT- just out of curiousity, are you implying that we should more openly force politicians to declare conflicts of interest when someone who gives them money is pushing through a bill they will vote on (as a judge would do in a case where s/he had a vested interest), or are you saying that there is a fundamental conflict between allowing businesses to lobby with money while also pushing legislation?

I am saying that there should be more publicity about what is in C& E reports. I prefer to deal with specifics rather than generalities.

If, for instance, there was a lot of Oregon Restaurant Assoc. money in Minnis and Scott C& E reports, it should not be a surprise that ORA did well this session.

And as someone who was involved in the Measure 9 campaign, I think we should also have contributions go to candidates rather than to each party caucus--easier to trace the contributions.

Brian, your quote from the NY Times contains this line, "To be honest, we do not think Big Money is as pernicious as others do."

If they wrote in the NY Times, where did they do the study--all 50 states or just some? Who funded the study? Was it peer reviewed? I took a research course in college where we were taught to question whether all studies were created equal with regard to validity, reliability, sponsorship, etc.

With regard to Oregon: Be clear about this point--are you saying ORA contributions had nothing to do with ORA success this session? Or that they don't fit the dictionary definition of pernicious which is destructive?

I'm sure there are restaurant owners who like the power of the ORA. But as I recall they were involved in not only the obesity lawsuit bill and the capital gains tax cut bill but also the attempt to change the voter passed minimum wage with a "tip credit". Would restaurant workers have a different view of those issues?

Without campaign finance reform, aren't we in a situation where "money is speech, major donors shout, and those who have to budget a $25 donation merely whisper"? A person with a low income and a wealthy person have the same one vote. But not all have the same ability to contribute to campaigns.

When I tell people I like Blue Oregon although I realize it is not perfect, I generally quote 2 drawbacks which I think distract sometimes from the "around the water cooler " goal: Portland-centric too much discussion of theory rather than practical situations.

If someone wants to have a debate on "Resolved: we do not think Big Money is as pernicious as others do." that's fine, but count me out. I am more interested in specific examples than what some call "the view from 30,000 feet".

If someone thinks it is OK that the ORA and similar groups had considerable influence in this session, they have a right to their opinion. If someone no longer believes in the system of caucus-target races where candidates are to follow orders down to who does printing and mailing if the money is coming from the caucus, that is also an aspect of campaign finance reform.

I believe that legislative races are more successful when local candidates hire their own campaign managers, patronize local businesses wherever possible (no telling when a business owner might tell friends "I am voting for this candidate whose printing I do") and value the opinions of people who live in the district over political consultants who may be from out of area or out of state. To the extent possible, I believe candidates should raise and spend money on their own --I don't believe that legislators are elected to represent the caucus first and constituents second. A Republican Congressman (representing the district including Camp Lejune in N. Carolina) who is introducing a bill next week to provide benchmarks and a timetable to withdraw US troops from Iraq was asked if he is getting any flak. He said "My Daddy served in the US House and said you can never go wrong voting your conscience first, your constituents second, and your party third". I think that is a great statement.

If someone got into office on much volunteer work and many small contributions, my guess is that they are more likely to vote their conscience first, constituents second, party third, and the voters will have had enough interaction with the candidate not to be surprised by many of this person's votes. If they spend all their time "dialing for dollars" to be funded as much as possible by major donors, they are likely to reflect those donors more than the concerns of the person who they met at a community festival.

We are allowed to have philisophical differences in this country. I sense that Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner disagree with me. They have that right. And I have the right to disagree with them.

I've read Levitt's Freakonomics and his treatment of campaign money is short (less than three pages) and light (he asserts only that winners do well no matter how much they spend). In the footnotes he cites three of his own papers, which I haven't read. I'd hesitate to make any grand claims based on what he says as his own actual claims are small.

There's a real question, in my mind, as to whether the tools social scientists like Levitt use are complex enough or have enough good data to draw upon to accurately measure the impact of vested interest money (let's alone reform's other goal of opening up the process).

I've just been up at the CT capitol in an effort to win a Clean Elections measure here (trying to have the CT General Assembly become the second legislative body, after Portland, to pass such a reform for itself). Hanging out in the wee hours of the morning, you hear a lot of tales about how bills were killed by moneyed-up lobbyists in ways that left no clues or witnesses willing to talk. How, I wonder, does a Levitt ever begin to measure and quantify that kind of malfeasance? Does money count? Of course.