Campaign Finance: A Little Help?
Jeff Bull
Word on a pair of proposed ballot initiatives to reform campaign financing in Oregon - Petitions 8 and 37 - fronts The Oregonian's Metro section this morning. It sounds like the proponents are gathering signatures at a sufficiently busy clip that we're likely to see these two come voting time, which leaves no time like the present to sort them out.
Petition 8 seems pretty straight forward: it's the constitutional leg-up that Petition 37 needs to get over the "money=free speech" stumbling block that's prompted the Oregon Supreme Court to repeal previous limits on campaign finance/spending. But it's Petition 37 that poses the interesting questions - one paragraph from the article gets at both of them:
"In addition to banning corporate and union contributions, [Petition 37] calls for limiting the number of dollars each individual could contribute to campaigns. For each primary and general election, the limit would be $500 to a candidate in a statewide race for an office such as governor, and $100 for any nonstatewide candidate such as a legislator or county commissioner.""In addition, overall campaign contributions by an individual would be capped at $2,500 per calendar year."
At first glance, the outright ban on corporate and union contributions seems a bit harsh, even assuming that corporations and unions can participate in the process through other means - for instance, they can run ads of their own, run get out the vote operations, etc. To begin, does that assumption hold? Or are there restrictions elsewhere on the books that keep corporations from running ads in support of a specific candidate (or on a specific number of days prior to an election as McCain/Feingold does)?
Whatever the answer to that, the likely thinking here is that individual members of a given union will throw money at the candidates their union endorses, or that employees so love "Corporation X" that they'll will compensate for the end of corporate donations. That may hold true...then again, it also might 1) give individual members of these various organizations a more direct and real voice, or 2) individual apathy (or poverty) may mean that this money really does leave the system. The former seems a decent outcome and the latter comparatively neutral...still....
...does Petition 37 strike the correct balance, or does it deny legitimate interests a voice in the political process? There's some distance between shrinking the 800-lb. corporate/union gorilla and shutting him out of the room entirely.
And that takes on to the limits on total, annual contributions. $2,500? Wow. And that doesn't even get into how little may be directly donated to individual campaigns; $500 for a statewide race sounds awfully modest. The figures involved just seem a bit low to me - especially given the absence of any mechanism on the other side to contain the actual expense of a state-wide campaign.
Any thoughts? On any of this?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:29 a.m.
Nov 28, '05
Isn't a right wing concern now circulating these initiatives? What do they have to gain?
Nov 28, '05
Really good question. And, central as it is to parsing it, I have to confess that I don't know the answer. Still, I see Dan Meek's name in the mix and hardly count him as one for the Right. Also, the ban on the union side of contributions seems like something of a counter-weight to the restrictions on the corporate side; even as I'm uncomfortable with the outright bans, I'd even count that balance as something that's likely to help with the petitions' passage.
Still, given that campaign finance reform is hardly a pet-project of the Right's - excepting restrictions on unions only, of course - I'm assuming this is one of the "good government" kind of initiatives.
My only question is whether it goes too far. Based on what I've seen so far, I think it does....enough to vote against it? Hmmm....maybe....
Nov 28, '05
Not sure if it is a Right-Wing group circulating these petitions or not.
I love the idea of banning corporate money. Not sure if unions have quite as much sway here as they do in other states. Unions have been on the decline over the years all over. Both of these measures seems to hurt Republican candidates more than Democrats; and even open the door a little to third parties.
I believe that funding for all elections should be publically funded, with no outside money whatsoever. No ads from outside groups and definately no money from out of state.
TV time should be donated on an equal basis to candidates and issues during election season. They are public airwaves that they do not pay for. Let's get our money's worth.
10:16 a.m.
Nov 28, '05
I'm no longer working on these initiatives in a paid capacity, having resigned as volunteer coordinator few months ago.
Couple of points:
The creation of small donor committees, as outlined in petition 37, provides a vehicle for membership organizations such as labor unions to circumvent the low limits on PAC and individual contributions, provided that they only accept donations in the amount of $50 per member per year.
No right wing groups are circulating these initiatives. The paid circulators are independent contractors, and some of them are carrying second and third petitions, including some of the Freedomworks TABOR initiatives.
The bans on corporate money and labor union money are in place in most states, and have been in place at the Federal level since the 1930's.
The limits are indeed low, particularly if the limits on independent expenditures ($10,000) are upheld by the courts.
Nov 28, '05
-Salvador,
Thanks for the info.
11:11 a.m.
Nov 28, '05
My usual note of caution at this time of the cycle: Do not, repeat DO NOT, think that the petition numbers will be the final numbers of these initiatives on the ballot. These numbers (8 and 37) will never be seen by actual voters.
Two years ago, I had to talk some friends out of reserving domain names, building websites, and running media campaigns - No on XXX - when the only thing in play was a petition number.
12:11 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
That said, we know what the next measure numbers are going to be, just not which initiative will be with which number. Unless the legislature meets and refers something to the ballot, we'll have measures 39 through 45 or so. If someone wants to reserve all sorts of initiative number web sites, go for it.
That said, often you want people repeating your message with the web site name, like trustjuries.com, instead of being forced to remember the right number.
Nov 28, '05
Low limits are, indeed, a good thing. Low limits keep the playing field more level by preventing the wealth from dominating electoral vicories.
As to your concern about the actual cost of campaigns, rising costs would be a good thing. Think about it: rising costs would force candidates to raise more money, but since there are low limits they will be forced to take a more grassroots approach by having more face-time with constituents. In other words, they would be forced to raise a bunch of small contributions (in the mold of the Dean campaign) as opposed to just a few large ones.
The only real negative unintended consequence is the potential for the Bloombergs and the Schwarzeneggers to grossly outspend their opponents using money from their own pockets, as spending limits are, as of now, unconstitutional per Buckley v. Valeo.
Nov 28, '05
And where did the money to finance "Campaign Finance Reform" come from?
One person Harry Lonsdale. Seems kind of weird that one rich person is funding this.
2:09 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
Ash,
Why do low limits level the playing field? Incumbents already hold great advantages in terms of name recognition, prior organizational strength, the power of public office. Almost every effort to severely restrict campaign spending ends up benefitting those who already hold political power, not some outside insurgency.
Also, at the same time you may level the field, you endanger the commonweal. How much spending is too much? How much is too little? How can you measure the proper amount of information that the public needs to be exposed to in order to make an informed decision?
If your response is free TV Time, how much time? To all candidates or just "serious" ones? At what hours? How During "LOST"? At 2 am? How can we be sure that this will result in a sufficiently informed electorate? Who is going to pay for this time? Do the TV and radio stations write this off as a deadweight loss? Who compensates them?
Why do you believe that lower limits will result in more "face time" with constituents? Why wouldn't it instead translate into widespread direct mail fundraising, or large "bundling" type gatherings where candidates try to efficiently raise large numbers of small donations?
to dmrusso:
so, for instance, if there is an initiative to ban gay marriage in Oregon, you support campaign finance that would ban money from out of state? Or you support a ban on groups who might donate money to Gordon Smith's opponent in an attempt to reduce the Republican majority in the House? What if these same individuals are in a state like Wyoming where a Democratic candidate doesn't have a chance? Then would you support allowing them to donate to Democrats in other states?
2:17 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
Why do we need these?
The "money = free speech" thing isn't an Oregon stumbling block, it's a federal protection. And while Oregon can make it's First Amendment more protective of rights than the federal one (and we have), it can't carve federally protected speech rights out of the state version - the federal constitution is a floor, not a ceiling. So, unless the Supremes get to overturning Buckley v. Valeo, money still equals speech, in Oregon and elsewhere.
As a sidenote, the facade crumbling off the Court this morning may be a portent of things to come. That's another story.
And then there are limits. Which make candidates spend more time raising money. Not necessarily knocking on doors or talking to the folks on the street, mind you, maybe having house parties with appropriately earnest policy discussions, certainly making phone calls to known donors with set scripts. I'm not clear on why progressives think this is neat, but the propaganda rallies around small money (us) instead of big money (them), presumably because we progressives don't have the big money to buy the access that we think we deserve. Except for Soros, and Reiner, and some other "good" rich guys who should be able to give as much as they want as long as they give it to us. It doesn't level the playing field, it just makes not-rich people sanctimonious about not being rich.
Dean is a prime example of how getting lots and lots of money from small donors doesn't mean that you win the election. Potter is a prime example of how mandated "clean money" elections in Portland are completely unnecessary. And Americans spend less money on elections than on chewing gum each year (so says Freakonomics, a must-read).
Elections are not won or lost on money or whether that money is clean, dirty, free flowing or obstructed; elections are won or lost on the strength and character of the candidates.
Were the opposite true, we would have bought our way back into power just last cycle.
Nov 28, '05
Ah. Thank you, Mr. Gronke, for that contribution. I like it because it gets at how complicated all this becomes as well as how quickly it becomes so.
Every time I've sat down to try to think through a "perfect" campaign law, I find myself hitting these blocks every second minute. It doesn't mean they cannot be resolved. What it does mean is, satisfying as it is to pull for level playing fields and free TV time, putting together a working policy is a hell of a lot harder.
One other comment in here also got my attention. It was Ash Roughani's talk about rising costs of a campaign and how more "grass-roots" fund-raising would be a good idea. I'm pretty dubious on this one: as I see it, our legislators already spend too much time fund-raising and don't see increasing that burden, or complicating it as an unalloyed plus. To my mind, lowering the costs would be spiffy....
....but as with all this, I can't claim that I know how to do that.
Nov 28, '05
And, I feel compelled to note, good comments Anne. I'm moving more toward lukewarm on this whole thing.
Nov 28, '05
Gee, Anne, I hardly know where to start responding to your post. How about here: The driving principle of campaign finance reform is not that there is too much money spent in campaigns, but that the source of campaign contributions undermines democracy, which is, after all, the raison d'etre of elections.
You wrote:
Dean is a prime example of how getting lots and lots of money from small donors doesn't mean that you win the election. Potter is a prime example of how mandated "clean money" elections in Portland are completely unnecessary.
If one example proved a point, you'd have an argument here. It does not, and you do not. Limiting the size of contributions is not supposed to guarantee victory, it's supposed to guarantee democracy. Potter's campaign was an anomaly statistically.
Elections are not won or lost on money or whether that money is clean, dirty, free flowing or obstructed; elections are won or lost on the strength and character of the candidates.
This sounds good, but is clearly untrue, unless you ascribe to some sort of political Calvinism. Statistics clearly show that the amount of campaign money raised is, by far, the strongest indicator of election victory. Are the candidates with "strength and character" the ones who raise the most cash? I don't think so.
As far as Buckley v. Valeo, federal courts have upheld limits similar to those in petition 37, so money and free speech are not exactly the same at all times.
If you are concerned about the amount of time candidates spend raising money, get behind the campaign for public financing, an idea that will be much more workable if petitions 8 and 37 become Oregon law.
4:40 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
Anne, how much taxpayer money was spent on gum? I don't care if you buy out every pack of Chiclets in the Willamette Valley; I only care if you do it in my name with my money.
Potter's win barely touches the benefits of clean money campaigns. Potter, for all his maverickness, is still an old white man who comes from the Portland governing establishment. He was police chief, after all. What clean money does is provide a workable avenue for non-obvious candidates to have a shot. Empirical evidence in AZ and ME shows that when campaign money deals are offered, you end up with more candidates, more minority candidates, more female candidates, and more candidates from geographically underserved areas.
4:53 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
So, unless the Supremes get to overturning Buckley v. Valeo, money still equals speech, in Oregon and elsewhere.
Though there are aspects to initiative petition 37 that may be struck down in court (such as attempts to limit independent expenditures), placing low limits on individual contributions to candidates and barring corporations from making political contributions are not likely to be among them.
Courts have always balanced "free speech" with "compelling public interest" with regard to campaign finance limits which is why, for example, the court has upheld limits on contributions to candidates and other provisions similar to those found in measure 37.
Every time I've sat down to try to think through a "perfect" campaign law, I find myself hitting these blocks every second minute.
There is no such thing as a "perfect" campaign finance law. There are pluses and minuses to every approach. The approach taken by the Fair Elections proponents: Low contribution limits in 2006 followed by some form of clean money elections in a future cycle strikes me as a reasonable approach, and is one that worked pretty well in Arizona and other states.
As for Anne's comments on "good rich" guys buying candidate races...
Partisan advantage is a lousy reason to promote reforms intended to reduce the influence of money on our political process. Nevertheless, the lessons of Montana, Colorado, and Vermont are that populist progressive candidates, particularly progressive democratic candidates, tend to do well in states with strong campaign finance limits, and public policy tends to more closely reflect the public interest rather than the narrow interests of wealthy donors.
Nov 28, '05
Ginny says: Isn't a right wing concern now circulating these initiatives? What do they have to gain?
Here's what they have to gain: money. Someone is getting paid to run the signature gathering efforts of all the ballot measures on the street. Signature gatherers say a new company has been set up by FreedomWorks to replace Bill Sizemore's signature gathering operation. Word is that's who is coordinating most of the measures out there.
Sal says: No right wing groups are circulating these initiatives. The paid circulators are independent contractors, and some of them are carrying second and third petitions, including some of the Freedomworks TABOR initiatives.
Sal, whether or not these circulators are being called "independent contractors," signature gatherers are classified as employees by many campaigns. And all campaigns - have a right and I would argue an obligation to tell their signature gatherers that they cannot carry initiatives that are counter to the beliefs of the chief petitioners. Even if you stretch the idea of independent contractor to its limit, as you are in describing signature gatherers, you still have the right to declare the terms of the contract. Just tell them not to carry the other petitions. It happens all the time and is the right way to run a signature gathering campaign.
7:37 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
Isn't a right wing concern now circulating these initiatives? What do they have to gain?
Here's what they have to gain: money. Someone is getting paid to run the signature gathering efforts of all the ballot measures on the street. Signature gatherers say a new company has been set up by FreedomWorks to replace Bill Sizemore's signature gathering operation. Word is that's who is coordinating most of the measures out there.
FreedomWorks is collecting signatures for the TABOR and Paycheck protection initiatives, not petitions 8 and 37.
Patty, is there any truth to the rumor that the company that does most of the paid signature gathering for the unions in Oregon is collecting the signatures to kill voter owned elections in Portland?
7:39 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
Isn't a right wing concern now circulating these initiatives? What do they have to gain?
Here's what they have to gain: money. Someone is getting paid to run the signature gathering efforts of all the ballot measures on the street. Signature gatherers say a new company has been set up by FreedomWorks to replace Bill Sizemore's signature gathering operation. Word is that's who is coordinating most of the measures out there.
FreedomWorks is collecting signatures for the TABOR and Paycheck protection initiatives, not petitions 8 and 37.
Patty, is there any truth to the rumor that the company that does most of the paid signature gathering for the unions in Oregon is collecting the signatures to kill voter owned elections in Portland?
Nov 28, '05
And that takes on to the limits on total, annual contributions. $2,500? Wow. And that doesn't even get into how little may be directly donated to individual campaigns; $500 for a statewide race sounds awfully modest. The figures involved just seem a bit low to me - especially given the absence of any mechanism on the other side to contain the actual expense of a state-wide campaign.
And that gets to the gist of the matter. This is not about the value of generalized campaign finance reform or the value anything going on in Portland. It is about the wording of particular measures. I was a small part of the Measure 9 campaign finance reform measure and I am glad it passed. But as I recall there was a problem with one of the details--that it treated 2 neighbors cohosting a neighborhood coffee or some other event very harshly while an individual hosting the same event would not be (been over a decade, not sure I still remember all the details).
Don't sign a campaign finance measure petition just because you like the generalized idea of campaign finance reform, make sure you know the details--there are those who support the concept who would oppose a measure which set the limits too low.
Nov 28, '05
Petition 37 has lots to worry about.
First, to correct some impressions here that Sal could have corrected - this is not a right wing proposal, it is a group by-in-large supported by Harry Lonsdale.
From a rural perspective, this is a horrible measure, if enacted. I would be limited in my spending on a candidate for State office to $100 per election (primary/general). But my State House and Senate Districts cover multi-county areas. Just for a candidate to travel from one end of my House district to the other would cost about $100 in gas. This measure is a terrible hardship on rural candidates.
And, there is no inflation adjustment. The contribution limitation would be the same forever. So, 20 years down the road, assuming the price of gas goes up (safe assumption), and assuming there is inflation (safe assumption), the campaign limitations would mean that the candidate in a rural district won't be able to leave town on the contributions that they would receive.
What worries me the most, these issues aside, is that it has never failed that those with the "real" money, who can hire legal assistance, and manipulate the system - find a way to spend money on their candidates. Which side has the concentration of wealth that can do this legal move? Perhaps the PAC rule will work for them. You can under the language of Petition 37 donate $25 to a PAC. What if you have the legal muscle to create 1,000 PAC's? - and you have 1,000 friends with similar means? A bookkeeping nightmare, but doable if you have someone hired that can do it for you.
And there is another downside. The PAC's in Oregon are also used by non-profit and public interest groups to pool money to hire lobbyists. The low limit on PAC donations would be a real burden there. Would the political action committess for the alcohol and drug directors, the residential treatment centers for youth, the mental health related PAC's, etc. etc. have to close their doors? You take out the few lobbyists that represent the otherwise un-represented groups that are "clients of the state", and you give way to even more corporate domination in that arena.
Another area of downside to this is the intervention by the State into the political parties. Law already on the books telling the major parties in Oregon what they can and cannot do probably would not stand up to a court challenge. Place further limitations on the major parties, and it makes court action certain. So, the body of laws about voter registration, primary practices, even precinct committee elections would end up dumped in the trash with this measure - if enacted and then overturned - and it would likely be over turned. The State really has no business telling any group of people what they can and cannot do in organizing to express their political beliefs - it is clearly a violation of free speech.
There are a host of downsides to this possible measure. I would urge everyone to think long and hard about this before signing. I certainly won't sign, or vote for this.
9:31 p.m.
Nov 28, '05
First, to correct some impressions here that Sal could have corrected - this is not a right wing proposal, it is a group by-in-large supported by Harry Lonsdale.
I had assumed that most of the readers had taken the time to read the article in the Oregonian which presaged Jeff's post. Had you done so, you would have known that the article mentioned the driving forces behind this, Harry Lonsdale and Dan Meek, prominently.
From a rural perspective, this is a horrible measure, if enacted. I would be limited in my spending on a candidate for State office to $100 per election (primary/general). But my State House and Senate Districts cover multi-county areas. Just for a candidate to travel from one end of my House district to the other would cost about $100 in gas. This measure is a terrible hardship on rural candidates.
Strange that this hasn't been a problem in Montana, which is much larger geographically than eastern Oregon, yet has comparable limits to the ones in P37.
Also, as I have explained to via email on at least 2 occasions, travel expenses of the sort that you just spent 2 paragraphs complaining about are explictly exempted in this statute.
You can under the language of Petition 37 donate $25 to a PAC. What if you have the legal muscle to create 1,000 PAC's? - and you have 1,000 friends with similar means?
You and your friends would still be limited to a $2,500 aggregate contribution limit per person -- if each of you donated $25 to 100 different pac's it would water down your "buying power" without really accomplishing much of anything in the process.
3:10 a.m.
Nov 29, '05
Sal & the other supporters of this proposal...
I'd like to posit another question: Why this campaign finance proposal? Why limits on size of donation, rather than source of donations? Why a restricted private-money system, rather than a public-money system?
How is this different - in effect, not in legal technicalities - than the system that was in place in 1996? After all, back then the candidates were unable to raise enough funds to communicate - and independent expenditure committees simply ran their own "candidate" campaigns without any involvement by the candidates...
You're not really banking on the IE limit being enforceable are you? I mean, I don't think there's a more obvious free speech problem with any other campaign finance reform proposal... (You simply cannot tell Mr. Billionaire that he can't spend two million bucks of his own money declaring that the governor is a jerk.)
I believe in campaign finance reform, I'm just not sure that this is the right one.
8:56 a.m.
Nov 29, '05
Sal & the other supporters of this proposal... I'd like to posit another question: Why this campaign finance proposal? Why limits on size of donation, rather than source of donations? Why a restricted private-money system, rather than a public-money system?
My biggest problem with defending these initiatives is that it tends to make you a pariah in political circles -- like a cop who works for Internal Affairs. With that in mind, I'd like to repeat that I am no longer working on these initiatives in a professional capacity, but am just sharing my opinion about them and clearing up some things that are clearly inaccurate when I see them.
As to your questions...
Public money has been tried and beaten (badly) at the state level in Oregon. Unless some of the bigger players got on board with it, there is little chance that it would pass given a second chance. OTOH, with a strong system of limits in place, the legislature might be forced to act on public financing.
There is not a public money system in the country that exists without spending limits.
Harry's goal, at least as it has been explained to me, is to pass strong limits and followup with some form of public financing and Montana-style limits on ballot initiatives.
Why limit the size of donations rather than source of donations?
The source of donations is limited under P37. Corporations and labor unions cannot give money directly from their treasuries. Or did I miss your point here?
You're not really banking on the IE limit being enforceable are you? I mean, I don't think there's a more obvious free speech problem with any other campaign finance reform proposal...(You simply cannot tell Mr. Billionaire that he can't spend two million bucks of his own money declaring that the governor is a jerk.)
The direction taken by Meek and Cressman in drafting this initiative is the same direction that Russ Feingold and John McCain are trying to push the Federal law. Courts have upheld the legality of limiting independent expenditures for corporations (Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce), and there is some reason to believe, given compelling evidence that IE's corrupt the process, that courts will begin accepting arguments along those lines.
Even if the IE piece falls, what we'll end up with is a system in Oregon that looks like Colorado or Montana, and if we're honest here, we know that the sky isn't exactly falling in either of those two states -- particlarly for Democratic candidates.
Having said that, as someone who is gathering signatures to run for office, I do have concerns about the system we are creating, and with what a system with low contribution limits to candidates coupled with no limits on independent expenditures might look like.
I believe in campaign finance reform, I'm just not sure that this is the right one.
That's a fair point Kari. I would respond by saying that weak campaign finance reforms are not reforms at all, just methods for people with money to game the system.
Bottom line is that the political class won't like these initiatives. They'll say that the Fair elections initiatives take too much money out of the system; that it makes it too tough to raise money, etc. And certainly there is some truth to that.
But, if memory serves, the aggregate individual contribution limits that we are talking about will seriously affect the total spending of less than a few hundred people in the state of Oregon based on contributions in the 2002 and 2004 elections. It may be hard to believe, but right now our political process is controlled by 25-30 groups that account for 1/3rd of all campaign spending and maybe another 30 wealthy donors who account for much of the rest.
That's not democracy, it's oligrarchy.
I believe that the process can and should be democratized. I think that an overwhelming majority of Oregonians share that view.
Nov 29, '05
Today's post: 3. Harry's goal, at least as it has been explained to me, is to pass strong limits and followup with some form of public financing and Montana-style limits on ballot initiatives.
Yesterday's post: I had assumed that most of the readers had taken the time to read the article in the Oregonian which presaged Jeff's post. Had you done so, you would have known that the article mentioned the driving forces behind this, Harry Lonsdale and Dan Meek, prominently. From a rural perspective, this is a horrible measure, if enacted. I would be limited in my spending on a candidate for State office to $100 per election (primary/general). But my State House and Senate Districts cover multi-county areas. Just for a candidate to travel from one end of my House district to the other would cost about $100 in gas. This measure is a terrible hardship on rural candidates. Strange that this hasn't been a problem in Montana, which is much larger geographically than eastern Oregon, yet has comparable limits to the ones in P37. So, last night, when I finally did read the article, it was very interesting. Several states were mentioned, not Montana.
Is it the position of the sponsors of this measure that Petition 37 is verbatim the Montana law, or is it just "comparable"?
Or are you saying it is the principle of the thing, details don't matter?
Seems to me that people (esp. in rural areas) have the right to question the details and wording of a measure. A snippy response is no way to win friends and influence people.
Nov 29, '05
Seems like this thread took off since the last time I read it!
Paul: I would support any measure that disallowed any money from coming from out of state, no matter what. Does the US take donations from Chile for elections? The same should apply to state elections with regard to outside money from other states. No hypocracy from my lips on this one.
I can imagine that this would harm both parties, but more so the Republican social conservatives that seem to love to push their agenda from state-to-state. Rather than give money to their local communities, far right churches give money to causes in Oregon!
If a Democrat wants to run in a typically "red" state, all the power to him. Equally, outside money should not be influencing his or her campaign. Not all Democrats are un-electable in "red" states. We're a big tent.
And I am speaking here about Oregon, not about Wyoming. If any other state wants to pass a similar law, then that is up to them.
Nov 29, '05
Salvador has explained P8 & P37 well. I'll add a few observations.
Some worry that the limits in P37 are too low. The amounts allowed are more than only a tiny percentage of voters contribute to candidates. As long as voters and contributors are distinct groups, democracy will suffer. Elected officials cannot serve two masters.
Voluntary public financing is a great idea, but it recently lost in Oregon. Contribution limits passed handily in the mid-nineties. If public financing finally succeeds in a statewide election [Portland may lead the way], the limits in P37 will make it stronger, as candidates will have more motivation to use the public system.
As usual, labor unions are not on board with this CFR effort. My analysis is that P8 and P37 would lead to more pro-labor candidates winning elections. So why do the unions not support the change? I believe it is because the professional political people who work for labor do not want their cash flow reduced, even if the cash flow of labor's adversaries in reduced even more. This, I am afraid, is an unavoidable situation. I wonder when the rank and file will realize that their pros do not always put labor's interests over their own.
It takes a while for fundraising to adapt to new rules. In 1996, the path of least resistance - independent expenditures - was chosen. The IE limits in P37 may or may not be upheld. Either way, more than one election cycle's experience may see creative and democracy supporting adaptations to fundraising in Oregon. Dean's internet based grassroots fundraising is a recent development. Might it work in Oregon under P8 & P37? I'd like to find out.
12:30 p.m.
Nov 29, '05
Is it the position of the sponsors of this measure that Petition 37 is verbatim the Montana law, or is it just "comparable"?
I won't pretend to speak for the chief petitioners, but with regard to the contribution limits to candidates, what Bucknum was complaining about, they are comparable to Montana. Other portions of the statute, such as the small donor committees provision are more similar to an initiative that passed in 2002 in Colorado. Others, such as the attempt to limit independent expenditures are more similar to the current direction that Russ Feingold and John McCain are trying to move federal law.
As for Bucknum's post, what Steve did in his post was not to "question the wording" of the initiative, but make some very inaccurate statements about what the initiative actually says (i.e., saying that candidates would not be able to afford their gas when, in fact, unreimbursed travel expenses are explicitly exempted in the statute). These are things that I have pointed out to him in at least 2 seperate emails and one telephone conversation.
Nov 29, '05
Why do low limits level the playing field? Incumbents already hold great advantages in terms of name recognition, prior organizational strength, the power of public office. Almost every effort to severely restrict campaign spending ends up benefitting those who already hold political power, not some outside insurgency.
So you are positing the argument that limits = an Incumbent Protenction Act. Incumbents will always hold an advantage no matter what kind of reforms are in place. The instances in which a challeger can outspend an incumbent are near zero. With limits, at least the marginal funds raised are likely to be less than without limits. The notion that limits do more harm than good is ludicrous.
Also, at the same time you may level the field, you endanger the commonweal. How much spending is too much? How much is too little? How can you measure the proper amount of information that the public needs to be exposed to in order to make an informed decision?
You only need as much as your opponent. Limits increase the likelihood that both sides will be equally heard. This is all voters need to make an informed decision.
If you are worried about campaigns costing too much, just remember that necessity is the mother of invention.
If your response is free TV Time, how much time? To all candidates or just "serious" ones? At what hours? How During "LOST"? At 2 am? How can we be sure that this will result in a sufficiently informed electorate? Who is going to pay for this time? Do the TV and radio stations write this off as a deadweight loss? Who compensates them?
You don't really think that these complex details couldn't be worked out, do you? I don't think anyone agrees that this is a simple matter.
Why do you believe that lower limits will result in more "face time" with constituents? Why wouldn't it instead translate into widespread direct mail fundraising, or large "bundling" type gatherings where candidates try to efficiently raise large numbers of small donations?
That's entirely possible. I just know that it will result in less time on the phone with fat cat donor's. Either way, it's still better to have many small contributions than a few large ones.
Dean is a prime example of how getting lots and lots of money from small donors doesn't mean that you win the election.
No. Dean is an example of what's is broken with the Presidential Primary System, i.e. the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire decide for the rest of us.
One other comment in here also got my attention. It was Ash Roughani's talk about rising costs of a campaign and how more "grass-roots" fund-raising would be a good idea. I'm pretty dubious on this one: as I see it, our legislators already spend too much time fund-raising and don't see increasing that burden, or complicating it as an unalloyed plus. To my mind, lowering the costs would be spiffy....
You may think that legislators spend too much time fundraising, but upon further reflection I think you might realize that the real problem is who they are raising funds from and not the actual time spent. Would you think it a bad thing if this time was spent with constituents?
And you're absolutely right that lowering the costs would be spiffy. But here is where the argument comes full circle as to why campaign finance reform is such a fundamental issue:
Costs of campaigns = communicating with the public. Communicating with the public = paid air time to reach the largest audience possible. Lowering these costs = financial loss for media companies. Media companies (and those interests who generally side with them)= the primary source of money in the current political system.
In other words, legislators who currently rely on large contributions are literally unable to do anything about the cost of campaigns because the media companies (and those interest who generally side with them) have them by the balls in the current system.
3:22 p.m.
Nov 29, '05
Actually, Tom, statistics show (ok, really, statistics can show anything you want them to show) that the biggest predictor of election victory is incumbency, not campaign cash. An incumbent facing the same opponent as in a prior election can spend half as much money and still win. The challenger in the same situation can spend twice as much money and still lose.
And if you don't like Dean for the big-money-still-loses proposition, how about Huffington? There's a whole list out there.
Bottom line is that the more convoluted you make campaign finance laws, the harder it is for regular people to follow the money. In my view, the one piece of information that is really valuable in the vast info imbalance between voters and a campaign is where the money is coming from. If a politician is in somebody's pocket, I want to know whose pocket it is. Transparancy. Sunshine. All that good stuff. The campaign finance reform proposals we have don't stop money from coming into the system (and never will), they just keep the lawyers employed and the tricks creative, meanwhile making that one valuable piece of information, where the money comes from, even harder to find. Campaign finance reform should instead be dedicated to open books and full disclosure.
5:31 p.m.
Nov 29, '05
Ash,
No, I don't think they could be worked out. The devil is in the details. Lots of folks say they support campaign finance limits because the likely impact on public informedness will be taken up by free TV time ... but then they have nothing to say about free TV time except it will be "complex."
The notion that limits do more damage than good is hardly absurd. In order to be successful in a US House race, a challenger needs to spend at least $600,000, usually more. Is it any surprise to you that the few public finance limits that have been proposed for the US House set the spending cap at $300,000?
You say equal amounts means that each candidate has an equal chance to be heard, but this obscures two critical points.
First, you missed the key part of my post: incumbents have tremendous advantage in name recognition before the campaign even starts. So if you put incumbents and challengers at the same, limited expenditure rate, incumbents will keep on winning. The only way to increase challenger success is to a) make sure we have high quality challengers, and b) make sure challengers have sufficient funding. (Incumbent funds are, ironically, not very strongly related to their probability of success.)
Second, you haven't told me how much is too much or too little. Isn't that very important for us to know before we institute limits? Under you logic, we could set limits at $10, or $100, or $1000, since all you care about is equality. That is very simplistic.
Nov 29, '05
dmrusso,
So you are claiming that the US and Chile are comparably interdependent as Oregon and Wyoming? It's hard not to be sarcastic. I mean, we are all in the same country. Is that not enough?
But ok. I would oppose such a measure strenuously. And the fact that you think it would benefit one party more than another would only increase my opposition. I choose political reforms on the basis of equity, not on the basis of partisan advantage.
5:38 p.m.
Nov 29, '05
Anne,
I just spent Thanksgiving with my Right wing siblings and I can attest to the fact that Sunshine laws, full disclosure, etcetera, are not going to provide them with any new info.
People who read and comment on Blue Oregon (Left or Right) are the tiny minority of voters to whom the changes that you prefer might make some difference. Most people know what they know and even when confronted with evidence that "legislator X" is in the pocket of "social rapist Y", most voters show an almost infinite capacity for voluntary ignorance and self delusion.
The Lonsdale/Meek effort just presents them with a fait accompli that few will notice, but it may clean up Oregon politics a tiny bit for a few years so why not try it.
I take your point about the advantages of incumbency, but I'm undeterred by arguments that basically argue:
"Why wash the dishes, you're just going to get them dirty again"
6:47 p.m.
Nov 29, '05
Ash said:
No. Dean is an example of what's is broken with the Presidential Primary System, i.e. the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire decide for the rest of us.
Very true, although that was just a part of it. The media had a large part in it as well, playing that supposed "scream" over and over. Only ABC's Diane Sawyer was willing to show a non-media tape in which you couldn't even hear that "scream" from a few rows back from the stage. It had appeared loud because of the way TV stations record audio at events such as that.
It's also ridiculous that a few small states that make up a tiny portion of the nation's population get to decide who the nominee will be. By the time we voted it didn't even matter-- that's why I gave my vote to Kucinich so that more delegates would be able to go to the national convention.
On the campaign finance topic, I've been following it fairly closely. I've also been looking at campaign finance reports over the past 9 months or so for various state leg candidates. Going by those reports, this won't affect most Oregonians from giving money. What it will do is stop the huge donations from Merck, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, etc. It will stop big land developers from writing out a $10K check. In looking through the reports, I was unable to find that many people who wouldn't still be able to give money under the new rules.
And if I understood correctly, it will also stop candidates from having other PACs that they then use to "launder" big donations from corporations through to then give to their own campaign (such as Speaker's PAC giving big donations to Minnis' PAC). They do this because people will just see a large donation from a political action committee, but without doing some digging won't see the huge donations from those corporations or special interests (can we say $20K from an out-of-state owner of a large payday loan company?).
I'm not saying I necessarily 100% support this measure, as I have seen some downsides to it. However, I'm not going to oppose it right now just because of those reasons. We still have months to look at the measure, what it will do, etc. before we have to decide whether or not we should vote for it. But signing a petition would allow it to at least have a chance to be voted on.
6:48 p.m.
Nov 29, '05
Could someone please turn off the italics? I just tried and it didn't work.
Nov 29, '05
-Paul,
You have every right to your opinion, but my example deserved more than a harsh criticism. I expect more than that.
I guess that it takes some education and understanding to figure that one out.
Nov 29, '05
It's true, Anne, that incumbents almost always win. Only one lost in the 2004 Oregon legislative elections. At the same time, the top fundraiser won 94% of the time in senate races and 90% of the time in house races, so the correlation between incumbency and raising more money is damn close. Of course, not every contest includes an incumbent. Overall, the top fundraiser in the 2004 elections won 91% of the time. Although I have calculated percentages, it is clear that more Oregon legislative races were won by the top fundraiser than by the incumbent. So, though I was wrong to write that fundraising is the top indicator of victory, it is the most important indicator in the final makeup of the legislature.
Info at: Money in Politics Research Action Project
Nov 29, '05
Last message should have read "Although I have NOT calculated percentages...."
Nov 29, '05
In 2004, there were 7 Oregon House elections won by less than 1,000 votes. Were each of those a case of the bigger spender winning? Did Barker win by 40 votes in 2002 because he spent more?
Is "Overall, the top fundraiser in the 2004 elections won 91% of the time" really a statement in support of petition 37, or just of the general topic of campaign finance reform?
In 1990 I worked on the campaign of a friend who defeated incumbent Denny Smith for Congress. Only 5 incumbents lost that year. My guess is that with the wall to wall ads Denny ran, he probably spent more. Of course, there were those who say one thing that tipped the balance was people offended by the "voice of Hitler" commercial.
Did Gordon Smith spend more than Wyden in January 1996 with those "we're all real tired of career politicians" ads? Ron and Gordon said they started the tradition of joint town hall meetings because they heard the anger of the public--that some people had quit watching TV in Jan. 1996 until the election because they got so tired of the ads. So was that money wisely spent or shouldn't we be asking that because the discussion is only to be about the amount of money?
I agree on the need for campaign finance reform as a concept. I DON'T agree with what seems to be the attitude of some that anyone who doesn't sign up for the petition 37 campaign supports big money politics.
The reason so many of us have been registered outside major parties at some time in our lives is that we got tired of the "agree with this, don't ask any questions" attitude so often in partisan (and sometimes ballot measure) politics.
One more thing: Tom Bruggere outspent Harry Lonsdale in the 1996 Senate primary. Did Gordon Smith outspend him in the fall? Was money alone the deciding factor in that election? Or could it have been people like me who got fed up with what one friend described as the choice between "the slick one and the chinless one" and voted for one of the 3rd party candidates?
In short, will statistics win the petition 37 debate, or plain old fashioned listening to complaints and addressing them by persuasion rather than sarcasm?
Nov 30, '05
LT,
More money does not always lead to victory. There are times when a smart grassroots effort succeeds. There are times when a wealthy candidate is caught in last minute scandal. But these are rare happenings. They almost never determine which party holds the majority on a legislative body.
You mention four particular elections. Given the thousands of elections that have occurred over recent time, all sorts of results will exist. I don't think the statistics mislead in this area. Three of the four elections you mention are federal, which, of course, will not be covered by state law. But statistics on campaign finance and election results are similar at the federal level: money leads to victory.
And no, not supporting these petitions does not, in itself, mean that one supports "big money politics." I would wonder what other attempts to limit contributions a person or group has supported, which brings me back to the labor unions. Which efforts to limit contributions - or otherwise end "big money politics" have unions supported? Given the political power of labor, they could have written and circulated their own petitions. I don't think you will uncover many instances of union support in the past several decades.
It is easy to find some detail of this CFR plan or any other, to use as an excuse for opposition. So, again, if a politically active person or group is not a supporter of "big money politics", I must wonder which efforts to end it have they actively supported.
Nov 30, '05
And no, not supporting these petitions does not, in itself, mean that one supports "big money politics." I would wonder what other attempts to limit contributions a person or group has supported, which brings me back to the labor unions. Which efforts to limit contributions - or otherwise end "big money politics" have unions supported? Given the political power of labor, they could have written and circulated their own petitions. I don't think you will uncover many instances of union support in the past several decades.
Having been a supporter of a victorious primary candidate whose opponent was backed by organized labor, I understand the power of unions. I also know that some of the best people I ever met in politics AND some of the worst I ever met came from unions, and I don't like the generalizations. Sounds like frustration that others don't have the same viewpoint.
It is easy to find some detail of this CFR plan or any other, to use as an excuse for opposition. So, again, if a politically active person or group is not a supporter of "big money politics", I must wonder which efforts to end it have they actively supported.
As someone who attended Common Cause meetings in Salem while Measure 9 was being planned and run, I wonder why the hostility in the previous sentence. Does "you're supposed to agree with us on this" really win friends and influence people? Not in my experience, but then I always believed in the persuasion of selling an issue rather than demanding support as more likely to win votes.
I am a person who was active in the Measure 9 campaign finance reform campaign and was there on the capitol steps the day the signatures were turned in. But I have lots of questions about the wording of petition 37.
And I won't sign the petition or campaign for it simply because someone asks questions like
"So, again, if a politically active person or group is not a supporter of "big money politics", I must wonder which efforts to end it have they actively supported."
Nov 30, '05
LT,
I am a big supporter of unions and agree there are many good people in them. However, I cannot ignore the difference between union rhetoric on CFR and union action on CFR. It is abundantly clear that the political people who work for and with unions are overwhelmingly anti-contribution limits [unless, of course, they limit only union opponents].
The same is true about the ACLU, another group I support - and have been a memmber of for decades.
By the way, my remarks were not about you personally, although my post was in answer to yours. But, since you mentioned Measure 9, that initiative was struck down by the Oregon courts and was never tested at the federal level. Petition 8 is designed to circumvent the Oregon problem and Petition 37 was based on legislation that has withheld federal test [other than the controls on independent expenditures, which is untested].
Nov 30, '05
Petition 8 is designed to circumvent the Oregon problem and Petition 37 was based on legislation that has withheld federal test [other than the controls on independent expenditures, which is untested].
As I recall, the authors of Measure 9 were very careful and had expert help drafting the measure but it was still struck down (wonder what would have happened had that case been heard after the Shrink Ohio and McCain Feingold US Supreme Court decisions).
Petition 8 makes sense. I have lots of questions about petition 37. I think Steve Bucknum has a right to his concerns.
1:45 p.m.
Nov 30, '05
For discussion purposes, here's what the Bend Bulletin's editorial board thinks:
http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051130/OPIN01/511300315/1050/OPIN&nav_category=OPIN
Nov 30, '05
Thank you, Anne. I especially liked this quote:
"The measure would limit individual contributions to $500 for candidates for statewide office and $100 for local races. It also would cap how much any individual could give in total each year, no matter how many recipients were involved. The statutory limit also would bar unions and businesses from contributing at all. Unions have in the past fought hard against such proposals, especially when engineered by Bill Sizemore. It is to be hoped they attack the current scheme with equal vigor.
Circulators say they're having remarkable results gathering signatures this year, and surely the difficulties of Republican Dan Doyle and Democrat Kelly Wirth have made their job easier. They've also been aided by a war chest of $100,000 to pay signature gatherers, and one wonders whether that money was collected with the same eye to limits they now propose. We suspect not."
It is time for the proponents to address such concerns, rather than making cracks like "It is easy to find some detail of this CFR plan or any other, to use as an excuse for opposition"
Nov 30, '05
The Bend Bulletin's editorial opposing P8 & P37 is a hefty pile of self-serving bull. If the Bulletin, and the rest of the news media cared about the expense of getting a candidate's message out to the voters, they could easily increase their political coverage tenfold without running out of space for the sports scores. Instead, the media carries less and less political coverage [television is particularly guilty of this] and rake in millions [or is it billions?] on political ads.
Sorry, but the "campaigning is expensive" argument strikes me as an excuse for addiction. The wealthy contributors use it to get their way, the media use it to increase their income, and the political pros use it to build their careers. The people pay for this addiction by enduring crappy government.
The way campaigns are run now, they are expensive. That can change with effective CFR, some imagination, and the development of democracy enhancing institutions dedicated to public discourse. We've had enough whining repetition of silly excuses to do nothing.
Nov 30, '05
LT,
Which concerns do you mean? How about a list.
<h2>By the way, Measure 9 was found in violation of Oregon's free speech protections, which are stronger than those in the Bill of Rights. Petiton 8 addresses this directly.</h2>