Pretty much this is an argument between the folks who don't want anything unless they can craft the perfect end-all-be-all measure (in their view) -- and the folks who want to successfully take a first step, make it a solid one, and then build on that success.

Unfortunately, Petition 150 would be completely ineffective in limiting corporate or union money going to elect or defeat candidates.

First, it authorizes only limits on funds contributed directly to candidates or political committees. It does not authorize any limits on independent expenditures. Thus, any corporation that wishes to support Cindy Smith for office remains perfectly free to use infinite funds to promote Cindy Smith in TV ads, radio ads, newspapers, and all other media. They do not even have to identify themselves in any of the ads, because the Oregon Legislature repealed the political "tagline" requirement just a few years back. Even if independent spenders did need to identify themselves, they could use a nice name, like the "Better Government Committee." The result will be essentially identical to making contributions directly to Cindy Smith's campaign, and big money will continue to dominate elections in Oregon.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 upheld Michigan's ban on independent expenditures by corporations to support or oppose candidates (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce). In 2005, the Court reiterated that position in upholding the McCain-Feingold limits on the federal level and extended it to unions. The Court stated: "Congress’ power to prohibit corporations and unions from using funds in their treasuries to finance advertisements expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates in federal elections has been firmly embedded in our law." 124 S. Ct. at 694. That also means that states can do the same, under the First Amendment.

Yet, Petition 150 does not attempt to allow limits on independent expenditures. Petition 8, on the other hand, authorizes the Legislature and the people using the initiative process to limit independent expenditures, because it authorizes limits on "contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election."

Second, a major problem with Petition 150 is that it leaves large gaps in defining entities that can be limited. It allows only restrictions on "a corporation or labor organization" or "an individual." What about entities that are not corporations or labor organizations, such as unincorporated groups or associations? Petition 150 would not allow any limits on such organizations (including, for example, sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships, associations, joint ventures, clubs, groups), as long as those entities have money.

Third, Petition 150 expressly does not limit use of a candidate's personal wealth. If its other limits were in any way effective, the result would be reserving important public offices for those wealthy enough to personally fund their own campaigns. Note that limits on use of personal wealth are already law in Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, and West Virginia (according to the Federal Election Commission's survey of state laws). Washington also has a limit but it kicks in only during the last 21 days of the campaign.

Fourth, Petition 150 uses many terms that it does not define. This will allow the Legislature to define those terms as it likes. Since the Legislature in power whenever this amendment would take effect would consist of those elected under the current system of big money and no limits, those officeholders will almost certainly want to avoid limits (just like the Massachusetts legislature in 2003 repealed that state's campaign finance reform law on a voice vote). If they wished to continue to receive direct contributions from corporations and unions (in addition to benefiting from their unlimited independent expenditures), they could simply pass a statute allowing entities that are not "political committees" to expend funds supporting or opposing candidates. Call those entities "democracy cooperatives," and the limits in Petition 150 do not apply (because Petition 150 allows only limits on contributions to a candidate or a "political committee," without defining that term).

I would prefer a constitutional amendment that would be effective in limiting big money in Oregon politics. That is Petition 8, which reads:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the    people through the initiative process, or the Legislative Assembly by a three-fourths vote of both Houses, may enact and amend laws to prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election."

More information is available at: FairElections Oregon

I see comments above about Petition 37, the detailed campaign finance reform statute now on the streets.

For a complete response to those comments, check out FairElections Facts (response to "Our Oregon")

I believe that Buckley's new CFR is a great first step and is much more likely to pass than M37 will.

Representatives with the Democratic Party have already come out against M37. Many progressive and labor organizations have stated they are against it as well. I've heard quite a bit of opposition to it at the meetings I go to-- and that's amongst the Democrat/progressive community.

Do I think the measure goes far enough? No.

Do I think it's a really good start? Yes.

That's one of the things that has driven me crazy about Dems over the past decade-- if you can't get it all at once, then it's not good enough.

Do you think that's how the Republicans went about taking over the country? No. It took the Christian Coalition type R's 15 years to take over their party and then 15 to take over the country.

Change isn't made overnight, nor is it made in one huge step.

Sometimes you've got to make a small change, let people see how that small change helped, and then make another small change.

And before anyone starts attacking me-- I'm not with any labor organization, nor Our Oregon. I originally felt lukewarm support for 8/37-- I even did some paid work for the organization that put it forth. However, the more I thought on it, the more I realized that it was too much at once and would likely fail at the ballots.

Thanks to whoever fixed the italics. It's one of the downsides to not being able to edit your posts-- when someone sees they've left the italics or bold open, they can't easily go back and fix it.

Rep. Buckley-- I have one quick question.

Would the individual contribution limits apply to those from out-of-state who contribute to campaigns?

I hope so, as it was amazing to see the individual contributions of $20,000 to Republican legislative candidates and the Republican PACs for the legislature from the heads of the big payday loan companies.

It'll also be nice to not see those multi-thousand dollar checks from pharmaceutical companies, telecommunication companies, etc.

I've recently finished an Excel file that has all the contributions that Minnis received over the past few years. Speaker's PAC and Majority 2004 (now 06) are next. It's something else to see how many $5000, $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 contributions from the heads of companies and corporations show up in those C&E reports.

Odd... the italics have disappeared at the bottom for me.

I'm glad to hear it applies to everyone.

And you're right, it's a first step. We can't then stop working on the issue just because we move forward a step. We keep working on it until it is the best system it can be.

I get tired of people shooting down ballot measures or legislation just because it doesn't do everything. Instead of looking at it that way, we should look at it this way:

Does it forward the cause, whether it be CFR, environmental protection, consumer protection, etc.?

Is it a step in the right direction?

Would we be better off with those changes than what we have now?

<h1>8 and #37 sponsors/supporters: Are you going to self-impose contribution limits of $15,000 or under to qualify and pass your initiatives?</h1>

I have learned that the C&Es for the chief petitioner committees for Petitions 8 and 37 were sent to the Secretary of State by email today and that the C&E guru was laid up (diagnosis: severe bronchitis, perhaps pneumonia).

Did "Our Oregon" file a C&E? Does it disclose its sources of funding and amounts for its activities, including opposing the qualification Petitions 8 and 37 for the ballot?

I asked earlier: #8 and #37 sponsors/supporters: Are you going to self-impose contribution limits of $15,000 or under to qualify and pass your initiatives?

Prog responded: Well since the point of the measure is to create a level playing field, it would be assinine to hold your self to a standard that your opponents won't.

Dan Meek, are you and other sponsors of #8 & #37 willing to limit your contributions to $15K if the other side limits contributions to the same level as well?

Have the petitioners gotten a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a $15,000 cap on an individual's "aggregate" contributions to ALL state or local candidates and PACs? This seems very problematic. I don't believe the Supreme Court has approved this type of prohibition on an individual's political activity. The logic that the Court has historically accepted for limits on contributions to a single candidate -- the avoidance of actual or apparent corruption -- does not exist for limiting aggregate contributions.

I also don't understand the public policy behind the aggregate cap. If I spread my $15,000 around in $1000 contributions to 15 candidates and PACs, what is the harm to society if I want to contribute an additional $25 to one more candidate?

"The rich have the right to buy more cars than anyone else, more homes, vacations, gadgets and gizmos, but they do not have the right to buy more democracy than anyone else. " -Bill Moyers

So, init #150 is bad in part because 1) it does not limit personal wealth (Dan Meek, above) 2) it sets a $15K limit that is too high (progvoice, above). But wealthy supporters of #8 and #37 should be entitled to have more than $15K worth of speech, and no limits on the use of persoanl wealth to qualify & pass their initiatives. Even if the other side agrees to limits, is that your position?

BTW: I do not work with OurOregon and am not speaking for them or their campaign.

i'm not terribly bright on these things, so could someone please explain how 150 limits corporations as it does unions? unions seem to have a blanket limit of zero; individuals just a limit (!) of $15,000. what am i missing?

2nd, why are we Oregonians so obsessed with (screwing with) our constitution? is this our only option? just reading thru this thread demonstrates how little agreement there is on this topic. perpetrators of initiatives claim they are Voices for Common Sense & Simplicity (and that we Common Citizens should be Grateful and Cooperative, if we know What's Good For Us), and that is rarely the case (well, M36 was pretty frikkin clear). most of these things die in the court because they are badly written; the ones that survive twist existing law into such knots that we lose completely the intent of those who promoted it in the first place.

granted, our Legislature has a wee problem fixing this sort of thing. how nice if they could pass CFR. and who knows? the right Leg might do so next year. i'm not holding my breath, but i've learned to fear ballot measures at least as much as the Leg. with the latter, i can drop Rep Gelser or Sen Morse an email, have a face-to-face with them, organize constituent pressure to bear on them and their (theoretically recalcitrant) colleagues. with a ballot measure that has been bought and paid into law, i get to sit back and hope the damn thing doesn't explode.

i hope Portlands Voter-owned Elections work; that's a fix i can endorse. the rest of you scare the hell out of me.

Charlie Burr asks if the sponsors of Petition #8 and Petition 37 are "willing to limit your contributions to $15K if the other side limits contributions to the same level as well?"

Sure. Just bring me an enforceable agreement under which all opponents of the measures, current and future, agree to accept no funding from corporations or unions or individuals in amounts greater than $15,000 per person per year. Also, all opponents must file C&E reports showing all of their contributors (and their employers and occupations) and all of the expenditures, just as is required of those who seek to qualify a measure for the ballot. I would agree to that deal in a minute.

What our opponents are suggesting, of course, is that we limit the funding available for advocating Petitions 8 and 37, while they not limit the funding available for opposing those petitions, both in the circulation stage and after qualification for the ballot.

And limiting contributions or spending on ballot measures is not part of our petitions, anyway, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down such limits as contrary to the First Amendment (while upholding limits on contributions for candidates and on independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates).

Having both sides of this debate limit their supporters' contributions to $15K and under this cycle seems pretty fair to me, but under current Oregon election law, both supporters and opponents of ballot measures already have to file C&Es with the Secretary of State, albeit on different calendars. You were asking Our Oregon why they haven't filed yet with the SOS; I'd be truly suprised if they missed their deadline when it comes up.

Dan wrote: What our opponents are suggesting, of course, is that we limit the funding available for advocating Petitions 8 and 37, while they not limit the funding available for opposing those petitions, both in the circulation stage and after qualification for the ballot.

Again, what I was asking about - a $15K limit per individual - would apply to both supporters and opponents of 8/37, as mentioned above.

I ask again, what makes you think the $15,000 cap on aggregate contributions will be upheld? Is that "solid ground"?

This aggregate cap is a restriction on political speech. Last I checked, the Supreme Court still considered contributions to be a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Contribution limits have been upheld because the Court has recognized a compelling interest in avoiding quid pro quo corruption. A cap on aggregate contributions does not serve that interest. My $10 contribution to a candidate presents no risk of corruption, regardless of how much I've contributed to other candidates. Therefore, a cap on aggregate contributions would seem to be just as constitutionally vulnerable as a limit on independent expenditures.

Below is text from Petition 37 (Sorry, the site won't let me use A, B, C, D for the inset list of items, so it is numbered as well. That is the only change made to this passage.)

(d) An individual may make only the following contributions:

1. During any election period, to candidate committees, not more than:
   1. Five hundred dollars ($500) to support or oppose candidates contesting for any particular statewide public office; and
   2. One hundred dollars ($100) to support or oppose candidates contesting for any other particular public office.
2. During any calendar year, not more than:
   1. Fifty dollars ($50) to any small donor committee;
   2. Five hundred dollars ($500) to any other political committee;
   3. Two thousand dollars ($2,000) in the aggregate to a political party, including all subdivisions thereof; and
   4. Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) in the aggregate to all candidate committees, political committees (including small donor committees), political parties, and political nonprofit organizations.

This is what many people have a problem with. It's not just $2500/year to a candidate, or candidates. It's $2500 total per year to candidates, PACs, political non-profits, county parties, DPO, etc.

And yes, there are a lot of people, including lots of Democrats, who spend this in a year.

There are a lot of people who give organizations like the Bus Project more than $500 in a year.

$2500 may seem like a huge number, but not when you think about the fact that you're talking about such a large number of organizations & candidates. And it's really small when you see that it says per CALENDAR year, not per election cycle. So that's $2500 per calendar year, which is two election cycles in even years.

Jenni assumes that Petition 37 places a $500 per person limit on contributions to groups like the Bus Project. It does not. Please read http://www.fairelections.net/fairelectionsfacts.pdf.

Petition 37 does not apply at all to the unpaid activities of volunteers. It completely exempts all "Volunteer personal services (including those of the candidate) for which no compensation is asked or given, including unreimbursed travel expenses."

Petition 37 also allows any group involved in politics to receive unlimited contributions and spend unlimited amounts on anything it wants, as long as it does not use the money to communicate with the general public to urge a vote for or against one or more candidates during the period 30 days prior to the primary election or 60 days prior to the general election.

In addition, Petition 37 allows any group unlimited contributions and spending for:

1. communicating with its own members on any subject at any time and in any manner;

2. publicizing its activities and attracting new members;

3. preparing scorecards on votes cast by public officeholders;

4. conducting surveys of candidates' positions on issues;

5. encouraging people to vote or register to vote;

6. supporting or opposing ballot measures; and

7. communicating with the general public on any or all issues, as long as it does not advocate the election or defeat of a candidate during the 30-day period prior to primary election voting or the 60-day period prior to general election voting.

In addition, any group or person can do both of the following:

1. Form a regular political committee and receive contributions from individuals of up to $500 per individual per year.

The committee can use these funds to support or oppose candidates, either by contributing to candidate campaigns or by communicating directly with voters.

1. Form a "Small Donor Committee," which can receive only contributions from individuals in amounts not higher than $50 per person 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.

In addition, anyone interested in any issue can also form a separate small donor committee and also receive contributions from individuals of $50 or less per year and spend all of those funds supporting or opposing any candidates. So, anyone who might wish to support pro-choice candidates, for example, could contribute up to $2,500 per year to a number of Small Donor Committees that support a woman's right to choose, and those committees could use all of those funds to support a single candidate or any number of candidates.

Petition 37 is a comprehensive system. It cannot be analyzed merely by picking out one of the limits, without understanding the scope of the limits.

Chris wonders whether an aggregate limit on an individual's contributions per year (or per other period) would be upheld. Many states already have such limits, and none have been struck down.

STATE $$$ PERIOD

Arizona 3,230 per year Conn 15,000 per election DC 8,500 per election Georgia 12,000 per 2 years Maine 25,000 per year Maryland 10,000 per 4 years Mass 12,500 per year New York 150,000 per year Rhode Island 10,000 per year Wisconsin 10,000 per year Wyoming 25,000 per 2 years

Thanks, Dan, for the facts re: aggregate spending caps. I admit I am surprised. To my even greater surprise, I discovered in a few minutes of internet research that Buckley v. Valeo itself upheld a $25,000 aggregate contribution limit, on the the theory that it is an "incidental corollary" of the individual contribution limits. That explains why those other states have gotten away with it.

I still don't think it makes much sense. If a $5 contribution to a candidate is not enough to have a corrupting influence, it is no more true just because $15,000 was given to other candidates.

Chris--

It's not about the corrupting influence of a single donation. It's the corrupting influence on the entire system. If one donor is able to give hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that makes all candidates lean towards that donor - trying to gain his favor so that they might share in the largesse. Even if they end up only getting that $5, they might adjust their behavior in hopes of getting more later.

If a person can only give $15,000 (which is high, but not ridiculously high when spread across 90 legislative seats, six statewide seats, and hundreds of local and judicial candidates) then that means the entire system doesn't bend nearly as much toward them.

I tend to think of it as a roomful of magnets - some big, some small - drop a steel ball in there and it'll bounce around, but eventually find its way nearest the bigger magnets.

Actually yes, it would apply to the Bus Project.

That PDF says:

"Our measures would somehow de-fund the Bus Project. False. Petition 37 specifically exempts all volunteer time and unreimbursed volunteer expenses, including travel costs."

I'm not talking about volunteer time, volunteer expenses, etc. I'm talking about money the Bus Project uses to go out and canvass for candidates. If they do any communications to the general public prior to 60 days before October 21 ("sixty (60) days before regular ballots are distributed to voters in a general election"), then they fall under the rule. The Bus Project does indeed spend money on supporting candidates during the 60 days prior to the ballots being sent out.

While the Bus Project may rely heavily on volunteers, it still goes through something like $100K+ during the election cycle.

The FAQ says:

"Petition 37 allows any group involved in politics to receive unlimited contributions and spend unlimited amounts on anything it wants, as long as it does not use the money to communicate with the general public to urge a vote for or against one or more candidates during the period 30 days prior to the primary election or 60 days prior to the general election."

I'd like to see the wording in the MEASURE that states this. I cannot find anything that states the limits under individual contributions apply only if the group doesn't do those types of communications 30/60 days before the ballots go out. It states those are the limits, period.

And I think it's so funny that the supporters of M37 automatically assume that those of us with concerns or opposed to M37 must either be with Our Oregon or are getting our info from Our Oregon. The fact is my concerns regarding the $2500/year limit come from my own reading of the measure text (which of course is what we're voting on and will become law, not the FAQ). I have yet to read anything in opposition to M37, other than the comments here. I have't read any group's report on it, as I wanted to see the measure without someone else's bias.

Maybe instead of constantly pointing people to a FAQ, that really means nothing in the scheme of things since it isn't what we're voting on, the backers of this should point out the MEASURE TEXT that applies to the person's concern.

I'd like to see the wording in the MEASURE that states this. I cannot find anything that states the limits under individual contributions apply only if the group doesn't do those types of communications 30/60 days before the ballots go out. It states those are the limits, period.

Look under section 4 titled: "'Contribution' and 'Expenditure' do not include:"

(C) Nonpartisan activity solely to encourage individuals to vote or to register to vote, without expressing a preference regarding the outcome of any election;

Clearly, these nonpartisan activities are explictly exempted under the statue. This would seem to exclude most of the C4 activity that the Bus Project engages in and would only subject the PAC to contribution limits.

And I think it's so funny that the supporters of M37 automatically assume that those of us with concerns or opposed to M37 must either be with Our Oregon or are getting our info from Our Oregon.

I don't see anything particularly funny about it. Our Oregon is now campaigning against Measure 37. They've launched a ballot initiative that they appear to have no intention to put on the ballot in an attempt to erode support from 37. Some of their members have made inaccurate, or misleading public statements about the Fair Elections efforts. What reason do the proponents of 37 have to assume that many of the inaccurate comments made about the initiative are not the result, either directly or indirectly, of those efforts?

If a person can only give $15,000 (which is high, but not ridiculously high when spread across 90 legislative seats, six statewide seats, and hundreds of local and judicial candidates) then that means the entire system doesn't bend nearly as much toward them.

Holding aside the fact that I don't believe that Our Oregon intends to put Petition 150 on the ballot, my two big objections to Petition 150 are these:

1) It makes no attempt to resolve the issue of independent expenditures. This means that when a large donor bumps into the $15,000 cap for supporting individual campaigns, the money will automatically flow into the more shadowy realm of 527-style swift boat attack ads. Candidates will know where the money is coming from, but the general public will not.

Critics of Petition 37 rightly point out that the independent expenditure may be struck down in court, and generally agree that this would be a bad thing for limits. What is the rationale, then, for supporting a system of campaign finance that concedes this defeat from the beginning?

2) I think it's a very bad idea to enshrine the body of a statute like 150 in the Oregon Constitution because it will be very difficult to change. Petition 8 and 37 are much cleaner in that regard. 8 asserts that campaign finance reform is legal and establishes how it can be implemented. 37 defines the actual law. If 37 turns out to be a bad law, the legislature can act in a bi-partisan fashion to change it however they see fit, or simply refer a new version to the Oregon voters.

Just one thing I'd like to clarify:

If Our Oregon would have supported Petition 8 as the constitutional amendment, and offered 150 as a statutory alternative to 37, I think it would be much more palatable than 37 to most Oregon voters. This would've had the added benefit of saving Our Oregon some money in legal fees and campaign expenses that they will undoubtedly incur as part of their effort to defeat 37 at the ballot box and/or kill it in the Oregon Court.

Also, it would've probably helped Democratic candidates who are now going to be in the uncomfortable position of being asked to oppose campaign finance reform, which if the Oregonian is to be believed, enjoys 70-75% support among Oregon voters.

One final point about campaign finance reform: The total amount of money spent on campaigns is a dawdle compared to money spent on lobbying. One of the big reasons why public interest legislation gets defeated in Oregon is not just the campaign contributions, but the fact that for every 1 public interest lobbyist on a certain issue in Salem, be it Philip Wong from the Ecumenical Ministries, or some volunteer member of the LWV or Common Cause, there are often 10 well-paid lobbyists arguing for AOI are similar interests.

Campaign finance reform is an important step to cleaning up our political system, but I do not agree with those who believe that it is a magic bullet that will reduce the corrupting influence of money on legislation. What it may do, is eliminate the "Culture of Fear" that Dan Meek often talks about, in which lobbyists can threaten to spend unlimited money financing the opponent of a legislature who votes "the wrong way" on a piece of legislation.

Thanks, progvoice. I agree - BlueOregon is much more interesting when it's a discussion amongst progressives about what's best for our state... not a left/right fistfight.

Look under section 4 titled: "'Contribution' and 'Expenditure' do not include:"

(C) Nonpartisan activity solely to encourage individuals to vote or to register to vote, without expressing a preference regarding the outcome of any election;

Clearly, these nonpartisan activities are explictly exempted under the statue. This would seem to exclude most of the C4 activity that the Bus Project engages in and would only subject the PAC to contribution limits.

See, this is what I mean. I even stated above in the post you're answering that I'm not talking about that:

"I'm talking about money the Bus Project uses to go out and canvass for candidates." and "The Bus Project does indeed spend money on supporting candidates during the 60 days prior to the ballots being sent out."

When people talk about this affecting the Bus Project, they're talking about their campaigning activities-- their PAC. The work they do to bring large numbers of people out to canvass for candidates.

They know it's not going to affect the Bus Project's ability to do their voter registration, issue forums, youth caucus, etc. That is in no way related to candidates, which is what this measure is about. It may in some ways affect what the c4 can pay for the PAC, I'm not sure. But generally it's not going to affect the c4 or their soon-to-be c3.

We're talking about the work they do to go out and work for candidates. And people give a considerable amount of money to the Bus Project for them to be able to do this work. This is what people mean when they express concern about the Bus Project. And in everything you guys have said up until this last comment, including the FAQ, have been misleading regarding the Bus Project. You've made it seem like it would not affect their funding, when indeed it will affect the funding of BusPAC greatly. I think to make your FAQ as honest as possible, the wording regarding the Bus Project has to be changed to relect what this-- That it is unlikely there will be many affects to the Bus Project's 501c4; however, the PAC will be governed by these contribution limits.

What reason do the proponents of 37 have to assume that many of the inaccurate comments made about the initiative are not the result, either directly or indirectly, of those efforts?

Maybe that people have read the measure themselves? That they can think for themselves? As I've shown above, the comments about the Bus Project are not inaccurate-- they're 100% correct. You guys just like to only mention the Bus Project in terms of the c4, when everyone else is talking about the PAC.

As I said, I haven't read a thing that Our Oregon has put out on this, and I'm sure many others haven't as well.

It makes me wonder how many more situations there are like this. It also makes people unwary about your measure.

As I've shown above, the comments about the Bus Project are not inaccurate-- they're 100% correct. You guys just like to only mention the Bus Project in terms of the c4, when everyone else is talking about the PAC.

Jenni,

First off, I don't think it's terribly fair for you to say that Dan and his crew are being misleading about how their statute is going to affect Oregon politics. They are championing the fact that they'll be taking big money out of the political system, not running from it.

Second, I'd like to apologize for responding to your note after only giving it a quick read.

As far as the Bus is concerned ...

As far as I can tell, you couldn't have picked a better example than the Bus of an organization that is built to thrive under Petition 37.

In my view, the Bus Pac is one of the few organizations that is "doing it right" in their approach to organizing, not only in terms of their emphasis on canvassing, which will become more important in an environment where it is tougher to do large media buys, but in terms of how they raise their money. Petition 37 was created to reward groups like the Bus and DFA, not hamper them.

Take a look at the Bus Pac C&E's on the secretary of state's web site, and note how the Bus raised the money that went into their Pac in 2004. The overwhelming majority came in contributions of $100 or less. They had a few $1000 individual contributions that would be $500 contributions under 37, but their only real big money donations were some $5000 and $6000 contributions from labor unions. Those contributions are likely to be unaffected for two reasons: First, the Bus is too damned good at grassroots organizing for the Unions not to support them. Second, the unions will all have small donor committees in 2006, and won't be subject to the $500 limits that other entities are subject to.

As to some specifics of how they will operate... that's a call for Jeff and his board. My guess is that they'll form a small donor committee to handle the bulk of individual contributions for their political work and keep the existing committee to continue getting the $100 - $500 checks.

If anything, their operations will stay the same or grow while just about everyone else in the Oregon political system will be cut down a peg or three.

Just my $0.02. And so we're clear on this, I'm not speaking for the petitioners or sponsors of 8 or 37. I'm just a guy who supports Governor Dean's call for the Democrats to get behind campaign finance reform even if there are some folks in the system who don't like it.

Actually, I'm not against campaign finance reform. As I stated above, I was an initial supporter of 37 and even did some paid work for the organization that worked on it. I am very much for campaign finance reform-- but that doesn't mean I can't be against specific forms of it.

I believe the $2500 limit per calendar year is too low. I'm much more comfortable with a $10,000-$15,000 or so limit, especially since this includes your contributions to all candidates, political organizations, county parties, DPO, etc.

And yes, I do believe it's fair to say they're being misleading. Their FAQ says that the Bus Project won't be affected. This is not true. They've said over and over in this blog entry that it won't affect the Bus Project. It wasn't until I asked for the wording in the measure, not the FAQ, that it was admitted that the 501c4 would not be affected, but the PAC would. If they'd change their wording and comments to people to reflect that fact, then they wouldn't be misleading people.

Yes, the Bus Project gets a lot of donations in small amounts. I happen to be one of those-- my contribution tends to be between $60-$100 each year, and there are a lot of people who do the same. We get the same types of donation over at Democracy for Oregon. But BusPAC also get a good number of donations that wouldn't be allowed under these rules.

I did a quick look through BusPAC's 2004 election C&E reports as well as the 2005 Supplemental report (which showed a balance of $1,197.16). Here's what I found:

10 individuals gave $500.

8 individuals gave between $1000 and $2000, and one donated just under $900.

An individual gave $3,000 and another gave $11,000 in three separate contributions throughout the two election cycles.

None of this includes more than $37,650 from PACs, unions and businesses that all exceed $500 in each donation-- ranging from $500 to $2000 to $5000 to $7,500. I didn't include these, because most would probably figure out a way to use small donor committees to still give the money to the Bus Project.

Of course you'd see loses from those who donated more than $500 in that year (and possibly those in the $200-$500 range as well). You act as if it's no big deal that those donations would be lower, but as someone who has sat through board meetings and participated in discussions on how to fill the budget for a few months until donations started coming in, I see these losses as being huge (in cutting everything over $500, $15,892.67 would be lost from those individuals listed above).

But, this is assuming they'd still give that full amount. Remember that $500 is one-fifth of what they're allowed to give in the entire year. Chances are that you'd see many of these high-dollar donations drop because they'd want to be sure they didn't spend all of their $2500 in the same place. You may have a few that would still give their full amounts, but it would be my guess based ob viewing many C&Es that the majority would lower their contributions to less than $500 so that they could continue giving to local and state candidates, the Party, etc.

I think that in looking at CFR like this, we need to step back and take a serious look at how this would affect everyone-- not just those who are "buying" politicians. In stopping those people, are we also hurting those organizations that do great work in the state? Are we hurting candidates in rural areas? Is the damage small, and can it be fixed through small donor groups?

I see these losses as being huge (in cutting everything over $500, $15,892.67 would be lost from those individuals listed above).

So basically what you're saying is that you oppose this initiative, primarily because it would cost the Bus $15,900 -- more than 2/3rds of which came from 1 individual.

My own view is that the tradeoff for that loss of this one $11,000 donor is that we've created a political environment that caters to the Bus's strengths -- grassroots organizing and door-to-door canvassing as opposed to the big media buys that dominate Oregon politics today.

I see that as a net gain for the Bus. They'd thrive in an environment where money is less important than organizing.

blue wrote: I'm just a guy who supports Governor Dean's call for the Democrats to get behind campaign finance reform even if there are some folks in the system who don't like it.

Howard Dean's been brought up twice now by supporters, but has no position on initiatives #8/37 to my knowledge. I think that the Governor would - much like many on this thread - be interested in the actual language and what transactional effects would be before opposing or supporting the measures.

On a similar note, if this is going to be so great for the Bus Project, why don't they support it?

Democrats in multi-county districts opposed limits so strict they could make candidates spend more time fundraising than out with the voters because the strict limits would hardly provide enough money for gas to drive from one end of the district to another.

I think it was 1 democrat who made that argument. He was wrong, however, since unreimbursed travel expenses are exempted from petition 37, and the simple fact of the matter is almost no democratic candidates east of the cascades are affected by a $500 contribution limit. Most of them will benefit from low limits and bans on corporate contributions since the timber companies and pac's like the NRA won't be writing $1000 checks to their opponents.

If I found out that a measure would not allow the Bus Project to endorse candidates and go door to door for those candidates (while raising money to pay for bus fuel, staff, etc) 60 days before the election, I would question whether I wanted to support that measure.

I would oppose such an initiative. Of course, petition 37 doesn't do any of that.

So basically what you're saying is that you oppose this initiative, primarily because it would cost the Bus $15,900 -- more than 2/3rds of which came from 1 individual.

No, that's not what I was saying. I was just showing that we were talking about more than just a few people who had given $1,000 donations. Chances are that even under the system I prefer that this individual would be giving less to the Bus Project-- unless of course this is the only thing he ever donates to. The donations were $5,000 in the primary election cycle and two donations in the general election cycle-- $1,000 and $5,000.

I oppose it because the maximums are too low, and I can see it easily meaning that the majority of donations over $200 being lowered as people work to stay under the $2500 limit. Those people are much more likely to be giving money to a large number of organizations, candidates, etc., easily topping $2500/calendar year. All of us giving under $100/year will be pretty much unaffected, as most of us aren't giving to that many candidates, PACs, etc.

It'll mean even more competing amongst dems and progressives as we all fight for our part of that $2500.

I can easily see the party getting their maximum from the big donors, and the rest of us organizations and candidates fighting for the $500 that's left over.

I can see this really hurting local candidates, as Dems spend their $2500 on legislative and statewide races.

Also, if I was looking at all the info right, we were talking about less than $60,000 in total donations to BusPAC-- making that $15,000 more than one-quarter of all the money received.

...grassroots organizing and door-to-door canvassing as opposed to the big media buys that dominate Oregon politics today...They'd thrive in an environment where money is less important than organizing.

Actually, they're already at that point, even if the environment isn't. They don't do huge ad buys-- their money is primarily spent to go out and canvass for candidates. But food for volunteers, gas for the bus, salaries, etc. cost money. They're already running a pretty lean operation. They're heavily volunteer rich, and their money is used to support that. And they're quite successful at it, since face-to-face contact is worth more than mass mailings and ad buys. Even if the opponents to the candidates they support have less money to spend, it's not going to make food, printing, salaries, etc. cost less.

I'm not saying I oppose this just because of the Bus Project-- this is just one example. The folks supporting 37 have used them as an example in their comments and FAQ (often incorrectly), which is why I have also done so.

Thus far this wouldn't affect us at all over at DFO, as none of our donations have topped the amounts allowed in 37. The majority of our donors are also those unhappy with the system, and aren't donating that much in other areas. So this would actually be good for our organization. But just because it's good for us, doesn't mean I can't see where it would hurt others.

Actually, I don't value the big contributors "so highly." The contributors I work with the most and work the hardest to get in all the groups I am in are always small donors. I value small donors the most, as they're often people who have the littlest to give-- they're often giving a higher percentage of their yearly wages than those who give thousands.

They're also often the people unhappy with the system, and are just starting to come back because they see a glimmer of hope.

I've never been a big contributor, and unless I win the lottery or come into a big inheritance, I'm not likely to be. I've put together small dollar fundraisers both here in Oregon and back in Texas that were able to bring in almost as much profit as the $100 dinners. Believe me, I understand the importance of those small donations. If your message is good, you do good things, people feel you are worthwhile, etc., the amounts will add up quickly.

However, often times you have a few large contributors who make up that last few thousand dollars difference that it takes to pay the bills.

I realize it will affect the opponents. But like I said, it's not going to make gas, food, or salaries any cheaper. What it will do is mean that their opponents can't buy as many ads or glossy flyers. None of which are going to change the need to get out and speak to every single voter in a district. It'll just make it even more important.

I don't think the $2500 limit will make the process more democratic. I think what will happen is we're going to burn out our volunteers quicker, and offer them less. We'll have less money to be able to offer them something to eat for their hours of canvassing.

This is why I'm not against limits-- I'm just against limits this low. I'm fine with limits somewhat higher. I'm just worried, as many people are, as to what such low limits will mean to candidates and organizations that are doing so well. What it will mean to local candidates, who have to wait to see if there is any money left after people support their candidate for governor, state legislature, etc.

For example, say this was in effect now...

You really want Kulongoski to win the primary, so you give him the $500 maximum allowed. He wins the primary. Then you give him the max you can for the general so he'll beat the Republican-- another $500.

There are also 8 districts that you really want to see the Dems win so that we'll take back the house and keep the senate. You give them each the max for the general, which is $100/each ($800).

Now you want to give a big donation to the Bus Project because they need funding for a big upcoming canvass. So you give them the max-- $500.

You now have $200 left to give to your local county party, the DPO, the candidate you like for the county commission, local city candidates, etc.

And of course you have to remember all those small amounts across the year-- dinners, conferences, luncheons, etc.-- most of them have a ticket price that is higher than the actual cost, which accounts for a donation as well.

I just don't think that people realize how quickly $2500 a year for all candidates, groups, etc. can add up. Like I said above, I was just using the numbers for the Bus Project as an example because it was brought up by others. It isn't my sole justification for opposition to 37.

I'd much rather see something that allows higher donations to organizations (doesn't have to be really high-- a limit of $2-3,000 would be fine).

Something that allows slightly higher donations to legislative candidates. 37 lumps them in with county commissioners, city council, school board, etc. Maybe twice as much? That would make it $200 for state legislative races, per election cycle.

And something that gives higher per year amounts than $2500. After all-- that $2500 is going to be for two election cycles in the even years-- primary and general.

It's too bad that Buckley's new petition doesn't include some per candidate, group, etc. limits in addition to its yearly limit. But it is a start.

This is why I'm not against limits-- I'm just against limits this low. I'm fine with limits somewhat higher. I'm just worried, as many people are, as to what such low limits will mean to candidates and organizations that are doing so well. What it will mean to local candidates, who have to wait to see if there is any money left after people support their candidate for governor, state legislature, etc.

Strong local candidates are among the people who will benefit the most from this statute. Most of their support comes from those who are not necessarily regular donors to the political process. As we saw in 1996, the candidates who do not rely on a grassroots base and incumbants who rely the most heavily on contributions from lobbyists in Salem are the ones who will be the most threatened by this initiative.

Petition 37 will definitely mean a reduction in special interest money to candidates. You seem to see that as a bad thing, at least at the $2500 level. I don't think most people outside of the political class in this state see it that way -- hence the 70-75 percent polling and overwhelming support for a more restrictive statute in 1994.

Let's take another look at the "draconian" low limits of this statute in a context other than the C&E's of our favorite PAC:

The median household income in Oregon is $43,000. This statute limits campaign contributions to $2500 per annum and places a $10,000 limit on independent expenditures. That's $5,000 per 2-parent household in campaign contributions and $25,000 total worth of political "speech" -- or, nearly 60 percent of Oregon's median income.

Put me in the Bill Moyers camp on this one. If I have more money than you, that should entitle me to a bigger stock portfolio, a nicer car and a bigger house. It shouldn't entitle me to a second helping of Democracy.

That's all I'm going to say about Campaign Reform. Frankly, there are bigger fish to fry.

Based on my read of the C&E's, I think we're likely to see 5 Loren Parks funded initiatives on the ballot (TABOR 6&14, Insurance Discrimination, and judicial districting).

If you want to get worried about anything this fall, start worrying about TABOR and what the rest of these Loren Parks initiatives will do to the state.

Well, first off I never said it was "draconian," so please don't use quotes to make it appear that I did.

Having been a local candidate before, I can tell you that almost every dollar I received came from people who were regular donors to the Democratic Party. It was the same with many of the other local candidates I knew. It may not be so true in small rural areas, but I've seen it many times in the metro area.

And someone making $43,000 isn't likely to spend $25,000 of their money on politics. You may have one member of the household max out their $2500, possibly the other. But you aren't likely to see them tap more than a few hundred bucks into the $20,000 in independent expenditures.

Also, I never said the Bus Project was my favorite PAC-- that would be DFO Action. I used the Bus Project's C&E's as an example because someone else directed comments to me regarding those C&E's. I wouldn't have even discussed them so much if the supporters hadn't brought it up first, even publishing something that is only partially true in their FAQs.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see being able to spend say $5,000 or $10,000 a year on all the candidates, county parties, state party, political groups, etc. having a second helping of democracy. And I don't see that someone giving $4,000 a year across the board to say 20 different candidates, groups, the party, etc. being a "special interest." Divided out, that's only $200 to each.

If I were advocating for people to be able to give tens of thousands of dollars to a single candidate, that would be one thing. But I'm not. I'm talking about a reasonable amount spread out amongst many candidates, political party groups, political organizations, etc.

And someone making $43,000 isn't likely to spend $25,000 of their money on politics.

Precisely. The overwhelming majority of Oregonians who give will never hit the limits outlined in Petition 37. Which begs the question, would you rather see the Loren Parks' of the world limited to $12,500 per year in aggregate, or $15,000 per year on campaigns plus an infinite amount for swiftboating candidates? Because that's exactly what will happen under any system that does not attempt to place limits on independent expenditures.

And I assure you, when the Loren Parks' of the world do such things, they aren't taking a second helping of Democracy, they are buying the franchise.

And for my 3rd "final point": One of the big reasons why I support strong contribution limits is that I believe that it will force the legislature to pass public financing, or at least refer it to the voters.

I believe there are no bigger fish for democrats than CFR. Political money is a very big rotting fish that is stinking up the political process.

Point taken.

A corporation should be an entity, not a "person."

You should hear Thom Hartmann talk on this topic. Apparently the legality of it being a "person" starts from a mistake, and then was upheld in later Supreme Court runnings based on that mistake.

Corporations are made up of nothing but people...what do you propose they are if not a group of people owning shares of the enterprise?

Corporations are fictitious entities that are constructed to provide liability protections for real people. They did not have rights as persons prior to 1877 when they were granted "personhood rights" under the 14th Amendment which was intended to guarantee racial equality after the Civil War. They didn't gain these rights by any court decision, but by clerical fiat in Santa Clara vs the Union Pacific Railroad. Subsequently, they have been granted more rights than individuals over the last 100 years.

However, contrary to what Mr Chamberlain said, they do not have a recognized legal right to contribute to political campaigns, and have been barred from doing so in Federal elections since the 1930's. Petition 37 will make Oregon law match federal law with regard to corporations.

Dear Mr. Chamberlain,

Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

You might want to talk with your counterpart, Steve Adams, of the Colorado AFL-CIO to check in and see whether he thinks that small donor committees disempowered working people in Colorado before assuming that the reforms proposed in Petition 37 will disempower workers in Oregon. When I talked to him, he was an enthusiastic supporter of how Colorado's law worked for the AFL-CIO despite the fact that he opposed it when it was a public referendum.

As you may already know, the small donor provision of Colorado's statute was drafted by an attorney connected to the AFL-CIO in conjunction with Derek Cressman who was a principle consultant in the drafting of Petition 37.

Petition 37 is actually better for Oregon unions than the Colorado statute insofar as the small donor committee provision is concerned. Colorado small donor committees are limited to $4,000 for legislative campaigns and something like $100,000 for the statewides.

Petition 37 has no such limits.

What's more, under petition 37, your members can contribute to small donor committees that reflect each level of your organization provided that each division has autonomy to make their own decisions about what candidates to fund.

In other words, people can give $50 per year to a local small donor committee pac, $50 to a regional small donor committee, and $50 per year to the statewide pac, and neither of them will have any limits on how much they can contribute to political campaigns -- all of this in an environment where the richest right wingers will be limited to $2500 in aggregate on political campaigns, and $10,000 on independent expenditures (yes, I know, the I.E. piece may be struck down in court).

Peter Buckley's stated reasons for not supporting Petition 8 and Petition 37 do not make sense to me.

He says that, if the $10,000 per year limit in Petition 37 on individual independent expenditures is struck down, then somehow that leaves a system worse than now (with no limits on anything) or worse than his Petition 150, which has no limits whatever on independent expenditures. He would prefer a system in which corporations and unions can make unlimited independent expenditures (Petition 150) to a system which bans all corporate and union independent expenditures and seeks to limit individuals to $10,000 per year in independent expenditures.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such bans on corporations and unions, and the limit on individual independent expenditures would probably draw a court challenge. But we can never limit individual independent expenditures unless we try. Many so-called sophisticated observers predicted with great certainty that the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, but that did not happen.

Further, he prefers letting any individual contribute $15,000 per year instead of $2,500 per year to candidate campaigns and political committees and says that somehow this justifies his allowing unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions. I have never been able to understand that. If, under his rationale, the $10,000 limit in Petition 37 on independent expenditures is struck down, then anyone can make unlimited independent expenditures, and the difference between $15,000 and $2,500 in annual contributions to candidates becomes irrelevant.

Further, he completely disregards the disclosure requirements in Petition 37, which requires:

    1.     Every campaign ad funded by "independent expenditures" must prominently disclose everyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the "independent" campaign, their lines of business, and the amounts contributed; and

    2.     Anyone making independent expenditures during any 2-year election cycle in excess of $200 must publicly report the expenditures in the same manner and schedule as a political committee must report.

Petition 37 requires that the disclosures in the ads (known as "taglines") must be very prominent and very clear. The ads cannot merely state they are sponsored by "People for Good Government" or "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." They must disclose the names, business interests, and amount contributed by each person contribution $1,000 or more to the independent campaign. These mandatory taglines will make independent ad campaigns far less effective. Peter's Petition 150 has no such requirements.

Tom Chamberlain appears to be criticizing a proposal that is not ours.

He says that "mega corporations and the ultra rich" would still outgun us. Petition 37 bans all corporate contributions and all corporate independent expenditures, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld those bans. It is Peter Buckley's Petition 150 that does not allow any limits on independent expenditures (see above). As for the ultra rich, Petition 37 limits individual independent expenditures to $10,000 per year, with very extensive disclosure (tagline) and reporting requirements. Buckley's Petition 150 also does not have these features.

We certainly do not need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to ban all corporate contributions and independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the federal ban on corporate contributions for almost 100 years. 24 states already ban corporate contributions, and none of those bans has been struck down. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court in <u>Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce</u> upheld a ban on corporate independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates. In 2003, the Court in the McConnell decision (upholding McCain-Feingold) reiterated the continuing vitality of the <u>Austin</u> case.

Tom Chamberlain implies that our measures "nip at the edges" and "dis-empower working people." Conversely, Peter Buckley's critique of our measures is that they take too large a bite, not too small. And there is nothing about Petitions 8 and 37 that disempower working people. They would accomplish exactly the opposite.

picture comments here:

Even the most well meaning proposals still leave us outgunned by mega corporations and the ultra rich. They have the resources to find loopholes or to fund independent expenditures like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, or the Sinclair media conglomerate. Admittedly those are national examples, but we have plenty of ultra-rich right wingers here too – Dick Wendt, Wes Armatta, Loren Parks – all of whom can and will fund independent expenditures to their hearts’ content.

Furthermore, the fact that Corporations are considered people for the purposes of speech is absurd. But because of Supreme Court precedent, keeping corporations from being considered people would require a Constitutional amendment. That’s a big, multi-year battle -- but that’s what’s really necessary. We need fundamental national change of the very foundations of campaigns – not state-by-state nips at the edges that dis-empower working people.

Kari, please clean up my last post. I accidentally left in there the Tom chamberlain comments that I was referring to. So please delete everything in my post after "...accomplish exactly the opposite." Thanks.

LT's rural problem is not a problem with Petition 37, because it exempts from control all amounts collected or spent for personal travel. It totally exempts from controls:

"Volunteer personal services (including those of the candidate) for which no compensation is asked or given, including unreimbursed travel expenses incidental thereto;"

In other words, a candidate can spend any amount of her own money on personal travel and can even accept donations to pay for personal travel, which are not counted toward the limits.

As to Jenni's comments on application of the Petition 37 limits to groups such as the Bus Project, our FAQ (pp. 2-3) shows that they do not apply to a wide variety of activities, including 7 categories I listed in an earlier posting.

Jenni looked at the C&Es for the Bus Project and concludes that Petition 37 would have an effect on the Bus Project, although "blue" rather effectively questioned the magnitude of the effect. The real question, however, is how much of what the Bus Project does via its PAC now needs to be done by a PAC and not by a C4. As noted in my earlier post (and in greater detail in the online FAQ), C4-type activities are essentially not limited by Petition 37. The Bus Project may be doing those activities now by means of its PAC, as it is legal for a PAC to do those activities and there is a tax benefit for the first $50 per person for contributions to the PAC but not for contributions to a C4. Under Petition 37, those activities would be undertaken by a non-PAC C4 and would not be limited by Petition 37. Then the PAC would undertake those activities that must be done by a PAC, such as directly canvassing for specific candidates.

What is the cost of doing that, specifically? There is the cost of the bus (renting?) and the driver and some meals for the canvassers. All of the time of the volunteers is not limited or even counted by Petition 37. If the bus riders pay a fare, that does not count as a contribution to the PAC, as it consists of unreimbursed travel expense (not counted by Petition 37). There is the cost of sending emails or mail to people to ask them to volunteer. It would be fair to allocate some part of the personnel costs of the Bus Project to the candidate canvassing activity. There may well be other costs, and perhaps the Bus Project would be kind enough to provide them.

In sum, just because an entity is currently performing a function via a PAC does not mean that, under Petition 37, that same function cannot be performed by a non-PAC that is not limited by Petition 37. For example, the various events that the Bus Project sponsors for discussions of issues could be performed by a non-PAC. Certainly the Rebooting Oregon Conference could be sponsored by a non-PAC.

Jenni says our FAQ is misleading about the Bus Project, because, she says, "Their FAQ says that the Bus Project won't be affected." The FAQ does not say that and never has. The FAQ at pp. 2-3 presents a detailed explanation about what any group can do. No one from the Bus Project has ever asked us about Petition 37 or how it would work or how it would affect their operations. All we have seen is the bare statement that Petition 37 would de-fund the Bus Project. We do not know the basis for that statement, and we correctly say that that statement is not true. If the basis is what Jenni says, then we answer that at pp. 2-3 of the FAQ. Jenni also says "They've said over and over in the blog entry that it won't affect the Bus Project." Neither I nor anyone else has made that statement in this blog. We certainly do not try to single out the Bus Project in our literature; we just respond to the incorrect charges. We did not "bring it up first." In this blog, Peter Buckley brought it up first, and Jenni brought it up second. We just responded.

Jenni notes some folks give more than $500 a year to the Bus Project. If the Bus Project assigns its non-PAC activities to a non-PAC, those folks can continue to contribute as much as they want to the non-PAC activities, including all of the 7 categories from my earlier posting. Further, those folks can each contribute $500 to a Bus Project regular PAC and $50 to a Bus Project small donor committee and a total of up to $2,500 per year to other small donor committees, which in turn can contribute all of their funds to the Bus Project, if they want to.

And, as Blue has noted, Jenni does not consider the effect of Petition 37 on those who oppose the candidates that the Bus Project likes. They get the vast majority of their contributions from corporations and in large amounts from wealthy individuals. Those contributions would indeed be banned (or limited to $2500 per person per year), and those candidates would suffer a far, far greater loss of funding. This will make the grass-roots activities of the Bus Project more effective, as they will have less to overcome (in the way of TV and radio ads, newspaper ads, and the constant direct mail that the big donors provide for the Republicans in contested races).

<h2>And, if the $2,500 maximum is too low, the Legislature by a 3/4 vote can increase it. Petition 37 is a statute. But the data shows that, as the level of contribution per individual increases, those contributions go to Republicans, not Democrats.</h2>