Hmmm. When someone drafts something relatively alone, instead of with lots of people in coalition, perhaps this happens more often than it should?

Another reason to hate the initiative process -- no required drafting from legislative counsel about how to make things effective under Oregon law.

Instead, someone thinks it through a little bit, and drafts it, and then thinks, D'oH! when it doesn't quite work the way they thought it would... of course, they probably didn't think through the "well, presuming M46 goes down and this passes, let's make this effective still" secnario. They thought "when both of these suckas pass"

Well at least people are trying to make reform. I highly doubt any politician wants to cut their own funding. I am sure something similar will pop up in 2008, hopefully with both provisions combined.

Darcy

The Secretary of State had the choice of by whom to be sued. He chose, it seems, Fair Elections petitioners. Wonder if this decision had something to do with comments he received on his request for $1.1 million from the E-Board to carry out what the voters approved in M47.

Torrid,

First, how was what I wrote an attack on the integrity of the S of S ? I happen to think Bill Bradbury is a fine fellow and a good public servant. That does not make him immune from the realities of politics.

Second, in what fantasyland do you dwell? Do you think John Lindback makes important, politically important decisions with the S of S out of the loop? Do you think either decision was made without input from Hardy Meyers office?

Third, Bradbury's request was $1 million for implementation of the measure and $100 thousand for legal costs. As usual, you are not paying close attention.

Fourth, I am no man's minion.

I would hope that we could take the same approach to campaign finance reform as with legislature reform; i.e. form a commission that represents reasonable, well-informed people from various milieux and ask them to come up with a solution that addresses various concerns. Then it would be up to the legislature to adopt the statutory portions and refer any Constitutional amendments to the people; or if they didn't, then there could be an initiative.

There are advantages to this approach, which I wish would become required (in practice, if not in law) for all ballot measures. One, there would be much less chance of the court overturning the measure because it would have to pass an intensive legal screening. Two, it could encompass multiple "subjects". Three, it would have momentum and credibility from the public process involved in drafting it.

The multiple subject part is critical, because if we're going to limit contributions, it would be the perfect time to set up a more rational process, such as limiting campaign advertising to one publicly-funded mail piece to all registered voters per primary and general election, plus some publicly-funded debates and/or candidate PSAs produced by the LWV or other nonprofit, nonpartisan entity.

Let's get to the point where people can choose who to vote for based on qualifications and positions, not on who has the most money or the sleaziest strategy.

Hey Torridjoe, Look in a mirror for Pete's sake. I've learned a lot of good stuff from you on this blog. I've also learned a lot of good stuff from Tom. I normally respect you both.

SECTION 9

(e) If, in the absence of this Section (9)(e), there would be entered in any court any order impairing the effectiveness of any part of this Act on the ground that the United States Constitution or Oregon Constitution requires that any type of individual or entity be wholly or partially exempt from any of the prohibitions or limitations in this Act, then we, the electors of Oregon, acting in our legislative capacity, hereby declare that the provisions of this Act shall be given a narrowing interpretation so as to avoid invalidation of any provision of this Act and to preserve its effectiveness to the maximum degree consistent with the constitutions. (f) If, on the effective date of this Act, the Oregon Constitution does not allow limitations on political campaign contributions or expenditures, this Act shall nevertheless be codified and shall become effective at the time that the Oregon Constitution is found to allow, or is amended to allow, such limitations.

What wasn't disclosed was secion 9(e) of the Act. You can see that it was quite clear what the intent was despite the legal interpretation of section 9(f). I include both here for reasonable opinion. Standing side-by-side, I don't know how they came to that conclusion.

In my opinion, it is clear that the measure should and will go to court to be sorted out.

Torrisjoe,

Come on, Torrid, you can do better than that. You pretend as though you have some salient point when you have been clearly shown to be at odds with both the obvious facts and rational thinking. Lets take your drivel apart, drop-by-drop.

TJ: Tom--you very clearly insinuated that (had Bradbury been specifically involved in the decision) he may have based his decision on factors other than his interpretation of elections law and the materials under review. That's an attack on his integrity.

TC: The Secretary of State needs to take budgetary constraints into consideration. That's part of his job. In the absence of legislative E-board funding for implementation of M47, Bill's up a creek. Why not make the petioners sue to enforce, and save the bucks in the meantime? I think that's the wrong decision, but I can understand it without questioning Bill Bradbury's integrity.

TJ: Second--I very clearly noted that Lindback consulted with the AG, so I have no idea what you are trying to say there. If he had also consulted with the SoS, I fail to see why he would neglect to mention it, having mentioned his AG consultation.

TC: Yes, TJ, you obviously have no idea what I was saying. The AG, the SoS, and the director of Elections were all talking to each other throughout this process. Who would expect anything else? The S of S made his request for funding of M47 implementation. The next day, director of Elections, working under the SoS, ruled that M47 was not going to be implemented. What happened in the meantime? I'm guessing the SoS heard that the E-board was not likely to appropriate the $1 million. If you have another explanation, let's hear it so we can judge its plausibility.

In his request to the Emergency Board, he added another $100,000, which he said was Attorney General Hardy Myers' estimate of the cost of defending the measure against the expected lawsuits.

TC: Tsk, tsk, Torrid. Since you insist on ignoring the elephant in the room, I will quote from the Oregonian article I linked to above:

"Before the election, Bradbury estimated that it would cost slightly more than $1 million to implement Measure 47. In his request to the Emergency Board, he added another $100,000, which he said was Attorney General Hardy Myers' estimate of the cost of defending the measure against the expected lawsuits."

So, clearly, the SoS wanted $1 million to implement M47, and $100 thousand for legal costs. We both agree Bill wanted $100 thousand for legal costs, but what's important is that he wanted $1 million to implement M47. This was the day before John Lindback, who we agree would have been talking to both SoS and AG, decided M47 would not be enforced. You do see the difficulty for your position, don't you?

Politics intervened in the process and changed Bradbury's plans. Again, if you have an alternative explanation, have at it, but you'd better cover your bases better than you have so far. You're sounding positively Shrubbian today.

Since lestatdelc's comments are nothing but a hip-hip-hooray for Torridjoe's nonsense, there's no need to address him/her seperately.

Phen wrote:

"Let's get to the point where people can choose who to vote for based on qualifications and positions, not on who has the most money or the sleaziest strategy."

I agree completely.

"progvoice" said:

What wasn't disclosed was secion 9(e) of the Act. You can see that it was quite clear what the intent was despite the legal interpretation of section 9(f). I include both here for reasonable opinion. Standing side-by-side, I don't know how they came to that conclusion.

In my opinion, it is clear that the measure should and will go to court to be sorted out.

The "clear intent" of section 9(e) will indeed mandate judicial review; Article III of the OR Constitution explicitly recognizes the separation of powers of the three branches of government. How then can the "the electors of Oregon, acting in our legislative capacity" declare what interpretation the Act shall be given? Interpretation of law is squarely in the bailiwick of the Judiciary.

I don't think that section clears up anything. Interpretation of the intent of the electorate in its split decision on the twin measures would be more cogent to discussion of whither the pursuit of campaign finance reform should go. Doesn't that lob the ball into the court of the Legislature? Presumably the new Democratic majority would be friendly to this progressive concern, even if they are squeamish about addressing the gravy train which the lobbyists have been running.

Ed Bickford is correct that the Legislature can and should take up campaign finance reform in this session. The voters clearly want it, but getting it is not that easy.

I don't believe section 9(f) has the meaning that John Lindback claims, but his interpretation is understandable. I think [and hope] the court will see section 11 as one that addresses the issue at hand.

Torridjoe's problem is that he either is unable or unwilling to understand other's arguments. I wrote what I believe is a reasonable explanation for what happened between the SoS's request for money to implement M47 and John Lindback's decision to not enforce it. He refused to acknowledge my argument, never mind agree with it. I asked for any other explanaton for what happened that might cross his mind. Evidently, none has, so he demands proof of mine instead. I've seen clearer, more productive thinking from 10 year olds.

We need to pressure the OR Democratic legislators to make CFR part of their agenda for 2007; I haven't heard any talking about it recently. If not now then what more impetus would be needed?

Of course the supporters of Fair Elections will be [already are] lobbying the Legislature. We'll lobby for the implementation of Fair Elections, and we'll lobby for any good campaign finance reform we can get. Almost all the people I heard opposing the Fair Elections Measures claimed they supported effective campaign fianance reform. Well, now's the time to do something about it.

New legislative leadership, the scandals of the past year, and the voter's expression of approval of campaign finance reform have created a window of opportunity. I'd love you to lobby for a constitutional referral to allow campaign limits, but please, lobby for something. The reporting changes going into effect are better than nothing, but they're not nearly enough to change the role of wealthy interests in politics.

Many opponents of the Fair Elections Measures voiced support for publicly financed campaigns. That's a great system, but it just got thumped in California by a 3:1 ratio. I doubt there'll be any serious legislative movement in that direction. But, hey, if public financing is all you're willing to lobby for, go lobby for it. Democracy depends on it.

Steven Maurer said:

Her answer is that there are already ethics and campaign finance reform bills already scheduled to go into effect next year (and more to come)

Anyone have references as to what those new laws comprise?

Evan,

Severance clauses are common in both initiatives and bills. we know that most legislators do not read many of the bills on which they vote. should we consider both state and federal constitutional amendments to prohbit severance clauses completely?