Lopsided writes:

Now if you claim record-breaking donations is equated with something bad, then you must also - if you are fair - see the record-breaking donations to Barack Obama as bad as well. In the latter case, his money came from the criminal element - aka, unions.

This hardly passes the straight face test. If you read the Register-Guard article, the challenge is a huge percentage of Torrey's money is coming from businesses who directly stand to profit from city decisions.

In contrast, Obama's campaign, as has been well documented, is primarily funded by more than a million separate donors across the country. Business donations in federal races are illegal. And your suggestion that unions are criminal isn't worth dignifying with a response.

OLCV opposed the statewide ballot measure (Measure 47) that, in local races like the one for mayor of Eugene, bans all corporate contributions, union treasury contributions, and contributions by individuals in excess of $100 per person (in primary and again in general). While other environmental groups supported Measure 47 (Sierra Club of Oregon, etc.), OLCV opposed it and actively endorsed a "no" vote, allowing its endorsement to appear prominently on the opposition literature and media ads. Measure 47 was enacted by the voters, yet the Secretary of State refuses to enforce it. I am currently in court to compel enforcement.

OCLV also endorsed a "no" vote on Measure 46, the constitutional amendment that would have removed any opportunity for government officials to refuse to enforce Measure 47. Measure 46 would have amended the Oregon Constitution to expressly allow the enactment of limits on political contributions.

I invite OLCV to file an amicus brief, supporting our position, in the Oregon Court of Appeals. Short of that, it would appear that OLCV is complaining about a result (no limits whatever on political contributions in Oregon) that OLCV itself argued in favor of in the 2006 election. If Measure 47 were being enforced, Jim Torrey could not accept any contributions from corporations or any other type of business entity.

Note: It has been unlawful for federal candidates, such as Obama, from accepting contributions from corporations for 100 years. That is why his contributions come from individuals, because federal laws allows only individuals are allowed to contribute to federal campaigns.

Lopsided is wrong. Federal law also bans unions from contributing to the campaigns of federal candidates.

Hey look.... we just stirred up a whole nest of pro-Torrey blog commenters! Yayy!

Everyone, please ignore the trolls, ok?

I don’t want to get in a comment flame war with Dan Meek, who I’m sure has more patience for it than me, but I’ll just say three things in response to his attack on OLCV because we opposed ballot measures 46 and 47 in 2006.

First, OLCV has supported campaign finance measures in the past and we’d be delighted to support them in the future. But Measure 47 was written so poorly that it would have actually removed more progressive money from the system than conservative. That’s why one of its chief petitioners, State Rep. Peter Buckley, ultimately argued publicly for people to vote against his own measure.

Second, OLCV was joined by a broad array of progressive organizations in reaching this same judgment. Other groups that opposed Measures 46 and 47 included Planned Parenthood, Stand for Children, Basic Rights Oregon, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon, Eugene Springfield Solidarity Network, and the Democratic Party.

Third, it’s a complete red herring to suggest that the only options are Measures 46/47 and zero campaign finance reform. If Dan Meek wants to ban corporate contributions in Oregon, Oregon voters would probably do it in a heartbeat, but instead the effort has instead included a kitchen sink of other provisions, some of which would be nice, but others of which tilt the playing field, ironically, to benefit wealthy individuals.

I’m not going to debate the substance of Measures 46/47 any further other than to suggest people refer back to the arguments in opposition to it at the time.

http://www.oregonvotes.org/nov72006/guide/meas/m47_opp.html

None of this changes the fact that in this particular race, Jim Torrey’s victory would represent a huge step backwards for progressive leadership in Oregon. And As Aaron's comment points out, Kitty Piercy has been endorsed by a broad cross-section of environmental, labor, social justice, and civil rights groups.

Third, it’s a complete red herring to suggest that the only options are Measures 46/47 and zero campaign finance reform.

I'm not sure what that comment means except that you didn't like measure 46 and 47.

I'd argue that you are wrong, obviously, in asserting that a constitutional amendment is not a requirement for campaign finance reform in Oregon, given the court's ruling in Vannatta.

But here's my question: What have you done since 2006 to advocate for or against campaign finance reform in Oregon?

I'd also appreciate an answer to the upthread comment on how dependent you are on big money donations for your pac's operating budget in 2008.

Sierra Club, OSPIRG, and the Greens all supported those measures. The OLCV joined Associated Oregon Industries, Big Tobacco, and other major polluters in opposition.

Just sayin'

Yes, Jim Torrey may be very bad for the environment. But OLCV, by opposing the campaign finance reform constitutional amendment, directly facilitated Torrey's current big-money campaign. If the ccampaign finance reform limits adopted by Oregon voters in 2006 were being enforced, it would have been illegal for Torrey to have received most of the contributions he is getting. On the other hand, OLCV could have created a "small donor committee" (accepting only $50 contributions) and could have directed all of those funds (with no limit) to defeating Torrey. Instead, OLCV opposed the measures, without understanding them (IMHO), and thus certainly helped to bring about the current Torrey situation.

Also, the endorsers of both Measures 46 and 47 included:

Sierra Club of Oregon OSPIRG (Oregon State Public Interest Research Group) Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership Alliance for Democracy Oregon Gray Panthers Pacific Green Party Northwest Progressive Community Democratic Party of Clackamas County Public Action for Clean Elections (Granny D) Health Care for All Oregon Jackson County Citizens for the Public Good Native Forest Council Don't Waste Oregon Eastside Democratic Club First Unitarian Church Action Groups Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Gifford Pinchot Task Force Injured Workers' Alliance Physicians for Social Responsibility Rural Organizing Project (M 47) Universal Health Care for Oregon Utility Reform Project

The most cogent analysis of Measure 47 was provided by Associated Oregon Industries, which stated:

While supporters may think they are getting corporate and union money out of politics, they are actually giving unions a big advantage in electing their candidates. This advantage over business PACs would be gained by membership and collection infrastructure to form “Small Donor Groups” of people contributing less than $50. Unions currently receive the bulk of their donations from members at this level (which is collected by the state in many cases, but that’s another issue). These Small Donor Groups will be able to contribute to candidates in “any amount”, i.e. they are not limited by any other campaign spending limits set forth in the measure (Section 2 (ad), Section 3 (f)). While corporations or businesses may form these Small Donor Groups, the proposal limits aggregation to corporations and their affiliates, not business association based groups like AOI. Unions, on the other hand, are limited to the same labor organization unit at any level, which is no different from their current structure for political contribution collection.

AOI understood Measure 47 and feared it. OLCV helped AOI in campaigning against it.

Also, Jonathan is wrong in his assertion that the Democratic Party opposed both Measure 46 and 47. Regarding the constitutional amendment, Measure 46, the Democratic Party convention voted a neutral position.