[ad_1]
A compromise reached by labor unions and business groups raises the possibility that lawmakers will enact the first campaign finance cap in state history before the end of the March session.
But good government groups say the restrictions are too lenient. And supporters of a proposed ballot measure that would impose stricter restrictions have not stopped trying to get it on the November ballot.
The new version of House Bill 4024, released Thursday morning, is a joint industry-labor response to two competing ballot measures that were scheduled to go before voters in November.
Both would place limits on the amount individuals and organizations can donate to candidates for state and local office in Oregon. One of them, backed by the labor unions that helped craft Thursday’s compromise, includes a loophole that would allow them to continue funneling huge sums of money to Oregon campaigns.
The other is a more restrictive plan put forth by good government groups like the League of Women Voters.
Unions, including the Service Employees International Union 503 and the Oregon Education Association, have worked in recent weeks to craft the bill’s language and persuade House Democratic leaders to introduce it, the state-wide business lobby, Oregon – Negotiated with Business and Industry. The House Rules Committee will hold a hearing on the bill on Friday.
“With a topic this complex, we cannot afford a situation where a ballot measure leads to years of litigation,” said Preston Mann, director of political affairs for Oregon Business and Industry. He told OregonianLive. “We all need to come together to get this done and do it right.”
Oregon is one of only five states that places no limits on the amount of money candidates can receive from individuals, political groups, businesses, labor unions, and other groups.
According to the draft bill, among other provisions, contributions to candidates for statewide office, the state House and Senate, and district attorney would be limited to $3,300 from individuals per election, $5,000 from party committees to candidates, and $5,000 from individuals to candidates for each election. limited to $10,000 to party committees. The draft law defines primary and general elections as separate elections.
Contribution limits take effect on January 1, 2026.
Business groups and labor unions said the bill was a compromise between business and labor priorities. “We have our own ballot initiative,” said Felisa Hagins, executive director of the SEIU Oregon Board of Trustees. “But we also feel that having a legal solution means we’re taking another step here, and we’re happy to build on what we’ve been working on. .”
House Speaker Dan Layfield, a Democrat from Corvallis, told reporters Thursday that he was not involved in the debate and had not yet seen the bill.
“But I think it remains to be seen whether there is a path forward to make this session a success,” Layfield said. “Any path forward needs to be bipartisan, and ideally, we want advocates working on various voting measures to be part of this process.”
But the good government group Honest Elections, which is pushing for more restrictive voting measures, says the bill contains similar loopholes to voting measures proposed by a coalition of labor unions. are doing. Dan Meek, leader of Honest Elections, said these policies allow wealthy individuals and groups, including labor unions and business groups, to continue providing large sums of money to political candidates.
For example, Meek said the bill would allow so-called membership organizations to pay up to $33,300 to candidates across the state each election cycle, plus up to $36,000 in paid labor by any type of campaign worker. He said he would accept donations equivalent to a month’s worth of donations. The bill defines a membership organization as a tax-exempt organization with members who pay dues or make contributions.
With these loose limits, Meek said, member organizations such as labor unions, business federations and environmental advocacy groups could theoretically provide candidates with six full-time campaign consultants for a year, and for that amount. could be worth $900,000. The bill would also allow individuals to make unlimited contributions to member organizations.
“With the proliferation of membership organizations, it is very easy to make contribution limits completely irrelevant,” Meek says.
Oregon Business and Industry’s Mann said Meek’s estimates of how much money member organizations could put into candidates’ campaigns were unrealistic. He said he does not expect his campaign to accept any amount allowed in the bill.
Another big loophole, Meek said, involves contributions from committees made up of many small donors, such as labor unions.
Small giving committees with more than 2,500 members can contribute $33,000 to a campaign for every 2,500 contributing members in the group, with no limit on the total amount donated.
The bill would also allow candidates to carry over contributions from one election to another, potentially giving incumbents an advantage over new or relatively unknown challengers, Meek said. he said.
He said the provision was the result of a compromise and not something Mann supports. “Speaking for myself, I think this provision risks being declared unconstitutional,” Mann said.
The bill also includes disclosure requirements that would require organizations that spend $50,000 or more to support a candidate but are not affiliated with the candidate’s campaign to disclose many of their major donors.
Representatives from labor unions and business groups said they made a genuine effort to include honest elections in the bill’s discussions. “We’re trying to address their concerns in a way that makes sense,” Mann said.
Meek said those discussions consisted of a two-hour meeting this month. He did not say whether Honest Elections supports the current bill or whether good government groups would withdraw the ballot proposal if Congress passes the bill.
SEIU’s Hagins said the union is confident that Oregon will also impose campaign finance limits at some point this year, and that unions will have more influence if the issue is on the Oregon ballot in November. He said it would be advantageous.
“If this doesn’t pass,” Hagins said. “We’re simply moving forward with our voting efforts. And we’re very confident we’ll win.”
— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Please contact us at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.
Our journalism depends on your support.Subscribe now oregonlive.com.
[ad_2]
Source link
