[ad_1]
On Friday afternoon, attendees lobbied for curtains to be opened to let rare February sunlight filter into the Capitol ahead of a public hearing on last-minute efforts by state representatives, labor unions and business groups to pass campaign finance limits. carried out activities.
“We like sunshine in government,” joked Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland.
But Golden and other critics House Bill 4024 He said the proposal, developed by House Majority Leader Julie Fahey, Minority Leader Jeff Helfrich, labor unions and business groups, has not been given the kind of scrutiny it needs in broad daylight. Ta. Critics say the bill still allows unions and small donor committees to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates, and there are only two weeks left before Congress passes the bill. He pointed out that the lawmakers put this bill on the table in a situation where there was no such thing.
“I really don’t know how I can go home and look my voters in the eyes and say we have seriously reformed our campaign finance system,” Golden said.
Oregon is one of the few states with no limits on contributions to candidates, resulting in staggering amounts of money being spent on elections. The bill could require voters to choose between two competing campaign finance ballot measures in November: one proposed by good government groups and one supported by labor unions and progressive groups. It was introduced as a response to gender.
Angela Wilhelms, president of Oregon Business and Industry, the state’s largest business group, said the decision was made to prevent “chaos, confusion, confusion” that could result from two competing campaign finance efforts on voting. said that legislative action is needed. She said she understands the skepticism about workers working together with companies deeply involved in elections.
“We’re asking if you can put aside some of that skepticism and accept that this proposal is an honest attempt to make things right,” she said.
Lawmakers have been working on campaign finance reform at various levels over the past few years, but no compromise has been found.
Fahey, a Democrat from Eugene, said, “Labor unions are too inflexible, business leaders are reluctant to come to the bargaining table, and good government groups are holding back some of their positions.” There was no attempt to consider what the actual impact would be.”
Fahey said limits that are too low could lead to more dark money and spending by groups trying to influence elections and circumventing campaign finance laws.Oregon doesn’t have as much dark money as other states, but lawmakers being targeted by a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that does not disclose its donors.
carve-out for unions
Under the proposal Fahey and Helfrich announced this week, state legislative, circuit court judge and district attorney candidates would receive compensation from individuals in excess of $3,300 per election ($6,600 assuming primaries and general elections). It is prohibited to do so. Candidates can receive up to $5,000 per election from political party committees, multi-candidate committees that exist to support multiple candidates, and committees of Congressional caucuses.
The proposed limits would increase with respect to trade unions. Labor unions and other member organizations may contribute up to $16,500 per election, and up to $33,000 to candidates running in both the primary and general elections. Also, small donor political committees, which receive up to $250 per year from individuals, can contribute up to $33,000 per election for every 2,500 donors to the small donor committee. I can do it. This means that a small giving committee with 10,000 donors gives candidates $132,000 per election, or $264,000 in an election year that includes both the primary and general election. It means there is a possibility.
Labor unions and other member organizations could potentially give double compensation to candidates for governor and other statewide offices. It could also provide hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of services, including hiring the equivalent of three full-time employees for the campaign.
Felisa Hagins, executive director of the Service Employees International Union of Oregon (SEIU), said the union has waived some of its demands, but overall supports the proposal.
“This proposal lacks things that our union values very much, such as public financing,” she said. “But that’s the nature of compromise.”
House Speaker Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis) told reporters Thursday that he is not deeply involved in recent efforts to curb campaign contributions and has not yet read the amendment. He said any proposal would need bipartisan support and should include input from advocates working on a variety of voting measures.
Attorney Dan Meek said the involvement of Honest Elections Oregon, the group behind Campaign Finance Reform Ballot Measure Initiative Petition 9, is minimal. The group, which is pushing its own campaign finance ballot measure with lower limits and stricter guidelines, first received the concept of the proposal 12 days ago, raised concerns 10 days ago and saw the proposal two days ago I participated in one 2-hour video conference before. .
Meek said lawmakers have shown no intention of considering serious campaign finance reform.
“People elected in an open-ended system are like an open-ended system,” he said. “That’s what I found.”
The majority of those testifying opposed the proposal.
Patrick Stearns, who ran as an Oregon Independence Party candidate in 2018 and as a Democrat for governor in 2022, submitted a statement simply saying, “Shame on you!” shame! shame! ” Former state Rep. Marty Wilde, a Eugene Democrat who has clashed with his party over support for campaign finance reform and independent redistricting, sent three separate letters opposing the proposal.
“Let’s be honest here: This is a backroom deal that was broken out of fear of a ballot measure, and not an honest attempt to give a voice to the 78% of voters who voted for Measure 107,” he said. He mentioned the measure that voters approved in 2020. Constitutional amendment allowing limits on campaign finance. “We should not be complicit in the destruction of democracy. It is better to simply get out of the way and let the voters decide.”
Get the morning headlines delivered to your inbox
[ad_2]
Source link
