SALEM — Critics of Oregon House Democrats’ plan to delay limits on political contribution until July 2021 and appoint a task force to draft new caps said during a committee hearing Tuesday that at least half of the people lawmakers might tap to suggest reforms would have a vested interest in keeping money flowing in Oregon politics.
Rebecca Gladstone, president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon, pointed out more than half the task force members, including representatives of political parties and political nonprofits, would have financial interests in proposing less restrictive contribution limits.
Dan Meek, a lawyer who wrote the 2006 voter-approved contribution limits at issue, agreed.
“I would say 11 of the 17 members of the task force have a financial interest in large contributions,” Meek said.
At the same time, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon’s vice president for legal affairs, Katherine McDowell, said the proposal would balance the “public’s right to express itself free of government censure and the right to participate in fair and free elections.” The group has in the past argued that any constraints on political money are akin to restrictions on free speech.
Oregon effectively has no limits on political donations, thanks to repeated court rulings that struck down or suspended them. This includes the ballot initiative voters approved in 2006, Measure 47.
However, the Oregon Supreme Court could soon hand down a ruling in a case on Multnomah County’s voter-approved campaign finance limits. If the justices determine that such limits are constitutional, that would likely bring back the statewide donation caps, too.
The chief sponsor of House Bill 4124, Rep. Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, and other lawmakers are concerned that implementing the limits in the middle of a general election cycle could lead to chaos and unfairly benefit candidates who began fundraising before any caps were in effect.
“There are some people who are fearful the legislature will continue to push (Measure 47) out, you know, in perpetuity,” Rayfield said Tuesday. “I think those fears have caused folks to not want this bill to pass, frankly.” However, Rayfield said he believes on balance it would be better to make sure any Oregon campaign limits are constitutional and avoid “a chaotic 2020 election cycle.”
“I would not want to be (Republican Secretary of State Bev Clarno) making what would be perceived as a political decision in an election cycle,” Rayfield said, referring to a decision the secretary of state might have to make regarding whether some portions of Measure 47 would violate the U.S. Constitution. The lengthy and detailed measure calls for any unconstitutional portions to not be implemented, while allowing the rest of the measure to take effect, Meek said.
“Implementing real limits, I think, will always be considered chaotic by the folks who are subject to those limits and I don’t believe Measure 47 will require rulemaking by the secretary of state because the measure itself is extremely specific,” Meek said. “It’s 20 single-spaced, small print pages.”
Separately, Oregon voters will decide in November whether to amend the state constitution to allow campaign contribution limits. But lawmakers wrote that amendment so it would not allow the 2006 voter-approved statewide limits, only limits enacted more recently. Thus, only donation caps passed in Portland and Multnomah County and future statewide campaign contribution limits would be allowed under the proposed amendment.
Rayfield said that when lawmakers were discussing last year whether to adopt new contribution limits, something they did not do, the secretary of state requested several years to implement money caps.
Andrea Chiapella, legislative director for the secretary of state’s office, said on Tuesday that Clarno and others in the office do not plan to take a position on Rayfield’s bill to create the task force and delay Measure 47.
“We weren’t planning on weighing in at all," Chiapella said, although she added staff are open to meeting with Rayfield to provide technical expertise.
The House Committee on Rules has not yet scheduled a work session to potentially amend the bill, which it must do by Feb. 13 in order to keep the bill alive. As long as the task force remains part of the proposal, it would cost a non-trivial amount of money and thus have to pass through the Ways and Means committee, which would keep it alive in the face of deadlines later in the 35-day session. Rayfield said some people are interested in using a less formal structure to draft new contribution limits — a work group — which would obviate the need for the bill to go through the budget committee.
Rayfield’s proposal to increase public officials’ disclosure of their financial interests also came up for a hearing Tuesday morning, where it received strong criticism from Republican Leader Christine Drazan of Canby. “I think it ruffled some feathers,” Rayfield said later in the day, which left him thinking about whether this is “the right session to be ruffling feathers with a bill like this.”
House Bill 4123 would require public officials, from county planning commissioners to the governor, to disclose any businesses they are involved with that might have dealings with — or a business interest the policies of — the government where that public official is serving.
“At a time when we have a lack of public trust in government, I believe that curbing that activity will increase trust in our campaign finance system and in public officials,” Rayfield said.
Rep. Christine Drazan, R-Canby, attends the first day of the short legislative session at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem, Ore., Monday, Feb. 3, 2020. (Anna Reed/Statesman-Journal via AP)AP
Drazan fired back that Oregon’s part-time lawmakers typically hold other jobs in order to pay their bills so it might be simpler to forbid that outside work.
“That seems like that would be a lot more straightforward than asking people who are choosing public service to open up their families’ books and every part of their private lives because there’s some level of suspicion,” Drazan said.
She suggested lawmakers can do other things to increase government transparency, such as make Oregon’s public records advocate independence from the governor’s office. There is a bill to do that — Senate Bill 1506. It has not yet been scheduled for a hearing and although a few lawmakers took the steps necessary to introduce it this session, no lawmaker has publicly pledged to champion it.
"plan" - Google News
February 05, 2020 at 08:30AM
https://ift.tt/39kWMzp
Oregon lawmakers air plan to reshape 2006 campaign donation limits - OregonLive
"plan" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2un5VYV
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Oregon lawmakers air plan to reshape 2006 campaign donation limits - OregonLive"
Post a Comment