It’s not like we need another example of dysfunctional, disingenuous and generally bad behavior in our politics today, but that’s what we’re seeing in the latest effort to undermine a historic piece of legislation that promised to limit the influence of big money in Oregon elections.
I was optimistic when that legislation was enacted two years ago. In the face of a potential ballot measure supported by a large majority of Oregonians, lawmakers decided to work with determined reformers on the outside and reluctant labor and business interests on the inside to come up with a compromise package of reforms that would take effect in 2027.
That compromise, I wrote at the time, was exactly what was needed to end the “30 Years War” over campaign finance reform that had left Oregon as one of only a dozen states with a sky’s-the-limit regime for funding candidates for state offices.
But I worry now that we may get to 2027 with a deal that has yet to be real.
The delay to 2027 was meant to give the secretary of state time to upgrade computer systems for tracking campaign contributions, enact rules to clarify how its regulations would be enforced and allow for technical fixes if needed in subsequent legislation. But it also gave opponents time to regroup and try to undo the deal that was now enshrined in Oregon law.
That became evident last year when labor and business interests tried to convince the Legislature to delay and water down the legislation under the guise of making it work better for Oregonians. Thankfully, in a test of the integrity of the Legislature and its leadership, that attempt was scuttled in response to accusations of bad faith bargaining and insider deal making.
Then, just last week, opponents of campaign finance reform took a new tack and tried to wrest the banner of reform from the reformers.
Consider this missive from the headquarters of the union coalition known as Our Oregon that arrived in my email after labor and business leaders emerged from private meetings with House Speaker Julie Fahey:
“Oregonians like you stood together and demanded a campaign finance system where the voices of everyday people are not drowned out by millionaires and billionaires. Now we are closer than ever to finally seeing real campaign contribution limits in Oregon!”
The “you” in this statement is presumably a reference to the 75% of Oregonians who told pollsters they would vote for the reforms headed to the ballot in 2024. The “we” are the labor and business lobbyists who have been meeting with legislative leadership to find another way to undo a deal they didn’t like at the time it was negotiated.
It is hard to accept the truth of the statement that “we are closer than ever to…real campaign contribution limits in Oregon,” when the bill they are promoting would delay and water down key elements of the promised reforms. That case was made clear in the testimony of Dan Meek, one of the architects of the 2024 initiative and a participant in negotiating the legislated deal.
In a hearing last Thursday, representatives of Our Oregon and the Oregon Education Association told lawmakers on the House Committee on Rules that by postponing key provisions of the law until 2031, they wanted to avoid “a botched rollout” of the original legislation, echoing this message in the email I received last week:
“At this fragile moment in our democracy, we can’t afford to undermine faith and transparency in our elections with a botched roll out of campaign finance reform.”
Let’s set aside for the moment that these folks are criticizing an implementation process that their organizations made more difficult over the past two years. More telling is the invocation of transparency here, given the lobbying that has gone on behind the scenes without the participation of Meek and other reformers.
Yes, there is still work to be done. Some fixes are needed to streamline the final design of the system enacted in 2024, as the reformers have conceded in prior testimony. And, with the track record of the state of Oregon when it comes to updating and implementing new technology platforms, that work will take time, which is rapidly becoming another obstacle to making the deal real by 2027.
These issues are not insurmountable in the time remaining if addressed with transparency and good faith. But the way they’ve been handled over the past two years, where dithering gives way to scheming and so-called solutions emerge from closed door meetings on rushed, last-minute schedules has seriously compromised what lawmakers promised to put in place by next January.
“At this fragile moment in our democracy,” to quote the Our Oregon message, when we are all too often told to ignore what we’re seeing and hearing with our own eyes and ears, it is not helpful to see opponents cosplay as reformers and hear the arguments they’re making to try to convince the majority of Oregonians that, on this issue, they’re on their side.
What will be helpful? A little more honesty in these deliberations. A principled stand by lawmakers to defend the reforms they enacted in 2024. And a good faith effort to ensure that this is a deal that’s made real as promised in 2027.