An Oregon History of Campaign Finance Reform and the League of Women Voters

Recent Campaign Finance History

In 2020, the League supported the Legislature’s referred constitutional amendment Measure 107 to voters to allow campaign finance limits. Voters passed it overwhelmingly by over 78%. However, three Legislative sessions passed without implementing a Measure 107 statute. Legislators could not agree on anything that limited their own campaigns; they all are experts on financing their own campaigns and all have a huge conflict of interest.

In 2022, the Honest Elections group, including the LWVOR, Common Cause and other good government groups, participated in intense negotiations with unions and Our Oregon, lasting for many months. An agreement was reached on an initiative text; however, the unions backed out of the deal at the last minute.

Honest Elections redrafted the proposal together with national experts from the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the League. They then filed initiative petition (IP) 9 in July, 2022, after a long drafting process where IP 8 (a constitutional amendment to stop campaign finance laws impairment), IP 23 (including Democracy Vouchers) and IP 24 (including public matching of small donations) were also filed. 

Honest Elections settled on IP 9 as the proposal most likely to make the ballot and be adopted by voters. After an eight month ballot title certification process all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court, while Our Oregon did its best to delay the process, the Secretary of State finally approved IP 9 for circulation in May, 2023. The campaign quickly hired petitioners, organized volunteers including the League, and eventually collected some 100,000 signatures. LWVOR policy says that the League only supports ballot measures after ballot qualification, unless it was involved in measure drafting and organizing.

Then Our Oregon, sensing IP 9’s potential success, redrafted the originally agreed Honest Elections initiative text (with huge loopholes for unions and other organizations). Our Oregon filed IP 42, got a ballot title in less than 5 months, hired circulators, and began collecting signatures in January, 2024.

At this point, it was clear to some legislators entering the short legislative session, that an expensive ballot battle was brewing between IP 9 and IP 42. Very quickly and historically, some union and business lobbyists got together and drafted a legislative bill. Dexter Johnson, lead Legislative Counsel, quickly drafted an LC bill. 

The House Rules Committee, Chaired by Rep. Julie Fahey and Vice Chair Rep. Jeffrey Helfrich, stuffed the LC bill as an amendment into HB 4024, an unused placeholder bill. Two hearings and a work session were quickly held within a few days. The League initially opposed the bill in its -3 amendment form. Intense negotiations ensued behind the scenes between Honest Elections, some legislators, and business and union lobbyists, with the League being supportive but not directly involved. Some 40 changes were made to the 49-page bill before Honest Elections agreed that it was “good enough”. Part of the agreement was withdrawal of both IP 9 and IP 42. HB 4024 initially included a referral to November ballots, also removed from the final bill. 

The House Rules Committee quickly passed HB 4024 to the House floor, rules were suspended, and it passed 52 to 5. The very next day, the Senate Rules Committee quickly and concurrently held a hearing and work session, passing HB 4024 to the Senate floor. The Senate suspended rules, passed the bill 22 to 6, all on the last day of session. The Governor said she would sign it.

It is clear that much more work needs to be done to implement HB 4024. Funding must be allocated to the Secretary of State and administrative rules must be written and adopted before the January 2027 effective date. ORESTAR must be reprogrammed for a “dashboard”,advertising disclosure, and “drill down” to see original campaign contribution funding sources. The 2025 long legislative session will undoubtedly want to consider amendments, both good and bad. This work could continue for years, if not decades. Stay tuned!

Earlier Campaign Finance History

Campaign contribution limits were adopted in 1908 by initiative. Those limits remained in effect until the 1970s when the Legislature repealed them in favor of campaign spending limits, a fad at the time. 

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down campaign spending limits in the famous Buckley v. Valeo court case because they violated the First Amendment. However, the SCOTUS justified contribution limits because of the state’s interest in preventing “corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates' positions and on their actions if elected to office."

In 1994 Oregon voters again adopted campaign contribution limits by initiative with Measure 9. They were only  in effect for the 1996 election until the Oregon Supreme Court struck them down in 1997 on the basis of free speech in the Oregon Constitution, VanNatta v. Keisling.

In 1998, voters approved Measure 62, a constitutional amendment requiring campaign finance and  ad financing disclosures, and allowing the Legislature to regulate signature gathering. The Legislature later prohibited paying petition circulators per signature, among other regulations.

In 2000, the League helped draft initiative Measure 6 and supported it with a Voters’ Pamphlet statement., t, to provide public funding to candidates who limited campaign spending and private contributions. It failed on the ballot. 

Oregon voters again passed contribution limits with initiative Measure 47 in 2006. The companion initiative, constitutional amendment Measure 46, however, did not pass, so the Measure 47 limits never went into effect. The League did not help draft these measures and later opposed them because Measure 46 required a three-fourths (3/4) legislative vote to amend previously enacted campaign finance laws, or to pass new laws. Measure 47 also required low contributions limits, perhaps unconstitutionally. Later in 2020, when the Oregon Supreme Court rescinded its repeal of campaign contribution limits, the Oregon Attorney General and Secretary of State refused without explanation to allow Measure 47 to go into effect, even though it was still in Oregon Revised Statute.

In the early 2020s, the Honest Elections group, including the LWVOR, Common Cause and several other good government groups, succeeded in getting contribution limits adopted for Portland and Multnomah County, with public funding for Portland candidates, with a small donor matching fund.