2006 Oregon Ballot Measures 46 and 47

Last updated

Oregon ballot measures 46 and 47 were two ballot measures presented as a single package to voters; 46 would have amended the Constitution to allow limitations on campaign financing (heavily favoring popular vote, and requiring a 75% vote for such changes in the Legislature); and 47 detailed specific limitations. While Measure 47 passed, 46 did not, and the Secretary of State and Attorney General now refuse to enforce Measure 47 despite not having made constitutional challenges in court during cases filed against them to compel enforcement.[ citation needed ]

Contents

Measure 46

Measure 46
Flag of Oregon.svg
Amends Constitution: Allows laws regulating election contributions, expenditures adopted by initiative or 3/4 of both legislative Houses.
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes520,34240.32%
Light brown x.svg No770,25159.68%
Valid votes1,290,59392.21%
Invalid or blank votes109,0577.79%
Total votes1,399,650100.00%
Registered voters/turnout65.29%

Oregon Ballot Measures No.svg
Results by county
Source: Oregon Secretary of State [1]

Oregon Ballot Measure 46 would have amended the Oregon Constitution to allow laws to be passed or amended that would prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures of any kind to influence the outcome of any election. Under the measure, laws could be passed that prohibit or limit how much an individual or entity can give to a candidate for state or local (but not federal) office or other political campaign and how much an individual, entity, candidate or other political campaign can spend to influence the outcome of any state or local election. [2]

At present the free speech guarantee in the state Constitution, Article 1, section 8, does not allow laws that prohibit or impose involuntary limits on political campaign contributions or expenditures in elections for state or local public office. Under this measure, the Oregon legislature or voters by initiative would have had the authority to restrict or limit political campaign contributions and expenditures, subject to federal law.

If it had passed, the measure would have required a three-fourths (3/4) vote of both the Oregon Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives to amend previously enacted laws, or pass new laws, prohibiting or limiting political campaign contributions or expenditures. Ordinarily, a simple majority vote of both the Oregon Senate and Oregon House is required to amend existing laws or pass new laws. Under the measure, voters by a simple majority could have adopted new laws or amend existing laws prohibiting or limiting political campaign contributions or expenditures.

The measure would not have applied to elections for federal offices, which are President of the United States, United States Senator, and United States Representative. Federal law does not currently allow states to prohibit or limit contributions or expenditures for or against ballot measures. The measure would not affect the free speech guarantee under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Arguments in favor

Supporters of the measure argued that corporate money and moneyed interests had a corrupting and undue influence on elected officials and the legislative process. Supporters argued that measures 46 and 47 were campaign finance reform that would drive out mostly out-of-state contributions that they felt had corrupted the political system. Among the supporters was FairElections Oregon, a coalition of Oregon groups and people working on campaign finance reform. The coalition included:

Arguments in opposition

Numerous groups organized in opposition to the measure, even while many supported the overall goal of campaign finance reform. The main arguments against measures 46 and 47 were that measures went too far in amending Oregon's Constitution and would undermine free speech protections. In addition, it was argued that while well-intentioned, it was too unclear what the long-term effects of the measure would be on the electoral system in Oregon. Groups which came out in opposition to the measure were:

Election results

Measure 46 was rejected but Measure 47 passed by 53-47 percent. The Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General refused to enforce Measure 47. The chief petitioners on Measure 47 and others sued the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General to compel them to implement and enforce Measure 47. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled the provisions of the measure, "properly read, requires Measure 47 to be codified and held in abeyance pending an appropriate constitutional amendment or judicial decision that will render it operative." [3]

Measure 47

Measure 47
Revises campaign finance laws: Limits or prohibits contributions and expenditures; adds disclosure, new reporting requirements.
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes694,91853.04%
Light brown x.svgNo615,25646.96%
Valid votes1,310,17493.61%
Invalid or blank votes89,4766.39%
Total votes1,399,650100.00%
Registered voters/turnout66.28%

2006 Oregon Measure 47 results by county.svg
Source: Oregon Secretary of State [1]

Oregon Ballot Measure 47 would have limited or prohibited certain political campaign contributions and expenditures. The measure would have applied to all elections for state and local offices but not to ballot measures or candidates for federal offices.

Current law requires reporting of certain contributions and expenditures, but does not limit contributors, contributions to, or expenditures for public office candidates. Measure limits individual contributions to candidates, political committees, "small donor committees," political parties, with annual cap for all contributions; limits political committee, political party contributions to candidates and each other; allows unlimited contributions by "small donor committees" (accepting only individual contributions not exceeding $50 annually). Prohibits corporate, union, organizational contributions and expenditures except through political committees funded solely by individuals. Prohibits candidate loans. Limits: candidate's spending to own candidacy; "independent expenditures" (defined) by individuals, political entities, organizations. Establishes: new disclosure, reporting requirements; procedure for increasing measure's limits to comply with state and federal constitutions. Unspent candidate funds revert to state. Other provisions. [4]

Specific provisions of the measure

Under this measure: [4]

Election results

Measure 46 was rejected but Measure 47 passed by 53-47 percent. The Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General have refused to enforce Measure 47, event though no court has found any of it to be unconstitutional. The chief petitioners on Measure 47 and others have sued the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General to compel them to implement and enforce Measure 47. The case is currently [ when? ] before the Oregon Supreme Court awaiting judgement as oral arguments are now completed.

See also

Related Research Articles

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in the United States</span>

In the politics of the United States, elections are held for government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, the nation's head of state, the president, is elected indirectly by the people of each state, through an Electoral College. Today, these electors almost always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected by the people of each state. There are many elected offices at state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. There are also elected offices at the local level, in counties, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, and villages; as well as for special districts and school districts which may transcend county and municipal boundaries.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600, while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million to $26.53 million.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington State Public Disclosure Commission</span>

The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) is an agency of the Washington state government that regulates candidates, campaigns and lobbyists. It enforces the state's disclosure and campaign finances laws, and provides public access to information about lobbying activities, the financial affairs of elected and appointed public officials, and campaign contributions and expenditures.

Term limits legislation – term limits for state and federal office-holders – has been a recurring political issue in the U.S. state of Oregon since 1992. In that year's general election, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 3, an initiative that enacted term limits for representatives in both houses of the United States Congress and the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and statewide officeholders. It has been described as the strictest term limits law in the country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Corrupt Practices Act</span> United States federal law

The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, also known as the Publicity Act, was a federal law of the United States that was enacted in 1910 and amended in 1911 and 1925. It remained the nation's primary law regulating campaign finance in federal elections until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. The Act was signed by President William Howard Taft on June 25, 1910.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in Oregon</span>

Elections in Oregon are all held using a Vote by Mail (VBM) system. This means that all registered voters receive their ballots via postal delivery and can vote from their homes. A state Voters’ Pamphlet is mailed to every household in Oregon about three weeks before each statewide election. It includes information about each measure and candidate in the upcoming election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California elections</span>

California's state elections were held November 2, 2004. Necessary primary elections were held on March 2. Up for election were all the seats of the State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, and sixteen ballot measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Oregon elections</span>

On November 4, 2008, the U.S. state of Oregon held statewide general elections for three statewide offices, both houses of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and twelve state ballot measures. The primary elections were held on May 20, 2008. Both elections also included national races for President of the US, US Senator, and US House Representatives. Numerous local jurisdictions — cities, counties, and regional government entities — held elections for various local offices and ballot measures on these days as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Oregon Ballot Measure 64</span>

Oregon Ballot Measure 64 was an initiated state statute ballot measure on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot in Oregon.

Electoral reform in Oregon refers to efforts to change election and voting laws in the West Coast state of Oregon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Campaign Finance Board</span>

The New York CityCampaign Finance Board (CFB) is an independent New York City agency that serves to provide campaign finance information to the public, enable more citizens to run for office by granting public matching funds, increase voter participation and awareness, strengthen the role of small contributors, and reduce the potential for actual or perceived corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California elections</span>

In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Anti-Corruption Act</span> American model legislation

The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA), sometimes shortened to Anti-Corruption Act, is a piece of model legislation designed to limit the influence of money in American politics by overhauling lobbying, transparency, and campaign finance laws. It was crafted in 2011 "by former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter in consultation with dozens of strategists, democracy reform leaders and constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum," and is supported by reform organizations such as Represent.Us, which advocate for the passage of local, state, and federal laws modeled after the AACA. It is designed to limit or outlaw practices perceived to be major contributors to political corruption.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

References

  1. 1 2 Bradbury, Bill (7 November 2006). "Official Results – November 7, 2006 General Election" (Website). Elections Division. Oregon Secretary of State . Retrieved January 3, 2009.
  2. Bradbury, Bill (7 November 2006). "Measure 46" (Website). Voters' Pamphlet. Oregon Secretary of State . Retrieved January 3, 2009.
  3. "Oregon Judicial Department : Publications Program of the State of Oregon Law Library : Publications : State of Oregon" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2015-06-04.
  4. 1 2 Bradbury, Bill (7 November 2006). "Measure 47" (Website). Voters' Pamphlet. Oregon Secretary of State . Retrieved January 3, 2009.