Oregon Campaign Finance Ballot Measures

The state of Oregon had two campaign finance related measures on the ballot two weeks ago, Measures 46 and 47. Measure 46 is a simple and short ballot initiative, the text of which reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people through the initiative process, or the Legislative Assembly by a three-fourths vote of both Houses, may enact and amend laws to prohibit or limit contributions and exependitures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election.

By contrast, Measure 47 is much longer and more complicated, and includes a large number of provisions and findings along with the now ever present severability clause. Here is the fun part, for many parts of Measure 47 to take effect, Measure 46 had to pass. Measure 46 failed and Measure 47 passed. For me there are a couple of interesting points about these measures and their future.

Where "reform" supporters have been successful in tying money in politics to corruption and thereby winning passage of laws and intiatives, when the issue is couched in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, they will tend to fail. One thing that I think is important to note is that opponents of Measure 46, who were generally the same as the opponents of Measure 47, were able to accurately portray changes in campaign finance law as impacting speech. Whether you subscribe to the theory that campaign contributions are a form of speech or not, successful framing played a significant role in the defeat of Measure 46.

But there also remains some questions about Measure 47. First, I question the wisdom of enacting such complex legislation through the intiative process. Of course, proponents of this measure will argue that the legislature has too much of a conflict to enact such legislation since it goes against their electoral advantage. But to counter such an argument, I offer McCain-Feingold.

Second, I think that measures as complicated as this lend themselves to passage far easier than simple measures like Ballot Measure 46. I have to empirical evidence to back up my hunch that longer ballot measures pass more frequently, but it just seems to me that the more the supporters pack into the bill, the more likely they are going to get more people to support parts of the bill, if not the whole thing. Of course, this is the rationale behind the "one subject rule" but it seems to me that this very long piece of legislation violates that one subject by dealing not simply with contribution limits, but candidate self-funding limits, corporate involvement and other matters within campaign finance. So apparently, the one issue rule is somewhat suspect in this case.

Third, and finally, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of Oregon voters did not read this massive bill, which runs to some 8,200 words, even with the vote by mail the state has in place. What is the point in direct democracy if the voters don't read what is at issue.

Now for the good news and bad news. The good news is that because Measure 46 failed, Measure 47 cannot be enacted. According to this letter from the Secretary of State's office, some language in Measure 47 prohibits the enactment because the necessary precondition of permission to amend the Oregon Constitution is not present for enforcement to take place.

The bad news is that Measure 47 is codified but not enforced until such time as the Constitution is amended. So the battle is moved to take on Measure 46 again in a new form, with the emphasis on changing the language to allow a dormant Measure 47 to become active.

More to come later.