[Cfr-announce] U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO OREGON STATEWIDE INITIATIVE PETITION 53

[Dan]

Money is Not Democracy

www.fairelections.net
democracy at voters.net

	

Lloyd K. Marbet
19142 S.E. Bakers Ferry Rd
Boring, OR 97009

	

(503) 637-3549
(503) 637-6130
marbet at mail.com

Daniel Meek, attorney
10949 S.W. 4th Avenue
Portland, OR 97219

	

(503) 293-9021
(503) 293-9099 fax
dan at meek.ney

December 11, 2003

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN OREGON 
STATEWIDE INITIATIVE PETITION 53 FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in /McConnell v. FEC/ 
(December 10, 2003), upholding all significant provisions of the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law is also good news for 
supporters of campaign finance reform in Oregon.

"This decision has removed all significant constitutional issues that 
could pertain to our Petition 53," said Dan Meek, attorney for Money is 
Not Democracy (MIND), which is currently circulating a statewide 
initiative for campaign finance reform applicable to state and local 
candidate races in Oregon. Dozens of volunteers are collecting 
signatures on Petition 53 for the November 2004 ballot. Petition 53 
would enact a comprehensive system of campaign finance reform for 
candidate elections as part of the Oregon Constitution (so it could not 
be overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court). Oregon is one of only 6 
states with no limits on campaign contributions.

 Petition 53, if enacted by voters in November 2004, would: 

1.       Ban corporations, unions, and other entities from contributing 
to campaigns or making "independent expenditures" for or against 
candidates;

2.       Limit individual contributions to candidates ($500 to a 
candidate in a statewide race, $100 to a candidate in a local race, 
etc.), while also limiting individual contributions to political 
committees and political parties so that the limits on money to 
candidates cannot be evaded;

3.       Allow "small donor committees" to spend those amounts received 
from individuals in contributions of $50 or less per year, thereby 
allowing small donors to have some influence;

4.       Limit contributions and expenditures by political committees 
and political parties;

5.       Limit what wealthy candidates spend on their own campaigns 
($20,000 for a statewide partisan race or $8,000 for a statewide 
nonpartisan race, or $4,000 for any other race);

6.       Essentially eliminate so-called "independent expenditures" for 
or against candidates;

7.       Require prominent disclosure of major funders in all political 
advertisements;

8.       Require faster public reporting of large contributions, 
including a list for each candidate in the Voters Pamphlet.

 Some of the provisions in Petition 53 are similar to the 
McCain-Feingold provisions upheld by the United States Supreme Court 
yesterday. The Court repeatedly cited the /Shrink Missouri Government 
PAC/ (2000) case, which upheld contribution limits in Missouri that are 
very similar to those in Petition 53.

Further, Petition 53 forbids corporations or unions from making any 
contributions to candidates from their treasury funds or from using such 
funds to run independent expenditure campaigns or "issue ads" that in 
fact support or oppose one or more candidates. The Court upheld the very 
similar provisions in McCain-Feingold, applicable to elections for 
federal office.

The Court reaffirmed that governments can forbid corporate participation 
in elections:

    We have repeatedly sustained legislation aimed at 'the corrosive and
    distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are
    accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little
    or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's
    political ideas.' /Austin/, supra, at 660; see /Beaumont/, supra, at
    ___ (slip op., at 7-8); /National Right to Work/, supra, at 209-210.
    Moreover, recent cases have recognized that certain restrictions on
    corporate electoral involvement permissibly hedge against
    "circumvention of [valid] contribution limits." /Beaumont/, supra,
    at ___ (slip op., at 7) (quoting /Colorado II/, 533 U. S., at 456,
    and n. 18.)

 The only provision struck down yesterday with any possible significance 
was the ban on contributions by persons under the age of 18. Petition 53 
contains a similar ban, which is thus likely to be found 
unconstitutional. Like McCain-Feingold, Petition 53 has a severability 
clause that preserves the validity of the rest of the measure.

 Background

 When it comes to campaign finance reform, Oregon is last, dead last! 
Oregon has no limits whatever on political campaign contributions for 
any state or local race. None.

 ?       21 states already ban corporate political contributions for 
candidate races.

 ?       23 states limit corporate contributions, usually to $500 - 
$2000 in a statewide contest.

 ?       Only 6 states allow unlimited corporate contributions: Oregon, 
Illinois, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

 The result is that corporations dominate politics in Oregon. They 
outspend labor unions by 5-1 and massively outspend all progressive 
groups and causes put together, including those pursuing the causes of 
environmental preservation, expanded health care, human rights, justice 
for all, and consumer protection.

The corporations have pushed up the total reported spending on political 
races in Oregon from $4.2 million in 1996 to $19 million in 1998, $35 
million in 2000, and $49 million in 2002--by a factor of 12 in only 6 
years. In legislative races, the one who spent more money won 91% of the 
time. 75% of the money came from only 1% of the contributors. Only 4% of 
the contributions were in amounts of $50 or less.

Oregon also ranks near the bottom of all states in disclosing who is 
contributing to campaigns and how much. The Campaign Disclosure Project 
at UCLA School of Law in 2003 gave Oregon's campaign reporting system an 
"F" for accessibility of content and an "F" for online usability, 
ranking in the bottom 10 states, far worse than such famously corrupt 
places as Louisiana and Nevada. Conversely, Washington ranked #1. 

If you want to know where a politician's money is coming from, you 
cannot find out on any Oregon government web site. You have to go to 
Salem and dig through the records.

 This domination will get worse. The new McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan 
law prohibits corporate contributions to the national political parties, 
which have been running at $500 million per 2-year cycle. With this 
channel closed, the corporations will divert a large share of this money 
on campaigns on the state level in the 6 states that allow unlimited 
contributions by corporations, including Oregon.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cs.cs-server12.com/pipermail/cfr-announce_oreg.org/attachments/20031211/aa0a8aa4/attachment.htm