[CFR-Announce] Oregonian article on need for campaign finance reform

[Dan Meek]

We supporters of campaign finance reform in Oregon need to follow up 
this article with letters to the editor of the Oregonian, expressing our 
opposition to the influence of money in politics in Oregon and alerting 
the public to the existence of Petitions 8 and 37 (2006) and the web 
site, http://www.fairelections.net.

*High rollers win the Salem game**
Gamesmanship that includes favors, donations and face time gives 
lobbyists enviable access to leverage the legislative process, but 
lawmakers say they decide issues on merit, not money *


Tuesday, July 05, 2005
DAVE HOGAN, JANIE HAR and HARRY ESTEVE
*The Oregonian*

SALEM -- Oregon's top lawmakers say their votes aren't for sale -- but a 
review of their appointment calendars suggests nothing gets their ear 
quite like money.

Nine of the 10 most frequent visitors to legislative leaders this year 
represent large campaign donors. Six of those visitors represent groups 
ranked among the top 15 contributors to 2004 legislative campaigns. 
Three others lobby for multiple clients whose donations totaled more 
than $300,000 last election.

The Oregonian examined datebooks, e-mail and campaign-finance reports, 
and found a clear link between those who give the most money and those 
who get the most face time with the Senate president, House speaker and 
four caucus leaders.

While not always successful in getting bills through both houses, the 
interest groups have extraordinary say in setting the legislative 
agenda. With legislators looking to adjourn this month, more than a 
dozen bills either sponsored by, or written to benefit, the top donors 
remain on the docket or recently have passed.

The same groups also post high success rates either at killing, or 
safely amending, bills that might harm their members.

The review found other ways big campaign donors have made headway at the 
Legislature: Consumer protection bills, including ones that would 
require written contracts from cell phone providers and prohibit price 
gouging after a natural disaster, have stalled because of opposition 
from groups such as the telecommunications industry and Associated 
Oregon Industries. Bills carving out special perks for contractors and 
Realtors remain in play. One would make the state pay contractors 
millions of dollars for higher steel prices on road construction 
projects dating to mid-2003. Another would allow Realtors to qualify for 
price breaks on health insurance. Lobbyists from those groups and other 
top contributors also treated legislative leaders to free meals, 
entertainment and catered parties.

Restaurant lobbyists, for example, met or dined with at least one of the 
Legislature's top six leaders on a weekly basis during the first four 
months of the 2005 session.

Legislators say that they make policy decisions based on merit, not 
money, and that they sometimes vote against bills pushed by groups that 
contribute to their campaigns. Moreover, most of the top donors 
represent interest groups with large numbers of members, whose needs are 
critical to Oregon and whose votes are important to lawmakers.

Legislative leaders denied giving special treatment to anyone.

"No one has any greater access, rights or ability to obtain my time 
versus someone else," said House Majority Leader Wayne Scott, R-Canby. 
"It's on a request basis."

Nonetheless, Scott's appointment calendar shows that during the first 
four months of this year, he met at least 35 times with lobbyists for 
the 15 groups that gave the most to legislative campaigns last year. The 
calendars for most of the other legislative leaders showed frequent 
visits by those same lobbyists, although Republican leaders clearly met 
with them more often.

These numbers don't include phone calls or drop-in visits from those 
same lobbyists -- contacts not noted on official appointment calendars.

Lobbyists say they take their political action committee spending 
seriously.

"They're business decisions," said Jana Jarvis, lobbyist for the Oregon 
Association of Realtors. "I always tell my members that we don't buy 
votes, but we do buy access."

*A request gets results *

Few groups illustrate the money-access equation at the Legislature 
better than the restaurant association.

A bit player at the Capitol a decade ago, the association was one of 
eight groups that gave more than $300,000 to legislative campaigns in 
2004. It spends more than half a million dollars a year on lobbying.

The group's donations have helped keep the House in Republican control, 
and its lobbyists have broad access to House leaders. One lobbyist, Bill 
Perry, spent so much time sitting outside Scott's office that staffers 
put up a sign labeling it "The Bill Perry Chair."

"We're salesmen," Perry said. "That's all we're doing. We're actively 
selling our industry." He downplayed the role of money in getting close 
to lawmakers. "There are people I gave money to who would not welcome me 
into their office."

The restaurant group's inside track with Scott and House Speaker Karen 
Minnis, R-Wood Village, was highlighted this spring over a proposal to 
cut the percentage the Oregon Lottery pays tavern and deli owners, and 
others for carrying video poker and slot machines.

On April 5, two days before the state Lottery Commission was to take a 
key vote on retailer compensation, Mike McCallum, president of the 
restaurant association, sent an e-mail to Scott: "Attached is a proposed 
letter we would like Wayne and Karen to send to Dale Penn at the lottery 
ASAP, today if possible."

Two and a half hours later, the letter -- signed by the House's two most 
powerful members -- was shipped to Penn, the lottery director. It urged 
the commission to maintain a "stable relationship" with lottery retailers.

Scott said he grants no special favors to the restaurant association and 
takes offense that anyone would suggest as much. He said he remembers 
the letter but not the day he signed it.

"The answer is no, I'm not their puppet," he said. "I don't do all 
things, or anything, they request."

*Expenses, donations keep rising *

The cost of running for the Legislature increases every election. It has 
become common for candidates in a contested race to spend $200,000, a 
sum few lawmakers can afford without substantial help from interest groups.

Legislators -- especially those whose seats aren't considered safe -- 
find it hard to close their doors to their biggest donors or vote 
against their bills.

"I wouldn't insult anyone here by saying their vote is for sale," said 
Rep. Mark Hass, D-Raleigh Hills. "But I don't want anyone insulting me 
by claiming that all that campaign money doesn't influence the business 
we do as a Legislature."

In all, donors gave more than $17 million to legislative candidates last 
year in Oregon. A third of that came from the 25 biggest spenders -- a 
select club made up of unions, corporations and industry associations.

These groups see the Legislature as a pathway to a better bottom line 
for their members. That could mean everything from tax breaks and limits 
on business regulations to changes in public employee benefits.

If you give a lot of money, you get attention, said Joe Gilliam, 
president of the Oregon Grocery Association, another group that has 
boosted its political donations in recent years. "Your issues tend to 
float to the top."

Like the restaurant association, the grocers gave more than $300,000 to 
legislative candidates last year. Nonetheless, Gilliam said, neither 
group has made headway on one of their top priorities -- eliminating 
yearly increases in the state minimum wage.

"We have to go in there and work like everyone else," Gilliam said.

Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches, said most donors contribute money because 
they want to help elect a candidate who shares their views -- not 
because they expect a payoff. Top-spending lobby groups don't have as 
much control over legislation as some critics would like to believe, he 
said.

"They never look at the three bills you killed from the same people who 
gave you $1,000," Metsger said.

Killing bills, considered far easier than passing them, often is the 
goal of interest groups.

Sen. Bill Morrisette, D-Springfield, said he has been stymied by 
pharmaceutical and business lobbies in his repeated attempts to rid 
schools of soda pop, lower the cost of prescription drugs and increase 
Oregon's beer tax, which hasn't been raised in more than 25 years.

"You can be addicted to supporting certain groups because of the money 
they have," he said. "The pharmaceutical and the beer industry, they 
have a lock."

Morrisette sponsored a bill that would allow counties to impose on 
mass-produced beer a tax of as much as 10 cents per 12-ounce beverage. 
He thinks it would pass in the Senate, "but when I talk to the beer 
lobbyists, they just smile."

*Unions align with Democrats *

While business lobbyists focus their spending and time on Republicans, 
Democrats hear most -- and receive most -- from labor, particularly 
public employee unions.

The two top union contributors, the Oregon Education Association and 
Service Employees International Union Local 503, spread around more than 
$1 million in campaign contributions last year, almost all to Democrats.

Union access to Democratic leaders was unmatched, with Oregon AFL-CIO 
President Tim Nesbitt scheduling bimonthly breakfast meetings with House 
Minority Leader Jeff Merkley, D-Portland.

Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, said she opens her 
schedule to all.

But she concedes that the OEA has pushed her caucus to advocate for more 
money for K-12 schools, and that grumbling from unions and the trial 
lawyers prompted her to amend -- though not abandon -- stricter 
campaign-finance reporting requirements.

Other Democrats worry about their independence from their biggest 
campaign donors.

"The question comes up in caucus all the time -- can we take on the 
OEA?" said Sen. Avel Gordly, D-Portland. "Well, why the hell not?"

Another regular visitor to Democratic leaders was Alan Tresidder, who 
represents Nike, the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, and PacifiCorp, 
the utility company. Tresidder pushed a bill that would protect Nike -- 
which contributed $61,200 to campaigns last year -- from city annexation 
attempts.

Versions of the bill cleared both chambers, but it now has gone to a 
committee to resolve whether the annexation ban should last 15 or 35 years.

Money "doesn't guarantee you any kind of outcome," Tresidder said, "but 
it does guarantee you access."

*Campaign finance initiatives *

As one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions, Oregon 
has made a handful of stabs at limiting the influence of interest 
groups' money.

In 1994, voters passed two campaign finance initiatives, including one 
that banned corporate donations and put strict limits on the amount 
individuals could give.

Both were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

In 2000, voters rejected an initiative to provide public financing to 
candidates who agreed to limit their spending.

Efforts are under way this year to ask voters for new limits. 
Legislators also are considering a bill that would require more frequent 
reporting of campaign contributions.

Andi Miller, executive director of Common Cause Oregon, a citizens group 
that does not contribute to campaigns, said she sees lobbying and 
campaign money's effect on everyday legislative business.

She cites a Realtor-backed bill, signed last month, that limits the 
state board's ability to discipline real estate agents.

"The Realtors had it under control from the get-go," Miller said of 
negotiations. "In terms of what the money buys, it's incredible."

Meanwhile, groups looking to flex more muscle in Salem turn to their 
checkbooks.

John Watt, a former Republican lawmaker who now lobbies for the Medford 
area chamber of commerce, said he quickly learned that money opens doors 
in Salem.

"There are some members who know exactly how much someone gave to their 
campaign before they come walking in the door," Watt said. He said the 
Medford chamber officials recently held a series of meetings at which 
they discussed forming their first political action committee and 
cranking up their campaign donations.

"We want to be a player," Watt said, "and that's what it takes."

Dave Hogan: 503-221-8531; davehogan at news.oregonian.com Janie Har: 
503-221-8213; janiehar at news.oregonian.com Harry Esteve: 503-221-8226; 
harryesteve at news.oregonian.com


©2005 The Oregonian