The Independent Party of Oregon testified at a interim panel on campaign finance reform, convened by Senator Bill Morrisette.

Political action committees raised and spent more than $67 million on electioneering in Oregon during the 2006 election cycle. $38 million, more than 60 percent of total contributions to political campaigns, came from contributions of $10,000 or more, and more than $28 million came from just 360 contributions of $25,000 or more.

Oregon’s lack of contribution limits allowed organizations such as the Republican Governor’s Association, the Oregon Education Association and others to contribute more than $1 million to individual campaigns in the Governor's race. Several individuals gave between $100,000 and $1,000,000 to candidates in the Governor’s race, when in Federal races, they would have been limited to just $4600.

The ability of wealthy individuals and organizations to contribute unlimited amounts to political candidates exposes our legislative process and our system of elections to corruption and the appearance of corruption in a way that is not possible in most other states, and in federal elections.

In summary, we believe that the legislature should act expeditiously to implement Measure 47 by referring a constitutional amendment to allow contribution limits. Failing that, we would like to see a dialogue begin with the goal of establishing bipartisan support for a system of contribution limits to be paired with a constitutional referral.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Distinguished Senators,

My name is Sal Peralta, and I am speaking here today on behalf of the Independent Party of Oregon.

The Independent Party began in response to legislation passed in 2005 that made it more difficult to get on the ballot as an independent candidate here in Oregon.

The party was formed after citizen activists collected 26,000 signatures during 2006. The Independent Party of Oregon was officially recognized by the Secretary of State in January, 2007. Its primary mission is to provide ballot access to Independent candidates, and to help enfranchise Oregon’s 400,000 non-affiliated and Independent voters.

During the last year, the Independent party has welcomed 10,000 new members. We are the only political party to gain members in Oregon during 2007. We have attracted both civic and community leaders including former Eugene Mayor, Jim Torrey; former NEA director, John Frohnmayer; US Congressman, Jim Weaver; and others.

We are here today to testify in favor of campaign finance reforms in Oregon that include contribution limits and public financing.

Although we believe that public financing in Portland did not move forward with the degree of transparency that we would like to see when making such changes, we believe that the net result was a positive one for Portland, and agree with Mr. Sorenson that the idea of public financing on a statewide basis is worthy of consideration.

We greatly appreciate the transparency and open dialogue you are permitting around this issue.

We support Mr. Sorenson's efforts to move the conversation forward, and as part of that conversation, we believe that the state should also take a serious look at limiting campaign contributions.

Oregon is currently only one of 4 states in the United States with no limits on campaign contributions, but for most of this state's history, Oregon has operated under statutory limits. These limits were first repealed by the legislature in the early 1970's. In 1994, a coalition of citizen activists from Common Cause, the League of Women's voters, and other organizations passed some of the strictest limits on campaign contributions in the United States. Those limits were struck down as unconstitutional, on the grounds that the definition of elections as articulated in Article II, section 8 of the Oregon Constitution, does not include modern political campaigns.

In 2006, citizens again passed strong statutory limits and strict rules on public disclosure, but the Attorney General's office, taking on the judicial function of interpreting the court's ruling, has refused to enforce the Measure 47 statute.

We disagree with this decision by the attorney general, and believe that the legislature should take action to ensure that the limits passed by Oregon voters in 2006 are implemented.

We propose that the legislature consider a referral to make campaign contribution limits legal in Oregon by amending Article II, Section 8 as follows:

Article II Section 8. Regulation of elections. The Legislative Assembly shall enact laws to support the privilege of free suffrage, prescribing the manner of regulating, and conducting elections and political campaigns, and prohibiting under adequate penalties, all undue influence therein, from power, bribery, tumult, contributions or expenditures in excess of law, and other improper conduct.

We believe that such an amendment would carve appropriate space in Oregon’s constitution, limiting corruption and the appearance of corruption within our political process, without sacrificing state constitutional guarantees on free speech.

Contribution limits can work hand in glove with public financing, as is currently being demonstrated in states like Arizona, Maine, and 12 other states.

Are contribution limits necessary?

Yes. According to campaign contribution data obtained by the Secretary of State, political action committees raised and spent more than $67 million on electioneering in Oregon during the 2006 election cycle. $38 million, more than 60 percent of total contributions to political campaigns came from contributions of $10,000 or more, and more than $28 million came from just 360 contributions of $25,000 or more.

Oregon’s lack of contribution limits allowed organizations such as the Republican Governor’s Association and others to contribute more than $1 million to individual candidates in the Governor's race. Several individuals gave between $100,000 and $1,000,000 to candidates in the Governor’s race, when in Federal races, they would have been limited to just $4600.

The ability of wealthy individuals and organizations to contribute unlimited amounts to political candidates exposes our legislative process and our system of elections to corruption and the appearance of corruption in a way that is not possible in most other states, and in federal elections.

In summary, we believe that the legislature should act expeditiously to implement Measure 47 by referring a constitutional amendment to allow contribution limits. Failing that, we would like to see a dialogue begin with the goal of establishing bipartisan support for a system of contribution limits to be paired with a constitutional referral. In the absence of such a dialogue, we anticipate a continued erosion of confidence in the legislature, and a strong public push to implement Measure 47 via the public initiative process. We note that the activists who placed Measures 46 and 47 on the ballot in 2006 have 6 constitutional amendments filed for 2010.

We are grateful to Mr. Sorenson for moving this conversation forward, and I would like to thank Senator Morissette for giving me the opportunity to speak today.