Measure 46 Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the Explanatory Statement General Election, November 7, 2006. The information in the shaded area below will appear on your ballot. Ballot Measure 46 amends 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 Ballot Title 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, 46 candidate or other political campaign can spend to influence the outcome of any state or local election. AMENDS CONSTITUTION: ALLOWS LAWS REGULATING ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPENDITURES ADOPTED At present Article 1, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, the BY INITIATIVE OR 3/4 OF BOTH LEGISLATIVE HOUSES free speech guarantee, does not allow laws that prohibit or impose limits on political campaign contributions or expendi- RESULT OF “YES” VOTE: “Yes” vote amends Constitution to tures in elections for state or local public office. Under this allow laws limiting or prohibiting election contributions and measure, the Oregon legislature or voters by initiative would expenditures if adopted by initiative process of 3/4 of both have the authority to restrict or limit political campaign legislative houses. contributions and expenditures, subject to federal law. RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” votes retains current ban in Ballot Measure 46 requires a three-fourths (3/4) vote of both the Oregon Constitution on laws that limit or prohibit political Oregon Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives to campaign contributions or expenditures by any person or any amend previously enacted laws, or pass new laws, prohibiting entity. or limiting political campaign contributions or expenditures. SUMMARY: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The Oregon Ordinarily, a simple majority vote of both the Oregon Senate Constitution currently bans laws that impose involuntary limits and Oregon House is required to amend existing laws or pass on, or otherwise prohibit, political campaign contributions or new laws. Under the measure, voters by a simple majority may expenditures by any person or any entity. The measure amends adopt new laws or amend existing laws prohibiting or limiting the Oregon Constitution to allow laws, if they are enacted or political campaign contributions or expenditures. amended through the ballot initiative process or by the The measure would not apply to elections for federal offices, Legislative Assembly by a three-fourths vote of both houses, which are President of the United States, United States Senator, that limit or prohibit campaign contributions and expenditures and United States Representative. Federal law does not to influence the outcome of any election. The measure allows currently allow states to prohibit or limit contributions or such limitations or prohibitions to apply to election contribu- expenditures for or against ballot measures. The measure does tions and expenditures of any type or description. Other not affect the free speech guarantee under the First provisions. Amendment of the United States Constitution. ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial effect on state or local government expenditures or revenues. Committee Members: Appointed by: Bryn Hazell Chief Petitioners Dan Meek Chief Petitioners Text of Measure Tina Calos Secretary of State Andrea Meyer Secretary of State Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is Fred Neal Secretary of State added an Article II, Section 24, of the Constitution of Oregon, as follows: (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of Notwithstanding any other provision of this the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) 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 expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election. Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic] type indicates deletions or comments. 46 Official 2006 General Election Voters’ Pamphlet continued ➔ 112 | State Measures Measure 46 Arguments Pacific Green Party Argument in Favor Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Utility Reform Project We personally gathered several hundred signatures to help get Measures 46 and 47 on the ballot. The responses of the peo- (This information furnished by Dan Meek, Utility Reform Project; ple we approached were overwhelmingly positive. Oregonians Elizabeth Trojan, FairElections Oregon; David E. Delk, Alliance For want campaign finance reform! Democracy.) This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255. A few people won’t like these measures: corporate execu- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the tives and wealthy folks who now supply almost all of the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any campaign funds for candidates, special interests with a limited statement made in the argument. but wealthy donor base, and union bosses. But do you know who will love both of these measures that Argument in Favor limit campaign contributions? The 99% of Oregonians who want to trust their legislators and other elected officials. STOP SELLING GOVERNMENT FAVORS Bryn Hazell and Harry Lonsdale TO CAMPAIGN CASH COWS “And now those money-fueled campaigns for (This information furnished by Bryn Hazell, Harry Lonsdale.) part-time Oregon legislators can reach $1 million.” This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255. The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the – The Oregonian editorial, August 13, 2006 State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. In 2002, candidates for Governor spent $15 million, breaking all records. The two major party candidates spent over $4 million each. This year, expect $6 million each. Republicans get huge Argument in Favor contributions from corporations and executives. Nevada exec- utive Loren Parks alone gave Kevin Mannix $540,000 in 2002 GET BIG MONEY OUT OF OREGON POLITICS! and $713,000 in 2006. Ron Saxton this year accepted campaign funds of $100,000 each from several timber company execu- YES on Measures 46 and 47: tives. Democrats get huge contributions from corporations and Oregon’s Campaign Finance Reform Measures unions. Ted Kulongoski’s 2002 campaign received $1.2 million Oregon is one of only 5 states with no limits from unions. on political contributions. None! CAMPAIGN CASH BUYS BIG GOVERNMENT FAVORS What Tom DeLay was indicted for Enron/Portland General Electric got a $400 in Texas is perfectly legal in Oregon. million annual rate increase in 2001 and since The result of NO LIMITS is that corporate money dominates 1997 has charged Oregon ratepayers over $900 politics in Oregon. The corporations outspend labor unions by million for federal and state “income taxes” it 5-1 on campaign contributions, and both of them massively never paid. Why? PGE gave over $500,000 to Oregon outspend all other groups and causes, including those for politicians. better health care, environmental protection, human and civil The corporate share of Oregon income taxes rights, decent jobs for all, consumer protection, fair taxes, less has declined from 18% to only 4%. The corpo- promotion of gambling, and sufficient funding for education rate “kicker” will further cut corporate income and other needs. taxes by 36% in 2005 and 54% next year. Why? Corporations pushed up the total spending on political races in The big corporations provide most of the campaign Oregon from $4 million in 1996 to $42 million in 2002 - that’s ten cash for candidates of both major parties. times more. Only about 1% of Oregonians make political contri- Video Poker outlets get $100 million per year butions, and over 75% of the money now comes from only over the reasonable level of commissions. 1% of those few contributors. Only 3% of the money comes Why? The Oregon Restaurant Association gave over in amounts of $50 or less. Almost 70% comes in amounts of $1.2 million to Oregon politicians since 2000. $1,000 or more. Drug companies defeated bills to expand the It now usually costs over $500,000 to win a contested seat in the Oregon Prescription Drug Purchasing Pool to State Senate and over $250,000 to win such a seat in the State save hundreds of millions of dollars for House of Representatives. Oregonians (an average of 30%) by having the “And now those money-fueled campaigns for State negotiate lower prices. How? The drug and 46 part-time Oregon legislators can reach medical equipment companies gave over $3 million $1 million.” to Oregon politicians since 2000. – The Oregonian editorial, August 13, 2006 The Oregonian (June 4, 2006) says Oregon “has lowered its cigarette tax and all but surren- Corporate contributions are so huge in Oregon that Tom dered in the battle to reduce tobacco use.” The DeLay would not even be noticed here. He was indicted for American Lung Association gave Oregon “F” in channeling $155,000 of corporate money into races for the smoking prevention. Why? The tobacco companies Texas Legislature. Doing that would be legal in Oregon and gave over $600,000 to Oregon politicians since 2000. insignificant, since the corporations have pumped over $20 million into races for the Oregon Legislature in the last two www.fairelections.net [email protected] election cycles. (This information furnished by Tom Civiletti, Lloyd K. Marbet, Kenneth WE SUPPORT MEASURES 46 AND 47: Lewis.) Sierra Club This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255. The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the Democratic Party of Clackamas County State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any Alliance for Democracy statement made in the argument.