Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voters to decide future of Oregon's campaign finance regulation

Oregon statehouse

The Oregon legislature passed three bills to change the campaign finance laws, but the final call now rests with voters.

Wikimedia Commons

The future of Oregon's money-in-politics rules now rests on the shoulders of the voters: A 2020 ballot initiative will allow Oregonians to decide whether campaign finance regulation is constitutional.

Before the session ended on June 30, the Democratic-controlled legislature passed three bills to bolster transparency and regulation around election spending. But all three bills hinge on the first one advancing through the ballot initiative process.

The first measure received bipartisan approval by the House and Senate and could lay the groundwork for all future money-in-politics regulations within the state. It amends Oregon's constitution to allow future campaign finance laws to be enacted by the legislature, any governing body of a city, county, municipality or district in the state, and the people of Oregon through an initiative process.


Now that this measure has been passed by the legislature, it's up to Oregon voters to give the final approval. The ballot question will ask whether officials will be given the authority to limit big-money influences in Oregon politics.

The outcome of the ballot initiative will also determine the fate of two transparency bills passed by the legislature this session. If the ballot initiative is successful, these two bills will take effect immediately.

The first of the two transparency bills mandates the disclosure of the top five funding sources for a political advertisement made in support of or in opposition to a candidate. The second combats Oregon's dark money activity by requiring organizations that receive large donations ($10,000 or more) to disclose the name, address and aggregate amount given by each donor during a particular election cycle.

Two other pieces of campaign finance legislation in Oregon were considered this year, but ultimately did not gain enough traction to pass before the session ended.

One of the considered bills would have put limits on the total contributions a candidate or political committee can accept in an election cycle. The other would have established a Small Donor Elections Program to enable candidates running for state representative or state senator to receive 6-to-1 matching on small-dollar donations.


Read More

Republican, Democratic and independent checkboxes, with the third one checked

Analysis of California’s open primary system, political reform, and voter empowerment amid gubernatorial tensions and calls to restore party control.

zimmytws/Getty Images

California Schemin’

Both before and after Eric Swalwell’s resignation, the California Gubernatorial race has partisan insiders screaming that California’s innovative, voter-friendly, open primary system should be scrapped. Why? Seven Democrats and two Republicans are running. If all the Democrats stay in the race, and none surges, there is a statistical possibility that the two Republicans advance to the general election.

The attacks are pure opportunism, from people who oppose open primaries, period. Never mind that seven million independent voters have been enfranchised and elections are much more competitive, according to these critics, the fact that the Gubernatorial race might feature two Republicans is absolute proof that the old system needs to be restored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Official ballots with a chain and lock over them, and the USA flag behind them.

The impact of election fraud claims and voting laws on democracy in the United States. Daniel O. Jamison examines voter suppression concerns, mail-in ballot policies, and the broader political struggle over election integrity.

Getty Images, JJ Gouin

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

For nearly ten years, claims that our elections are riddled with fraud have threatened the foundation of our democratic republic.

It is alleged that Democrats have flooded the country with illegal immigrants who then illegally vote for Democrats. Purportedly to protect the country from this, Republicans seek legislation that would, among other provisions, restrict vote-by-mail, require potentially expensive and onerous proof of citizenship to register to vote, and require potentially expensive photo identification to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

An in-depth interview with Elizabeth Rasmussen of Better Boundaries on Utah’s redistricting battle, Proposition 4, and the fight to protect ballot initiatives, fair maps, and democratic accountability.

The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Elizabeth Rasmussen is the Executive Director for Better Boundaries, a Utah-based organization fighting for fair maps, defending the citizen initiative process, preserving checks and balances, and building a better future. Currently making headlines in the state, Better Boundaries is working to protect Proposition 4, and with it, the rights of Utah voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
A sign that reads, "Voter Registration," hanging from the cieling, pointing to an office with the words, "Voter registration," above its doorway.

The voter registration office at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi, Texas on Sept. 11, 2024. Voting rights groups are challenging the state's use of a federal database to check the citizenship status of people on the state's voter roll.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Voting Rights Groups Challenge Texas’ Removal of Potential Noncitizens From the Voter Roll

What happened?

Voting rights groups are suing the Texas Secretary of State’s Office and some county election officials to prevent the removal of voters from the state’s voter roll based on use of a federal database to verify citizenship. They also claim the state failed to crosscheck its own records for proof of citizenship it already possessed before seeking to remove voters.

Keep ReadingShow less