|
‘No’ on 45
File this one under the “it sounded like a good idea at the time” category. Backers of 1992’s Measure 3 blamed all the problems of the Oregon Legislature on “professional politicians,” and convinced voters no legislator should be allowed to serve more than two terms. Challengers were rarely able to unseat established incumbents, the argument ran, and thus were insulated against the threat of the ballot box. Oregonians bought this by a more than 2 to 1 margin that year.
Voters soon regretted their choice. When experienced legislators are “term limited out,” it leaves their inexperienced replacements at a disadvantage in dealing with skilled lobbyists on one hand, and skilled civil servants on the other.
By 1998 in Oregon, 22 of the 60 House members were limited out, and 17 more in 2000.
It wasn’t until Jan. 11, 2002 that the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled that the 1992 initiative that imposed term limits in Oregon addressed more than one section of the state's constitution, and was therefore in violation of the single-subject rule. The measure was ruled invalid.
That same year, deprived of much of its experience by a decade of term limits, the Oregon State legislature melted down, requiring five additional special sessions to accomplish its business.
We can think of no greater demonstration of the seductive trap term limits leads us into. The Chronicle’s editorial board unanimously opposes Measure 45 and its efforts to restore term limits.
‘Yes’ on 46
Measure 46 is a constitutional amendment that allows the Oregon Legislature and/or Oregon voters (with a ballot measure like Measure 47 below) to pass laws limiting or prohibiting financial contributions to and expenditures of Oregon political campaigns (but not federal campaigns). Currently, the Oregon Constitution prohibits the legislature from doing so.
The measure would also require a 3/4 majority of the state legislature to amend or pass laws limiting campaign contributions or expenditures.
Oregon is one of only five states that does not impose some limits on campaign contributions. That makes the state a sweet spot for well-heeled persons, organizations or businesses to influence the outcome of legislation.
Opponents insist campaign spending limits are a restriction of free speech. That’s a false analogy. What they do restrict is clout, as expressed through money. As a result, the merits of the candidates and the measures become more important than the size of the war chest.
The editorial board of The Chronicle was unanimous in support of Measure 46.
‘No’ on 47
This measure would institute a specific set of campaign finance restrictions. It cannot take effect unless Measure 46 above passes.
We believe the best interests of the public can be served by instituting certain limits on campaign spending.
This measure, however, should not be the model. It does more than level the playing field; it kicks off several potential players. Among other things, it would prohibit both corporations and labor unions from making any contributions to candidates, political committees or political parties. Another provision requires some of the unexpended campaign funds to forfeit to the State of Oregon after each election.
The idea of campaign spending limits has merit,but this very complex proposal has a number of flaws that make it an unsuitable choice.
The editorial board of The Chronicle voted 3-2 in opposition to Measure 47
‘No’ on 48
This is a flawed measure that would amend the state constitution to limit the biennial percentage increase in state spending to the biennial increase in state population, plus inflation. It then sets aside a “rainy day fund.”
Such a fund has long been needed as a balancer for lean times, but this isn’t the mechanism. You don’t put money in a savings account until you pay the bills you already owe.
Oregon should learn from Colorado’s failed experiment with such a system and reject this proposal. The editorial board of The Chronicle was unanimous in opposition to this measure.
Back to Top
Home
|
