What is your mask wearing behavior?
I wear a mask when I am out in public
I wear a mask when I have to, like grocery shopping or to get seated
I never wear a mask because I have respiratory problems that prevent it
I never wear a mask based on principle
Northwest Observer
Subscribe for Free Email Updates
Email:
Name:
Zip:        
Search Articles
       
Measure 107
Measure 107 would limit free speech in Oregon

Editor's note: This is part one of a multi-part series covering the 2020 Oregon General Election ballot measures.

Ballot measure 107 was referred to the Oregon voters by the 2019 legislature. Senate Joint Resolution was sponsored by Senators Tim Knopp (R-Bend), Mark Hass (D-Portland), Jeff Golden (D-Ashland), Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego), and Representatives Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis) and Alyssa Keny-Guyer (D-Portland). The resolution is a response to an Oregon Supreme Court decision which allows the state and inferior jurisdictions to enact campaign finance reforms. Ballot Measure 107 merely updates the Oregon Constitution to reflect that possibility. It does not itself enact any limits.

In the State of Oregon Democrats operate a Super-majority legislature, and much of the agenda for the State is set by them. They would now like to further limit the ability of Grassroots Oregonian's to fund raise.

The Democrats have put forth Measure 107 which "Authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them."

The referring of this free-speech limiting bill to the November ballot has been largely paid for by in-kind Democrat contributions and Big Union money.

Major donations to Yes for Fair and Honest Elections
DateDonorAmount
09/28/2020North Star Action Center$3,000
09/11/2020Team Oregon Victory Fund (19420)$5,000
09/04/2020End Citizen's United $1,200
08/31/2020Alliance for Democracy Portland$1,200
08/17/2020Oregon AFSCME council 75$5,000
08/16/2020Kafoury & McDougal$2,000
08/07/2020Norman Turrill$1,000
08/07/2020End Citizen's United $14,000
07/27/2020Voters' Right to Know$14,000
06/29/2020Team Oregon Victory Fund (19420)$5,000
06/02/2020Honest Elections Oregon$5,000
06/01/2020David Delk$1,000
05/22/2020Kafoury & McDougal$2,500
04/20/2020AFSCME Council 75$10,000
04/12/2020Thomas Keffer$1,000


The above chart of major donors to the Yes on 107 Campaign, highlights a certain irony. This collection of big donors all are advocating for campaign finance limits. No political action committee has yet been established for the No on 107 effort.

For further irony, one of the biggest defender of not having any campaign finance limits was the American Civil Liberties Union. In a Friend of the Court brief the ACLU declares a change of heart.

"The ACLU of Oregon has a particular interest in this case because in recent years, the organization’s understanding of the relationship between campaign finance regulation and the freedom of expression enshrined in both the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions has evolved. This reckoning started in 2011, in the wake of Citizens United. ACLU National came to recognize the multiple, deleterious effects of excessive money in politics – including its negative impact on communities historically excluded from meaningful political participation – and reconsidered its previous absolute opposition to any regulation of campaign finance."


This is the official title for the measure, as provided by the Attorney General, as it will appear on the ballot:

Amends Constitution: Allows laws limiting political campaign contributions and expenditures, requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions and expenditures, and requiring political campaign advertisements to identify who paid for them

Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote allows laws, created by the Legislative Assembly, local governments or voters that limit contributions and expenditures made to influence an election. Allows laws that require disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence an election. Allows laws that require campaign or election advertisements to identify who paid for them. Campaign contribution limits cannot prevent effective advocacy. Applies to laws enacted or approved on or after January 1, 2016.

Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains current law. Courts currently find the Oregon Constitution does not allow laws limiting campaign expenditures. Laws limiting contributions are allowed if the text of the law does not target expression.

Summary: The Oregon Supreme Court has interpreted the Oregon Constitution to prohibit limits on expenditures made in connection with a political campaign or to influence the outcome of an election. Limits on contributions are allowed if the text of the law does not target expression. The proposed measure amends the Oregon Constitution to allow the Oregon Legislative Assembly, local governments, and the voters by initiative to pass laws that limit contributions and expenditures made in connection with a political campaign and contributions and expenditures made to influence an election. The measure would allow laws that require disclosure of political campaign and election contributions and expenditures. The measure would allow laws that require political campaign and election advertisements to identify who paid for them. Laws limiting campaign contributions cannot prevent effective advocacy. Measure applies to all laws enacted or approved on or after January 1, 2016.


--Ben Fisher

Post Date: 2020-10-05 11:42:14Last Update: 2020-10-04 07:51:46



Read More Articles