2006 Oregon Ballot Measures 46 and 47
Oregon ballot measures 46 and 47 were two ballot measures presented as a single package to voters; 46 would have amended the Constitution to allow limitations on campaign financing (heavily favoring popular vote, and requiring a 75% vote for such changes in the Legislature); and 47 detailed specific limitations. While Measure 47 passed, 46 did not, and the Secretary of State and Attorney General now refuse to enforce Measure 47 despite not having made constitutional challenges in court during cases filed against them to compel enforcement. Measure 46. Oregon Ballot Measure 46 would  have amended 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 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, candidate or other political campaign can spend to influence the outcome of any state or local election. At present the free speech guarantee in the state Constitution, , , does not  allow laws that prohibit or impose involuntary limits on political campaign contributions or expenditures in elections for state or local public office. Under this measure, the Oregon legislature or voters by initiative would have had the authority to restrict or limit political campaign contributions and expenditures, subject to federal law. If it had passed, the measure would have required a three-fourths (3/4) vote of both the Oregon Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives to amend previously enacted laws, or pass new laws, prohibiting or limiting political campaign contributions or expenditures. Ordinarily, a simple majority vote of both the  Oregon Senate and Oregon House is required to amend existing laws or pass new laws. Under the measure, voters by a simple majority could have adopted new laws or amend existing laws prohibiting or limiting political campaign contributions or expenditures. The measure would not have applied to elections for federal offices, which are President of the United States, United States Senator, and United States Representative. Federal law does not currently allow states to prohibit or limit contributions or expenditures for or against ballot measures. The measure would not affect the free speech guarantee under the First Amendment of the United  States Constitution. Arguments in favor. Supporters of the measure argued that corporate money and moneyed interests had a corrupting and undue influence on elected officials and the legislative process. Supporters argued that measures 46 and 47 were campaign finance reform that would drive out mostly out-of-state contributions that they felt had corrupted the political system. Among the supporters was FairElections Oregon, a coalition of Oregon groups and people working on campaign finance reform. The coalition included: Arguments in opposition. Numerous groups organized in opposition to the measure, even while many supported the overall goal of campaign finance reform . The main arguments against measures 46 and 47 were that measures went too far in amending Oregon's Constitution and would undermine free speech protections. In addition, it was argued that while well-intentioned, it was too unclear what the long-term effects of the measure would be on the electoral system in Oregon. Groups which came out in opposition to the measure were: Election results. Measure 46 was rejected but Measure 47 passed by 53-47 percent. The Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General refused to enforce Measure 47. The chief petitioners on Measure 47 and others sued  the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General to compel them to implement and enforce Measure 47. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled the provisions of the measure, "properly read, requires Measure 47 to be codified and held in abeyance pending an appropriate constitutional amendment or judicial decision that will render it operative." Measure 47. Oregon Ballot Measure 47 would have limited or prohibited certain political campaign contributions and expenditures. The measure would have applied to all elections for state and local offices but not to ballot measures or candidates for federal offices. Current law requires reporting of certain contributions and  expenditures, but does not limit contributors, contributions to, or expenditures for public office candidates. Measure limits individual contributions to candidates, political committees, "small donor committees," political parties, with annual cap for all contributions; limits political committee, political party contributions to candidates and each other; allows unlimited contributions by "small donor committees" (accepting only individual contributions not exceeding $50 annually). Prohibits corporate, union, organizational contributions and expenditures except through political committees funded solely by individuals. Prohibits candidate loans. Limits: candidate's spending to own candidacy; "independent expenditures" (defined) by individuals, political entities, organizations. Establishes: new disclosure, reporting requirements; procedure for  increasing measure's limits to comply with state and federal constitutions. Unspent candidate funds revert to state. Other provisions. Specific provisions of the measure. Under this measure: Election results. Measure 46 was rejected but Measure 47 passed by 53-47 percent. The Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General have refused to enforce Measure 47, event though no court has found any of it to be unconstitutional. The chief petitioners on Measure 47 and others have sued the Oregon Secretary of State and Attorney General to compel them to implement and enforce Measure 47. The case is currently before the  Oregon Supreme Court awaiting judgement as oral arguments are now completed.