top of page

Herald and News: Measure 107: would create limits on campaign contributions

Measure 107 is packed with proposed new limitations on campaign contributions that would amend the Oregon Constitution.

The measure, which will be on the ballot this November, would allow the Legislature, local government bodies and voters to create laws that would limit political campaign contributions and expenditures, require disclosure of political campaign contributions and would require advertisements to display information about who funded them. Currently there are no such limitations on political campaigns in Oregon.

A “yes” vote on the measure would allow laws to be created in Oregon that limit those contributions and expenditures. A “no” vote would keep current laws on the books.

There are no limitations to campaign contributions in the Oregon Constitution, because the Oregon Supreme Court interprets the Oregon Constitution to prohibit limits on expenditures when it comes to political campaigns, according to the State of Oregon’s Voters Pamphlet. The measure would have no financial impact, according to the pamphlet.

The Joint Legislative Committee, appointed by the Oregon Legislature, wrote a letter in support of the measure.

“Oregonians have a fundamental right to know the true source of money that influences our state’s election process,” the letter states. “Voting yes on Measure 107 will allow Oregon to require strong transparency measures that will give voters more insight and information about how campaign spending tries to impact our democracy.”

Sen. Kim Thatcher, a Republican running for Oregon Secretary of State, wrote a letter of support for the measure. Rebecca Gladstone, president of League of Women Voters, also wrote a letter of support for the measure.

Kyle Markley, a Libertarian candidate running for Oregon Secretary of State, submitted 12 of the 13 letters in opposition, which are printed in the Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet.

Markley argues that the measure is a “fundamental attack on the Oregon Bill of Rights” and threatens freedom of speech.

6 views0 comments
bottom of page