This post was originally published on this site.
Two years after Oregon lawmakers approved new limits on and oversight of political contributions, a top Democrat has proposed delaying major pieces of the campaign finance law, leaving the limits intact but pushing back some other provisions by several years.
An amended version of House Bill 4018, put forward by House Speaker Julie Fahey, a Eugene Democrat, represents the first substantial step that lawmakers have taken to refine the 2024 law since they rushed to craft and approve the policy. Key aspects of the law, including the limits on campaign contributions, are set to go into effect next January.
The proposed amendment, which was made public Monday evening ahead of a Tuesday hearing, would delay the rollout of a modernized system to track contributions and certain other provisions until 2031 or 2032. The amendment would also aim to fix numerous instances of ambiguous or problematic language in the law.
“The bill takes a phased-in approach to ensure smoother implementation for the highly technical work of rebuilding ORESTAR, Oregon’s online campaign contributions and expenditure system,” Jill Bakken, spokesperson for Fahey, said in a statement. “This will give the secretary of state the time needed to build it carefully, test it thoroughly, and roll it out without risking problems in the middle of a major election.”
Delaying some of the law’s provisions would lower the short-term costs for the Secretary of State’s Office, which is in charge of preparing the law. Agency leaders previously said they would need at least $25 million to keep the implementation of the law on track, largely to hire a private contractor that could create the necessary technological infrastructure within the established timeline.
Aside from pushing back the timeline for the new dashboard, the amendment would delay another key provision that would require political groups that operate independently from candidates’ campaigns to publicly disclose their original source of funds.
Advocates for campaign finance reform have slammed the amendment, saying that it creates several loopholes for political groups to increase their political spending with minimal transparency.
Dan Meek, a longtime campaign finance reform advocate, said the amendment makes many changes he views as unnecessary or contradictory to the law’s original intent. “Instead, it massively changes (the 2024 law) to come very close to making the contribution limits and disclosure requirements illusory,” he told lawmakers Tuesday.
For example, the amendment would restrict aggregate contributions sent to a campaign from certain groups funded or controlled by the same person, but only if the Secretary of State’s Office determined that one of the groups was created “for the sole purpose of evading the contribution limits.” Meek said political groups could exploit that rule by forming groups claiming to serve multiple purposes.
Advocates also criticized lawmakers for not engaging with them on the details of the amendment before making it public. While advocates were included in negotiations leading up to the 2024 law and in a work group convened by the Secretary of State’s Office to find and address technical details of the law, they have said some of their concerns have gone ignored.
Meanwhile, several unions and industry groups that frequently contribute to Oregon political candidates have come out in support of Fahey’s plan, saying it would ensure the state can deliberately prepare the complex law and avoid any unintended consequences.
“Failure to extend implementation of these provisions could ultimately lead to launching a system that isn’t ready, isn’t functional, and actually takes a step backward in our collective efforts to strengthen democracy,” Greg Astley, director of government affairs for the Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association, told lawmakers Tuesday.
Lawmakers have acknowledged that they must act in the coming weeks to avoid a bungled rollout of the sweeping law as soon as January. The Secretary of State’s Office has repeatedly warned in the past year that it does not have sufficient resources or funding to properly implement the law under the current deadlines.
The House Rules Committee is scheduled to hold a second public hearing on the bill Wednesday morning.