Ballot Measure 47 limits or prohibits certain political campaign contributions and expenditures. (From Measure 47 Explanatory Statement.)
Oh, if only it were that simple. It’s not. Vote “No.”
- Measure 47 is complex. The text of Measure 47 consumes eight double-column pages in the Voters’ Pamphlet. Ballot measures are appropriate for certain types of issues; complex issues are an exception. Complex issues are best considered by the legislation where issues can be debated and the text of the law can be refined in the process, rather than argued over in court. Ballot measures are a take it or leave it proposition. Vote this one down.
- Measure 47 limits the money you can spend on political issues. I’m not talking about money you donate; this is the money you spend directly. That’s not getting just big money out of politics. It’s getting your and my money out, too. Do you want to get some flyers printed up to hand out to neighbors, take out an ad on radio, TV, or the newspaper, or lease space on a bill board? Better watch out that you don’t run afoul of any new limits that get passed. Even expenditures on blogging, if you attempt to influence an election (like I’m trying to do here), could be limited.
- Measure 47 discourages participation in politics. It’s so complex that only those who hire lawyers to make sure they are legal will risk it. That doesn’t describe the little guy. The political pros, the big money guys stay in the game; they just learn how to play under the new rules. The rest of us just leave. Limiting who participates in the political discussion is not good for a healthy democracy.
- If Measure 47 is successful in removing the power of big money in politics, who’s left? Big media won’t be touched by it. At least “Big Money” admits to being partisan.
- Measure 47 has big penalties if you run afoul: at least five times the amount contributed or expended unlawfully! Is that an amount you’re willing to risk? I’m not.
- Most important, and what I find most objectionable, Measure 47 limits a individual’s independent political speech. This is the most sacred form of speech recognized by a government, and which a government should not attempt to limit.
Measure 47 is dependent on Measure 46 passing.
Please vote “No” on Measures 46 and 47.
Source: The Oregon Secretary of State publishes a Voters’ Pamphlet which lists all of the Oregon statewide measures, including ballot title, text of measure, explanatory statement (excepted above), and arguments in favor and opposition.
Related:
| Issue | blogan Recommends |
| Measure 39 | Yes |
| Measure 40 | No |
| Measure 41 | Yes |
| Measure 42 | No |
| Measure 43 | Yes |
| Measure 44 | Yes |
| Measure 45 | No |
| Measure 46 | No |
| Measure 47 | No |
| Measure 48 | No |
California is now voting on Proposition 89, to create a publicly funded campaign finance system there. Many Fair Elections opponents say they would gladly support a public funding system in Oregon. Guess what?
The same array of political players is opposing Prop 89 in California as are opposing Fair Elections Measures 46 & 47 in Oregon. Morever, they are using almost identical arguments, some of which are repeated above. It appears to me that the groups that put millions into the political system don’t want reform that effects them. They don’t care what the reform is, they don’t like it, and they are willing to lie to voters to keep things the way they are.
Money in politics is out of control. Oregon needs Measures 46 & 47 to establish fair limits and level the playing field for candidates. This is about making democracy work for the interests of the people, not the special interests.
Tom, you’re changing the topic from your earlier comment and not answering my objections. My opposition to Measures 46 and 47 is based on their limiting individual expenditures, and thus individual participation in the political process. Take a look at my second, third, fifth, and sixth points above.
So you’re trying to paint me as a “political player”? Is that what campaign finance reform types call individuals who want to participate in the political discourse? Why not answer my points instead of calling me names? Or are you just hoping people don’t notice?
If I’m lying, I’d like you to point out what my lie is, preferably by quoting the text of the measure like I’ve done to disprove your arguments.
Money in politics is out of control, but Measures 46 and 47 are worse. We need more participation in political discussions, not less. The Internet is enabling more participation, just like we’re doing. The ability to influence voters is transitioning from campaigns and the media to concerned individuals willing to spend a little money and time advocating for issues and candidates that are important to them.
Why would you want to put limits on that? Vote “No” on Measures 46 and 47.
you made really good statements!!:)