Measure No. 62

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Favor

Arguments in Opposition

Measure Contents Page

Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 3, 1998.

BALLOT TITLE

62

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REQUIRES CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURES; REGULATES SIGNATURE GATHERING; GUARANTEES CONTRIBUTION METHODS

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote requires additional campaign finance disclosures; regulates signature gathering; guarantees certain contribution methods.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote rejects requiring additional campaign finance disclosures, regulating signature gathering, guaranteeing certain contribution methods.
SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Existing statutes require disclosing certain campaign finances. Measure adds constitutional requirements for prompter disclosure of contributions $500 or more; more frequent disclosure of contributions/expenditures for referendum/initiative petitions. Requires disclosing entity authorizing/paying for political advertising. Legislature may regulate, prohibit paying signature gatherers if it finds practice has caused fraud, other abuses. Guarantees individuals' right to make campaign contributions using certain methods. Secretary of State must promptly publish finance reports. Prohibits payments for signing/not signing petitions. Specifies penalties. Other provisions.
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: This measure is estimated to increase state expenditures by $248,000 a year, with an additional one-time-only start up cost to the state of $104,000. Expenditures by county and city elections filing officers cannot be calculated, due to insufficient data.

TEXT OF MEASURE

OPEN AND FAIR ELECTIONS ACT

The following sections are added to and made a part of the Constitution of the State of Oregon:

Section 1. Disclosure of Large Contributions

In addition to any other disclosures required by law, the recipient of aggregate political contributions of $500 or more from one contributor during any one calendar year shall disclose such contribution and any subsequent contributions from that contributor to the Secretary of State or other appropriate reporting authority within seven days of receipt. During the period two weeks prior to a primary or general election, such disclosure shall occur within two business days of its receipt.

Section 2. Disclosure of Contributions During Petition Signature Gathering

(1) The chief petitioner(s) on all petitions for a statewide initiative or referendum shall be responsible for disclosing to the Secretary of State all contributions received and expenditures made in support of the petition, including expenditures made for the purpose of collecting signatures or paying signature gatherers. The disclosure obligation imposed by this section shall commence upon the filing of the prospective petition for a statewide initiative or referendum with the Secretary of State, and shall include the amount and source of any assets on hand at the beginning of this reporting period. These disclosure reports shall be filed no less than once each month thereafter.

(2) Before any entity receives a contribution or makes an expenditure for the purpose of influencing the collection of signatures on a proposed statewide initiative or referendum petition, that entity shall file a statement of organization with the Secretary of State, form a petition political committee, and thereafter disclose contributions and expenditures as required in subsection (1) herein.

Section 3. Making Signature Gatherers Be Registered Oregon Voters, Permitting Regulation of Payment for Signatures, and Specifying Effective Date of This Constitutional Amendment

Section 1, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, is amended by adding a new subsection, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating new Sections 1b and 1c to be added to and made a part of Article IV and to read:

A person gathering signatures on an initiative or referendum petition shall be registered to vote in this state in the manner provided by law.

Section 1b. The Legislative Assembly may pass laws which prohibit or regulate payment for gathering signatures for initiative or referendum petitions on a per signature basis if the Legislative Assembly finds that the practice has caused fraud or other abuses.

Section 1c. (1) The amendment to section 1 of Article IV of this measure applies to any initiative or referendum petition that, if filed with the Secretary of State with the required number of signatures of qualified voters, will be submitted to the people at a general election occurring after November 3, 1998, regardless of when the prospective petition for the initiative or referendum petition is filed.

(2) This section 1c is repealed December 31, 2000.

Section 4. Licensure of Businesses that Hire Paid Signature Gatherers

(1) The Secretary of State shall provide for the licensure of any individual, business, service, firm, organization, association, labor union or club which for a fee hires or procures individuals who receive pay or anything of value to gather signatures on initiative or referendum petitions.

(2) The Secretary of State shall require all license holders to report at least once each month the names and addresses of individuals it hires or procures to gather signatures on initiative or referendum petitions, the amount of any payments made to such individuals, the name and address of individuals or entities who paid the license holder to gather signatures on initiative or referendum petitions, and any amount paid or accounts receivable to the license holder for this service.

Section 5. Individuals' Right to Participate

Individuals protected by this Constitution have a fundamental right to participate in the political process by expressing their support for a candidate or cause through payment of political funds used for political purposes by any method identified in this sub-section. Protected methods of participation include but are not limited to pledges of, payment for, collection of, or assistance in collection of political funds by check, credit card, electronic transfer, automatic payment through a financial institution, and payroll deduction by public or private employer which agrees to such deduction or if payroll deduction is available to the employer's employees for any other purpose. Such methods of participation shall not be prohibited or restricted by any law or regulation enacted after November 1, 1998. If an individual authorizes political payments through electronic transfer, automatic payment, or payroll deduction, such authorization shall be in writing. An employer may be reimbursed for the reasonable, actual and identifiable costs of the payroll deduction described in this section. This sub-section is not intended to create any new rights. Any political committee or other entity which receives political funds by any of the methods described in this sub-section shall be entitled to use such funds. A recipient of political funds described in this sub-section shall not co-mingle political with non-political funds. For purposes of this provision, it shall not be considered co-mingling if, promptly upon receipt, the recipient segregates political and non-political funds.

Section 6. Disclosures of Paid Political Advertising

(1) In addition to other requirements provided by law, no political committee or other entity shall cause any written material, photograph or broadcast supporting or opposing any candidate or measure for any election to be printed, posted, broadcast, mailed, circulated or otherwise published to the general public unless it states the name and address of the political committee or other entity authorizing or paying for the costs of the publication, including a statement that the publication was authorized by that committee or entity.

(2) Whenever a political committee or other entity makes an independent expenditure on a political communication to the general public that advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or which uses a candidate's name or image within 60 days prior to an election, such communication shall include a statement which identifies by name and address any political committee or other entity that authorized it, and any political committee or other entity that paid for it. It shall also clearly state that the communication is not authorized by the candidate or the candidate's principal campaign committee.

Section 7. Disclosure of Contribution and Expenditure Reports

Within one business day of receipt, the Secretary of State shall disclose and make available to the public all contribution and expenditure reports. The Secretary shall establish rules allowing electronic filing of contribution and expenditure reports and the electronic dissemination of such information to the public.

Section 8. Protecting Petitioning Process

It is unlawful to offer, pay or provide money or other valuable consideration to another individual to sign or refrain from signing an initiative, referendum or recall petition, and for the other individual to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration for signing or refraining to sign an initiative, referendum or recall petition.

Section 9. Penalties

In addition to any other penalties prescribed by law, the following penalties apply for violation of this Act:

1. The Secretary of State may assess a penalty of up to $3,000 per occurrence or three times the amount not properly and timely disclosed, whichever is greater, against an individual or entity that fails to make the disclosures required by Section 1 of this Act.

2. The Secretary of State may assess a penalty of up to $1,000 per occurrence or three times the amount not properly and timely reported, whichever is greater, for violation of Section 2 of this Act. In addition to any individual or entity responsible by law, the chief petitioner(s) and the treasurer of chief petitioner's political committee shall be jointly and severally liable for the penalty.

3. The Secretary of State shall revoke the license of any licensee which fails to timely or accurately file the reports required under Section 4 of this Act, or for other reasons provided by law.

4. The Secretary of State may impose a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per occurrence against any individual or entity which is not validly licensed under Section 4 of this Act and which pays or attempts to pay or provide anything of value to individuals for gathering signatures on initiative or referendum petitions.

5. The exclusive penalty for co-mingling political and non-political funds shall be a requirement that the recipient return all of the co-mingled political funds to the contributor(s).

6. The Legislative Assembly shall enact penalties for violation of Section 8 of the Act.

Section 10. Administrative.

If any phrase, clause, section, part or application of this Article is declared unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses, sections, parts and applications shall remain in full force and effect.

NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic] type indicates deletions or comments.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This measure would amend the Oregon Constitution to add several provisions relating to election finance.

The measure would require the recipient of political contributions aggregating $500 or more from any contributor in a calendar year to disclose it within seven days of receiving the contribution. During the two weeks prior to a primary or general election, the disclosure would be required within two business days of receiving the contribution.

The measure would require chief petitioners for statewide initiative or referendum petitions to disclose each month all contributions received and expenditures made in support of the petition. Any other political entity must file a statement of organization and form a political committee before receiving a contribution or making an expenditure to influence the collection of signatures on a statewide initiative or referendum petition. The entity would be required to disclose contributions and expenditures each month.

The measure would allow only persons registered to vote in Oregon to gather signatures on initiative or referendum petitions. It would allow the Legislative Assembly to prohibit or regulate paying signature gatherers on a per-signature basis if the legislature finds that the practice has caused fraud or other abuses.

The measure would require anyone who hires individuals who are paid to gather signatures on initiative or referendum petitions to obtain a license from the Secretary of State and to report each month to the secretary.

The measure would prohibit enactment of laws or regulations after November 1, 1998, restricting the right of individuals to make campaign contributions through methods such as payroll deduction by public or private employers, electronic transfer or automatic payment through a financial institution.

The measure would require published material supporting or opposing a candidate or measure to state the name and address of the political committee or other entity which authorized or paid for the publication, including a statement that the publication was authorized by that entity. Certain communications advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and paid for with independent expenditures would be required to include a statement identifying the entity which authorized and paid for the publication and to state that the communication was not authorized by any candidate.

The measure would require the Secretary of State to make contribution and expenditure reports available to the public within one business day after the secretary received the reports. It would also direct the secretary to allow electronic dissemination of and filing of contribution and expenditure reports.

The measure would prohibit any person from paying or accepting payment to sign or not to sign an initiative, referendum or recall petition.

The measure would allow the Secretary of State to assess civil penalties for violations of provisions of the measure.
Committee Members:Appointed by:
Paul B. GamsonChief Petitioners
Susan C. RemmersChief Petitioners
Jack Kane*Secretary of State
Senator Eileen QutubSecretary of State
Jacob Tanzer**Secretary of State

*Member dissents (does not concur with explanatory statement)

**5th member appointed by Secretary of State because committee members could not agree on selection.

(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

A NURSE'S VIEW OF BALLOT MEASURE 62

The Oregon Nurses Association have worked hard in the creation and defense of the Oregon Health Plan. In 1996 voters passed Ballot Measure 44 to expand health care coverage to more of Oregon's uninsured children. This expansion was created by raising the tax on tobacco products. In the support of that campaign we learned a great deal about why our election process must be reformed.

Opponents of Ballot Measure 44 did not run a fair and open election. The opposition campaign spent million of dollars in deceptive television ads that sounded like they were supported by health professionals. As nurses we were appalled.

The voters and the press had no way of knowing who was really paying for those ads. And the worst part of it was that the giant tobacco companies were following the law even as they were attempting to trick Oregon voters.

That is why we support Ballot Measure 62.

It opens the election process by disclosing who really pays for the political advertising. Now we'll know who buys the television ads during the election season.

Another aspect of Measure 62 that appeals to nurses is the quick reporting of all contributions and expenditures by political campaigns in Oregon.

As Nurses we are proud to be recognized as advocates for the issues we support. We feel that these campaign finance reforms are only a threat to organizations who would rather avoid public attention.

(This information furnished by Susan E. King, RN, Oregon Nurses Association.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

From the desk of John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

Dear Fellow Oregonians:

I care about Oregon, and I know that you do too. As a citizen of this great state, I have studied its history and worked hard to make it the kind of place we can proudly call home.

Today, as your Governor, I am one of many Oregonians working to leave a legacy of a fairer political system for future generations. That is why I am asking you to join me in supporting Ballot Measure 62, the Open and Fair Elections Act.

Why am I supporting Measure 62? It means a cleaner, clearer and fairer opportunity for Oregon's next generation of voters to shape their future in a much more open political process. It reveals who is behind signature gathering efforts and negative campaigns in Oregon.

It mandates the timely disclosure of large contributions by out-of-state and special interests to political campaigns. This allows every Oregon voter to know who is writing the checks to influence decisions on election day. It clearly explains who is paying for the political advertising on television, radio and in the newspaper.

Ballot Measure 62 makes important changes in how signatures are gathered in the petition process. First, it requires the disclosure of who is paying for signature collection. It also makes sure that people who collect your signature are really registered to vote in Oregon.

Finally, Ballot Measure 62 protects your right -- and that of every Oregonian -- to participate in our political process through campaign contributions. For a union member in Oregon, it continues the very important opportunity to make voluntary contributions through payroll deductions at work.

I believe Measure 62 will help give Oregon's political system back to Oregonians. It does so by disclosing who contributes to politicians and to ballot measures.

I hope you'll join me in voting YES on Ballot Measure 62.

John Kitzhaber, M.D.

(This information furnished by John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Senior Citizens Support Measure 62

Open and Fair Works in Oregon

It's important for Oregonians to know that Measure 62, the Open and Fair Elections Act, will be good for senior citizens in Oregon. That's why, as senior advocates and fellow citizens, we are asking you to join us and citizens throughout Oregon who support this important measure.

Why does Measure 62 work for Seniors in Oregon? Because it means a cleaner and clearer opportunity for Oregon's voters to help shape the state's future in a much more open political process. It tells the state's senior citizens who is behind signature gathering, negative campaigning and politicians in Oregon.

How will Measure 62 work for Seniors in Oregon? Well, it mandates the timely disclosure of large contributions of out-of-state and special interest money to political campaigns. Like you, senior citizens want to know who is writing the checks to influence decisions on election day and paying for the political advertising on television, radio and in the newspaper.

Where will Measure 62 work for Seniors in Oregon? On the street, where it also makes important changes in how signatures are gathered in the petition process. It requires the disclosure of who is paying for signature collection and makes sure that people who collect your signature are really registered to vote in Oregon, and regulates the way they do business in our state.

What's an example of how Measure 62 will work for Seniors in Oregon? It will protect your right and that of every Oregonian to participate in voluntary payroll deductions at work for everything from retirement plans to political participation. That's the right of choice for seniors, many of whom continue to work hard in Oregon.

Vote Yes on Measure 63 on November 3. It will be good for Seniors in Oregon.

(This information furnished by Jim Davis, Oregon State Council of Senior Citizens.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Vote Yes on 62.

Common Cause asks Oregonians to vote yes on Measure #62, the Open and Fair Elections Act. Measure #62 requires a candidate or initiative campaign to promptly make public any contribution of $500 or more. If a candidate takes $500 from a tobacco company, you'll know about it.

(This information furnished by David Buchanan, Oregon Common Cause.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

A Police Officer Talks about the Importance of Measure 62

Like many Oregonians, I go to work every day. I am a Portland police officer who has served the community for 6 years. My job is to protect our citizens, and while doing so I have watched our community debate the issues important to every Oregonian's future. That is why I am supporting a future of Open and Fair Elections.

Why am I supporting Measure 62? Because it protects my right and that of every Oregonian to choose to participate in our political process through campaign contributions. As a union member, it's very important to me to continue my choice for voluntary participation in its work through a payroll deduction program.

Why do I care about Measure 62? Because it means a better opportunity for Oregon's next generation of voters to address the continuing, critical matter of public safety. Tomorrow's voters can be better citizens on election day.

And, it requires the disclosure of large campaigns contributions before election day. If on election day you are being asked to decide on public safety measures that would make our streets safer, shouldn't you know who is supporting your community and who wants to put all of us at risk?

Measure 62 also opens the election process by disclosing who pays for political advertising. Now we'll know who buys the television ads during the election season.

Another aspect of Measure 62 that appeals to me is the quick reporting of all contributions and expenditures by political campaigns in Oregon. This measure mandates a one day disclosure by the Secretary of State.

Remember, every day I go out to protect and serve Portlanders. My fellow officers throughout Oregon do the same. Our future and yours depends on an open and fair elections process. Make your voice heard. Please vote for Measure 62 on November 3.

(This information furnished by Liz Cruthers.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

An Educator Writes on the Value of Measure of 62

I care about Oregon, and know that you do, too. As an elementary teacher in Bend for 17 years, I also know the value of preparing our children for a fairer political future. That is why I am asking you to join me and citizens throughout Oregon who support a future of Open and Fair Elections.

I am supporting Measure 62 because it means a cleaner, clearer opportunity for Oregon's next generation of voters. Today's students are tomorrow's voters.

Measure 62 will make elections cleaner and clearer by mandating the prompt disclosure of large contributions. It allows every Oregon voter access to a campaign's books, so that you will know who is funding any candidate or ballot measure campaign.

It also makes important changes in how signatures are gathered in the petition process. First, it requires the disclosure of who is paying for signature collection. Then it makes sure that people who collect your signature are really registered to vote in Oregon, and regulates the way they do business in our state.

Measure 62 also protects your right and that of every Oregonian to participate in our political process through campaign contributions. As a union member, it's very important to me to continue my voluntary participation in its work through a payroll deduction program in my district. Measure 62 would guarantee me -- and every Oregon citizen -- that right.

Measure 62 also opens up the election process by disclosing who pays for political advertising. Now we'll know who really buys the television ads during the election season.

Finally, Measure 62 demands quick reporting of all contributions and expenditures by political campaigns in Oregon. This measure mandates a one day disclosure by the Secretary of State so that we will know before election day who is really backing campaigns.

Please help us make Oregon elections Open and Fair. Vote Yes on Measure 62.

(This information furnished by Peggy J. Humphreys.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

We need to Know

If you're like me, when you vote, you want to know "who" and you want to know "how much." That's why I'm voting for Ballot Measure 62 -- the Open and Fair Elections Act.

I want to know who's behind the politicians. I want to know who's paying whom to gather signatures for ballot measures. I want to know as much as possible.

Measure 62 will help me know what I need to know.

Here's how:

Measure 62 is called the Open and Fair Elections Act. To me, it's about your right to know as much as possible. Please join me in voting YES on Measure 62. I know you should.

(This information furnished by Leda Pugh.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Oregon's ballots for sale in upcoming elections! Bring your checkbook!

What? Here in Oregon?

Every day our members are trying to educate and organize people within our communities to promote or challenge initiatives. We do voter registration drives and work to "get out the vote". And too often we hear this same response, "why should I bother to vote, my voice doesn't really count". They have a point: It's the same old obstacle -- money in politics. Often, big money corporate interests have bought and paid for candidates before one vote is cast. Massive media purchases by big money interests leave the average Oregonian bombarded by vague messages that often serves only to further muddle issues or mislead voters.

Who's paying for these misleading messages? Who underwrites a candidate's ticket? Good questions... Without the Open and Fair Elections Act, we don't really know. The wealthy and big business interests don't have to disclose how much they spend to win an election or pass an initiative until after the election.

The Open and Fair Elections Act takes a step to restore fairness to the current election laws. It returns more power of the ballot to Oregonians by requiring big money interests to disclose contributions of $500 or more allowing for voters to know who backs a particular initiative or candidate before we cast our vote on election day. Let's face it, these days the only way to know who is really behind an agenda is to follow the money trail to the source.

Open and Fair Elections will also preserve every Oregonian's fundamental right to contribute to the political process through payroll deductions: Oregonians have a right to choose the method by which they contribute to the issues and candidates they support.

Send a strong message to big money interests seeking to buy our ballots: Vote yes to Open and Fair Elections.

Vote YES on 62. It's time to shine some light in the dark places of Oregon politics.

(This information furnished by Susan C. Remmers, Oregon Action.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Union Member on the Importance of Measure 62

I live and work in Oregon because its a special place. One way that we can protect Oregon is by making our elections more open and fair through determining who is funding Oregon candidates and causes. That is why I am asking you to join me in supporting Measure 62, the Open and Fair Elections Act.

Measure 62 will help prevent misleading and negative attacks. Politicians and special interests slinging mud are no longer the exception -- they are the standard for campaign behavior. Measure 62 would help prevent that by forcing campaigns to promptly disclose any campaign contribution of $500 or more.

Measure 62 will make politicians accountable to the people for the positions they take. With the new disclosure laws Measure 62 introduces, the public will know exactly who contributed to a politician's campaign

Measure 62 will crack down on out-of-state special interests. Measure 62 requires disclosures of contributions during the signature-gathering phase of an initiative so that we will know when out-of-state special interests are paying to put something on Oregon's ballot. It also regulates businesses that hire paid signature gatherers in order to prevent fraud and abuse.

Measure 62 protects everyone's rights. The measure guarantees every Oregonian's right to contribute to the political process through payroll deduction, including Oregon's unionized workers.

Measure 62 will bring greater disclosure to Oregon politics, and that's good for all Oregonians.

Please join me in voting Yes on 62.

(This information furnished by Timothy Welp.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Measure 62 will help Oregonians who are concerned about campaign financing and political corruption can learn who is contributing to what politician's campaign.

Every donation in excess of $500 must be reported, including donations made during voter signature drives. This measure also would make these reports available quickly, not after the election, as it is now.

We have a right to know who is paying our politicians for what. That's basic democracy.

Please vote Yes on Measure 62

(This information furnished by Jason Reynolds, Oregon Consumer League.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Yes on Ballot Measure #62

I take my right to vote seriously. Even though I am a high school special education assistant, not a political big-wig, I know my vote is important, so it's important that I make informed choices. That includes knowing who is behind political campaigns. Millions of dollars are spent every election year in Oregon to try to sway me and my fellow Oregonians to vote a certain way. Before I cast my vote, I want to know who is spending all that money. Ballot Measure 62 will require candidates and ballot measure campaigns to provide more disclosure to voters about who is funding them.

Do you know who influences elections that impact yourself, your family, friends and co-workers? I don't. And I want to know. It seems these days that more and more elections are decided based on who produces the best radio or t.v. commercial. I think it's important to know who paid for all those ads. Ballot Measure 62 requires that the identity of who paid for political advertising be disclosed right on the ad. By voting yes on Ballot Measure 62, we won't be kept in the dark any longer when it comes to who is shaping choices on election day.

Ballot Measure 62 protects our citizen initiative process by taking it back from out-of-state special interests who use paid signature gatherers -- many of whom who are not even Oregon citizens -- to get their measures on the ballot. Ballot Measure 62 requires that all initiative petition signature gatherers be registered Oregon voters. And Ballot Measure 62 requires that Oregonians be told who is paying those signature gatherers while we are being asked to sign petitions, rather than long after the measure has qualified for the ballot.

Please vote YES on Ballot Measure 62 so that we have the information we need to make informed choices on election day.

(This information furnished by Terry L. Christenson.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

THESE GROUPS SUPPORT MEASURE 62 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

MEASURE 62 THE OPEN AND FAIR ELECTIONS ACT WILL

Please join us in VOTING YES on Measure 62

Coalition for a Livable Future

Community Alliance of Tenants

Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon

Eugene-Springfield Solidarity Network

Human Services Coalition of Oregon

Oregon Action

Oregon AFSCME, Council 75

Oregon Common Cause

Oregon Consumer League

Oregon Council of Police Associations

Oregon Education Association

Oregon Employees Union/SEIU

Oregon Nurses Association

Oregon State Council of Senior Citizens

Oregon State Public Interest Research Group

Portland Rainbow Coalition

Rural Organizing Project

Sisters in Portland Impacting Real Issues Together

United Seniors of Oregon

Workers Organizing Committee

(This information furnished by Roger Gray, Oregonians for Open and Fair Elections.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Plainly and simply put:

Measure 62 seeks to overturn the effects of Measure 59 by requiring tax dollars to continue to be used for the collection of political contributions.

Measure 62 requires tax dollars and public employees be used for collection and processing of money that will be used in partisan political activities. The measure is wrapped inside what appear to be laudable changes in Oregon law, but are really just a smokescreen.

As Oregon's largest business association, Associated Oregon Industries supports strict campaign reporting laws, and Oregon has some of the strictest reporting laws in the nation. As a result, Oregon has some of the cleanest elections in the nation.

There are two ways to destroy the excellent record of Oregon election reporting laws: repeal them or make them so complex as to become unworkable. Measure 62 does the latter.

Measure 62 loads up the State Constitution with complex and onerous reporting requirements that serve no useful purpose. Oregon laws already require timely reporting of all political contributions, laws which AOI strongly supports as a matter of good public policy.

Measure 62 purports to authorize the legislature to impose regulation on people who circulate initiative petitions, but the legislature already has the power it needs to regulate signature gatherers and to require reporting of expenditures. The Secretary of State already vigorously pursues any hint of fraud in the initiative process.

Vote NO on Measure 62

Submitted by

Associated Oregon Industries

(This information furnished by Richard M. Butrick, Associated Oregon Industries.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Former Deans Committee

We believe Measure 62 raises serious issues under the Oregon and United States Constitutions. The Measure would allow only Oregon registered voters to collect signatures. Oregon citizens who are not registered voters, those Oregon citizens under 18 and non-Oregon residents could not gather signatures for Oregon initiative petitions. The limitation raises serious issues under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Measure authorized the Oregon Legislature to prohibit or regulate paying signature gatherers on a per-signature basis if the Oregon legislature finds that paying signature gatherers on a per-signature basis causes fraud or other abuses. This limitation raises serious issues under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Oregon Constitution requires an initiative measure "embrace on subject matter and matters properly connected therewith." The purpose of this provision is to prevent confusion when voters go to the polls. We believe Measure 62 appears to combine more that one subject in this initiative and fails the "one subject test" as defined by the Oregon Supreme Court. We believe the Measure to be an unnecessary amendment to the Oregon Constitution. We believe this Measure would clutter the Constitution and, if adopted at all, should be considered as a statute rather than amendment to the Constitution.

We provide this information to help fellow voters in understanding the measure. Our comments are designed only to provide objective and careful constitutional analysis of the measure. Collectively we take no position on the other merits of this measure.

Prof. Leroy Tornquist (Chair), Former Dean Willamette College of Law

Rennard Strickland, Dean University of Oregon Law School

Prof. Robert Misner, Former Dean Willamette College of Law

Prof. Emeritus Chapin Clark, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

Prof. Maury Holland, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

Robert Ackerman, Dean Willamette College of Law

David Frohnmayer, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

(This information furnished by Bob Cannon, Treasurer, The Former Deans Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

THE COALITION FOR INITIATIVE RIGHTS OPPOSES MEASURE 62

It Impairs Grass-Roots Use of the Initiative and Referendum

The Coalition for Initiative Rights is a group of volunteers dedicated to protecting the rights of Oregon voters to use the initiative and referendum.

Measure 62 would create a new bureaucracy for the "licensing" of all signature gatherers and directly authorize the Secretary of State to assess penalties of up to $25,000 per violation against anyone who "provides anything of value to individuals for gathering signatures" without being licensed!

We oppose the creation of new obstacles to use of the initiative and referendum. The big money special interests can easily hire full-time employees to collect signatures. But grass-roots campaigns that try to collect signatures with part-timers will be subject to costly licensing and potentially devastating fines.

Measure 62 also purports to authorize the Legislature to ban per signature payment for signature gathering and do so retroactively. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that such laws violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Besides, the good features of Measure 62 are already existing law. ORS 260.522 already requires all political advertising to be identified as to source and requires disclosure of who authorized it. ORS 260.558 already bans payments to persons for signing or not signing petitions. Measure 62 just copies the words of these existing statutes.

Measure 62 would speed up the reporting of contributions and expenditures, but that is not enough to overcome its flaws.

We also oppose Measure 59, which Measure 62 is intended to partly negate. Under the Oregon Supreme Court's analysis in Armatta v. Kitzhaber (June 1998), Measure 62 is probably unconstitutional as involving more that "one amendment" to the Oregon Constitution.

The only way to stop Measure 59 from destroying the Oregon Voters' Pamphlet is to vote against Measure 59.

We urge voters to guard their precious "direct democracy" leverage and vote NO on Measure 62!

Coalition for Initiative Rights

coalition.rights@usa.net

www.teleport.com/~dweezil/cir

(This information furnished by Lloyd Marbet, Coalition For Initiative Rights.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

MEASURE 62 HAS MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS

Why would anyone want to add to the Oregon Constitution several provisions the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have already ruled are unconstitutional?

Measure 62 includes one provision that limits petition signature gathering. The federal courts have already ruled that those limits are unconstitutional. Even if Oregon voters approve it, this provision will ultimately be thrown out in the courts.

Measure 62 includes another provision that prohibits distributing campaign literature without stating who paid for it. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that such a requirement is unconstitutional.

Why place all these unconstitutional provisions in the constitution when everyone knows they will be tossed out in the court later?

Here's why: Those provisions are only there to distract your attention from the one provision the public employee unions are really after. That provision guarantees public employee unions the ability to use public employee time and public buildings, equipment, and supplies to collect their political funds from public employees' paychecks.

Yes, they want to be sure that they can continue to raise money for political campaigns while on the job - at taxpayer expense. They wrote the measure so that when the other provisions are thrown out by the courts the one they really want would remain. Those other provisions are only there to entice you to vote for the measure.

A first-year law student would easily recognize the fatally-flawed drafting of Measure 62. For example, provision 4 of Measure 62 says the purpose of the measure is to disallow what the measure itself does in provision 1. Pretty screwy.

If Measure 62 passes, large parts of it will be thrown out in the courts. The result of that will be even greater voter apathy and discouragement.

Vote NO on Measure 62. You might as well, it will be ruled unconstitutional anyway.

(This information furnished by Bill Sizemore, Executive Director, Oregon Taxpayers United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

I am a public school teacher. I am angry because my union, the Oregon Education Association, used my money to help put Measure 62 on the ballot.

This underhanded measure was written specifically to undo the will of the voters, who are expected to support Measure 59, in the very same election.

My union used my money to trick you into giving them constitutional authority to take money out of my paycheck every month and use it to advance political causes with which I disagree. It's that simple.

I became a teacher because I care about kids and because I want to help them learn. That is why I am in the classroom. The political causes and politicians I choose to support or oppose are my business, not my union's. But the teachers' union drags me into the political arena every month when they use money they took from my paycheck to affect the political process in Oregon.

This is not right. Public school teachers should have the same right as anyone else to support or oppose political candidates or causes we choose.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." Jefferson's statement should apply to teachers the same as every other citizen.

Please don't write into the constitution that the public employee unions can take money out of my paycheck and the paychecks of my fellow school teachers to support the unions' political agenda.

They're welcome to their political opinions, but I should be welcome to my own.

Please vote NO on Measure 62.

(This information furnished by Tim Rohrer.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.