Some of Oregon鈥檚 most influential political donors say they鈥檝e crafted a viable system for limiting campaign contributions in the state 鈥� and they鈥檙e hopeful lawmakers they鈥檝e supported over the years will pass it in the next 17 days.
Following weeks of negotiations, the state鈥檚 largest labor unions and business coalitions unveiled a proposal Thursday they say walks a fine line.
The bill would limit how much businesses, political committees, interest groups, labor unions and everyday Oregonians could donate to campaigns and causes beginning in 2026. But those limits are high enough, backers contend, that the state will not see a rush of 鈥渋ndependent expenditures,鈥� political ads funded by outside groups without the knowledge of the political candidate they are helping.
鈥淭here鈥檚 something in this for everybody to hate, but at the end of the day, we are trying to come up with a system that works,鈥� said Preston Mann, political affairs director for Oregon Business & Industry, the state鈥檚 largest business coalition.
Mann discussed the proposal in an interview alongside representatives from public-sector labor unions and advocacy organizations that businesses often oppose in policy and political matters. The two sides have been thrust together, they say, because of strict finance limits put forward by good government groups that could go before voters in November.
Business and labor groups are trying to get ahead of that proposal by passing something through the Legislature instead. They鈥檝e been working to shop their idea to top Democrats and Republicans in recent days.
Now the bill, introduced as to House Bill 4024, is set for a hearing. The negotiated proposal was put forward by House Majority Leader Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, whose she would like to pass a bill this year. The House Rules Committee Fahey chairs will take it up on Friday.
鈥淲e think the current system, frankly, works just fine,鈥� Mann said, speaking for Oregon Business & Industry. 鈥淏ut we鈥檙e responding to a reality where campaign finance reform is coming. The days of the current system are over.鈥�
The union and business proposal was already being criticized Thursday by Honest Elections Oregon, one of the groups putting forward the proposed ballot measure, currently known as Initiative Petition 9. The group was circulating a detailed list of flaws it sees in the labor and business proposal, suggesting the bill contains broad loopholes, weak enforcement provisions and lax disclosure rules that will allow big money to continue to flow to candidates.
鈥淎s drafted, good government advocates have serious concerns that the limits will still allow Oregon鈥檚 biggest spenders to write huge six-figure checks,鈥� said Jason Kafoury, a member of the group. 鈥淲e hope the Legislature listens to feedback from national experts and campaign finance reform advocates and is willing to make substantial changes.鈥�
Oregon is one of just five states with no limits on political giving. Labor unions and business interests have long used the permissive system to their own ends, often backing opposing political candidates. Lawmakers have debated campaign finance limits for years, but always .
鈥淭he Legislature is great at kicking hard things down the road,鈥� said Phil Bentley, president and CEO of the Oregon Health Care Association and one of the people who negotiated the bill. 鈥淚f they don鈥檛 have to make a hard decision, sometimes they won鈥檛. But once they feel like they have to, I think they have the capacity and the interest and the desire to do it.鈥�
In general terms, the business and labor proposal creates a for a wide range of groups and committees that might give to a candidate or cause. Those limits would kick in at the beginning of 2026, a provision that would allow candidates and political action committees to amass a war chest all next year, diminishing the impact of limits for the 2026 midterm elections.
Under the bill, any 鈥減erson鈥� would be limited to giving $3,300 to a state or local candidate. That鈥檚 on par with federal contribution limits and, like federal limits, the amount would rise with inflation.
Critics point out that 鈥減erson鈥� has a broad meaning in legal terms, and can apply to anything from an individual to a multinational corporation. The same 鈥減ersons鈥� could give up to $10,000 a year to political committees and an unlimited amount to 鈥渕embership organizations,鈥� each of which have their own giving limits.
The proposal would offer its highest giving limits to 鈥渟mall-donor committees,鈥� political groups that could accept no more than $250 from any given person, and which are expected to be used extensively by labor unions. Under the proposal, any such committee could give $33,000 to a candidate every election, for every 2,500 individual donors it has. That means a committee that attracts 5,000 donors could give a candidate $132,000 between a primary and general election.
Another entity that would have higher giving limits is what the bill calls 鈥渕embership organizations鈥� 鈥� nonprofit organizations formed by business interests, advocacy groups, or any other interested party. They could accept unlimited donations, give candidates up to $16,500 every election 鈥� up to $33,000 an election cycle 鈥� and also pay for staffing costs for campaigns that critics say could equate to hundreds of thousands of additional dollars.
Business and labor groups say they were able to achieve agreement on the system, in part, because of the looser limits it grants these membership groups and small-donor committees.
鈥淭his is a system where there鈥檚 some equality and reflects the different organizational interests,鈥� Bentley said.
The proposal also would create a new system for forcing disclosure of 鈥渋ndependent expenditures,鈥� money that is spent in support of a candidate without the candidate鈥檚 knowledge or blessing. The U.S. Supreme Courtsuch spending amounts to free speech, and cannot be limited.
Under the bill, any group that spent at least $50,000 on independent political spending in a single election cycle would be forced to report large donors of more than $5,000 to the Oregon Secretary of State. The Secretary of State鈥檚 Office would create a new online database to display that information for voters.
The bill鈥檚 backers say the disclosure idea is an attempt to address the concerns of good government groups, who say 鈥渄ark money鈥� spending that can鈥檛 be legally capped should at least be forced to unveil its donors.
鈥淲e definitely agree 鈥� that there is need to be transparent, especially around independent expenditures where there isn鈥檛 as much transparency,鈥� said Louis De Sitter of the Oregon Education Association, the state鈥檚 largest teachers union.
Whether or not the proposal can win over Democrats and Republicans, who have shown stark disagreements over campaign finance in the past, is unclear. But the fact that labor unions 鈥� major Democratic benefactors 鈥� are finding agreement with business groups that overwhelmingly support Republicans suggests a compromise is possible.
Even if lawmakers do pass limits, however, voters could still see a proposal on the ballot. The groups backing Initiative Petition 9 showed no sign Thursday they would be willing to abandon the effort.
鈥淲e would love to see the legislature accomplish this critical issue for our democracy,鈥� Common Cause Oregon, one of the ballot measure鈥檚 backers, said in a statement. 鈥淯nfortunately, the current proposal does not serve the goals we support.鈥�
