The seemingly endless wait for campaign finance reform in Oregon just got longer. State lawmakers are poised to delay voter-approved contribution limits for at least another two years, a move that’s drawing sharp criticism from good government advocates across the political spectrum.
Last week’s legislative committee hearing revealed plans to push implementation of Measure 107 – approved by 78% of voters in 2020 – to 2027 at the earliest. This marks the second significant delay for meaningful campaign finance regulation in a state notorious for its permissive political funding environment.
“This is a slap in the face to Oregon voters,” said Rebecca Gladstone, president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon, in a phone interview. “When 78% of the electorate speaks so clearly on an issue, elected officials have a responsibility to implement that will, not continuously find reasons to delay it.”
Oregon currently stands as one of just five states with no limits on political contributions, creating what critics describe as a “Wild West” atmosphere for campaign spending. According to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures, candidates in Oregon routinely receive six-figure donations that would be illegal in most other states.
The delay proposal, embedded in House Bill 4006, was originally designed to create a system for enforcing contribution limits. However, amendments introduced late in the process effectively postpone implementation until after the 2026 election cycle. The bill passed out of committee on a party-line vote, with Republicans opposing the extended timeline.
“I’ve covered Oregon politics for nearly two decades, and this pattern is frustratingly familiar,” Jason Miner, political analyst at Portland State University’s Center for Public Service, told me. “Lawmakers express concern about the complexity of implementation while continuing to benefit from the very system voters want changed.”
Campaign finance records from the Oregon Secretary of State’s office show the impact of unlimited contributions. In the 2022 gubernatorial race, the three major candidates collectively raised over $65 million, with individual donations frequently exceeding $100,000. By comparison, neighboring Washington caps individual contributions to gubernatorial candidates at $2,000 per election.
Senate President Rob Wagner defended the delay, citing implementation challenges and the need for careful rulemaking. “We want to get this right,” Wagner said during committee testimony. “The worst outcome would be rushing a system that doesn’t work or creates unintended consequences.”
However, critics point out that Oregon has had years to prepare for these changes. The 2020 constitutional amendment explicitly authorized the legislature to create contribution limits, and similar systems function effectively in 45 other states.
Dan Meek, a longtime campaign finance reform advocate with Honest Elections Oregon, didn’t mince words in his assessment. “Every year of delay means another election cycle where special interests can write unlimited checks to candidates,” Meek said. “The implementation challenges aren’t technical – they’re political.”
The delay is particularly frustrating for reform advocates who have watched multiple attempts at campaign finance regulation fail over the decades. In 1994, voters approved strict contribution limits, but the Oregon Supreme Court struck them down in 1997. It wasn’t until 2020 that the court reversed that decision, opening the door for new regulations.
Republican lawmakers, while supporting campaign finance limits in principle, criticized the current proposal for both its timeline and structure. “This isn’t what voters asked for,” said Representative Christine Drazan during committee debate. “They wanted reasonable limits implemented promptly, not a complex bureaucracy that won’t take effect until 2027.”
The effects of Oregon’s unlimited campaign finance system extend beyond big-money influence. Research from the Campaign Finance Institute shows that states without contribution limits tend to have less competitive elections and fewer small-dollar donors participating in the political process.
“When candidates need to court wealthy donors to remain competitive, it fundamentally changes who has access to elected officials,” explained Martha Pellegrino, former government relations director for the City of Portland. “The average Oregonian can’t write a $50,000 check to get a meeting with their representative.”
The delay legislation still needs approval from the full House and Senate before the short session ends in early March. Governor Tina Kotek has not indicated whether she would sign a bill with such a lengthy implementation timeline.
As someone who has reported on Oregon politics through multiple reform attempts, I’ve watched the cycle repeat itself: voters demand change, lawmakers promise action, and implementation somehow always remains just over the horizon. The latest delay suggests that pattern continues, regardless of overwhelming public support for reform.
For now, Oregon voters face the prospect of at least two more election cycles with unlimited campaign contributions – a reality that seems increasingly at odds with the clear mandate they delivered at the ballot box.
