Corporate Cash: Oregon's Political Pollution

Oregon is one of the biggest money states in American politics due to its lack of campaign finance limits. The state is one of five with no controls on campaign donations, resulting in a flood of money that creates a favourable regulatory environment for industries. Corporate interests donate more money per resident in Oregon than in any other state, and this has had a detrimental impact on environmental policy. Oregon's most powerful industries have stalled efforts to address climate change, air pollution, oil spill planning, and other issues. Lawmakers have also taken advantage of the lax rules to spend campaign funds on personal expenses, such as luxury hotel rooms and Amazon Prime memberships. To reduce the influence of corporate cash, Oregon could implement donation limits, following the example of states like Minnesota and Connecticut.

Oregon is one of five states with no limits on campaign donations

The lack of regulation has resulted in an arms race, making Oregon's elections some of the most expensive in the nation. For example, the 2018 governor's race broke records, with the candidates raising a collective total of nearly $40 million. The state's most powerful industries have used their financial influence to stall or weaken efforts to address issues such as climate change, air pollution, and oil spill planning.

While Oregon voters approved spending limits in 2006 with Measure 47, these limits were not enforced due to a legal technicality. However, in 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that contribution limits are legal and do not violate the state constitution. This paved the way for potential controls on campaign donations and signaled an end to Oregon's permissive campaign finance system.

Despite this ruling, Oregon lawmakers have struggled to pass legislation enacting contribution limits. In 2024, a proposal was introduced to limit donations from businesses, political committees, interest groups, labor unions, and individuals. However, these proposed limits are still quite high, and it remains to be seen whether they will effectively reduce the influence of money in Oregon's political system.

Corporate interests donate more money per resident in Oregon than in any other state

Oregon is one of five states with no limits on campaign donations. This has resulted in a flood of money that has corrupted the state's politics, with corporations and industry groups contributing $43 million to winning candidates in elections from 2008 to 2016—nearly half of all the money raised by legislators. This has created an easy regulatory climate where industries get what they want while people threatened by pollution struggle to be heard. Oregon lawmakers can even earn extra pay if they use campaign funds for hotels and meals, expenses already covered by taxpayers.

In the last four years, Oregon's most powerful industries have killed, weakened, or stalled efforts to address climate change, disappearing bird habitats, cancer-causing diesel exhaust, industrial air pollution, oil spill planning, and weed killers sprayed from helicopters. The state now trails its West Coast neighbors in environmental protections.

To reduce the influence of corporate money, other states have implemented various measures. Minnesota, for example, prohibits corporate donations and offers public financing to candidates who limit their fundraising. Connecticut's campaigns are funded primarily by taxpayer subsidies. In contrast, Oregon has no restrictions on how campaign money can be spent, and lawmakers have wide latitude in how they use donors' funds.

To decrease the share of political money coming from corporations, Oregon lawmakers need to set low donation limits. A proposed limit of $100 on legislative races would significantly reshape political campaigns in the state, reducing the influence of corporate interests and empowering small, individual donors.

Oregon lawmakers can earn extra pay by using campaign funds for hotels and meals

Oregon's lack of campaign finance limits has made it one of the biggest money states in American politics. The state's freewheeling campaign system has had a clear impact on environmental policy, with powerful industries able to kill, weaken or stall efforts to deal with climate change, air pollution, oil spill planning, and other issues.

An investigation by The Oregonian/OregonLive found that since 2008, lawmakers from both parties have spent an estimated $2.2 million in campaign funds on items prohibited in at least one other state. One example is double-dipping, where lawmakers use campaign money to pay for expenses that taxpayers also reimburse. This includes using campaign funds for hotels and meals while the Legislature meets, which boosts lawmakers' income.

Oregon lawmakers receive $149 per diem payments from taxpayers for food and lodging when they are in session. Legislators living outside the capital can turn these per diem payments into extra income by charging hotels and meals to their campaigns. Since 2008, legislators' campaigns have paid $186,000 for lodging and meals while the Legislature met.

Some lawmakers have proposed limiting their own spending or tying their wages to those of an average Oregon worker. However, these proposals have faced challenges due to the optics of lawmakers giving themselves a raise and the influence of corporate cash on Oregon's political system.

Corporate donations create an easy regulatory climate where industry gets what it wants

Oregon is one of the biggest money states in American politics. The state's lack of campaign finance limits has resulted in a flood of money that has corrupted environmental policy in one of the greenest states in America. Corporate donations have created an easy regulatory climate where industry interests are prioritized over the concerns of ordinary Oregonians.

In Oregon, there are no restrictions on how much money can be donated to political campaigns. This has resulted in corporations and industry groups becoming the leading source of campaign funding for lawmakers. From 2008 to 2016, companies and industry groups contributed $43 million to winning candidates, accounting for nearly half of the total campaign funds raised. This has had a significant impact on environmental policy, with Oregon's most powerful industries successfully influencing legislation in their favor.

For example, in the last four years, these industries have stalled or weakened efforts to address climate change, protect bird habitats, and reduce industrial air pollution and cancer-causing diesel exhaust. The state now lags behind its West Coast neighbors in terms of environmental protections. The influence of corporate donations has created a culture of deference within regulatory bodies, such as the Department of Environmental Quality, where pressure tactics from industry groups have been normalized.

To address this issue, some have proposed implementing donation limits to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics. Lower donation limits would empower small, individual donors and reduce the reliance of lawmakers on corporate interests. This has been successfully implemented in other states, such as Minnesota and Connecticut, where corporate donations are prohibited and public financing is provided for campaigns. By contrast, Oregon's permissive campaign finance laws have led to a situation where lawmakers can spend campaign funds on personal expenses, further incentivizing the pursuit of corporate donations.

The impact of corporate cash in Oregon's politics has been significant, shaping environmental policy and creating a regulatory climate that favors industry over the needs of citizens. Reform is necessary to ensure that the voices of Oregonians are heard and that the state's environmental commitments are upheld.

Oregon's most powerful industries have stalled efforts to deal with climate change

In recent years, Oregon's most powerful industries have successfully stalled, weakened, or killed efforts to address climate change and other environmental issues. The state's lack of campaign finance limits has resulted in a flood of corporate money influencing environmental policies. This has created a permissive regulatory climate where industries' interests are prioritized over the concerns of Oregonians affected by pollution.

Oregon is one of only five states in the US with no restrictions on campaign donations. This has made it one of the biggest money states in American politics. Between 2008 and 2016, corporations and industry groups contributed $43 million to winning candidates, accounting for nearly half of the legislators' fundraising. This has resulted in a deep culture of deference within the Department of Environmental Quality, where pressure tactics from corporate interests hold significant sway.

The impact of this corporate influence is evident in the state's failure to address critical environmental issues. Oregon now lags behind its West Coast neighbors in terms of environmental protections. Initiatives to tackle climate change, protect bird habitats, regulate cancer-causing diesel exhaust, address industrial air pollution, and plan for oil spills have all been obstructed.

To reduce the influence of corporate money in Oregon politics, several measures have been proposed. These include setting low donation limits, as successfully implemented in states like Minnesota and Connecticut, and limiting how campaign funds can be spent. By empowering individuals and small donors, these measures aim to shift the primary source of campaign funding away from Corporate America.

However, despite public support for spending limits, such as Measure 47 approved by voters in 2006, lawmakers have been reluctant to enact meaningful reforms. This inertia perpetuates a system where corporate interests hold undue influence over Oregon's environmental policies, hindering progress on addressing pressing climate and environmental challenges.

Frequently asked questions