Oregon lawmakers took a step toward limiting the impact of money on elections during the legislative session.

Lawmakers passed House Bill 2024, a campaign finance reform package that limits the amount single donors can contribute to campaigns. Limits haven't existed in the state since the 1970s.

Contributions will be capped at $3,300 - per candidate, per election.

House Speaker state Rep. Julie Fahey - D-Eugene - championed the bill.

In her first campaign for office, she faced candidates funded by large donations from wealthy donors - and said the experience inspired her to change the law.

"It really was that first challenging election cycle that cemented in my mind how important it was that we reform our campaign finance system," said Fahey, "in part because we need to make running for office more accessible to brand new candidates like I was."

Oregon voters have shown they're ready for limits on campaign contributions. They wrote them into the the state constitution in 2020.

This year, Honest Elections and the League of Women Voters had collected nearly enough signatures for a measure to put campaign finance reform on the November ballot.

Fahey noted that the bill doesn't just limit contributions.

"We also created new kinds of small donor pacs and membership organization pacs," said Fahey, "that will make sure that we can incentivize the kind of pro-democracy campaigning that we really want to see more of."

Common Cause Oregon Director Kate Titus said these changes have taken effort from a lot of people over a long period time.

"It's such a complex issue, campaign finance reform," said Titus, "and it's one of the toughest ones to fight because it gets at the heart of power in politics. Anyone who gains power through money has the power to resist."

The new campaign finance laws go into effect in 2027.



get more stories like this via email

Nearly 1,000 political scientists from across the U.S., including Montana, have signed a statement expressing how they feel the Trump administration's actions are threatening American democracy.

The letter, signed by experts at colleges and universities in both red and blue states, highlights six specific concerns. They include the administration's actions to cancel spending approved by Congress.

Montana State University Professor of Political Science Sara Rushing noted that while cutting expenses may be a good business strategy, democracy is not a business.

That's why, she said, there are checks and balances.

"We have these procedures and practices built in to slow things down, build consensus, abide by processes, and make sure that things are fair and transparent," said Rushing. "Efficiency has never been the preeminent value of democracy."

She encouraged her fellow political scientists not to strike a tone of neutrality because, as she put it, democratic procedures and stakes "shouldn't be up for debate."

In defense of its actions, the White House says it's ensuring all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.

More than 29% of Montana's land base is public land managed by federal agencies.

Montanans who previously worked for those agencies were some of the first to be directly affected by federal cuts, after an initial round of firings in mid-February.

Rushing said she worries the government's commitment to efficiency will "break" the systems that protect public lands.

"So, you can break Yellowstone and make it function terribly," said Rushing, "and then you can make an argument for privatizing it and running it like a business. And that would be a massive loss - not just to Montanans, but to Americans as a whole."

According to a 2024 University of Montana survey, 95% of Montanans said they visited national public lands in the past year, and about half of those said they paid more than ten visits.

Support for this reporting was provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Nearly 1,000 political scientists from across the U.S. have signed a letter, saying American democracy is under threat based on the early actions of the new Trump administration. A North Dakota expert is among those speaking out. Those who added their names to the statement work for colleges and universities in both "red" and "blue" states. They highlight six specific areas of concern, including the administration acting unilaterally to cancel spending approved by Congress. They say moves like that undermine checks and balances.

Mark Jendrysik, a political science professor based in North Dakota, says he personally feels the nation is in a "constitutional crisis."

"The presidency is attempting to basically render Congress superfluous to almost every important decision, and the most important decision, which is how money is raised and spent," hew said.

He added that Congress, currently under Republican control, seems too willing to surrender that power and said this has been a crisis building for decades, with the executive branch trying to seize more control. In defending certain actions, the White House says it's ensuring that all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.

But Jendrysik, who isn't speaking on behalf of the University of North Dakota where he teaches, says the arguments he's seen from the Trump administration don't hold up. He says he realizes some people choose not to pay attention to what's happening, but he thinks both Congress and citizens should be worried, too.

"Someone else smarter than me [once] said, 'When citizens stop saying "the public affairs aren't my concern," then the republic is lost,'" he continued.

The authors behind the statement say Trump fairly won last fall's election, but add that his
victory doesn't grant him the right to overturn the nation's constitutional and legal order. Other political observers say longtime dysfunction in Congress in addressing the nation's problems has allowed too many voters to consistently view the legislative branch as ineffective, giving rise to an administration willing to push legal and ethical boundaries.


get more stories like this via email

This week marks 15 years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The ruling reshaped campaign finance by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. The decision has left a profound mark on states like Ohio.

Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, highlighted its local impact at a roundtable discussion this week. But first, he remarked on the presence of billionaire donors at Monday's presidential inauguration.

"Oligarchy in America, boy, yesterday was a portrait of that," Morelle observed. "In Ohio, for example, an electric utility used dark money to cause state House lawmakers to ensure passage of a bill which bailed out the coal and nuclear plants, while rolling back clean energy standards."

American Electric Power reached a multimillion-dollar settlement after a federal investigation into its role in Ohio's House Bill 6 scandal. The Columbus-based utility announced it will pay a $19 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, underscored the national and local consequences of unchecked political spending.

"Since the Citizens United decision happened, they have spent now 13 times the amount this election," Solomón pointed out. "It's no wonder that you have people who are nurses, teachers, firefighters, everyday Americans who are running for office and just simply can't compete, or who have opted out."

Beyond corporate influence, Solomon mentioned the unmeasured effect of in-kind contributions, such as media control and algorithmic bias. The panel members warned Citizens United has undermined democratic representation, even as proponents defend it as free speech.

Tiffany Muller, president of the advocacy group End Citizens United, was also critical of Ohio's controversial House Bill 6, legislation to secure financial support for the state's aging power plants. She suggested it exemplifies how dark money can influence state policy.

"FirstEnergy paid $60 million to get a $1.3 billion bailout," Muller noted. "The largest pay-to-play corruption scandal in that state's history."

She added the Ohio scandal is just one example of how money can shift priorities toward corporate interests at the expense of voters.

Reporting by Ohio News Connection in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.




get more stories like this via email