Measure 47 is the second of two measures on the ballot this fall designed to limit campaign contributions.  This is an act, not a constitutional amendment, and so has to measure up to a lower bar.

However, there is a problem here.  As written, this measure is unconstitutional.  It violates Oregon's free speech guarantees, which are among the strongest such guarantees in the nation.  The authors of the measure know this.  That's why they have also proffered Measure 46, which is a constitutional amendment to curtail free speech rights regarding campaign contributions.

The big problem here is that no one knows quite what will happen if 46 fails and 47 passes.  In that case, the state Supreme Court will strike down several sections of Measure 47, and the sections which are left will have consequences that cannot be foreseen at this time. That's foolhardy and dangerous.

Indeed, at least one of the authors of Measure 47 has realized the danger and is now campaigning against the measure.  His is one of the paid arguments against in the voter's pamphlet.

No unintended consequences.  Vote no on Measure 47.

Measure 46 is one of two measures on the ballot this fall intended to limit campaign contributions.  This one is a constitutional amendment, and as I have said in the past, proposed amendments need to meet a very high bar. This one does not do so.

Personally, I haven't made up my own mind on whether campaign contributions need more limitations than they currently have.  I hate the rash of negative advertising, but limiting contributions just means that only the rich could afford to run.

The key problem with this proposed amendment is that it is way too broad. It authorizes the legislature to enact laws prohibiting contributions and expenditures of ANY TYPE OR DESCRIPTION intended to influence the outcome of ANY election.  That doesn't mention money.  This could very easily be used, for example, to prohibit candidate endorsements in newspaper editorials.  It could easily be used to prohibit me from making these very blog postings.

No.  Constitutional amendments must be specific, carefully worded, and clearly beneficial to the state as a whole.  This one is NOT.

Vote no on Measure 46.

Measure 45 would institute term limits for state legislators.  Representatives would be limited to six years, senators would be limited to eight years, and no one could serve a combined total of more than 14 years.

I don't know who came up with the bright idea that fresh faces make better legislation, but it is patently false.  Oregon had a term limit law in the 1990s until the state Supreme Court invalidated it, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Politics is not a game where you bring in a new shooter to try his hand at manipulating the lives of millions.  Politics is a job, and it's a job where you get better at it as time goes on.  I want someone who has had the time to observe the workings of the legislature, and knows how to wrangle a compromise to get something done.  Bulls in China shops don't do that.

This is a Bad Idea.  Vote NO on Measure 45.

Now HERE is the one great idea in this year's batch of initiative measures.

Oregon has a prescription drug program which allows participants in the Oregon medical program (usually low income folks) to get prescription drugs at a significant discount. The discount comes by having the state do the purchasing in bulk; pharmacies are always willing to give a discount to group buyers.

Measure 44 would open this opportunity up to any Oregonian without medical insurance. There is no cost to the state, no bureaucratic impact, no additional employees. More people means more buying power, which means more opportunities for discount. It is a win-win like we don't usually see on election day.

Vote YES on Measure 44.