Let's begin tonight with Betsey Johnson,
who picked up a campaign contribution from
Nike founder Phil Knight of $750,000 now.
In case you don't know,
Betsey Johnson is a woman running for
Oregon governor who left the Democratic
Party and is now not part of any party.
Some of you think that
makes her an independent,
but that's actually not technically correct.
Independent is a political party in
Oregon and she is not a member of it.
Her campaign website says
that she's unaffiliated,
but her official filing with Secretary of
State's office lists her as non affiliated.
I guess maybe those two
terms are interchangeable.
At any rate,
she's the leader when it comes to
raising money for the governor's race.
Having it in her bank now with $5.1
million since the start of this year,
Democrat Tina Kotek comes
in second at the moment,
with 1.2 million and Republican
Christine Drazan has $1.1 million.
But back to Betsy Johnson.
Phil Knight has now donated a total
of $1,000,000 to her campaign.
Had a chance to talk with
Republican strategist Rebecca Tweed.
This afternoon she's run several campaigns,
including some in which night has donated.
I asked her what a big contribution
like this means in her world.
Phil Knight's donation of $1,000,000
total sends a signal that he's really
invested in this campaign, right?
And Mr. Knight's been well
known for supporting moderate,
reasonable candidates.
Across both parties at times,
and I think it shows that you know,
Senator Johnson has a real shot to
make this a competitive campaign.
He takes his contributions very seriously
and and puts a lot of thought behind him and.
And so it's a serious message.
I think particularly to her opponents,
that you know this is a real campaign
now on the topic of finances,
I asked why candidates or their
campaigns need to raise so much
to earn money, particularly
in a statewide campaign.
The ability to reach voters to get
the name recognition you need.
It costs money, right?
I mean politics is marketing at its finest.
We see it for all sorts of products that
we buy in in campaigns are no different.
You cannot replicate even with
the best grassroots organization.
All the best operatives.
All the social media.
You cannot replicate the ability to
purchase name recognition through
mailers through television ads.
So that's why it's so expensive and why
campaigns are always looking out for money.
It's the fuel that drives their ship now,
as our strategists there mentioned,
Phil Knight has an extensive history
of giving money to governor candidates
in Oregon from all different parties.
In 2010, he gave $400,000 to
Republican Chris Dudley's campaign.
Dudley lost that race to
Democrat John Kids over.
In 2014, night switched sides and gave
$250,000 to Kitzhaber's reelection campaign,
which he won in 2018.
Night backed Republican Knute Buehler,
who was trying to unseat Governor Kate Brown.
He dumped a bunch of money into that race.
Two and a half $1,000,000 Buehler
ended up losing this year.
He's given Johnson $1,000,000 so far,
so we'll be watching to see if he gives
her anymore like he did with Buehler.
Now, if you're staring at all those
huge dollar figures asking why is there
so much money in Oregon politics?
Well, the reason is because our state does
not have any campaign contribution limits.
Although we have gotten closer
to passing some in recent years.
Oregon is one of just five states
with no limits on how much anyone
can donate to a political campaign.
So how did we get here?
Well, back in 1995, voters passed
a measure capping donations,
but the state Supreme Court decided
it violated the part of the
Oregon Constitution that read.
No law shall be passed restraining
the free expression of opinion or
restricting the right to speak, write,
or print freely on any subject,
whatever. Then, in 2006,
voters tried to amend the
Constitution to allow donation limits,
but it did not.
Pass in 2016 Multnomah County voters
passed their own version of campaign
finance reform capping donations for
candidates just in the county that
was challenged in court in 2020,
the state Supreme Court ruled
those limits were quote,
not facilely invalid meaning not
automatically unconstitutional,
but state dificiles determined
that the ruling did not mean those
limits should be automatically put
in place either that same year,
voters approved a constitutional amendment.
Allowing new laws that would
limit campaign contributions.
In 2021,
a judge ruled Multnomah County
could start enforcing $500 limits
for individual donors in local
elections. This year,
a few groups tried to get contribution
limits for statewide races on the ballot,
but Secretary of State Shamir
Fagan disqualified the proposed
initiatives on a technicality.
She said the measures did not include
the entire text of the state law.
They wanted to change,
which is a rule,
but it's also been ignored in the
past for other ballot initiatives.
And that is how we got here.
OK, let's talk about this for a moment.
Perhaps I could share my opinion on this.
Political campaigns for
top offices like governor,
as we've heard our big money events in Oregon
and they're getting bigger all the time.
The Oregonian newspaper reports
that in 2010 the race for governor
cost around $18 million,
just eight years later,
the race between Kate Brown and
Knute Buehler costs 37 million.
Now I have to admit that is good
news for TV stations like ours.
The campaigns know that you watch
the news because you care about
your community and you vote.
So they advertise a lot during
the big campaigns you're seeing
some on our air now you're going
to see more in the weeks ahead.
But I'm not so sure it's good for
voters or for the state in general.
After all,
who's pouring all that money
into the race is well,
as we see today,
Nike founder Phil Knight likes to donate
in a way that most of us cannot do.
And there's other big names as well.
He's just the best known.
He might be able to argue he's
trying to just even the scales to
counter the huge amounts of money
that Oregon's unions typically spend
helping Democrats get elected.
Or maybe he's trying to help the
University of Oregon or Nike.
Or maybe he just wants a moderate
elected governor. But I digress.
So who loses in the race to bring
in and spend more campaign money?
Well, you do.
Let me ask you something,
if there's an issue that governor
can help with,
who do you think has the best
chance of influencing that you or
Phil Knight or a Union president?
By the way, if you don't know,
no offense, but it's not you or me.
Writing big checks to politicians,
of course,
does not guarantee they'll do what you want,
but it does guarantee a conversation
about the issue,
probably before that check has
ever written during the campaign.
And it puts them far ahead of
the typical voter who might make
a small donation.
Or maybe nothing and gets little
or no access to the politician
once they're elected.
That's why good government
groups like honest elections.
Oregon drew up 3 initiatives for voters
hoping to get them on the ballot this fall.
They would limit the amount of
money that a union or a corporation
or a person or a third party group
can give to a candidate.
But you will likely not vote
on any of those this fall.
Why not?
Well,
because Secretary of State
Shamya Fagan rejected the ballot
measures on that technicality.
She argued they were written in a way
that did not strictly follow the law.
And Fagan said that since she
took office in January of 2021,
she has consistently rejected any
initiative that does not strictly
follow the law during her campaign.
Franken did speak out about
limits on campaign contributions.
She seemed to favor most
except on one group.
When we talk about campaign
contribution limits, one thing that
we should be watch out for is giant
corporations and the wealthy have
been rigging the system for years.
Now that they see it on the horizon,
they only want bilateral disarmament.
But the grassroots organizations that
have spent decades building up little
packs based on little contributions,
the right wing playbook wants them
to also be extremely limited.
I do oppose limits on small donor packs when
we pick what the limits are going to be.
Those packs that don't take more
than that amount per year should be
able to give an unlimited amount.
Now, let me think under her plan.
I wonder who would still qualify 00.
Maybe it's the unions that
supported her run for office?
Yes yes, yes they get their
contributions in relatively small
amounts from lots of their members.
So under the secretary's idea
they could be given unlimited
amounts to campaigns like hers.
By the way, The Oregonian newspaper
which editorialized and wrote
about this as well noted that
Phagan donors spent more than $3
million on her campaign in 2020,
and that was three times the amount
her Republican opponent spent, so.
Where does that leave us?
I'm afraid it's business as usual.
The polls show you voters want
campaign finance reform.
The action show that politicians
do not a gatekeeper who benefited
from the current system will not
allow it to be voted on this year,
and I think that's too bad.
It's hard to see how that decision,
even if it is the letter of
the law comes anywhere close to
enforcing the spirit of the law,
which is to allow US voters to
make changes to our system of
government when it's needed.
Eventually the people will be hurt,
and by then the politicians may
not like what they have to say.