OPINION Grease Monkeys Last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision highlights the kookiness of Oregon's inability to control money in politics. You can't see it. You certainly can't smell it. But take it from us: Big Money is already greasing the gears of Oregon's 2000 elections. For this we have the Oregon Supreme Court to thank. First, a little context: Last week, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law that caps individual contributions at $1,075 for a statewide candidate. The law, similar to one that exists at the federal level and in many states, is intended to lessen the influence of big money in elections. Lower courts had invalidated the Missouri cap, calling it an unconstitutional obstruction of free speech. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a victory for all those who seek to restore some decency to democracy, overruled the lower courts. Limiting contributions, the court declared, is not an infringement on people's right to express themselves. Moreover, given "the dangers of large, corrupt contributions," such caps are appropriate tools. The court's conclusion--that "unlimited spending threatens the electoral process"--is not exactly the stuff of judicial brainstorms. After all, is there anyone out there who thinks big money has not debauched our system of government? Alas, there is one corner of doubt in this great country, one place where people still believe that politics and unlimited money can reside together in sweet symbiosis. That place is the Oregon Supreme Court. Six years ago, Oregonians passed Measure 9, an initiative that, like the Missouri law, limited campaign contributions--to $100 for legislative candidates and $500 for statewide candidates. Immediately, politics in this state were transformed. The next political campaign season saw the cost of legislative campaigns cut in half to the lowest in a decade. But in 1997, the Oregon State Supreme Court, ruling unanimously in a case brought by Republicans, trashed Measure 9. There is no proof that political giving corrupts, said the court, ruling that anyone could write as large a check as they pleased, so long as it was publicly reported. "An underlying assumption of the American electoral systems," Justice Mick Gillette wrote, presumably with a straight face, "always has been that, in spite of the temptations that contributions may create from time to time, those who are elected will put aside personal advantage and vote honestly and in the public interest. The political history of the nation has vindicated that assumption time and again." Thanks to Gillette and his colleagues, Oregon remains one of the few states in the union that operates with no meaningful campaign-finance rules. That's just the way our public-employee unions, high-tech firms, Indian gambling casinos, banks, construction companies and Mark "Mr. Moneybags" Hemstreet want it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published February 2, 2000