« Things that make you go "hmmmm..." | Main | Assault at Obama rally - deja vu, sort of »

March 25, 2008

It's past time for Oregon to get ahead of the curve on this

The Oregonian's Dave Hogan has an excellent article on the finances of individual Oregon legislators which is very timely.

SALEM -- Facing large time commitments and small salaries, some Oregon legislators turn to campaign contributions to fill the gap between their job demands and their pay.

During last year's six-month legislative session, for example, the state paid lawmakers $26,000 each in salary and expense money. At the same time, Rep. Mike Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, spent an additional $12,000 from his campaign account.

The spending had more to do with the Clackamas County Democrat's living expenses as a legislator than campaigning. Most of the campaign dollars paid for gasoline for his truck, renting part of his house as an office, staying 36 nights in a Salem hotel, plus meals, beer and coffee.

Such expenditures are fully legal under state law but watchdog groups bemoan it nevertheless. And they have very valid reasons for it.

As Hogan notes, two public commissions have recommended that state law be changed to further restrict how campaign donations may be spent by office holders. The Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature suggested that "the reliance by legislators on campaign contributions from special interests fuels public cynicism about the legislative process and inhibits independent decision making by legislators." That's a sentiment which I suspect finds exceptionally fertile ground among the electorate. But the entire issue is complicated by the fact that legislators are paid less than minimum wage for their work as legislators - effectively restricting who can even serve the state in that capacity to those who have sufficient other sources of income to be able to financially survive.

Rep. Schaufler was a construction contractor when he first won elective office to the legislature, but he later quit to focus on his legislative obligations.

"I don't make any money doing this job," Schaufler said. "You give me a living wage, and I'll spend all my per diem -- rather than campaign money -- on food, lodging and travel."

I gotta say that I think he makes an exceptionally valid point there!

The League of Women Voters of Oregon demonstrate a superb grasp of the nuances in play by suggesting that the issues of increasing legislative pay and banning noncampaign uses of campaign funds should be looked at together.

I couldn't agree more. Further, I honestly don't see how either issue can be done justice isolated from the other. They are inherently intertwined. Hogan points out:

Oregon is one of only five states that have no limits on contributions to candidates, and state law gives elected officials broad discretion in how they can spend campaign donations. One provision allows campaign dollars to pay for "office-related" costs.

C'mon, Oregon. We can do better than this!

Posted by Kevin at March 25, 2008 10:41 AM